Notice This user may have limited availability due to real world events.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.


Deutsch | English | français | magyar | македонски | +/−

Warning: this page is guarded by Mr. Fuzzybottom, and he don't mess around.

File:Beata Igielska.jpgEdit

Yes, I know, but in this case, after explanation how free licences work, the uploader asked to delete the file ASAP, so there is no need to wait with deletion. Polimerek (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Polimerek. I'm not seeing where the author requested deletion, either on-wiki or in the OTRS ticket. Can you link to this? GMGtalk 14:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ticket:2019123010003463. In his last E-mail the uploader asked to delete this file, after explanation that we need not his agreement or the person on the picture but the author's one. I guess he had no contact with author or author rejected free licening the picture. Polimerek (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Polimerek:   Done If the ticket somehow gets fixed and you need it restored, feel free to post here and I'll help out. Thanks for taking care of it. GMGtalk 22:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mediation requestEdit

I was hoping Masumrezarock100 would fix that TGcomix deletion discussion. Fae changed the insulting category but copied over the text that was clearly just an attack on AshFriday's credibility. I foolishly thought that this had reached some kind of peace, so I removed it. And Fae reverted me. My next edit was going to be moving the multiple "keeps" that were copypasted into Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files nominated for deletion by AshFriday to the talk page, but I can guess how that will go over. This is all getting a little strange. It's just a deletion discussion. Can you help steer this back to what passes for normal around here? 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Apologies. I was in meetings basically all day today and I still have a conference call in 20 minutes. I'll try to look into it. I'm not sure how much one person can do alone, but maybe we can ping some helpful colleagues too. GMGtalk 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but the deletion discussion has already been closed. Probably best if I just leave it alone. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ANEdit

I wonder if you may wish to close COM:AN#Correct_use_of_categories_-_and_an_admin's_behaviour including the IBAN "proposal" please? As already stated, I have no time and desire anymore, and due to bashing and lies I stop any engagement in maintenance for the time being. Many thanks in advance. --A.Savin 18:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Commented there seconding the request for close. I would do so myself but I commented also. I can close it if no one wants to, but would prefer an uninvolved party did so. GMGtalk 18:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

UndeletionEdit

I believe it is you who is mistaken! Fakechuckle. No really, urm. I own that game, I can do what I want with it. I can reproduce pictures of it whenever I feel like, they can't sue any of us for that? Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mantr33r (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mantr33r, just because you own a copy of the game does not mean you own the intellectual property rights to the program. You may own a copy of the latest movie too, but that doesn't mean you can go out and start selling rights for someone to make the new Star Wars film or start selling themed space ship toys, because you don't own the copyright. You just own a copy.
You may choose to listen to that advice or not. If you do not, I would warn you that repeatedly uploading copyrighted content is considered very disruptive and can result in a good deal of unwanted attention. GMGtalk 21:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

However, you can write the entire plot of the new Star Wars film down on Wikipedia! All movies on Wikipedia have a plot section! It's not a violation to share information, especially screenshots of games you own: Fair Use, again, wins yet again. Thank you!!!!!!! Mantr33r (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mantr33r: An original summary of a plot is not covered under copyright. There is no copyright for the general arc of a story, but only for the original text, performance, music, artwork and video presentation. If you were to copy large portions of the original text of a script, that would be covered under copyright, and would not be allowed. Beyond that, and I believe you have already been told this more than once, the English Wikipedia allows limited fair use content. Commons does not. For further information see Commons:Fair use. GMGtalk 22:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Fast Close of UnDR -- Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:DayOfInfamy2.pngEdit

Over the years there have been several discussions of how long UnDRs should remain open. This has evolved into a general agreement that except for requests by OTRS volunteers for restoration, that all UnDRs should remain open for at least 24 hours and preferably for 24 hours after the last comment, see Commons talk:Undeletion requests/Archive 1#Closing time?.

While it isn't formal policy, given that we are a round the world organization, it makes sense to allow editors around the world to comment, even in completely obvious cases like the one above. I hope you agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Sorry about that. Maybe I should have been more clear. There are two requests for the same file, as this file is also included in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Various_photos. I can certainly reopen the one if you would like though. GMGtalk


That was my mistake much appreciated Mantr33r (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you please assess this imageEdit

Would you please assess this image. I uploaded it because the source stated the images were by "courtesy of NOAA www.climate.gov". Subsequently I have thought about the qualifier, original images, and realised that the images may have had lines indicating ocean currents added, so the images are no longer the sole work of NOAA. If you agree with that, would you please delete the image.

