User talk:Tm/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wash houses in Portugal

Can you please justify your revert? Since when are wash houses considered bodies of water? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting content, without justifying this logic. A building in which water passes through it, should not be classified as a "body of water". That is equivalent to suggesting that because water passes through your house, it can also be classified as a "body of water". Please justify the necessity of using this logic. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your persistent reverts, using the same bad logic, is starting to get annoying. Please justify your classification of "wash houses" as "bodies of water", whether they be in general or specific terms, as you have done in the Guimarães subcategory. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

You have been blocked for 2 weeks. --High Contrast (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi Tm.

You think it's stalking, I think it's making sure that you contribute in a way that is constructive, rather than pushing what you think is right and ignoring messages from other users. You have repeatedly showed that you don't understand the foundations of contribution and I will make sure that your actions are not left unpunished. The only difference is that next time I will warn you about my complaint.

Best regards. Badzil (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Objects of Portugal

Good Afternoon, Tm. Would you please explain, why you keep categorizing Category:Objects of Portugal under Category:Culture of Portugal, even though objects as e. g. rocks or organisms do not really count as cultural objects? --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

+Created Category:Cultural objects of Portugal

File:Locust tank & Hamilcar Glider (4536580872).jpg

File:Locust tank & Hamilcar Glider (4536580872).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent category-additions by you

Hello!

I have reverted your recent category additions for some files (examples: [1], [2]). Reason: COM:OVERCAT. Please respect that guideline. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nijmegen bridge

Please check "Lou de Jong's Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 1". I was having the same opinion as you before, and was thinking the :nl-article was wrong, but this picture is from 1939. The book should be reliable, it being a standard work. RHLifa (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In what page appears? I ask because i visually searched the online version and it didnt had the image and as i dint speak dutch i cant find that information. I ask this as i think that it should be mentioned in the correct date of this imagee is 1939, but that the Busdesarchiv says that it is ca. May 1940. Tm (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot uploads to Category:Photos from the Bovington Tank Museum to check

Could you please replace all the odd categories (2010, British, Dorset, Iraq, Spring and National Socialism) with April 2010 in Dorset? Ain92 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Will try~to find all categories wrongly added by my batch upload and replace them with April 2010 in Dorset. Tm (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Lisboa (P), 2011. (6040715189).jpg

File:Lisboa (P), 2011. (6040715189).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ 01:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Lisboa (P), 2011. (6040715393).jpg

File:Lisboa (P), 2011. (6040715393).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Lisboa (P), 2011. (6040717485).jpg

File:Lisboa (P), 2011. (6040717485).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:DSC 3096 (3779650435).jpg

Tm, porque retirou a categoria da Estação de Santos do ficheiro File:DSC 3096 (3779650435).jpg? A mim pareceu-me ser naquela estação... --Ajpvalente (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ups. A minha edição era para retirar a categoria da Linha de Cascais, pois a categoria da Estação de Santos é uma subcategoria da desta. Não percebo o porquê de ter retirado a subcategoria e não ao contrário, pois, se não caiu em erro, quando fiz essa edição aparecia a Category:Linha de Cascais como apagada e substituida pela Category:Santos train station. De qualquer maneira já rectifiquei o lapso e agradeço a chamada de atenção. Tm (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sempre às ordens. . Já agora, excelente trabalho com o Flickr, as imagens são tantas que até quase que não damos conta delas, e têm sido extremamente úteis em inúmeras ocasiões. -- Ajpvalente (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorização

Sobre isto: Então tu vês um careca de fones dentro dum elétrico e achas que se trata de Category:Gardens?! Que diabo, pá! -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:57, 16 February 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Reichstag Dome panorama.jpg

And also:

File:Reichstagnight.JPG

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 18:34, 20 February 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Reichstag Dome - Panorama.jpg

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Airplanes to check

Hello!

It is not optimal to put bot-transferred aircraft images in a category calles "Airplanes to check"; please use Category:Unidentified aircraft instead. Thank you in advance. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Faulty png map

[3] this map is incorrect in many ways.Tenedos and Imbros islands not belong to Greece and there not spoken in greek. Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus a de facto state and nothing to do with southern cyprus about language.Please examine some maps.Maurice (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a de facto indenpendent northern turkish cypriot republic, but the international community recognizes the Republic of Cyprus

state as the the jure sovereign states over all the island, so this map must show that all of island as having the official language as greek (as it happens to turkish in Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). So this map should show the greek as de jure being the official language in all of cyprus and mentioning the de facto situation of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that only recognizes the turkish as an official language and the situation of the Greek cypriots in Rizokarpaso. About the others islands their indeed part of the Republic of Turkey, so they should appear in this map that shows the states that have greek as official languages . Tm (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Limonada (4845987770).jpg

File:Limonada (4845987770).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Morning ☼ (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:SamaritanAtFountain (260921327).jpg

Hi Tm, could you please ask the photographer at which location (plus in/ourdoor) this was taken. Otherwise it might not be covered by FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Duoro Valley-27 (8605910271).jpg

File:Duoro Valley-27 (8605910271).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Danrok (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Various duplicates of CoA Kleve

Hi there - yesterday you deleted the duplicate flag on several files of the CoA of Kleve. As you find out these files were the first uploads and test item of youngster and new user on commons. It was not his intention to produce the variety but only one good file. Same happened with Langenselbold CoA. I hope this explains my deletion request and you will revert your last action. --maxxl2 - talk 10:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ana 7aziza

File:Fati flower.png

hi how are you

Iám well, thank you. Do i know you and for what business are you contacting me? Tm (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

hi how are you ?

Well. For what business are you contacting me? Tm (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop your edit war. Categories fpr photos should be specific, so a sunset that could have been photographed anywhere is misplaced in a local category like Olhão. And when you revert my edits, please give a reason; failing to do so is not quite appropriate. — Nol Aders (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This images are not only of sunsets, and the sunset is only a fraction of what this image depicts. They are also and mainly depicts the costline of Olhão (a local category), especially in a time (1980´s) that there isnt any photos of Olhão. So i ask, basead in facts and in policies, instead of generic editions summaries, why are not this images, below, proper of Olhão?

Tm (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Planes to be checked

Hello, I'm currently helping you sort the airplanes you just uploaded from Flickr. I'm going to remove your temporary category "Planes to be checked" from an image when I found some proper categories, so please don't worry. De728631 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please dont you already created a real mess, as i currently trying to sort out what images are categorized and the ones that are not. You already made a real mess by taking out the category that had the information about the lenses used, instead of moving or creating it the category related "Taken by". So please stop your removal of that category. Tm (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The category about the lenses is for photographs showing that type lens, not for images taken with a lens. That's why I removed the images. And I don't know if you added some aircraft to Category:Smyrna or if the bot did that, but Category:Smyrna is for the archaeological site, not for aircraft in the US. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Taken with Canon EF 200mm F2.8L USM: Uploaded via bot, so why do you think that i put a Category:Planes to be checked in the first place. Tm (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:"... Não me diga..." (2112169849).jpg

File:"... Não me diga..." (2112169849).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

russavia (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:93 years old and still working (59660376).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, PigeonIP (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) PigeonIP (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

