User talk:Thomas Blomberg

Hej,

Jag undrar varför du tog bort kategori:swedish writers på Image:Björn_Hellberg.jpg. Han har ju skrivit flera deckare, och bör därför sorteras in under svenska författare. Eller? Hannibal 13:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Och förresten likadant på Image:Jan_Guillou.jpg och Image:Herman_Lindqvist.jpg. Hannibal 13:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hej själv, Hannibal. Jo, jag gjorde det helt enkelt för att dessa bilder, som så många andra, är feltaggade. I Commons ska bilder normalt inte ha någon kategori, utan samlas i gallerier i Commonsartiklar, och det är dessa artiklar som istället kategoriseras. Tanken bakom detta är att folk ska söka på ett uppslagsord och då hitta samtliga bilder som hänför sig till det, samlade i en artikel, som dessutom kan innefatta en kortfattad beskrivning samt länkar till respektive Wikipedia. Om du i Commons söker på Björn Hellberg, Jan Guillou och Herman Lindqvist, så ser du att jag skapat artiklar för dem istället (förutom för Jan Guillou, som redan hade en artikel), och lagt in bilderna där istället. Nedanför varje artikel ser du de kateogier den tillhör. Om du klickar på en av kategorierna, så förstår du problemet: Upptill finns artiklar, och nedanför en massa osorterade bilder. Alla dessa bilder har felaktigt påförts denna kategori. Ibland finns det redan en artikal skapad, där de finns, och som i sin tur har samma kategori, vilket betyder att bilden både finns i osorterat och i artikeln, men oftast finns ingen artikel skapad. När jag har tid över brukar jag ta bort kategoritaggar på bilder och föra in dem i artiklar istället, men det är ett hästgöra, eftersom det nästan dagligen tillkommer nya bilder som felaktigt har kategoriserats. Tyvärr är männen och kvinnorna bakom Commons väldigt dåliga på att tydligt förklara principerna bakom systemet. Med vänliga hälsningar. Thomas Blomberg 16:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Till ganska nyligen var det oenighet kring vilket av dessa två system, kategorier och gallerisidor, som ska få företräde här på Commons. Om något avgörande har fattats på den punkten, kan du peka mig mot någonstans där detta framgår? Lite lustigt i så fall att det i den text som syns när man laddar upp bilder står After uploading the file, help other people find it by including it in relevant pages and categories. På categories-sidan står det It is important to add appropriate categories to images, so that they can be found by others. In order to do this, add a tag like this: [[Category:Category_Name]] to the file summary on the upload form. Jag har dålig pejl på Commons, men jag behöver lite mera än ditt ord på den här punkten för att tro dig. // Habj 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Det handlar nog inte om att tro mig eller ej. Som jag själv skrev är herrarna och damerna bakom Commons mycket dåliga på att upplysa om hur de vill ha det. Jag har dock utgått från vad jag har sett, dvs alla kategorisidor med gallerier istället för bara en oherrans massa bilder i blandad oordning, och att dessa kategorisidor har uppmaningen om att bilderna ska in i gallerier och att istället gallerierna ska kategoriseras. För mig verkar det helt logiskt. Syftet med Commons är ju att folk ska kunna hitta bilder där - och hur ska de enkelt kunna hitta en bild om den inte finns i ett galleri. Sökfunktionen kräver ju att det finns en artikel, och på Commons funkar gallerierna som artiklar. Thomas Blomberg 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sökfunktionen kan ställas in att söka efter artikelnamn, filnamn, kategorier eller något annat i var användares personliga inställningar. Frågan om bilder ska vara kategoriserade eller ingå i artiklar har aldrig fått en lösning. Thuresson 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Källa och licens för bild

Alla bilder på Commons måste ha uppgift om källa och upphovsrättsliga förhållanden, så även Image:Sweden lesser arms.png. Källa borde vara lätt fixat, om du vet var du har bilden ifrån. Vad gäller upphovsrätt vet jag inte - ligger ett sådant här vapen under upphovsrätt? Det går väl att ta reda på, antar jag. // Habj 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hej, Habj. Det är tydligen fler än jag som bränner midnattslampan. Jag håller just på att fixa det, eftersom jag i hastigheten bytte till fel länk. Den korrekta är Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png, och den har alla uppgifter och dessutom korrekta färger. God natt! Thomas Blomberg 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Licens

