Last modified on 7 December 2014, at 02:09

User talk:Matthiasb

Return to the user page of "Matthiasb".
Welcome to the Commons, Matthiasb!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

PatríciaR msg 11:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token a0b5fa50b382eb91d0cc935c6d58f70cEdit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Matthiasb!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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

Here's how:

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

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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

BotMultichillT 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mount Lebanon Shaker Society 12July2008.jpgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:South bend indiana flag.pngEdit

Pay attention to copyright
File:South bend indiana flag.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Svgalbertian (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


File:Gelbe Karte Wikipedia.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Gelbe Karte Wikipedia.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Rosenkohl (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:TT Patricia photoEdit

Oops! Thought it was common practise to do it. For instance:

Tropical cyclones
Hurricane Ike
Hurricane Gustav
Hurricane Paloma

Countries
GPD
Acadie
Driving side
Strutter

Anyway, you make a good point and I have no reason to question you. Thanks for the information. Greetings, MatthiasB.--Izmir2 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Matthiasb. You have new messages at MGA73's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−


Hallo Matthiasb,
kannst du mal schauen was hier File:ALIPDZAMIJA.jpg passiert ist. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Kennedy-Warren Apartment Building - facade.jpgEdit

Looking at the flickr link, this file has an incompatible licence with Commons: "No Derivative Works". Perhaps flickr is not correct, and in that case the full resolution version should be uploaded. Maybe the original uploader knows what is going on.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The original uploader claims to be the guy at Flickr, the license at EN:WP seems to be fine. I will contact him. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: The Flickr guy claims to contribute to Wikipedia, so certainly the claim made by the original uploader is correct. Still will contact him. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

for your cleanup of Perth, Western Australia images - it is appreciated SatuSuro (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I certainly will only finish the buildings, I guess, though. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It interesting what you turned up - a timely reminder we have gaps in our coverage :) SatuSuro (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I actually came around because I looked for a map indicating the location of Perth because of an article in the German wikinews I am writing about the bade weather of monday night :) --Matthiasb (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
we do not have a mainspace en article yet - we are a bit slow on that - best to try http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/ and http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/24/2854495.htm for a start - and the bad news - we havent started yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia :( SatuSuro (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually you also do not have an article on the Queensland floods as well. It seems water catches you down under on the wrong foot all the time ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
... however there are some good flickr pics about the Perth storm I will upload later today (now it's about 6 pm local here) --Matthiasb (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw request??Edit