COM:MELLOW

Hi Tm, whilst issues here on Commons may be emotive for some editors, please be reminded that we try to keep a COM:MELLOW atmosphere around here. russavia (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Three on the ride (2328959655).jpg

File:Three on the ride (2328959655).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Monumentos nacionais

Tm, pare imediatamente com a destruição da classificação que está a ser feita, que de resto é baseada neste documento e tem por fim resolver os graves problemas que ocorreram no último Wiki Loves Monuments, além de que o modo como está é absolutamente pavoroso e incompreensível para qualquer um que não seja português. Se tem alguam objecção discuta em vez de reverter.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You have nothing better to do here, than destroying others work without any justification or discussion? I expect a good explanation on your part for all the unjustified destruction you have been done this afternoon. If you persist in your actions without justifying them, you will be reported to the administrators board. Please try to behave as a civilized person, as this is a civilized place.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Primeiro que tudo quem começou a destruir o trabalho duro de outros (meu e de outros), sem justificação e sem discussão, foi o DarwIn. A actual forma de organização da Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal foi feita por um holandês, por isso não percebo como diz que "o modo como está é absolutamente pavoroso e incompreensível para qualquer um que não seja português" (esse holandês não fala Português).

Essa organização é dada por municipio (está city mas deverie ser municipality), por grau de protecção, distrito, por regiao (Açores e madeira) e também deveria ter por nome. Se concordo que os monumentos devem ser classiicados igualmente por tipologias (castelos, dolmens, castros, etc) e igualmente como fiz para Guimarães e Braga (districto e concelho) por nome, classificação e concelho. Mas o documento que cita está desactualizado pois refere somente "Monumento Nacional", "Imóvel de Interesse Público e "Imóvel de Interesse Municipal" (e ainda refere o IPPAR, que foi extinto e que deu origem ao IGESPAR, igualmente extinto e deu origem à actual "Direção-Geral do Património Cultural"), mas caso não saiba existem mais tipos de classificação de monumentos, a saber "Imóvel de Interesse Concelhio", "Valor Cultural Regional" que o DarwIn fez o favor de destruir, assim como toda categoria de monumentos da Madeira, "Valor Local" e "Valor Regional" (veja [4]. Como vê não há só, neste momento e após a produção deste documento, anterior a 2007, a situação alterou-se imenso. Tm (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Caro TM, conforme pode ver aqui, essas classificações (valor local, regional, etc) já não existem ou estão desactualizadas ou não têm aplicação nacional: "According to its relative value, immovable property of cultural value may be listed as being of National Interest (known as "National Monument"), "Public Interest" or "Municipal Interest" "("http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/classificacaodebensimoveisefixacaodezep/

. Como pode ver, todas elas têm tradução oficial para inglês no próprio site do IGESPAR. Aparentemente a anterior categoria "national-interest buildings" passou a ser "public-interest buildings" (compreensivelmente, pois causava confusão com os Monumentos Nacionais), pelo que essa deve ser a única alteração a ser feita por agora ao sistema que se está a implementar. Anteriormente existia apenas uma organização precária, feita por várias pessoas, entre as quais eu próprio, mas ainda bastante anárquica e que causou bastantes problemas durante o Wiki Loves Monuments. Se mesmo assim ainda tem algum problema com o sistema que estou a implementar, diga, em vez de reverter. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Como lhe tinha dito este documento está desactualizado, e não têm em conta essas classificações antigas.Contudo essas tipologias ainda existem para vários interesses. Mas de facto teria interesse separar os monumentos conforme a sua classificação nacional e local. Mas como pode ver as categorias sobre monumentos na França, Holanda, Bélgica, Inglaterra e outros têm os graus de classificação em forma vernacular. Mas seria de interesse dar à uma categorização tipo "national-interest buildings"que se subdividi-se em IIP (e CIM, MIP) e outro para MN e outro para os locais do tipo Category:Municipal interest monuments in Portugal. Contudo deixo o alerta que da forma como está a organizar os monumentos por concelho, classificando tudo como edificio é enganadora, pois chafarizes, aquedutos, e outras estruturas não são edificios. Assim no topo da categoria sobre os monumentos portugueses deixaria estar "Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal by grade‎" "Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal with known IDs‎", "Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal by location‎" e "Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal by name". Tm (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Esse último link que enviei não está desactualizado, aliás, refere legislação de 2009, e diz quase o mesmo que o anterior, com a excepção dos Imóveis de Interesse Público que estão traduzidos no IGESPAR de uma forma mais lógica. Os monumentos no UK são classificados por graus - números e letras - coisa que nós não temos, mas é o sistema mais parecido com o nosso. Nem a França nem a Alemanha parecem ter sistema de graus para monumentos, ou se têm não usam aqui. Quanto à forma vernacular, não vejo razões para ser usada, quando existem traduções bastante fáceis de perceber por toda a gente. É preciso algum cuidado com o excesso de categorização também, pois complica desnecessariamente a árvore de categorias e torna muito mais difícil a categorização. Penso que é preferível fazer uma categorização mais básica à partida - apenas por tipo de classificação, concelho e em alguns casos, tipo de património - e depois logo se vê se é necessário refinar mais.

Em relação aos "buildings", também não me estava a parecer bem, e concordo em trocar a palavra para "monuments", que aliás parece ser a terminologia do IGESPAR. Vou proceder brevemente a essa alteração.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Já agora, por essa documentação parece que "Nacional monuments" devia ser "Nacional Monuments", com o M capitalizado, como usam nos EUA. Se também concorda, diga para se tratar da alteração.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agora não lhe posso responder na totalidade a esta parte, mas como lhe tinha dito, se outros países têm os nomes dos monumentos na(s) sua(s) língua(s), por que havemos nós de complicar a pesquisa aos nossos monumentos. Por favor espere uma hora. Cumprimentos. Tm (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Peço então que envie uma mensagem para a minha discussão quando chegar. Entretanto vou continuar a classificação dos monumentos nacionais, e quando já tiver a sua opinião então troca-se o que for preciso trocar com o AWB.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Como tinha dito existem, nos países que têm sistemas de classificação parecidos com os nossos: Como a Bélgica com Category:Onroerend erfgoed in Flanders‎ e Category:Onroerend geheel in Flanders‎ em Flamengo ou Category:Biens classés de la Communauté Française‎ ou Category:Patrimoine vert de wallonie‎ em Valão (veja que aqui, um país dividido em duas línguas não puseram tudo em inglês mas antes puseram os graus dos monumentos, conforme a língua regional; em espanha Category:Bien de Interés Cultural‎; No chile Category:Monumento Histórico‎; Na França, ao contrário do que diz, têm quatro graus todos em francês(incluíndo um de árvores), que são Category:Arbres Remarquables de France‎,Category:Monuments historiques in France‎, Category:Patrimoine du XXe siècle‎ e Category:Villes et pays d'art et d'histoire‎; Na Holanda têm Category:Beschermde monumenten‎, Category:Gemeentelijke monumenten‎, Category:Provinciale monumenten‎ e Category:Rijksmonumenten‎ todos em holandês; No Senegal tem Category:Monuments historiques in Senegal‎; Como pode toda as categorias da Europa aonde categorização por graus utilizam a(s) sua(s) língua(s)e não inglês. Por isso eu pergunto outra vez qual a necessidade de se mudar as categorias dos monumentos portugueses para nomes em Ingês?