Hej, var snäll och radera inte korrekt licensinformation som du gjorde på Image:Coat of arms of Sweden.png. Faktum är att det skulle vara skäl att blockera dig från att använda WikiCommons, om du inte var så nybliven användare. Thuresson 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hej. Thuresson. Orsaken att jag gjorde det var för att snabba på raderingen av den, eftersom den är helt felaktig och jag har lagt in en ny Image:Sweden greater arms.png. Vem har nånsin sett svarta pärlor på svenska statsvapnet? Jag har gått igenom hela Wikipedia, samtliga språk, och bytt ut de fyra felaktiga som figurerat: förutom den du nämner en identisk kopia till den Image:Sweden coat of arms large.png, en liten gif med vit istället för violettröd mantel (Image:Sweden coa.gif (som nu är bortplockad från Commons, samt en med grå pärlor och allmänt utvattnade färger (Sweden_arms_small.gif), som aldrig legat på Commons, men som varit vanligt förekommande lokalt.

Enda stället där de felaktiga nu finns kvar, är hos holländska användarsiden nl:Gebruiker:Kamu/U-V-W-X-Y-Z där Kamu håller på att samla Hollands lokalt lagrade vapen och jämför dem med dem på Commons, för att rätta till deras arkiv. Med vänliga hälsningar. Thomas Blomberg 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Om du är intresserad och kunnig om riksvapen och andra vapen så finns det mycket att pyssla med här. Själv skulle jag uppskatta om det fanns svenska stadsvapen och svenska landskapsvapen i stor upplösning - ofta finns det bara små pyttebilder som inte är särskilt snygga. Thuresson 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Central Kensington.png

• Could you tell me how you made this map?
• What data source did use?
• Can you make an SVG of this map?
• Would it be possible to get the Central London part of the map for use on other London pages?

edward 19:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Edward. I did it it Photoshop, working with several layers. I used the ViaMichelin [1] map as template underneath, as it's proportionally more correct than the A-Z type maps of MultiMap, Google and Streetmap, which make the streets much wider than they are, especially the main roads. As for SVG, I can convert it into SVG using Illustrator, but I quite honestly haven't been able to understand why some people want Commons to switch to SVG. It's a very unusual filetype, all browsers can't handle it, and - most importantly - the file size tend to be 5-10 times as big as png. I've read the arguments, and they don't make any sense. As for the central London map as a separate map, yes, sure. However, it's not very detailed, and I only added it as a reference map for people who don't know London very well. Thomas Blomberg 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scania vehicles

I will add the images to Category:Scania vehicles and Category:Scania racing cars. Please DO NOT obstruct it, though I do not understand about what you want to do. --Morio 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True, true

Hi! I agree with you - image "Lebanon civil war map 1983.gif" violates copyrights. I uploaded it, but I didn't check if on En Wiki they checked:) I've already voted for deletion of this picture. Thanks for cooperation. Shalom 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of false flags and such

Hello Thomas,

This morning I have finally noticed the personal crusade you have embarked upon two days ago. Considering our previous discussion about wrongdoings with Palestinian prisoners, which I found interesting and civil, I was rather shocked by your eagerness to have me "exposed" wherever possible. Then again, as we basically do not know each other, I still believe you are acting on good faith.

Following my blocking off Wikipedia, I have followed this advice and took a week off to chill. Unfortunately, a week later the war was still ongoing and jets were still humming over my head day and night. Under these circumstances, I have decided not to request my unblocking until the political situation cools down to a level hospitable for cucumbers.

Meanwhile, none of my anonymous contributions were aimed at vandalizing Wikipedia in any manner, and you're invited to see that for yourself. I have absolutely no control over the IP addresses provided by my ISP, and made no attempt to indulge in sockpuppetry. Once the unblocking is discussed, you'll be surely invited to present your complaints regarding my anonymous contributions. Not all of them had to do with Israel - I have also contributed to other articles such as w:Akbar Mohammadi.

I originally intended to upload (Image:2006 Lebanon war Israeli civilian fatalities.jpg) to the Hebrew Wikipedia, where it qualifies as fair use. I was convinced by its upload page to bring it on to Wikimedia Commons instead. As discussed here, I mistakenly assumed the same fair use doctrines are applied in Commons. Once my misunderstanding has been clarified, I naturally supported the deletion request. Your depiction of these events suggests a malicious intention behind my actions, which I find personally offensive.

As for the "very odd" pie chart I have created, I think you would not have been so quick to call it "rubbish" had some other wikipedian added it. Israeli media has covered the story of each and every civilian fatality in the ongoing conflict, and so it is easy to verify the details provided under (Image:Israeli civilians killed.jpg). A quick consultation with Google News will show you that Habib Isa Awad is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, whereas Hana Hamam and Labiba Mazawi are Catholics. Same goes for all the other fatalities. The persent tragic situation of the w:Arab citizens of Israel, who are cruelly blamed by both sides for lack of loyalty, is an important aspect of the current conflict that should not be overlooked.