I would appreciate it if you would consider withdrawing the desysop request for Lar. It seems ill advised to remove the tools of hardworking and dedicated volunteers because of a difference in opinion about the most controversial issue to happen on Commons. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have appreciated if those admins involved would have not involved themself into this affair. Even Jimbo didn't ask for their assistance. And what about the hardworking and dedicated volunteers in other WMF projects whose articles and other efforts were hampered? (F.ex. in some 30 language versions the article on w:masturbation got vandalized through this unprecedented action.) On the contrary right now I am preparing further requests of desysop. Sorry, I am so disappointed about some acted and about the disrespect they showed against the rest of the community. I also explained on Jimbo's talk page why I think that the sysop rights of those involved should be removed, see this edit. Sorry, I would like to withdraw my request but then those involved would have to revert their misdoing first. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this approach just compounding the problems in the varies Communities if we go after individual users? This is divisive and is taking the focus off of finding solutions about how to help the global communities thrive. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well it is all the time an individual user who does things good or bad. We're responsible for our doings for ourselves. You can't hide behind your big brother, can you? As I said elsewhere doing what Jimbo did is one thing. Doing the same without any policy asking you to do the same, without consensus, against several principle and against the project's scope as well (e.g. the masturbation articles' link above). I don't know where the about dozen of admins who took part in the deletion orgy came from all about, and it should not play a role actually. The question should not be what the own moral standard one sysop would have but what consensus is considering as useful and what not. If not doing so, some fundamentalist sysop might delete anything else revealing more than this one or might delete all files in Category:Muhammad.
I would like to further discuss with you but have to call it a day now (about 23:15 local here). --Matthiasb (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I hope after another day and night has gone by that tensions will ease more and everyone can put this into better perspective. Talk to you later. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Matthiasb, mit so etwas trägst du nicht zur notwendigen Heilung der community bei, im Gegenteil, das riecht nach Rache und heizt die Stimmung nur weiter auf. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Túrelio, hast du meine Argumente überhaupt gelesen? Ich kann sie dir gerne nochmals auf deutsch darlegen, auch wenn das auf den einschlägigen Seiten in DE (Kurier, Adminnotizen) bereits ausführlich erfolgt ist. Ich muß leider Godwin's law entsprechend darauf hinweisen, daß an verschiedenen Stellen das Stichwort w:de:Bücherverbrennung 1933 in Deutschland gefallen ist, auch an die Ausgrenzunng sogenannter Entarteter Kunst fühlt man sich erinnert und ich fürchte um die Unabhängigkeit der Wikipedia-Projekte, sobald alle möglichen opinion pressure-groups auf den Trichter kommen. Und im Gegensatz zu einzelnen Wikipedia-Projekten sehe ich auf Commons keine Selbstheilung, da offensichtlich ein Admin aus A nach seinen Standards löscht, ohne Rücksicht darauf, daß sein Standpunkt in B ein extrem fundamentalistischer Standpunkt ist. Admins, die das nicht verstanden haben, verdienen nicht mein Vertrauen. Das hat nichts mit Rache zu tun und wenn es die Stimmung weiter aufheizt, ist das zwar bedauerlich, aber dennoch notwendig. Erstaunlich finde ich aber, wie ich auf der entsprechenden Seite gegen die Wikiquette angegriffen werde. Trägt alles zu meinen Befürchtungen bei. Leider. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Matthiasb, I'm very sorry that you are feeling attacked. :-(
I can understand why that you feel that way from the harshness of the responses in comments made to you on the desysop page. That was part of reason that I hoped that you would withdraw the request. I don't want any more people being made unhappy and feeling unwelcome in this Community. That includes you.
I asked you to withdraw because I sincerely thought that this desysop would trigger a response that was not healing for the Community. I still think that is true, and hope that you will consider withdrawing it. regards, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Matthiasb, Argumente überhaupt gelesen - ich kann englisch. Da wir auf :de früher mal eng zusammengearbeitet haben, will ich dir etwas eingehender antworten. Das Problem liegt doch hauptsächlich darin, dass Jimbo - aus m.E. durchaus verständlichen und teilweise berechtigten Motiven - eine unüberlegte, nicht zuendegedachte Aktion gestartet hat. Außerdem hat er alle admins auf Commons ganz klar autorisiert, ihn dabei zu unterstützen. Die admins, die der Einladung gefolgt sind und auch von der von Jimbo nahegelegten Dringlichkeit überzeugt waren, haben also durchaus in good-faith gehandelt. Bis dahin war Jimbo hier zwar nie nennenswert aktiv gewesen, dennoch zählt(e) sein Wort für die meisten schon einiges. Hinzu kommt, dass - wie zumindest jeder admin weiß - ohnehin nichts definitiv gelöscht wird und ggf. schnell wieder hergestellt werden kann. Dass sich User im Nachhinein Goodwin-mäßig echauffieren und unpassende, aber natürlich voll politisch korrekte Analogien herstellen, beweist höchstens deren Maßlosigkeit. Dein Wording ("abstrafen") auf dem de-Portal geht für mich ziemlich in Richtung Rache, warum also drumrum reden. Ich habe ja durchaus Verständnis für (manchmal über das Maß hinausschießende) Verärgerung während die Aktion lief (ein momentan früherer admin hat sogar unsere Hauptseite vandaliert) bzw. bis deren Stop absehbar war. Da inzwischen aber klar ist, dass alles nichts war, sollte nun langsam wieder der Verstand über die Emotionen dominieren.
Übrigens haben sich gegen Ende der Aktion sowohl admins, die die Aktion schon früh kritisiert haben, also auch solche, die mitgemacht haben, von Commons verabschiedet - teils aus Ärger über Jimbo, teils wohl auch wegen der Hexenjagd, die dann losging. Ich hoffe, dass einige doch wieder zurückkommen, da wir ohnehin total unterbesetzt sind und mit den elementarsten Dingen nicht nachkommen.