Por isso eu digo que os nomes dos graus deveriam estar em português se contudo separados em três categorias: a primeira Category:National interest monuments in Portugal‎ (o que criou anteriormente) que se subdividiria em Category:Public interest monuments in Portugal‎ (aonde estariam os IIP, CIP, MIP, cada um na sua categoria em nome português) e Category:Monumentos Nacionais in Portugal. A segunda categoria seria ‎dos monumentos de interesse municipal como já existe em Category:Municipal interest monuments in Portugal. A terceira teria a ver com os monumentos dos Açores e Madeira (inseridos nos locais?)Tm (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Vamos a ver:

Em princípio não me oponho a que se use a classificação própria em português, até porque realmente muitos outros a usam aqui na sua língua. Temos é de arranjar uma fórmula para que não fique demasiado estranha a leitura, pois terá sempre que ser híbrido ("Monumentos Nacionais in Portugal").

Em relação aos "buildings", concordo e apoio que se passe para "monuments".

O agrupamento dos IIPs e MNs nuam supra categoria parece-me ser complicação desnecessária, afinal de contas ao todo são apenas três graus (MN, IP, e IM). Mesmo contando com os sítios e conjuntos ficam somente 5, não vejo vantagem em subdividir.

Não concordo que se usem as classificações obsoletas, como valor local ou regional, a menos que se demonstre que alguma não é obsoleta (o que não creio que aconteça, pois até os imóveis de interesse regional na Madeira parecem ter passado a IIPs).

Se concordar com as alterações, passo o AWB e mudo o que tenho feito para as novas categorias.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Depois de ver novamente a classificação no IGESPAR, não me parece viável usar directamente os nomes em português, devido a casos como "Interesse Municipal", que não se prestam a ser usados neste tipo de categorização. Uma alternativa seria usar algo como "Monuments classified IM in ...", "Monuments classified IIP in ...", etc., com a excepção dos Monumentos Nacionais, que ficariam Monumentos Nacionais mesmo. O que acha?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

O IGESPAR diz taxativamente - "Consoante o seu valor relativo, os bens imóveis de interesse cultural podem ser classificados como de Interesse Nacional (com a designação de "Monumento Nacional"), "Interesse Público" ou "Interesse Municipal" (classificação camarária). A lei procedeu ainda a uma outra diferenciação, definindo as categorias de "Monumento", "Conjunto" e "Sítio" (segundo as convenções internacionais)." Parece que o mais simples e lógico por agora será usar Monumento Nacional, Imóvel de Interesse Público e Imóvel de Interesse Municipal, e as três subcategorias de IIP e IM (conjunto site e monumento), que de resto são raras, serão subcategorias dessas duas (IIP e IM), usando os nomes em Português. Se não tiver nada a opor, vou fazer a experiência dessa organização com o património da Madeira.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

O problema da classificação em português é que não bate bem com as categorias de edifícios depois. Para já vou deixar essas categorias como estão, e trocar apenas o nacional-interest para public-interest e o local-interest para municipal-interest. De qualquer modo isso apenas será usado em igrejas, para já, não é grave.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Caro DarwIn. A solução liguística terá sempre de ser hibrída (por exemplo Category:Monumentos Nacionais in Braga (district). De facto, pois a categorização dos monumentos portugueses não parece estabilizar (como O IPPC, IPPAR, DGEMN, IGESPAR e DGPC), e era um facto que desconhecia, os graus "valor concelhio" a nível nacional, "valor local", "valor regional", "valor cultural regional" e os outros graus próprios da Madeira parecem estar obsoletos e em fase de rectificação, como vi em consulta rápida ao SIPA e a comparação de alguns monumentos que eram de "valor concelhio" e que são agora IIM, pelo que parte da actual categorização estará obsoleta e este facto simplificará a categorização por graus, embora não saiba a situação da Madeira pois o inventário da Madeira da DRAC-RAM pelo que não sei o ponto da situação neste local. Quanto ao agrupamento dos MN, IIP (e derivados) e IIM (e derivados) acho que teria interesse fazer já a separação em, por exemplo IIP, MIP, CIP e SIP, pois os novos monumentos, como se vê no Diário da República, já têm esta segregação feita, pelo a lista tenderá a crescer no futuro.

Quanto à agregação dos MN e IIP de facto deverá ser um pouco complexo mas os IIP, MIP, CIP e SIP poderiam ser subcategorias de algo tipo "Public interess monuments in Portugal", acontecendo o mesmo com os municipais (IIM, MIM, CIM e SIM) que poderiam ser subcategorias de "Municipal interess monuments in Portugal".

Quanto aos IIP, de facto, existem discrepâncias pois ainda tem monumentos anteriormente classificados que deveriam ser MIP e outros. Quanto à categorização dos monumentos por tipologia (igrejas, fontes, castros, etc) concordo, pois além de uma categorização por graus, como está agora deveria existir outra por tipologias, como está a fazer. Quanto à questão do uso do Português dos IIP e IIM não vejo qual o problema, mas a solução que aponta de "Monuments classified IIP in ..." poderá ser uma boa solução, mas aponto dois reparos, a saber:1- os graus deveriam ser por extenso, pois assim com siglas fica muito opaco para quem não conhece os graus portugueses de classificação e deveria acrescentar, creio, "as" a estas categorias ficando do tipo ""Monuments classified as Imóveis de Interesse Público in ...". Quanto aos "classified buildings" ou "classified monuments", não se deveria integrar os monumentos não classificados numa categoria tipo "unclassified monuments in Portugal", pois esta lista integra, além do inventário do IGESPAR, integra a lista do SIPA que é maioritariamente feita de monumentos não classificados em Portugal. Poderá fazer a experiência na Madeira para ver como ficam os resultados. Já agora sabe dizer se o Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 se realizará em Portugal? Tm (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Eu estou a usar os nomes por extenso, como sugeriu, e porque essa parece ser realmente a norma nos outros países (e porque ajuda um pouco nas categorias mais complexas de clusters e sites). Quanto a essas categorias, parece-me que esses casos especiais ("Monumento", "Conjunto" e "Sítio") tal como o IGESPAR os coloca, serão subcategorias dos dois grupos "Interesse Público" e "Interesse Municipal", pelo que essas duas farão o lugar das "Public interess monuments in Portugal" e "Municipal interess monuments in Portugal", que assim se torna desnecessária. Em relação a "Monuments classified as Imóveis de Interesse Público in ...", parece-me redundante e desnecessário, além de criar categorias demasiado extensas. Julgo que só "Imóveis de Interesse Público in ..." serve bem.

Concordo que haja algo do género "unclassified monuments in Portugal" para aqueles monumentos que estão pendentes ou em estudo, mas apenas para esses (o SIPA faz fichas para uma série deles que não têm protecção nem acredito que alguma vez irão ter).

