User talk:Mdupont/Archive1

The Emirr

Hello. I've an atlas about all the countries. This is my source. And no, I haven't been in Albania. But I research so much before mapping. Have a good day.

 The Emirr Disscussion 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Emirr

Hello. You say that I can't claim it. But I created it. There is so many map on Commons about countries. Why don't you ask them "What is your source?". This information was in my atlas and its rights are not reserved. Can't I use this as a source?

 The Emirr Disscussion 07:24, 01 April 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Mdupont!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Image:PrishtinaTest.svg was uncategorized on 23 September 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Osm tile 10 569 377.svg was uncategorized on 31 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Gutenbergstrasse IMG 1569.JPG was uncategorized on 9 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures from Kosovo

Hello Mdupont, it's a lot of stuff you are uploading, that's great – but I feel a bit lost with your descriptions that don't tell me what the picture is about. I assume that not too many people are able to add a proper description for Prizren locations and landscapes. Could you please add a description to the images? It would be nice to have a chance to use them in an article ;-) Thank you! --Elya (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes we are going to work on that. It is alot of work to do. I am thinking about ways to make this easier. Unfortunatly, I did not have a gps while making these photos. We have been working on openstreetmap for Prizren, and these photos were part of the survey. Ideally we would have a slippy map for placing the photos on the map, that is a tool I am thinking about making. If you have any photo in particular you are interested in, let me know I will process that first. thanks, mikeMdupont (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Source field

Hi Mdupont, Please don't use {{Self}} as the Source-field, this is incorrect. The proper template for this is {{Own}}. {{Self}} is something completely different and is used for the license itself. See example here. –Krinkle^talk 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use that in the future. Or do i need to edit them all? Mdupont (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Mdupont,

Quite an amazing increase of coverage of Prizren! Thanks for sharing all these photos. Hope you don't mind, but I moved a couple of images to Category:Software Freedom Conference 2009. Please tell me, if there is a better name for the category or if there are a few images that need to be moved elsewhere.  Docu  at 07:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! I was meaning to do that! Good job. Can you remove them from the contest as well? the conference website is kosovosoftwarefreedom.org i will have to upload more of the photos from there. thanks, mike Mdupont (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I made request to remove the category at Commons:Bots/Work_requests#rm_cat_.282.29 as it can't be done easily by Commons:Tools/cc.  Docu  at 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mdupont (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did some basic sorting of the files from Category:Prizren, Kosovo into subcategories of Category:Prizren. I found "cat-at-lot" quite useful to do that. You might want to double-check the categories. It would help if you could add additional subcategories.

BTW, unless you can document permission (OTRS) to take photos of the paintings here, you might want to tag them with {{speedy|uploaded by error}}.

At Category:Prizren, I started a list of points of interest. It might make it easier to sort the images.  Docu  at 12:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have permission from him. he is my new facebook friend. said :Bashkim Duci November 23 at 4:23pm Report yes sure I'm very onerd from you thank you so much

keys

e51526d117a975e187b05bb92f078323

TUSC token e51526d117a975e187b05bb92f078323

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

2MP requirement

Hi,

I know, your image is almost 2MP, but people here are usually very strict on this matter, and actually many people get annoyed when you play at the 2MP border (reviewers like much higher resolutions). Check here for more information.

If you make the image at least 2MP, I will of course remove the decline I added, though I really recommend you that, if you have an original high-res file (like a RAW file), to use it and upload the image again.

Regards --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen you updated your picture with a higher resolution and you also improved the lighting on the dogs. Your image is certainly now better than the original one, IMO. I changed the nomination from "Decline" to "Nomination", and it is waiting for another reviewer to decide on it. I, personally, do not think this image is QI, basically because of the composition. I think you would have had a much more dramatic image if, for example, you would have laid down on the floor (so as to be at eye-leve with the dog). The dogs would have been more dramatic and you would have gotten more sky, probably. This is a typical example of a picture where you have a smaller subject and you photograph it standing up, pointing the camera slightly down. This perspective is usually not generous for your subject, as is the case with children or babies, for instance. Naturally, I will not oppose your image based on this criterium, because this is very subjective. My recommendation to you is, next time you have a subject that is at a lower level than you, lower your self to be at the same level, I'm sure you'll see the effect of this perspective change is very positive.

