Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, 123iti!


Not fairEdit

I think it is not a fair game renaming pictures from Hungarian into English or Serbian. This name was given by the author, you should respect his work, language, etc.

I do not understand your point - author released these images in public domain and that means that anybody could change anything in them. Name change to more descriptive forms is fully in accordance with policy of this web site. Besides that, most names of images uploaded by this user are not even in Hungarian but in some undefined shortened name forms like Bsztoc1, Tsches2, etc. Change of such names to more descriptive forms is a valid action here. 123iti (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Until this day you have no problems with the only Serbian filenames (like Bezdan1.jpg or parta1.jpg), you changed only hungarian filenames. I think you try expand your nacionalistic point of view into the Commons. You should make some pictures by yourself if You want serbian filenames. I think your practice is not the european way of cooperation. Beroesz (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain what exactly is a problem? What nationalistic point of view you speak about? I did not finished my renaming proposing yet, so Bezdan and Parta files will be also proposed for renaming when I find time for that. I am also conducting categorization of files, so I cannot achieve everything imediatelly. I am just trying to make file names more descriptive and more understandable for everybody (if you did not noticed, I am not proposing name changes into Serbian but into English, using names and descriptions that are common in English language). So, tell me, why file names should be in Hungarian according to you? 123iti (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The search in the commons can see the whole description page, where you can find the english description and the Serbian names & descriptions too. You could solve the search problem with adding categories too. If somebody want to find the pictures, he can find it ith this options.
This names was given by the author, who is a hungarian contributor. I think your real goal in not a "descriptive name", just anihilation of the hungarian filenames in serbian territory. Beroesz (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed, author relesed images into public domain and everything in these images including file names is a subject that could be changed by other users. Release into public domain means that author does not own these images and that there is no valid copyright reason that you "defend" names given by him. You also did not gave me an answer: why images of Serbs, Slovak and German churches in Serb, Slovak or former German settlements should be named with Hungarian names? Perhaps you are the one who want to impose Hungarian names into Serbian territory? Just give me a valid reason why these names should be in Hungarian. And, if that means so much to you, I will not propose renaming of files that showing Hungarian churches in majority Hungarian settlements, but I see no reason to have files of Slovak, Serb and German churches under Hungarian names. 123iti (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

...and what is your next step of uniformisation? Delete the hungarian or german text from the description? ("not important, there is only serbian population in the village (You also did not gave me an answer: why images of towns in Kosovo with serbian names? File:Streets in Đakovica 001.jpg ----> Streets in Gjakova 001.jpg) I canot I can only repeat myself: changing the name given by the author is not a fair work. I think the author has the right to chose the form of filename. Beroesz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I never deleted any description in any language and I explained that author released all rights to the public. Seems that you are an Hungarian nationalist who want to see everything named in Hungarian. Sorry, but I see no other way to explain your behaviour. Are you still dreaming Greater Hungary and do you plan to come with tanks to force all of us to use your names? Trianon was 90 years ago, live with that, man... 123iti (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the old hungarian kingdom was not a good thing and colapsed because of people just like you. Them tried to deny and to hide the exist of other ethnic communities. (Let me ask again: why images of towns in Kosovo with serbian names? File:Streets in Đakovica 001.jpg ----> Streets in Gjakova 001.jpg ???)

I have already say that I have no problem that names of files that are showing Hungarian majority settlements in Serbia could remain under Hungarian names and same could apply to albanian names used for Albanian majority settlements in Kosovo. Is this some kind of trick in which you trying to make me to look like nationalist while it seems that you are in fact one? 123iti (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Zdravo! Nemoj! Непотребни што радиш и неморално! Напуните твоје слике, што си фотографирао.   Szajci pošta 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ne razumem te baš najbolje. Šta je nemoralno i koje sam slike ja fotografisao? 123iti (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Nemoralno, da uplodaš na srpskom jeziku. Reko sam, da trebalo bih uplodati tvoje slike, koji ti si fotografirao.   Szajci pošta 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ako misliš na promene imena fajlova, svoje razloge sam objasnio na administratorskoj tabli, pa možeš tamo da diskutuješ o tome. Ja sam inače ubacio ovde i sam nekoliko fajlova a ubaciću i druge kad dođu na red. Ne vidim kako je to povezano sa nazivima drugih fajlova. 123iti (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Vojvodina & the Hungarian Soviet RepublicEdit