Quanto à classificação tradicional por distritos, neste caso penso que é desnecessária, pois são poucos e podem bem ficar na categoria superior, junto com os três graus de classificação, além de que essa classificação por distritos não contempla as regiões autónomas. A classificação por graus parece-me desnecessária também, como já disse atrás, uma vez que são apenas 3 graus principais: MN, IIP e IM, ao menos de momento (se aparecerem outros logo se vê o que se faz).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Em relação ao Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, eu gostava que Portugal entrasse, mas isso é com a Wikimedia-Portugal, e depois dos problemas da última vez não sei se eles estarão interessados. Talvez se a árvore de classificações do património português for melhor organizada e esquematizada, para que os bots possam facilmente ler as categorias para a classificação das imagens, haja mais interesse...-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Para "unclassified monuments in Portugal" já existem Category:Monuments under study in Portugal by name, Category:Monuments without legal protection in Portugal by name, Category:Pending classification monuments in Portugal by name e Category:Monuments included in classified sites in Portugal by name, pelo que este poderão ser subcategorias de "unclassified monuments in Portugal" ou algo do género, mas assim estruturadas e em inglês pois não são graus, mas antes formas de organização dos métodos de trabalho do IGESPAR e SIPA), e apenas a nível nacional, como já estão.

A classificação graus de classificação por distritos dos monumentos já existiu mas foi apagada da última (des)reorganização, facto que deixou a árvore muito deficiente e confusa, e eu estava a recriá-la do zero pelo só tinha 2 subcategorias, mas quando ela existia completa, incuíndo a dos Monumentos Nacionais (era a mais compreensiva de todas como pode ver na ainda existente Category:Imóveis de Interesse Público in Portugal by district), tinha dezenas de monumentos em cada distrito, pelo teria interesse recriá-la manualmente, embora se tenha realmente de pensar como se organiza as regiões autónomas, mas tendo em vista que o WLM 2013 se poderá realizar este ano em Portugal e para a actual categorização estar relativamente estável, pois como disse "a árvore de classificações do património português for melhor organizada e esquematizada", só procederei a este trabalho após Setembro, de modo a não ficar uma parte organizada e outra por organizar. Quanto às IIM e IIP ( e as novas tipologias) estas poderiam realmente ficar em algo subacategorizado em algo de Interesse Público" e "Interesse Municipal" junto com os CIP, IIP, SIP, MIP, IIM, SIM, CIM e MIM, pois como disse os monumentos classificados como conjuntos, sítios e monumentos de interesse municipal e público crescerá de futuro. Cumprimentos. Tm (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fica sempre organizado por distritos e regiões, penso é que não é necessário ter uma categoria "by district", pois não são muitos distritos, e podem bem ficar na categoria de topo junto com os graus. Essas categorias "by qq coisa" devem ser evitadas sempre que possível, pois muitas vezes só servem para criar graus de complexidade desnecessários. Se ficarem os três graus de topo de classificação agora existentes (MN, IIM e IIP) mais os distritos e regiões numa categoria de topo, a categoria fica ainda bastante espaçosa e eliminam-se logo dois ou mais graus de complexidade.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Eu pensava mais no facto de existir a categoria Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal by location (criada por mim hoje), pelo que ainda acho que esta segregação, se bem feita terá interesse, ficando por exemplo os "Monumentos Nacionais in ... (district) como subcategorias de "Monumentos Nacionais by location" e o "Cultural heritage monuments in ... (district)" pelo que não acarretaria muita mais complexidade, mas como disse ficaria, neste caso e no dos concelhos que o justifiquem, para depois de Setembro. Penso, noutra vertente, que nas categorias principais dos graus deveria existir uma explicação resumida em português e inglês sobre esses mesmos graus. O que acha? Tm (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Em relação à "location", eu pessoalmente não uso muito esse tipo de categorias, mas se ficarem assim num sítio à parte onde não atrapalhem, não tenho nada contra. Como ferramenta de ajuda, é óptimo, que é bastante chato é ter que passar por uma série de "by districts" e "by municipalities", a maior parte deles desnecessários, para se chegar a qualquer coisa aqui dentro. Apenas reparo que num pais com quase 400 municípios, classificar qualquer coisa "por município", sem ser dentro do próprio distrito ou região, é uma maçada e não me parece que sirva de muito. Quanto aos distritos+regiões, penso que já vinha sendo tempo de fundir isso numa categoria só, algo como "district and region"... Não faz muito sentido que as regiões fiquem separadas do resto, quando na prática são a mesma coisa que os distritos neste projecto.

Em relação à explicação resumida, acho excelente essa sua ideia.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

O problema é que quase todas as outras categorias sobre a Madeira e os Açores estão ou em "... in Portugal by region" ou, pior, "... in Portugal by district". Quanto à possiiblidade de unificá-las não seria melhor serem escritas no plural ou seja "districts and regions"? Tm (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"by districts and regions" não se usa em inglês, a concordância não se faz nesse caso, tal como não se faz em português quando se diz "por distrito ou região". O ideal, para mim, é evitar esse tipo de subdivisão sempre que possível. São menos de 20 itens, se a categoria base não estiver muito cheia, podem bem ficar ali. Apenas se a complexidade de itens na categoria base aumentar é que se justifica criar esses "by ..." para limpar um pouco, mas de modo algum deve ser a norma, já que não traz qualquer vantagem, pelo contrário. Pior ainda são os "by municipality" e "by region", que na maior parte dos casos que vejo aqui só aumentam a complexidade sem qualquer efeito prático. Claro que se alguém gostar de fazer esse tipo de classificação, e se as colocar num sítio que não atrapalhe (do género dessa categoria "by location" que criou, por exemplo), em princípio não me oponho, mas o que normalmente ocorre é que esse tipo de coisas, tal como as "by name", são criadas parcialmente e depois nunca mais são mantidas, justamente por ser coisa chata e de utilidade limitada. E como não são mantidas, tornam-se inúteis com o tempo. Mas voltando aos distritos e regiões, uma hipótese seria gerar categorias "by subdivision" quando houver realmente necessidade de as criar. O que não faz sentido é ter duas categorias equivalentes - Região e distrito - em sítios diferentes, só atrapalha e não traz vantagem nenhuma, por isso alguma solução tem de ser encontrada para substituir o método tradicional.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Monumentos na RAM

Olá Tm, confirmei com a DRAC, e de facto todas as anteriores categorias VL, VR, etc. foram extintas e não surgirá novo património que as use. Essas antigas classificações foram todas homologadas para as nacionais do IGESPAR, como aliás se pode ver nesta tabela, à excepção de três monumentos que ficaram com a classificação obsoleta de VR por razões que não souberam explicar, mas que na prática é equivalente a IIP, segundo a própria DRAC me informou.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fortes e fortalezas, mosteiros e conventos

Olá Tm, reparei que desfez a alteração que eu tinha feito na categoria dos fortes. O que se passa é algo semelhante ao que se passa com os conventos. Como não está bem definido o que cada coisa é, cada um usa o termo que gosta mais, ou o nome que é vulgarmente chamado ao edifício, o que não pode acontecer.

No caso dos conventos, parece existir de facto uma distinção clara na língua portuguesa:

Mosteiros: agrupam monges e monjas, pertencem às ordens monásticas. São pois o edifício e anexos onde habitam os referidos monges ou monjas.