Kind regards

--Murdockcrc (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I will pass this on. We are starting a long process of photo documenting Kosovo. I hope to get more photographers to help out. thanks mikeMdupont (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a very interesting project. Looking forward to seeing the results. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hermitage_of_St._Peter_Koriški.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• should Geocoding --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Info Sorry about that Fixed from Articles coords. Taken from official webpage on the serbian monuments. -- Mdupont (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The image meets all five criteria's. PhotoGenIc (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pristina City Park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Inforemoved duplicate scope.

 Comment Not sure how we can rate 1 image out of 1… :) PhotoGenIc (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment This is the problem with Kosovo and Albania, we are just starting to get more submissions from them. Well we can leave it for now. I will ask for more photos of this subject. Mdupont (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support On a second thought, I have read the rules again and haven't find the rule that there must be more than one image. This one link is not applicable as it's for several concurrent nominations. Not sure why an author have to suffer if he is an author of a pic that for example is almost impossible to get. IMHO the image WILL be a valuable as others can't be found. So hence I support. Thanks. PhotoGenIc (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brod Canyon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --The High

Fin Sperm Whale 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support APTOC (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines

You are doing great work regarding photos of Kosovo. Just remember that basic guidelines from en wiki are also mostly still valid in here. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot uploads

No, you are not doing great work. In fact your work has been so bad that I am considering to block your MdupontBot account if it does not improve significantly. We already talked about commons not being an image dump. I just noticed and deleted a whole bunch of duplicate uploads. Please please please, a) check what you are about to upload, b) select sensible descriptions and categories (why are you inserting every upload into BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest? is every image supposed to be an entry? whut?!), c) presort and select the images you upload. Commons is not a personal gallery, commons does not need blurry shaky pictures of someones feet on asphalt, or black underexposed darkness, or accidental images with the lenscap still on. --Dschwen (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mh, I guess that was a little harsh. So... ..uhm, Merry Christmas. --Dschwen (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have done so far the following:

1. Uploaded a set of prizren photos, rare ones of world heritage sites and also ones of the city. that was a full dump, no one complained, and people helped be classify them. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Prizren
2. uploaded picutres from arianit dobroshi, his photos are already selected and almost all of high quality. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PicturesFromArianitDobroshi
3. uploaded pictures from heroid shehu, he is a 15 year old and there was alot of junk there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_by_Heroid_Shehu
4. uploaded some selected picture for the contest.

Based on the positive reactions from my prizren dump, I continued. Now I will not uploaded any more dumps, but put them on archive.org. I was working on a tool to geocode and tag commons photos, but now it looks like I will have to use archive org for the first pass. the problem is this, I either get facebook quality photos, or restricted works on flicker, most of the people in kosovo dont bother to help me, so I am stuck with a huge amount of work. It is easier for me to upload them all, and then to sort them out slowly. but now I see that will not work. thanks for your patience. We are just starting to promote wikipedia and wikmedia in kosovo, it is very difficult. People there dont understand the problems, That is why I ask for patience, until we can sort out these images. I will not upload any more random dumps, will do that on archive.org