You accuse me of coming under w:false flag, despite the fact I didn't take the most trivial measures to make my contributions appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. Using my own user name in Wikimedia Commons and immediately relating to it under Wikipedia is no way to hide my identity. All in all, I ask you to blame me for what I have done, and not for what I haven't.

Having said all that, let me assure you I have no intentions to vandalize Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. With your permission, as we're both employed persons, I won't reply under all the various pages in which you've addressed my contributions (I'm not sure I noticed all of them). I look forward to contributing Wikipedia on some more important issues than current Israeli events, once the situation turns less violent again. As a quick overview of my contributions reveals, Wikipedia could certainly live without my humble support for as long as it takes.

Best regards, --Lior 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lior,

Thanks for the long an honest letter. Your explanation also makes it clear to me that you had no intention of engaging in sockpuppetry (I love that word!). If you had, you would of course have returned quickly under another name.

It all started when I found that the source you quoted, both in the text and the pie chart, gave no support for your specifications about who belonged to what religion. As the existing text already acknowledged that Israeli Arabs where among those who had died under the onslaught of Hezbollah rockets, I also found it somewhat strange and slightly obsessive to create a pie chart based on people's religion. So, I started looking around to find out who was behind this, and that's when I realised that it was a blocked user who was circumventing the block, and this made me somewhat upset, as I think blocks should be respected.

Quite honestly, I didn't remember our discussion about Palestinian prisoners until you just mentioned it. One of the problems with user names instead of real names is that I have a hard time remembering user names, which is why I use my own name. I also have the annoying habit of jumping into a debate with a few remarks and then move on, quickly forgetting all about it. I just re-read our very civil discussion, as it happened to be part of the text causing Finlay McWalter to block you. This means that I've now also read the reason for his block. If you wrote that thing about "your father raping your elder sister" in response to a silly remark by an anon user (as it isn't signed I have no way of telling, but I assume Finlay checked), I would say "shame on you", but I would also say to Finlay "Don't be so silly! People sometimes fly off their handle, and as it was a response to an anon user it can't be seen as a personal attack. Blocking someone because of a heated remark to a provocation from an anon user is going over the top."

Anyway, let's hope the current conflict is soon over and that you'll soon be unblocked. You are a good writer with an excellent command of the English language, so there is a great need for you in Wikipedia. But perhaps you should try to stay away from subjects where your emotions may carry you away and you find it hard to be totally objective. I've found that creating or expanding articles about historical but uncontroversial people is very rewarding. They cause no edit wars and you may even end up being the sole author. See Maria Callcott, for instance, a stub which consisted of two sentences and a list of her books when I discovered it, which I was allowed to expand without any interference (except a handful of helpful persons disambiguating a few links and linking it to articles in other languages). Having read an interesting article by Daniel Levy 10 days ago, and realising that he didn't exist in Wikipedia, I wrote the current article about him, and so far nobody has touched it (although I would appreciate if someone could expand it further). If you prefer to write about Israeli things, have a look at Category:Israel stubs. שָׁלוֹם and سلام Thomas Blomberg 01:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

Thank you for your heartwarming compliments and sound advice. I will certainly move away to calmer articles when I'm back. I have done some reading yesterday regarding Ghajar and the Shebaa farms, and it's indeed way more complicated and unclear than I recalled. Which is quite a burden for a village no larger than Stockholm Gamlastan, if I remember right. I'll write you a decent explanation later. مع سلام, and have a lovely day. --Lior 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

I'm afraid your demarcation of the Shebaa Farms in (Image:BlueLine.jpg) may be somewhat incorrect, at least regarding the Ghajar village. Ghajar is an exceptional case of a Lebanese village conquered by Israel in 1967, possibly by request of its Alawite inhabitants. I use the word possibly because that's the way the events have been portrayed in Israeli media. Whatever has been the original motivation, it is likely to be Lebanese territory occupied in 1967. --Lior 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess Ghajar refers to Al Ghajar. My map is based on the official UNIFIL map for everything but the dotted border for the Shebaa Farms area, which I got from Image:Shebaa Farms.jpg, as it wasn't marked on the UNIFIL map. As you can see from the UNIFIL map, my placement of Al Ghajar matches UN's, including the fact that the Lebanse-Syrian (i.e. Lebanon-occupied Golan) border goes through the village. I have not indicated that it is part of Shebaa Farms. As I think UN is pretty thorough when they do their maps