Conventos: neles vivem frades, das ordens mendicantes (Franciscanos, Dominicanos, Agostinhos e Carmelitas). São assim o edifício e anexos onde estes habitam.

http://www.infopedia.pt/$convento

A mesma coisa se pode ver no artigo w:convent da Wiki-en:

"Technically, a "monastery" or "nunnery" is a community of monastics, whereas a "convent" is a community of mendicants ("friary" specifying a male community specifically)"

Algum dia se há de ter que organizar os conventos e mosteiros portugueses, que andam numa babilónia, e penso que usar esta distinção é a melhor solução.

Em relação aos fortes, fortalezas e fortificações: Como se vê no artigo da Wiki-en, w:Fortification, "Many military installations are known as "forts", although they are not always fortified. Larger forts may be called "fortresses"; smaller ones were once known as "fortalices". The word "fortification" can also refer to the practice of improving an area's defence with defensive works. City walls are fortifications but are not necessarily called fortresses."

O que se depreende daqui é que fortification é um termo demasiado geral, e um forte nem sempre é uma fortaleza, mas uma fortaleza (fortress) é sempre um forte, além de que, pelo que tenho visto, a utilização do termo fortaleza é puramente subjectiva, e está geralmente relacionada com a dimensão do forte. O que não se pode fazer é usar uma e outra sem critério, ou com critérios vagos como o nome pela qual é conhecida (grandes fortalezas podem ser conhecidas como fortes (ex: Forte do Pico, no Funchal, ou o Forte de São Julião da Barra), e vice versa (ex: "Fortaleza" do ilhéu da pontinha, no Funchal).

Proponho que nas categorias se passe tudo para "forts", e se abandone o termo "fortresses", a não ser que haja algum caso que o justifique.

O que acha? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Anna Ternheim

Regarding File:Anna Ternheim performing a video session 01.jpg, this was quite some time ago, but you wouldn't happen to still have the full size image in your files, would you? Mr. Derrier has since disallowed access to the full size image. I'd prefer it over the crop. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but i dont understand how you can acess the full resolution if the file you link has the full resolution image (4 288 × 2 696 px), but if for somehow you cannot manage yo acess it try this direct link: File:Anna_Ternheim_performing_a_video_session_01.jpg or [5]. Hope it helps. Tm (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tm, sorry I wasn't clearer. That image is actually a crop (it cuts out the lower portion of the image where the watermark was). I was hoping you might still have the full original on a drive somewhere. If not, that's fine! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I´am sorry but i searched this images in my backups but it seems that i dont have the original and uncropped image. Tm (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's too bad, but man, thanks so much for looking, I really appreciate it! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 03:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir.

Excuse me, sir. I have something to tell you about File:MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png.

Tsushima island is not the Mongol Empire's territory because of the failure of Mongol invasions of Japan.
東寧府(Dongnyeong department) and 耽羅摠管府(Tamna general department) were temporarily occupied by Mongol, different from 双城总管府(Ssangseong general department).
Kachin State is not the Mongol Empire's territory because of Himalayas.

Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read : [6] and [7]. This map is in use and if you want your version and POV of the map upload it under a new filename and discuss it use in each language, dont try to make it being used by stealth. This map is "partially based on Atlas of World History (2007) - The World 1200-1300, map" and your edits dont have any source to suport it. Tm (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: "(and so much probably urrelated to Chase Masterson)"

RE: "Argument less nomination. Image is in scope of this american actress, singer and voice actor and of WonderCon. Being "out of date" is irrelevant and the fact that this British IP (and so much probably urrelated to Chase Masterson) thinks that this image gives a bad impression is also irrelevant and totally bogus and highly his POV. Good image of this famous person and not a bad demeanor. Tm (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)"

on the following deletion requests:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chase_Masterson_at_WonderCon_2009_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chase_Masterson_at_WonderCon_2010.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chase_Masterson_-_Comic-Con_2010.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chase_Masterson-Comic_Con_2006.jpg

In fact I am a close friend of Chase. After informing her of this matter, she has released the following statement.

Statement from Chase Masterson - "Hello, I am writing to respectfully ask you to remove these photos from wikipedia, due to the fact that they are unnecessarily unflattering, candid shots and no longer depict my look or image. I've suffered unnecessary hardships in my career and am working hard to recoup opportunity, but these photos could be an unnecessary obstacle. I would so greatly appreciate your removing them, so as to depict an accurate and current image of me."

I hope you are sympathetic and allow Chase to present the image she needs to further her career.

Allan

Sorry

Dear Tm! First of all thank you for your huge job uploading so many photos of Belarusian rhythmic gymnastics team! I'm sorry for not having noticed you about nomination for deletion of this file. That was not because I wanted to hurt you, but rather because I didn't catch who was the uploader in fact. So I'm sorry. Jarash (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Image File

I've received notice from the woman whose likeness is used in this photo to have it removed, and if not the imaged removed itself, then any keywords linking to her full name. She has been receiving harassing messages that reference this picture. I am unsure how to proceed. What is the best way to do this? Thanks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melanie_Kannokada_From_The_Premiere_of_%27Love_Lies_%26_Seeta%27_(3).jpg

Taylor Swift photo

Hi, I notice you have twice reversed my cropping of a Taylor Swift photo. In its current state, it is hard to see the subject when the photo is a thumbnail in an article. It makes sense to me to crop the photo so that the subject is more visible? Popeye191 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Overwriting existing files. New files as yours should be uploaded under a new filename. Tm (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I understand now Popeye191 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. I´ve also categorized your uploaded image under Speak Now World Tour and linked with the other two versions of the same image and linked them also to this version. Tm (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Soviet Border Troops

Hi I categorised File:Sssr polsha 1939 plakat.jpeg into NKVD cause it was the only file related to that time and took the NKVD cat out of the border troops. Can we remain with that?--Sanandros (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Soviet Border troops were part of the NKVD since its creation until the creation of the KGB, so if there is Category:Soviet Border Troops (1954-1991) (created by you and and a subcategory of Category:KGB for when the Soviet Border Guards were part of the KGB were part of it, there should be also a category for the time they were part of the NKVD and there is already Category:Soviet Border Troops so, until the creation of an category that groups the files of the Soviet Border Troops under the NKVD the parent category can be a subcategory of Category:NKVD. Tm (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The TGV replacement

Acho que as categorias "trackless trains" e "roling stock" não se aplicam a bonecos de desfile, com um automóvel por baixo! Mas pronto, se considera assim... esteja à vontade. Já agora, aproveito para lhe agradecer pelo excelente trabalho que teve ultimamente a passar fotografias antigas do Flickr, há ali bastante conteúdo que será muito útil na Wikipédia. -- Ajpvalente (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lisbon, Portugal April 2010 (5127713170).jpg

File:Lisbon, Portugal April 2010 (5127713170).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Burr by Gore Vidal - first edition cover.jpg

Hi, since you commented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burr by Gore Vidal - first edition cover.jpg, I thought you might be interested to know that the nominator has contested my closure here. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion. -FASTILY 00:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank ypu for the warning. Tm (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ainda não aprendeste a categorizar?

vamos lá a ter juízo. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Portogallo2007 (1703259899).jpg

File:Portogallo2007 (1703259899).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Portogallo2007 (1673071427).jpg

File:Portogallo2007 (1673071427).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Portogallo 2007 (1732977401).jpg

File:Portogallo 2007 (1732977401).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Acerca da Categoria "Portugal"

Tenho tentado arrumar a categoria "Portugal". Se a categoria tiver milhares de fotos fica completamente inútil.