Mdupont (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mh, ok, I see. The people who took the pictures are not active here? So you are essentially stuck with all the work? That is of course not good. It would be nice to have the images, but if the photographers won't help sorting them, commenting and geocoding them I'm afraid that they will end up not very useful. Look at all the landscape shots. How is anyone else but the people who photographed them supposed to be able to figure out where they are photographed? I really appreciate that you want to promote wikipedia, and try to get image material from Kosovo onto commons. But it seems to me that your way is suboptimal. I don't quite see the problem as far as selecting uploads goes. People give you a bunch of images and it would take you only a few minutes to view them on you own computer and sort out unsuitable pictures. Why are you resorting to uploading on archive.org now instead. That does not make sense to me. --Dschwen (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We are in the long process of recruiting and training editors. My goal is first to get material under the creative commons, right now there are thousands of good photos that are not freely usable. Archive.org is good for that. Second is to have the photos tagged and sorted, that will take time. About the landscape photos from Heroid, we will tag them, those are from hiking trips and other trips around gjakova. We are working on openstreetmap as well, you can see some of the progress there. But we need time to do this. My idea is to make a drupal website with a facebook connect for people to upload photos, they will be hosted on archive.org under a creative commons license, and the people can vote and tag them on drupal inside of facebook. then we will take the top pics and upload them to commons. But that work ist still in progress. I also have been working on some ruby code for tagging using transiki/openstreetmap code. it is all todo. It is hard to get people to use the wiki, and I have to do alot of hand holding. At least now, we have permission from some people to use the picasa albums. there are also a number of flicker albums people added here http://www.flickr.com/groups/commonswikimedia/. I have also another set of photos from brod, from novobrdo, more from albania that I took. Basically we need a staging area to hold the photos and sort them out. It is easier to get a crowd of people to review them than to do it all myself. Mdupont (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Heroid Shehu

Hi, your bot uploaded more than 500 pictures of Heroid Shehu. Would it be a big deal to let your bot replace all {{OTRS pending}}-templates with {{PermissionOTRS|2010122310020009}} ? I did it manual for the Arianit pictures and that was quite a lot of work. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, OMG you did that manually? I will see if I can get the bot to do. thanks! !! btw, did you get the mail from robert elise ? Mdupont (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find something from Robert Elise. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the mail that he said he sent : en:wikisource:User_talk:Prosfilaes#Permissions if not i will ask him again. thanks mike Mdupont (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked again and I still didn't find anything. How about the request above? It would be a pitty if the images get deleted because of absent OTRS permission template. Jcb (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you working on this? Jcb (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Did not do it yet, let me get the bot working. Mdupont (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

simple :python ./replace.py -cat:Photos_by_Heroid_Shehu "{{OTRS pending|year=2010|month=December|day=18}}" "{{PermissionOTRS|2010122310020009}}"

File:Icj report on kosovo 16010.pdf

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

Rotation

Hi Mdupont, most of your recent uploads have a wrong orientation and need to be rotated. Can't you check this before uploading? --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas on how? I have a good solution with catalot and rotatebot. Mdupont (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what kind of software you use to crop, retouch and clean-up your digital images before uploading them. I use the freeware IrfanView, which allows a non-desctructive (no new jpg compression) rotation of jpg-images. Can be uploaded here: http://www.irfanview.com/. --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Retouch? Never did much of that. IrfanView is not free software, and it does not run on linŭ, I use only free software. Mdupont (talk)

Found a tool for this : http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=imagemagick+automatic+rotate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

<quot>jhead -autorot -ft *.JPG</quot>Mdupont (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rotate270

Hello Mdupont,

I have seen that you noticed that I removed the category and template of Category:Rotate270. The rotatebot has stopped working and I suspect the bot can't handle a category for rotation. I would like to remove the template and category again just to see if the rotatebot does it work again at 12:00, if this isn't the problem I will restore the category back to it's original version. Greetings, Gohe007 (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It didn't help, I think the bot is broken. I have restored the category. Greetings, Gohe007 (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because there are photos and categories that contains those photos making them double? Mdupont (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsolved request

Please see User_talk:Mdupont#Heroid_Shehu. Jcb (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please properly use the "source" field

Hi Mdupont, Thank you for your contributions to Commons! It looks like a file you uploaded to Commons has "{{Self}}" indicated as a "Source" on File:Moenchhofalle IMG 1014.JPG. It is important that the |Source= field, which is the record of where a file came from, be accurate and as machine-readable as possible so that others can verify its license and be able to reuse the file under the correct terms. For example, sources such as "Me", "Self" or "My camera" should be replaced with the template {{Own}}; sources such as "Google", "The Internet", etc. are not considered valid and may result in deletion of the file. If you did not generate the file yourself, then you may want to revisit the file and be as specific as you can in identifying your source: ideally, this might be a stable link to the exact webpage that the image or file came from, or perhaps the title, year, and page number of the book where you found it (a link to a website in general is not usually considered specific enough, nor is simply restating the name of the author). For guidance on indicating your source please visit the page COM:SOURCE. In this instance I have changed it for you here.