According to thew:Ghajar stub (which is in need of some NPOV editing, as Golan Heights is not recognised as part of Israel), two-thirds of the village ended up on the Lebanese side following the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. That article also states that the village was totally Syrian before 1967, not Lebanese. I have also never heard that any Lebanese territory was taken by Israel during the Six-Day War, as Lebanon wasn't involved, so it seems strange that it should have been Lebanese. However, the stub also claims that the village ended up on both sides of the border because of the Blue Line decisions, which seems strange, as the Blue Line is supposed to be following the 1949 demarcation line between Lebanon and Israel, while the Lebanese-Syrian border hasn't been disputed (except for the Shebaa Farms part). If so, it would be logical to assume that Ghajar was divided between Syria and Lebanon before 1967 and also during the period 1967 - 1978, before Israel started Operation Litani. However, if you have more detailed information, I would appreciate if you can provide it. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 04:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the original Image:Schebaa-Farmen.jpg only after writing you the note above. This image, which is cited through the different Wikipedias, provides a definitive answer for a question which seems to be left open: According to Lebanon, what Lebanese territories are presently occupied by Israel? As denoted by Kofi Annan [2], "There seems to be no official record of an international boundary agreement between Lebanon and Syria that could easily establish the line for purposes of confirming the withdrawal"

The English w:Shebaa Farms article provides an extensive review of the 1923–67 background for the dispute, but no elaboration on the borders of the disputed area to support the given image. I have failed to find such elaboration on its talk page or its counterparts in other languages. Moreover, I have found no source else than this image which demarcates the Shebaa farms, though my search has not been exhaustive. I only found two sources vaguely pointing at the Shebaa farms - [3] and [4]. Thus I don't see how the given image is sourced.

Which brings us back to the matter of Ghajar [a]. Let's envision the 1930s Syrian border implied by this image. It seems like Ghajar is nearly an enclave connected to Syria by a narrow corridor, overlooked by higher Lebanese and Israeli grounds (or their mandatory precursors). I have no idea if that was indeed the situation created by the historical French mistake, but without detailed sources it sounds rather odd. According to 2 of 3 sources cited by the Hebrew Wikipedia article on Ghajar, the village went from Lebanese to Syrian control sometime between 1948 and 1967. The Syrian motivation is derived from the strategical importance of Ghajar, which dominates the Wazzani fountain feeding the w:Hasbani river, and lies just to the north of w:Tel Dan fountains. As briefly mentioned in 1, 2, 3 and 4, this has been one of the hot spots of Israeli-Syrian skirmishes over the local water sources.

The third source cited by that Hebrew Wikipedia article brings a somewhat conflicting testimony of the 1967 events, from a tour guide living in Ghajar, as follows: “Unlike what many people think, Ghajar never belonged to Lebanon but to Syria. My father had a Syrian ID card. During the Six Day War, the Israeli army came east to the village. According to the British maps they had, the officers decided the village is in Lebanese territory. As Israel didn't fight with Lebanon, they didn't conquer the village, but only collected the weapons and told us we're Lebanese. We said fine. The Lebanese refused to accept us fearing to be taken as annexing Syrian territory, therefore they refused to let us cross the border. For two and a half months Ghajar turned into an independent state of 36 families between Lebanon and Israel. Half of the village residents, about 350 people, left to Syria following the war. When food supply was exhausted, we approached the Israeli military governor and asked him to bring our problem to the w:Knesset. Two weeks later he came back and raised the Israeli flag over the village. Until 1968 we needed a special permit to leave the village. (...) Since the village resided in no man's land, we underwent Katyusha fire and shelling from both sides. (...) On 1975 the village turned into a local council.” (free translation and trimming by yours truly)

Thus there's reason to believe the entire Golan Heights were Syrian before 1967, and there's also reason to believe that some of it was actually taken by Syria from Lebanon prior to 1967. In fact, one of the reasons for the failure of the 2000 Israeli-Syrian negotiations stemmed from the Israeli refusal to give back parcels of land occupied by Syria prior to 1967, and not belonging to Syria according to the recognized international border. Thus Ghajar and the Shebaa farms may in fact be Lebanese territories occupied by Syria until 1967. Only a sourced demarcation of the Lebanese demands may resolve the issue.

Phew, my apologies for the prolix description :) I hope you find it of some use. —Lior 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[a] 'Al-Ghajar' simply means 'The Ghajar', just like w:Cairo is written al-Qāhirah.