Quase todos os dias alguém envia fotos para esta categoria, que tenho tentado arrumar nas várias sub-categorias. Agora apareceram todos estes ficheiros, com pouca informação e difíceis (ou impossíveis) de saber o local onde foram tiradas. Como estas fotos já estão cá há uns meses, pergunto: achas que devem ficar por aqui para sempre? Eu acho que não, assim esta categoria vai continuar a aumentar, ficheiros com grande interesse enciclopédico vão ficar perdidos neste mar. Como muitos são de locais em Portugal não identificados, acho que deveriam ser movidos precisamente para essa categoria.

É uma opinião. Joseolgon (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Elevador (158972015).jpg

File:Elevador (158972015).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ 14:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Boston

Hey, I just moved a number of your flickr uploads from Category:Boston to its subcategories. Category:Boston is a metacategory and shouldn't contain single files. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This files were uploaded to Category:Boston in a batch upload of several sets of a flickr user. As this files are in the hundreds or in some sets in the thousands, it is almost impossible to refine the categorization, this is why i thank you for your efforts in finding a better subcategories. Tm (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the key differences between Commons and other image sources like flickr is that Commons has organization to it; quality (including proper categorization) receives equal weight as quality. I understand that when uploading en masse it is difficult to properly subcategorize; however, that is not a reason not to then go back and sort a little bit. It is expected that users will properly subcategorize their own works when they upload them; why should transfers from flickr be different? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Totem (4337559574).jpg

File:Totem (4337559574).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dankarl (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nem pensar

Voltas a fazer uma destas e eu dou-me ao trabalho de reunir um dossiê com os vários tipos de “habilidades” a que nos tens habituado — a ver se és suspenso por um meses, para aprenderes a respeitar o projeto e o trabalho dos outros. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Primeiro que tudo, não o conheço para me tratar por tu, segundo habilidades como esta de retirar a imagem do Ocenário de Lisboa da categoria de Lisboa em vez de movê-la para a do Oceanário de Lisboa, enfim... Tm (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Black and white photographs of Lisbon está inclusa em Category:Lisbon daí que esta edição foi inútil (sobre-categorização semântica) e mesmo perniciosa (contribuiu para sobrecarregar a categoria-mãe)
Esta edição é boa, mas quem decidiu que a “tralha” deverá ser acumulada em Category:Lisbon e não também em Category:Black and white photographs of Lisbon e em outras que tal, como nas categorias por ano? Não aprendeu ainda o que significa difusão constante?
Não se me poderá ser imputado como erro a omissão de qualquer categoria, por óbvia que seja — nem a mim, nem a si, nem a ninguém. Mas a sua visão e prática, idiosincráticas e disruptivas, de sobre-categorização semântica e sobrecarga de categorias para difusão, praticada ab ovo e, especialmente, também por reversão de edições alheias — isso vai ser causa de um merecido bloqueio, se não se emenda.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 06:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:FELIZ NATAL - MERRY CHRISTMAS - FELIZ NAVIDAD - JOYEUX NOEL (2133173058).jpg

File:FELIZ NATAL - MERRY CHRISTMAS - FELIZ NAVIDAD - JOYEUX NOEL (2133173058).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Canada

This is a main category or subcategory requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into the right subcategories. Thank you.--gilbertus (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats what i´ve already did to hundreads of others files in this category. Tm (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Portugal (105504371).jpg

File:Portugal (105504371).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Portugal (8326855716).jpg

File:Portugal (8326855716).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of a comment of yours

Hi Tm,

I noticed that you objected to this removal of mine and reinstated two of the three removed comments (the last from Ottava is still removed). I would just like to explain why I removed them. It was actually mostly Ottavas comments, which I perceived as being unhelpful. Although Ottava and I are voting the same way in the discussion I do not share nor appreciate how he is doing his best to make the RfDB a dramafest, nor do I agree with a lot of his statements. Nor did I appreciate him butting in a constructive dialogue I was having with Seleucidis. I think it is OK and a better first solution to simply remove such unhelpful comments on sight instead of complaining at user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. Your comment, which was squeezed in between, I actually mostly considered as being made in good faith, but it just would not make sense if left there as it was sort a reply to Ottava. So, I was not really implying that your comment was unhelpful, it just happened to be squeezed in between 'two unhelpfuls'. I realize this was not clear in my reply to Seleucidis. My apologies. I still think you should reconsider your partial revert seen in that light as now we still have an unhelpful comment by Ottava there....

Regarding your view on the interpretation of Bible reference, which you have added now, I am perfectly fine with that, albeit I see it a litte differently, and I am not sure that we should really try to mix this with religious "role models".

Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

See? You comment just baited him to go on and on and .... --Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Baited? No. It is an obvious point - people are trying to make grandiose religious connections to Russavia. Such things are silly, just as the claims that Jimbo is the demon god that needs to be destroyed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Slaunger, Thanks for stating your reasons to remove mine and Ottava Rima comments, but i think that Ottava Rima comments are usefull to understand on why some of the persons that want take the bureaucrat role of Russavia, mainly its real reasons (be it having a grudge against him or pure and simply religious fanatism), i also misread your statements so there is no need for apologies between us. By quoting the bible i´am not trying to mix religion and this this discussion, but only tried to answer to Ottava Rima.

@ Ottava Rima, The quotes i gave to you in "Jesus and the woman taken in adultery" also about the sinners and its regret but also of the stonners as sinners not judging other hypocritically and its interpretation (and not the "true" you try to passe) is better resumed in “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). Seing your beliefs and your "i´am better than you sinners" (are you not a sinner?)i understad better why i left all active rolls i had in organized churche (dominated by an active and suffocating minority) and i think that fortunately today there is critical exegesis and freedom of conscious and religion, separation of state and churches, instead of one unquestionable dogma, in case of Catholic countries enforced by the Inquisition (used many times to revenge in secular matters). Tm (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"1 Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε. 2 ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν." You left out the second clause - as you judge you will be judged, which means that you cannot be a hypocrite and demand of others which you will not do. It means that you have to be righteous also and not just call others to righteousness. The non-righteous go to hell - many are called but few are chosen. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