–Krinkle^talk 00:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alles klar, dankeMdupont (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ich brauch hier hilfe, wenn ich den Bot verwende, ändert er source und permission von own auf self, aber nicht nur source, python ./template.py -usercontribs:Mdupont self own

Mdupont (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sarplaninac with Herd.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

requires a suitable scope! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Info Missing a : in the scope, sorry. --- Mdupont (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Shows dog in landscape of origin and with sheep. All criteria satisfied and best in scope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think that this one shows better the characteristics of the race. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Info this picture shows the dogs at work in natural habitat,should we change the scope to that? Sarplaninac at work? it would be an single image. 12:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC) This was from me --- Mdupont (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Habitat is very important here --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose i also think that this one is much better. Therefore it should be nominated instead. Here is nomination Commons:Valued image candidates/Куче.jpg --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Sarplaninac to Category:Sarplaninac with Herd --Mdupont (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

 Info I am changing to include the herd in the scope, because that is the important feature here. --Mdupont (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support agree with this new scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I would support "Sarplaninac at work" as suggested in the unsigned info above. But I think it is best in scope for mainscope, too. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I uploaded a video of one of these dogs barking at me File:Qeni_Sharri_IllyrianSheepDog_SharrMountainSheepdog_Sarplaninac.ogv 08:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I formatted the scope such that it is without the Category word. It is really confusing that several scopes are used for images competing in an MVR. I do not think scope changes should be made in an MVR. I propose we keep this wordign though because it matches an existing category, and the other image in the MVR is not eligible due to missing geotag. --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with scope "Sarplaninac with Herd". Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Per other --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg: +1
2. Куче.jpg: -3
=>
File:Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg: Promoted.
File:Куче.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mdupont/vector.js

Hi, please tag your script with

//<nowiki>
[...]
//</nowiki>

otherwise your page ist listed at Category:Images requiring rotation by bot. Thank you, Greetings--Lŭxo 14:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

He did this a few minutes ago. I've done an additional edit since adding <nowiki> -tags does fix the problem Lŭxo mentions, it also causes your script to no longer work. The slashes are javascript comments (like <!-- these -- > in Wiktext and HTML). Now both are fixed :-) –Krinkle^talk 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It would work too if you do it like I suggest it, with // before the <nowiki> tags. But your option works too. :-) Greetings,--Mdupont (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011

Thanks for the help guys, problem is that i have not figured out the javascript at all yet. I wanted to add a rotatebutton to add rotation tags, any idea on how to get it working?-- Mdupont (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011

I'll take a look at it in a few hours. I know what you're looking for. –Krinkle^talk 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilhelmstrasse IMG 1993.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PrizrenStoneBridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Thunderflash 10:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mdupont. You have new messages at innotata's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Stone Bridge (Prizren).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Location is wrong. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think location is OK.--MrPanyGoff 05:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  When I looked yesterday, it was on the opposite side of the river. (Currently the database is unavailable.) --Ikar.us (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Correct now. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Category:Rotate270, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

 

Finavon (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rotate270

Category:Rotate270 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

I have completed your deletion request, superseding my speedy request. Please indicate here or on the deletion discussion if the category has any function. Finavon (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Offenbach am Main

Vielen Dank für deine vielen tollen Bilder zu Offenbach am Main. Da ich in dieser Kategorie meist sortiere, möchte ich dich bitten die Bilder in Category:Streets in Offenbach am Main noch sinnvoll in die Straßenkats zu sortieren, ich habe schon bestimmt 100 Bilder von dir sortiert, allerdings weiß ich bei vielen Häuserfasaden einfach nicht wohin sie gehören.