Da du kein Link angegeben hast, weiß ich nicht worauf sich dein "entsprechenden Seite gegen die Wikiquette angegriffen" bezieht. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Daß du englisch kannst war mir klar. :) Ich meinte da Kommentar wie grow up u.ä. auf der Request-Seite. Solche dienen keinesfalls dazu, die Situation zu entschärfen und A.F. Borchert braucht sich nicht zu wundern, wenn ich ihm bei Gelegenheit an passender Stelle über den Mund fahre. Ich habe in dieser ganzen Affäre viel gehaltloses gelesen, aber ihm gelang es, auch noch das zu unterbieten. Aber auf Englisch weiter, weil das ab hier quasi auch die Antwort auf FloNight ist.
(Continued in English, since this part of my answer to Túrelio is also answer to FloNight)
Already on May 6th any admin on commons must have known that Jimbo's cleaning up (btw. his wording can be translated into German as Säuberung and that word has a really bad connotation going back to stalinism) has very likely a good intention behind but was very poorly considered, planned, and done. However this continued still throught 7 May and 8 May which was inacceptable. You know that admins deleted files which were in use (you may have a look on User talk:Fran Rogers#Deletion spree, who appearantly didn't care the black under the nail of the thumb what were the results in other projects. Actually also picutres in categories which are linked in let's say French oder even English wikipedia are used. Deleting any file which is used in any WMF project without discussion in advance, without talking with the partticular project about it in some manner, is vandalism. (We don't talk on reasons like copy vio and the like, right?) Well, let's see who endorsed Fran. First, Pure vandalism is an over the top characterization. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Aha. Deleting files which are used, which are obviously needed isn't vandalism. Wrong opinion. Deleting files which are in use is real real big vandalism. It is legitim to discuss such files in the particular project if it would be possible to find a better one but deleting them is vandalism, really. The second appearing on this place was Mr. Wales. Second the endorsement. Simonxag, things may have changed a bit, but we can still have a discussion about any images that are being deleted. Nothing is irreversible.--Jimbo Wales (Diskussion) 19:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Well. Shoot first and ask later? Well, that is how the U.S. got involved into Iraq never finding the WMD which intelligence Mr. Rumsfeld told us Saddam had. Shooting first and ask then is a bad idea in an international project. I don't know where actually Túrelio is living, but for you FloNight I just mention that there are some German news and media reports from yesterday and today speaking about this affair as a "Kulturkampf" (somewhat like war of cultures) between right-wing-neoconservative fundamentalism in the U.S and the European way of life. Whatever Mr. Wales' intentions have been he surely didn't intend to produce such reactions.
On Saturday I was enacted in some discussion about the image File:Angelina Ash 4.jpg. I stated that the image doesn't show anything else than what a typical go go dancer does in an average European discoteque. If I only knew Friday night what happened on Saturday I took an image in the disco in which I accidently ran into my 18 yo. daughter :) Wknight94 however didn't understand my point. This place isn't a nude beach like he was meaning but like any other average European beach. It could have been pictured admidst of the w:de:Englischer Garten in the centre of Munich. Another example. Look up the Internet Movie Database enty for Basic Instinct. The movie is rated R in the US. But throughout the world some age restrictions are lower some higher. Some countries allow children from 12 years of age to watch Sharon Stone in her famous scene on the chair, other countries don't allow peopla under 18. In Germany young people from 16 years of age could go into the movie. (I am sure that not being the bloody graphic depictions of the killings in this movie Basic Instict would have been rated from 12 years of age in Germany as well.) I mentioned these examples because of the point is important.
Commons and admins on commons (and Jimbo) must learn that they can't impose their own measure of moral on images uploaded on commons. Commons is an image repository (btw. accourding to the preamble of COM:PS as well for other projects outside the WMF which can use them directly (not speaking of hotlinking but embedding resp. transcluding them directly) for the world, not for Iran or for some conservative eastern Europe catholic country, f.ex. Germany, the Netherlands or Sweden do have a much more liberal opinion on sexuality than habe other countries. OTOH many PC games with violence are banned in Germany. So it is and has to be an editoral decision of the particular project which kind of depiction they "tolerate" and which not. For commons admins there is nothing to do here, except one thing – per common policy any file on commons must be legal in the country of the uploader as well as in the U.S. because it is there where most of the servers stand.
During this crisis several admins acted selfish (as in following their own POV on the issue), childish (wheelwarring), or in blind pursuing of some actions Mr. Wales began some hours before. However, if Jimbo would say "take your hair dryer with you into the bath-tub", would you do so? Túrelio wrote, that Jimbo authorised commons admins to clean up the project. Mr. Wales did not tell them to swith off their brains.
Many of the admins involved acted without thinking about that we, the users of the commons, are trusting them (or at least we did). They blindly did what they did and even today some of them don't know that they treated many users of the commons – those who used to use images from commons in their respective projects – like shit. That BTW is how I feel and many other feel. They are not aware of that they lost our trust and some of them also lost our respect I guess.
I would like to read a statement by Lar that the statement he made on Fran's talkpage (mentioned above) was over the top because of indeed it was.
However I will withdrew my request. I am doing so for two main reasons. Because of what Túrelio wrote above in German and about what Gregory wrote. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your insightful consideration (and for the link to the splendid essay by Gregory, which I hadn't seen yet.) --Túrelio (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Matthiasb. I truly appreciate you reconsidering the desysop request. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RemovalEdit