About the last quote didnt you see what i wrote, manly "but also of the stonners as sinners not judging other hypocritically (...) is better resumed in “Do not judge, or you too will be judged”"? It seems you didnt! I ask you again, are you not a sinner? What gives you moral superiority to judge others, and trying to say what God considers who are the righteous and the sinners, who goes to heaven and to hell? Tm (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The victim is the first to cast a stone. The victim was not present to condemn the woman. Thus, Jesus said that only one who has not committed a sin would take the right of punishment into their hands, and punishment of death. It was not Jesus saying that society had no right to judge her, just not kill her in a way that was not allowed under the law. He never expressed if the law was correct at the time, and makes a point to dodge that question. You don't seem to understand that Jesus allows us to judge if we remember to hold ourselves to the same standard. Jesus did not say to accept the sinner that refused to seek redemption. Instead, many are called but few are chosen, Matthew 22, where Jesus calls for the sinner to be cast out. 13 τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν τοῖς διακόνοις: δήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον: ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 14 πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. The king called the servants to cast him out. And Matthew 10, where he says we must even abandon our own families because Jesus came not to bring peace: 34 Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν: οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν. 35 ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς. He made it clear that we cannot tolerate the sinner, only those who seek redemption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there is this: Matthew 10 14 καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς μηδὲ ἀκούσῃ τοὺς λόγους ὑμῶν, ἐξερχόμενοι ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας ἢ τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης ἐκτινάξατε τὸν κονιορτὸν τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν. 15 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται γῇ Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρων ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ. Jesus says that those who reject the mission to bring others to virtue shall have you kick the dust off your feet at them, which is a mark of disgrace towards another individual. The mark you gave them would then lead to their judgment that is worse than Sodom. So yeah, Jesus gave the people the ability to forgive or to not forgive sins. This would have been known to you if you read John 20 23 ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς: ἄν τινων κρατῆτε, κεκράτηνται. The sins you do not forgive will not be forgiven. Christianity is not a toleration of sin but a condemnation of sin. You can either seek to end the sinful ways or you will not be accepted by true followers of Christ. The Bible is really, really clear on these matters and only horrible mistranslations and willful ignoring of the book can suggest otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tm,

I used extended content to separate our discussion from the voting, but it is still on the page. But firstly I would like to apologise to you Tm for misunderstanding your comment and accusing the three of you of ridiculing me. In fact only Ottava Rima was ridiculing me and his comment is inappropriate in my opinion. I was nervous when I was reading it for the first time on Sunday and it is only today that I have looked at it again. Well, we all differ a lot in our interpretations of the story, mine is closed to yours and very far from Ottava's interpretation, but I guess we will never convince Ottava, so let it be. From psychological and spiritual point of view forgiving helps to clear your mind and have a more positive look on life. Negative feelings towards others (hatred, jealousy, envy) have a bad influence on our health (mind and body). Seleucidis (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Seleucidis, you compared Russavia to a Biblical whore, which is hyperbolic and has a lot of ramifications, such as saying that you know that Russavia is a major sinner. Your own analogy didn't work out because there was no proof that Russavia was seeking to end his adulterous ways. Forgiveness can only happen when an individual seeks it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry Ottava, but your analogies and ramifications do not correspond with my interpretation of the Biblical story and they sound strange to me. You pull too far-reaching conclusions, please do not do it, because it leads to errors. When we forgive others, we do it mostly for ourselves, so it is not necessary for the sinner to seek forgiveness by you. Simply, it is easier and nicer to live and enjoy life, if our mind is free of negative thoughts. It is not easy to forgive and forget, but those, who accomplish that, are great. Ottava, I think we should stop our discussion at that point, thank Tm for being so kind to host it on his talk page and go back to our duties. Seleucidis (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I took a cup of tea:-) and smelt:-) the rose on your user page. Both were delicious.

Mistranslations and willful ignoring passages does not count as an "interpretation." My "conclusions" come from Augustine, Aquinas, etc, and have been regarded as standard by just about every mainstream Christian sect. It makes me wonder if you ever actually read the Bible. By the way, your willful denial of a very clear statement about the necessity of forgiveness and the ability to deny it in John is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

- Tm, thank you very much for hosting our discussion on your talk page. Seleucidis (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Hemingway Nobel Prize (3204501682).jpg

Not 100% sure we need to delete - Freedom_of_panorama#Cuba says 2D artwork is OK if permanently displayed in public - this looks that way - suggest nominate for deletion if you like Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right~in the firt part in Cuban FOP, but in the second part the same law says that there are exceptions in FOP to objects displayed "in exhibitions and museums". This object is displayed in The Hemingway Museum at Finca Vigia, so this is exhibited in a exhibition in a museum, and so not covered by FOP. Tm (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Beca Figueiredo with red glasses.jpg

File:Beca Figueiredo with red glasses.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— TintoMeches, 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:000826 - Alcalá de Henares (3103553552).jpg

File:000826 - Alcalá de Henares (3103553552).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

File:000825 - Alcalá de Henares (3103551322).jpg

File:000825 - Alcalá de Henares (3103551322).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria

Hi Tim, Syria is in the news and there are ongoing discussions about photos specific to Syria. Why did you delete the information on Commons talk:Country specific consent requirements? It was sourced from the Constitution and it was requested by an Amin. I was simply adding it as a reference. Please address it on the talk page. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aswered in here. Tm (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Caminantes.... (4531476472).jpg

File:Caminantes.... (4531476472).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Alan ^(talk) 00:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Please explain your edit war. Syrian civil war articles on Wikipedia are currently under community sanctions [9] with a 1revert policy. I nominated 3 Syrian civil war photos for deletion according to policy and you reverted all 3 with no explanation. Would you like to explain? USchick (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is one site with its policies and Wikimedia Commons is one with different policies, so what rules in En Wiki doesnt apply in here and vice versa. Tm (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Can you please explain why you reverted 3 deletion templates with no explanation? USchick (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Because they are not eligible to speedy deletion, as you saw in the other file. Tm (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The other file was already deleted once and came back on a different issue. If these files don't qualify, and administrator will delist them. Are you an administrator? USchick (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but as you perfectly know there is a DR opened that affects this files, and these are not eligible to speedy deletion. Tm (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes them not eligible? USchick (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"There is a DR opened that affects this files". Tm (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy on Commons about that? Can you point to it please? USchick (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion and this is why yours speedy deletion requests were converted into one DR that afects all images. Tm (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any other deletion requests attached to this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghouta massacre1.JPG. If you can attach them, that would be great. USchick (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified aircraft and Unidentified airports

Will you please stop your disruptive editing that is impeding my cleanup of inappropriate cats added by uploaders. Aircraft related images that have written clues about their make/model should go into category:Aircraft. They should only go in Category:Unidentified aircraft if there are no clues and they cannot be identified by people skilled at aircraft recognition. Similarly, Category:Unidentified airports should only be used for images where the primary subject is an airport that cannot be identified from written clues. If the primary subject is an aircraft, the location is of minor importance, and should be accommodated in a sub-category of Aircraft, otherwise Overcategorization applies. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You were the one that disrupted my editions that i was making to the images of planes in several airportsthat i uploaded just a few minutes before we disrupted my temporary categorization. The images of planes should be i its model or registration model and in a category like Category:Aircraft in .... Airport. Tm (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Paris - CDG (4137442830) (2).jpg

And also:

File:Paris Charles-de-Gaulle (8625515731) (2).jpg

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Paris Charles-de-Gaulle Terminal 2F (8625516607) (2).jpg

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent revert

Hi Tm. I saw that you recently you reverted an edit on File:Wiki-cowgirl.png, but you did not warn the vandalizing user. Please warn users who vandalized Commons in the future. Thanks. Jianhui67 Talk 10:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Tm (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Ship in a bottle 1 (4866687312).jpg

File:Ship in a bottle 1 (4866687312).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ship in a bottle 2 (4866065259).jpg

File:Ship in a bottle 2 (4866065259).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ship in a bottle 3 (4866061437).jpg