Hello, I see really no mistake in the map, it just holds some extra information: it shows the old Hungarian territory under French and Serbian control at the time. In a way it did have a relationship to the Soviet Republic: it contained Szeged that was a santuary for counter-revolutionaries where Horthy's National Army was formed (along with an anticommunist reactionary government). Think of it as a different version showing some slightly different information, but no real mistakes... --Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Croatia-Slavonian and Dalmatian lands should be marked as taken up by Yugoslavia and France (though I am pretty sure the army itself was not Yugoslav apart from the name at the time). The term occupation (at least in Spanish) describes the situation perfectly (until the Treaty of Trianon the lands of the former Kingdom of Hungary were under military occupation): it was a territory part of a country (Hungary since its independence in late 1918) that was taken up by foreign military that interfered in its public life. I really do not see any negative connotation: as a vanquished nation it was naturally occupied by the victors. Whether the territory should have been given to Yugoslavia or Hungary is a nationalistic dispute I am not interested in. Neither country asked the inhabitants anyway. I already uploaded a new version with the new map.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor, let me make some considerations:
  • I can make additions to maps and so can you, even if you do not like them or disagree about their contents. Maps can change. No one is constrained to repeat maps. The map I created (that can be freely modified) states it is based on the "old" one, it does not have to be a exact copy.
  • You say Yugoslavia was formed in December 1918 (correct and agreed) and was recognized in 1919 (correct for most allied countries as well as far as I can tell). Then you say that Hungary was not recognized till late 1919 (I did not check, you are probably right). Then the Austrohungarian territory was occupied since it was taken from Austro-Hungary till Yugoslavia was recognized, wasn't it? Besides, the map includes areas such as Pécs, for instance, "under control" of the French and Yugoslav troops but was not Yugoslavia's according the Trianon Treaty you so kindly point to me. And so it was part of the territory marked in the map (just look at the final border). Do you prefer to call it Austro-Hungarian territory occupied by the Allied powers (effectively by Serb and French troops since late 1918)? Even in Austrohungarian times it was part of the kingdom of Hungary since the Ausgleich of 1867... Was there any efective difference between say, Pécs and Subotica? I don't think so...
  • Talking about historical knowledge I am sure you know about the Belgrade armistice between the new Hungarian government of Karolyi and the French command. One of the conditions of the agreement was the commitment by the Allied powers to allow the Austrohungarian administration (effectively Hungarian) to carry on their work till the peace defined the final borders. It was signed with the new Hungarian government, not the imperial one in Vienna. So the territories were Austrohungarian, were to keep their Hungarian officials while the Allied armies advanced towards Germany. What is called a military occupation, I'd say...
  • However, if you find the term so problematic, please go and change it, the map is there to be improved. I disagree with your point of view and I find the term correct but I find the discussion not worth the time....--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for your reasoning. I think I see your point though I am afraid I do not share it. However, as I said before, I have no time for this discussion and I attach no real importance to it. You can easily change the map to your satisfaction using open source inkscape, for instance. Just save the file as SVG (not PNG), open it with inkscape and double click on the text you want to change. You will be able to edit it, save the file as usual and upload the new version into Commons.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I checked the map: I am afraid you broke it, it is not a real SVG any more. It has an embedded PNG inside that cannot be edited. The idea behing the SVG format is that it is a vector format that can be resized without pixeling and can be changed easily, even with a text editor (it is an xml format) unlike PNG. Please revert to the old image, send me the changes you want made and I will edit the original map. And DO NOT make any extra remark. Just send me the changes and I will try to sort things out when I have the time.
The background is irrelevant, wikipedia adds the white for you (just check any SVG in wikipedia). I think you edited the PNG rendition of the map, not the SVG itself... Next time you edit it, please learn first (I did on my own, it is not that difficult) or ask for help here [1]], for instance, but try to make sure the file is ok before you upload it...Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
All right, I sorted out the mess. I included your definition of the situation, though I restored the Hungarian name of towns and added the missing ones, making the map more uniform (Hungarian names and Spanish or controlling power names in brackets). Do not remove them. If you want to create another version you are free to do it but do not break mine unless there is a mistake (a mistake, not something you do not agree with). If you need anything changed either learn how to do it without breaking it or ask for help at the right place. Preferably add whatever your comments may be in the discussion page. It is there for that purpose. But next time do not assume people are there to follow your opinions however well-founded they may be and when you see fit. Either you do things properly yourself or you follow the procedures to request someone else to do it for you. And that will obviously be when they have the time and see fit. Breaking other peoples' work is a lack of respect. Period, end of discussion.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Colour has been changed and I will move on to other things. It does not matter how the SVG looks like when turned into PNG, SVG is a different format. If you want to turn the SVG into PNG for whatever reason I suggest you save it as SVG, open it in inkscape and draw a white rectangle at the lowest layer. Then you'll have a white background. Then use the export option in the menu to save it as PNG. But this has nothing to do with wikipedia. I suggest you do a bit of searching in google...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Vlajda moze. Trebas obojiti u Iscapeu. Samo moras videti da li su granice jasno odvojene, da ne obojis i ono sto ne treba. -- Bojan  Talk  04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

request for image modificationEdit

Would you please modify File:Balto slavic languages1997.png in the following ways:

  • Make the columns narrower so that the text will be more readable when the image is included as a side bar. See en:Proto-Balto-Slavic language and en:Slavic languages for current usage.
  • Right align the numbers in the second column - this will make comparison easier.

Coroboy (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no time for this now but you are free to change image in the way you like. 123iti (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


OK, just please create rename template on that page, with proper explanation. None of the pages on multiple wikipedias have references regarding name of those "Western Outlands". --WhiteWriter speaks 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved it, as when i look up, it really is just better, more accurate name. Western Outlands does not mean anything for its self. And AleXXw actually just followed guideline, your request was not the best... :) Anyway, you should see COM:RFR. Thanks, sorry for misunderstanding. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hungary 1683.pngEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Hungary 1683.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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Iaaasi (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:BiH 1739.pngEdit

File:BiH 1739.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lilic (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey 123iti, a category you created, Category:Fortresses in Vojvodina, is now part of the discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2015/12/Category:Fortresses_in_Smederevo - I thought you might be interested in participating. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "123iti".