Hi! I think that your removalvote of Lar was totaly wrong. An administrator should have a lot of trust from the community, so that he or she can do some mistakes without being revomed. Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, that includes Lar. A few deletions should not have any consequence about whether or not she/he can keep their administrative tools or not. It has to, in my opinion, be systematic errors for a removal of a user. I suggest that you withdraw the removal and apologies to Lar. We have to show people that do nonprofit-work more respect instead of suspending them for a minor error. Obelix (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File moverEdit

The functionality of the template {{rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Hauptseite 2008-03-16.pngEdit

Moin, kannst du das bitte auf File:Wikipedia Hauptseite 2009-03-16.png verschieben? Der Screenshot ist von 2009, nicht 08. Danke + Grüße, XenonX3 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Erl. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Maggie_L._Walker_of_Richmond,_Virginia_in_1913.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Maggie_L._Walker_of_Richmond,_Virginia_in_1913.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for renaming File:Bruce Battles of Sarbakusa03.jpg. I promise to go slower on the uploads next time. :) -- llywrch (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wenn schon mein Name genannt werden musste...Edit

Erstens heiße ich "A.Savin" und nicht "A. Sagvin" [1]. Zweitens komme ich nicht aus der Schweiz wie die Whois-Daten der 188er-IP schlussfolgern lassen; ein Beweisedit als IP folgt sogleich. Und drittens stelle ich keine (S)LAen mehr - weder als Account noch als IP - seit ich eurem lächerlichen MMORPG namens "deutsche Wikipedia" den Rücken gekehrt habe. Ihre sinnbefreiten Unterstellungen können Sie also woanders abladen, Herr Quantitätsinklusionist. LOL. - A.Savin 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Und hier wie versprochen als IP. Wie hieß es gleich nochmal in diesem uralten Werbespot: "Wer nicht vergleicht ist blöd". LOL. - 176.14.31.87 19:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:09E 2011 5day.gifEdit

Hallo Matthiasb!

Kannst du bitte die Quelle dieses Bildes präzisieren? Das ist nötig, um zu zeigen, dass es sich wirklich um ein NOAA-Bild handelt. Danke und Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ist das so schwer? --Matthiasb (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:BeverlyHillsOilField.pngEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:BeverlyHillsOilField.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

80.187.107.188 19:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!Edit

Cheeseburger.png Und immer auf die Linie achten. Mit den besten Grüßen von Sue. Liesel (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Na wohl bekomm's. Vielen Dank. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Bin meiner Linie immer treu. (Immer 150 Prozent ich.) Ob's aber auch die von Sue ist, wage ich dann doch zu bezweifeln.

File:Fiumicino1985.jpgEdit

La page italienne de cette image : http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fiumicino1985.jpg indique qu'elle est dans le domaine public et qu'elle est transférable sur le Commons. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mais cen n'est pas la licence que tu as choissi quand transferer le file sur le commons. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Racquette River.jpgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Racquette River.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Racquette River.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Shinya_Yamanaka2_cropped.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Shinya_Yamanaka2_cropped.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

File:Shinya Yamanaka2 cropped.jpgEdit

Pay attention to copyright
File:Shinya Yamanaka2 cropped.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Polarlys (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Smith Col Robert A Monument.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Smith Col Robert A Monument.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 openEdit

Dear Wikimedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Editor @ ar.wikiEdit

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Schalt doch malEdit

..den Zeitstempel in deiner Knipse ab. --Itu (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


HängehausEdit

Fähre zwischen Záhorská Ves (SK) und Angern an der March (A).JPG

Das solltest du mal von näher knipsen. --Itu (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wenn ich mal wieder da bin. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 AnnouncementEdit