File:Ship in a bottle 3 (4866061437).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Red Sky Mirror (5128421752).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Red Sky Mirror (5128421752).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror (5127829695).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror (5127829695).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 2 (5128431132).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 2 (5128431132).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 2a (5127823231).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 2a (5127823231).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 3 (5127821409).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 3 (5127821409).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 4 (5127814737).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 4 (5127814737).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 5 (5127834837).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror 5 (5127834837).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror bw (5127832643).jpg

File:Anish Kapoor Sky Mirror bw (5127832643).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Powerless Structures (6902807714).jpg

File:Powerless Structures (6902807714).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Powerless Structures 2 (7048900869).jpg

File:Powerless Structures 2 (7048900869).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oxyman (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File renames

Hi, if you want files to be renamed you have to provide a proposed new name, and an evidence backed reason for the rename. It is impossible for us to rename a file if you do not provide us with a new appropriate name. Please stop making the same requests, they cannot be carried out as you do not provide a new name, or reason for the rename. Liamdavies (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my "Boing / Boeing"-mess. This is the danger with semi-automatic tools... Jahobr (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Every one can commit mistakes. Even i make this kind of mistakes from time to time :). Tm (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

a request

You uploaded flickr image File:Sarah Polley @ Toronto International Film Festival 2010.jpg. I just wasted time trying to upload it again here. Some of us do our best to leave a thank you on the description page of every flickr image we upload. Almost all flickr contributors appreciate being thanked. But the great advantage of leaving these thank yous is that it presence is a great help in preventing good faith contributors from trying to upload the image a second time.

As a courtesy to other uploaders, would you please consider leaving thank you notes? Geo Swan (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring in File:Body painting - Videoplayer.jpg

Tm, you are actively engaged in edit warring. Normally, I'd add that instead of constantly reverting each other, consider dispute resolution, or you might risk being blocked. In this case, however, you are doing a silly edit: Adding File:Body painting - Videoplayer.jpg to Category:YouTube logos whereas it is not a logo at all. (It incorporates a logo but it is not a logo itself.) So, would you please stop being silly? Instead of adding it to that category, credit Google YouTube in the information box. Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I warned CL too. Fleet Command (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I´am not the one being silly. Why dont you see this and this edits. There is a logo of youtube so this should be categorized under Youtube logos, so who is the silly. Tm (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No. That category does not contain derivative works. If you want to credit YouTube, use {{Information}}. But if your agenda is promoting your own image, then I am afraid you are having a conflict of interest. COI and edit warring aren't good mixes.

And I do not see the point of your diffs. Two silly edits do not make up a good edit. So, I couldn't care any less. Fleet Command (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Waiting 2 (2552821003).jpg

File:Waiting 2 (2552821003).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

please please help me remove

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luissa_(8382973001).jpg

hello!!! i am the model in this photograph, please please please delete this page and the other ones from this set with my name in, i am crying because when you google my name these come up with my nipple in and it has severely affected by ability to get a job and my work.

please if you have any heart, pleaseeeee take this one down and also the other set of pictures associated with it from the same shoot, i'm so upset.

i've been trying to find ways to get in touch and i found this. i am also contacting the photographer to get the photo deleted off Flickr. However it is this page that comes up when you google me so pleaseeee delete them i beg of you :(

this one also you can see my nipple:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luissa_(8380291283).jpg

i need you to delete them all please. im distraught. if you need to prove who i am let me know.

- - UPDATE*** The photographer has removed them off Flickr so please remove them off here.***

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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:2000-158-19 Medal, Olympics, 1920, Antwerp, Gold, Obverse (7268561188).jpg

And also:

File:2000-158-19 Medal, Olympics, 1920, Antwerp, Gold, Reverse (7268561194).jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 00:08, 18 November 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:2000-158-26 Award, Medal, Olympic, Silver, Paris 1924, Obverse (7315871134).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 00:12, 18 November 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:2000-158-18. Medal, Participation, Olympics, Antwerp 1920, Obverse (7268561274).jpg

And also:

File:2000-158-18. Medal, Participation, Olympics, Antwerp 1920, Reverse. (7268802314).jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Graffiti_in_funiculars_in_Lisbon

Category:Graffiti_in_funiculars_in_Lisbon 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Parking Lot Sunset (6814725151).jpg

File:Parking Lot Sunset (6814725151).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

File:The Arn Limited Edition Offical Movie Sword (6103657404).jpg

File:The Arn Limited Edition Offical Movie Sword (6103657404).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Walker (2151971673).jpg

File:Walker (2151971673).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

194.98.70.139 07:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Red Boat (2147814014).jpg

File:Red Boat (2147814014).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

194.98.70.139 07:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Patiently waiting for 2008 (2150589846).jpg

File:Patiently waiting for 2008 (2150589846).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

194.98.70.139 07:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Old Houses and Sunrise (2198749528).jpg

File:Old Houses and Sunrise (2198749528).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

194.98.70.139 07:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Old flowers (2163393243).jpg

File:Old flowers (2163393243).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

194.98.70.139 07:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Lisboa (P), 2011, Arraial Pride 2011. (6236744605).jpg

File:Lisboa (P), 2011, Arraial Pride 2011. (6236744605).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Portugal (10371005216).jpg

File:Portugal (10371005216).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

188.104.116.80 16:06, 29 November 2013 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Matilda at the Cambridge Theatre (6478528515).jpg

And also:

File:Matilda Set at the Cambridge Theatre (6478532731).jpg

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 23:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

File:1951 Rolleiflex TLR.jpg

File:1951 Rolleiflex TLR.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Note: this particular picture could be kept per de minimis, as the main subject is the camera, not the danboard. Dereckson (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Melanie Kannokada From The Premiere of 'Love Lies & Seeta' (3).jpg

What is the reason removing the Delete flag for this Image file without reason. Please update. --Jenith (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:James Gandolfini @ Toronto International Film Festival 2011.jpg

File:James Gandolfini @ Toronto International Film Festival 2011.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pompilos (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Fishing - Angling

I recategorised a file you categorised in a (professional) fishing category. This is to inform you that fishing with just a rod is categorised in (not professional) angling. That's all. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your advice and edition. Tm (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Tm/Archive 4

Wash houses in Portugal

Stalking

Recent category-additions by you

Nijmegen bridge

Bot uploads to Category:Photos from the Bovington Tank Museum to check

File:DSC 3096 (3779650435).jpg

Categorização

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Airplanes to check

Faulty png map

Various duplicates of CoA Kleve

ana 7aziza

Edit war

Planes to be checked

Notification about possible deletion

Monumentos nacionais

Monumentos na RAM

Fortes e fortalezas, mosteiros e conventos

Anna Ternheim

Excuse me, sir.

Re: "(and so much probably urrelated to Chase Masterson)"

Sorry

Removal of Image File

Taylor Swift photo

Category

The TGV replacement

Ainda não aprendeste a categorizar?

Acerca da Categoria "Portugal"

Category:Boston

Nem pensar

Category:Canada

Regarding my removal of a comment of yours

Syria

Edit war

Unidentified aircraft and Unidentified airports

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Your recent revert

File renames

Thanks

a request

Edit warring in File:Body painting - Videoplayer.jpg

please please help me remove

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

File:Melanie Kannokada From The Premiere of 'Love Lies & Seeta' (3).jpg

Fishing - Angling

Navigation menu

Search