Wenig sinnvoll ist es auch z.B. 20 Bilder hochzuladen mit der Bezeichnung “FrankfurtToMoenchHofAllee IMG xxxx.JPG”, siehe File:FrankfurtToMoenchHofAllee IMG 0260.JPG, denn hier wird weder Frankfurt noch die Mönchshof Allee gezeigt. Ganz mies sind auch solche Bezeichnung wie bei File:Offenbach9.jpg - auch hier kann ich nur vermuten wo es sein soll (Christian-Pless-Str.?), aber eben nur vermuten. Damit wir nicht mehr Arbeit haben als nötig, möchte ich dich bitten zukünftig eindeutige Bezeichnungen zu verwenden und die Bilder möglichst genau abzusortieren.

Die ca. 180 verbliebenen Bilder der Category:Streets in Offenbach am Main also bitte noch in die passenden Straßenkats absortieren, du weißt sicher am Besten woher die Aufnahmen stammen, danke ;-)

LG Lady Whistler (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit:Noch eine Bitte: das Bild File:Offenbach am Main.jpg bitte nochmal unter einem anderen Namen hochladen. Die Hausfasade stellt nicht wirklich Offenbach am Main dar, nochmal Danke ;-) --Lady Whistler (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, I kann noch ein wenig sortiern. Frankfurt to Moenchhof, gut das war eine reise von zuhause in offenbach nach moenchhof. Ich schaue was ich machen kann. mfg,mike

Mdupont (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Luisenstraße 7 63067 Offenbach.JPG

Why? Kobac (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks well I originally requested the rot based on the preview. Mdupont (talk)

Category:Streets_in_Gjakova

Streets in Gjakova has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Streets_of_Gjakova

Category:Streets_of_Gjakova has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please go away

I dont agree with this, why are you inviting me to a discussion again. you whitewater have personally hounded and attacked me so many times that I give up on bothering with the wikipedia. please go bother someone else, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Please refrain from writing on my wall.

Mdupont (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:John Ritchie House IMG 5320.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Mdupont (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Westboro Baptist Church Picket Group Photo Topeka KS.jpg

File:Westboro Baptist Church Picket Group Photo Topeka KS.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

And also:

• File:Westboro Baptist Church Picket Jael KCMO.jpg

Thanks, –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See the source page and the copyright, it is basically PD, I think I documented it well. did you see ?

thanks, Mdupont (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5161.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5161.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5160.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5159.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5157.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5156.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5155.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5150.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5148.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5147.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5146.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5144.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5143.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5142.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5137.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5136.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5135.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-IMG 5134.JPG
• File:USA-KS-Topeka-Noto-S-Kansas-IMG 5133.JPG

Thanks, –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Lawrence Kansas Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Agenda Jan 2014 Full-26 2.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Lawrence Kansas Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Agenda Jan 2014 Full-26 2.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Kansas Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Agenda Jan 2014 Full.pdf

File:Lawrence Kansas Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Agenda Jan 2014 Full.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lia Ali Profile.jpg

File:Lia Ali Profile.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Vetëvendosje! political programm in english.pdf

File:Vetëvendosje! political programm in english.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Creativecommons bylaws.pdf

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Creativecommons bylaws.pdf. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Kosovo OMBUDSPERSON INSTITUTION in KOSOVO Regarding the Removal of Emrush Xhemajli, Gafurr Elshani and Sabit Gashi from the List of Candidates for the November 2001 Elections E3011029a.pdf

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Republic of Kosovo Assembly Transcript s 2012 10 03 10 4495 al.pdf

File:Republic of Kosovo Assembly Transcript s 2012 10 03 10 4495 al.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:2004_unrests_in_Kosovo

2004 unrests in Kosovo has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Zoupan (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)