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

VandalismEdit

Vandalism???? Commons is a image repository, but not an "image hosting site"! If an image is superseded it may be nominated for deletion (according to the Commons guidelines)! So the fact that a file is unused and/or there are alternatives with better resolution IS a reason for a deletion request! Regards. --Angelus(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously simple English words are not that easy to understand, though I don't see what actually is such difficult to understand in Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version. Indeed it is pretty difficult to argue, why a particular file is inferior, possibly it isn't possible at all.
Concerning the other file, you certainly missed that the file is used in thousands of talk pages and talk pages archives within the German WP. Please pay more attention. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"Obviously simple English words are not that easy to understand, though I don't see what actually is such difficult to understand..." are you saying I'm stupid? I understand what is written in the policy, for this, I have linked them to you. You simply argue your motivations and avoid making such comments!
However, it is clear that files such as these have a higher quality and resolution (even those who are not expert in photography can see it):
  1. File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg
  2. File:Leonardo da Vinci - Mona Lisa.jpg
  3. File:Mona Lisa.jpg
  4. File:La Gioconda.jpg
  5. ...
And there are others in that category.
Anyway, the files are actually used in a discussion (a survey) held by you ad hoc, not in an encyclopedia entry. --Angelus(talk) 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
IMHO you did not understand the policy because, as I presume, you just read only what you wanted to read. That has nothing to do with stupidity but is a problem of POV many people have when discussing a topic. Maybe most, perhaps all. —
Actually it depends on monitor quality and adjustions and/or resolution if one can see which image has a higher quality (and it's quite funny to discuss which of the several differently toned images fits better to the Mona Lisa which today does not appear as originally created, it has very likely darkened over the time – so you did everything but showing for which specific reason any of the four abovementioned files might be better. That is insufficient for deleting.
Further: That the files are used only on a talk page does not make it out of scope of project, indeed it should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope. but a project page, and it is of encyclopedic use to compare those files and show that your arguments are at least insufficient, to show that deletion praxis on commons and/or rules and/or praxis on other projects not necessarily corespond to each other. (BTW: de:w:WP:Café is no a talk page (rather is is a w:Gesamtkunstwerk and therefore educational). Ceterum censeo… --Matthiasb (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
My opinion might be a POV... Well, never thought it might be a POV yours? Here we are not talking about the project scope, but of a superseded image! The dpi of the image are objectively lower. The low resolution of the image necessarily affect the quality of the file. And is visible to the naked eye, on all monitors.
Moreover if it was enough open a poll - ad hoc - on an image (making the file "in use"), to close a deletion request, it could be done with all the images proposed for deletion. In this way, a user could avoid the deletion of any superseded image. --Angelus(talk) 21:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, that is the case, and it is good so. The DPI is not a criterion for the value of an image because one does not know for whatfor an image is intended. There are usages thinkable in which images with lesser DPI fit better. Good lighting/tone/contrast of an image might be far more important criteria. BTW: I can't see differences between most images in the Mona Lisa category, aside from tone, with several being far away from the original as it appears in present than the images you asked for deletion. Greetings. --Matthiasb (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You see the Jameslwoodward comment at: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci.jpg
Greetings. --Angelus(talk) 15:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Matthiasb you said both here and in the DR that sometimes a lower res image is better, I dispute that for the simple reason that WMF software does rescaling on the fly and therefore more is always better on WMF. Outside users can always resample down if they wish. Please give us an example of a usage that requires a lower DPI that cannot be achieved easily by resampling. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Philipse Manor Hall.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Philipse Manor Hall.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LMFAO - /let's laugh/ 01:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Henry W. Kiel.jpgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Henry W. Kiel.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Henry W. Kiel.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Josve05a (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the original uploader at EN:WP. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Poster Kats Antigua.pngEdit

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Poster Kats Antigua.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is so difficult to add a pair of brackets that you need to add a label almost as big as one screen page, User:Jarekt? Next time simply fix it and don't start bureaucracy. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is difficult, because it is done by batch processing and I never look at individual files. What is happening is that I run a query that finds all the new files (<7 days old) which are missing a license (for whatever reason) and than add {{no license}} tag for tracking and notify the uploaders that they are missing licenses. The whole operation takes 10 minutes. But I repeat it 1-2 times a week and tag 1-50 files at the time. There is no men power to "simply fixing" all those files manually, especially since it is usually spend on manually fixing similar volume of old files that somehow "lost" their licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I see, editing 1 to 50 pages twice a week is a tremendous workload. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:JTWC WP2214-20.gifEdit

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:JTWC WP2214-20.gif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

JuTa 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)