Hi Lior, Thanks for the info about Ghajar. I haven't been able to do any further research on my own yet, but hope to do so in the near future. I have, howver, found a number of interesting details about Shebaa Farms, while trying to find a more detailed map of the area that could confirm the border markings in Image:Schebaa-Farmen.jpg, as the German who made it haven't given any sources. This US Army War College paper [5] describes the area quite well on page 21, and so does of course also the Ha'aretz article about Asher Kaufman's finds in Paris [6] (I found the article on Bintjbeil.com, but the text is probably not changedt). When checking those details against this very detailed map [7], I find that the German map is pretty accurate. It seems that the discussed (can't say disputed, as everyone seems to pretty much agree) area is the whole mountain range between the border and the river Nahal Si'on down to and including the village Mughr Sab'a (see map), and also a bit on the opposite side of the river.

Based on this, I will post a revised map soon, where the Shebaa Farms border includes Mughr Sab'a. I have already uploaded one revision, as I realised I was mistaken about the extent of the Blue Line. It runs from the sea all the way to UNDOF zone, i.e. it includes the border between Lebanon and Golan Heights as well. Earlier I thought it only covered the 1949 demarcation line. Good night. Thomas Blomberg 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful sources. According to both Eldar and Hajjar, the site marked on the detailed 1986 map you gave as An Nukhaylah (Nkheileh by Eldar, Al Noukhaylah by Hajjar) actually belongs to Lebanon. As it runs south to the access road to Ghajar, at an extremely short distance from the Israeli Tel Dan (where the nearby river originates), a most creative solution may be required to keep Ghajar in Israel, let alone in Syria. As denoted by Mr. Hajjar and others, the exact size of the discussed area seems to be highly disputed. See the following citations from page 22 in Mr. Hajjar's paper:

“The exact size is not clear; western sources designate it as being "approximately 25 square kilometers," while Lebanese sources believe it to be over "over 100 square kilometers."”

“Essentially, the exact size of the area is unknown. Furthermore, the Lebanese claim that the area in question consists of 14 farms, 13 of which are Lebanese while one, Mughr Shab'a, is Syrian, and the enclave is home to some 1,200 families.”

“Still, the exact demarcation line of the Lebanese-Syrian border in that area is unclear.”

Kofi Annan's similar citation, pasted above, is also given in page 23. Thus the discussed area may be more than four times larger in size than demarcated on Wikipedia. In particular, if one is to take the Lebanese seriously (which I suggest we do, as the entire issue is about reaching a settlement that the Lebanese accept), their claims about vineyards and new immigrant settlements in the area should not be ignored. There are no vineyards in the ~25 km² area demarcated on Wikipedia, but there are certainly many Israeli settlements and vineyards in the Golan Heights, and some of which may be claimed to lie on Lebanese land. Thus it is really unclear how far south-east does the Lebanese land go into the opposite side of Si'on Stream (a.k.a. Assal Wadi). Nevertheless, if I got Mr. Hajjar right, Mughr Shab'a should be left out as it's a Syrian farm.

I think Wikipedia should not claim to determine what seems to be undetermined at present. It could, however, demarcate the minimal and maximal boundaries of the discussed area, if proper sources for these boundaries exist.--Lior 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

copyvio by AOL

FYI: de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mängel#wieder_AOL

Greets, Martina Nolte 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Sweden greater arms.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sweden greater arms.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:Sweden lesser arms.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sweden lesser arms.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Thuresson 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Riksvapnet

Tack för ditt meddelande. Jag lägger märke till att bilderna på stora och lilla riksvapnet fortfarande inte har någon licens som anger upphovsrätt. Det gäller f.ö. även Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png där informationen har ändrats fram och tillbaka av flera användare. Thuresson 04:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SundsvallMunicipalityArms.png

Image deletion warning

Image:SundsvallMunicipalityArms.png 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Fred J 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swedish_Krona_1971.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Swedish_Krona_1971.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:BritaAndI_Selfportrait.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BritaAndI_Selfportrait.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your spelling of the Ceyhan, Turkey terminus of the Baku, Tblisi, Ceyhan pipeline differs from most - you write "Cehyan" 75.71.95.227 04:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Caucasus map

Hey, can you remove the map where there is Caucasus map with pipeline of your Contribution ? I've refresh this work. Thank you. AteshCommons (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This map is not yours, why did you put it there ?

AteshCommons

Copyright status: File:Kens&chelsarms.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kens&chelsarms.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.

JuTa 16:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

File:SwedishCommunism.png

File:SwedishCommunism.png 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!

Keφr (keep talk here) 10:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)