On a question of procedure, sometimes I upload an image and, for whatever reason, subsequently change my mind and want to delete it. But it seems ordinary users are not given any tools to achieve that. If that is the case, then is there a standard procedure I can follow to achieve deletions? Or do I need to communicate with an administrator. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Epipelagic. Well, ideally we want to find and cite the original image. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing anywhere online where the original from NOAA actually is. Google images doesn't find anything besides Research Gate and Slide Share, and TinEye seems to pull a lot of unrelated images. You can nominate your own image for DR in the hopes that someone can figure it out better than we've been able to do. Alternatively, if you would like to have your own unused recently uploaded images deleted, you can tag them under COM:CSD by adding {{SD|G7. Author or uploader request deletion}}. GMGtalk 13:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :) – Epipelagic (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

hello

FATIMA ASFAL (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Mises Institute Campus 1.jpgEdit

Hi GreenMeansGo. I have permission for upload the file from the organization. Explain me better what I have to do to undelete the image. I have to send an email to who? Or I have to give you an email of the institution? Please, explain me better this. --Belandra (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Belandra. The organization needs to send verification releasing the content under a free license. They can do this by following the instructions at COM:CONSENT. They will need to send it directly from a verifiable address, ideally one they normally conduct business from. For a variety of reasons, we normally cannot accept permissions forwarded from third parties.
Once the permission is received, one of our OTRS agents will request undeletion and make the necessary changes to the file. GMGtalk 18:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Oneida Students.jpgEdit

Hi! A student of mine uploaded this and since we can't really verify anything, was asked to remove it. Can you remove it for me? File:Oneida Students.jpg. I'm trying to find out more about the provenance of the image, but until then it's probably best that the image not be on Commons. I don't want to go through a formal deletion discussion so that when we do re-upload it (or request it be restored) the discussion won't potentially harm its chances of survival. ReaderofthePack (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Shalor. I'm afraid I couldn't come up with any better. The school closed in 1918 (this source), but I can't find anything that says this was ever published, rather than sitting in an archive for a century as a glass negative. I've added it to Category:Undelete in 2039. Also, previous deletion is neither here nor there, as long as we have more information that verifies the copyright status. GMGtalk 13:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for adviceEdit

I've been able to google that the U.S. Department of Energy's Photography office is run by Heidi Palombo, electronic address: heidi.palombo@hq.doe.gov -- whose office's "FAQS" page at https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/employee-services/faqs#ETVC has content reading thus.

Extended content
"[...] please call in advance to schedule passport/visa photos and portraits. ________ DOE Photography Collection (Energy Technology Visuals Collection-ETVC)

1. Are the images in the collection available on-line? Yes. [Lists links where images can be found on DoE website or its flickr stream, etc.] [ . . . ] 4. Are your images in the public domain? Yes the images available on the web sites are in the public domain. [ . . . ] 9. How do we credit the pictures? Credit the U.S. Department of Energy. [ . . . ]"

§   §   §

"With 27,000 pictures, the ETVC is an excellent resource for DOE program personnel preparing publications, presentations, and briefings. We also serve DOE contractors, other Federal agencies, state and local agencies, universities, the media and the public. In addition, we maintain the files of photographs taken by the DOE photography department." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgdon's secret garden (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

However, the photo currently at Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PF_Bk249_team.png -- of Clarice Phelps along with her other three colleagues Frank Riley, Shelley VanCleve, & Rose Boll on DoE's Oak Ridge National Lab's isotope Bk-249 team is NOT apparently one that is found on their website as far as I know; however, the Photography office's FAQS page seems to indicate that there are electronic images pertaining to ORNL that visitors to the DoE could access on-site -- hence, Ms. Palombo could as well through her own server, if the group photo of its Bk-249 team could be found there in this fashion, if she could be persuadable so to do, and if she might know the pertinent info for Wiki Commons purposes about the image or if such info might somehow be attached to it somehow.

How would you suggest I word the request in an e-mail to her (presumably from my personal e-mail account(?)) and what stuff, most concisely, would I be looking for?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Hodgdon's secret garden: It's difficult to say really. As I've indicated in the other discussions, government agencies often misunderstand their own copyright, in any case where you are not actually dealing with the Copyright Office. So for example, the DOE in your links says that all the images on their Flickr are in the public domain, and they've marked them as such on Flickr. However, some of these are clearly wrong.
For example, this photostream is all marked public domain US Govt work. But it's not. It's the result of this contest which is open to the public. The rules there specify that the content be released under CCBYSA 4.0, and so the images on Flickr should also be marked CCBYSA 4.0, which has different rules (e.g., attribution required) than a public domain photo would.
So when dealing with these third parties, you're not really looking for if they say their content is free, but for why the content should be free. You're not really looking for a statement, you're looking for the rationale behind that statement. GMGtalk 13:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

CC by - NC - ND 4.0 Int'l pro'lly a no-go too, right?Edit

TED Talks's webpage TED.com Terms of Use:

Unless otherwise indicated on the website, audio and video files, transcripts and/or information about a speaker are licensed via Creative Commons license (CC BY -- NC -- ND 4.0 International), which means that certain TED Content may be used for personal and/or educational purposes as long as the license terms and TED Talks’ Usage Policy are followed.---"6. License to TED Content" (date: May 15, 2018)

Advance thx ( ? for ur response ) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm - Then bottom right @ this page https://www.ted.com/talks/clarice_phelps_how_i_claimed_a_seat_at_the_periodic_table reads, © TED Conferences, LLC. All rights reserved. <shrugs>--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, see Commons:Licensing. We can't accept non-commercial licenses. GMGtalk 11:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

How can I upload Media'sEdit

Hii, How can I upload media without show it's own work. Trishneet Arora India (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is that if you didn't take these photographs, then it isn't your own work, and you can't upload it as if it were. GMGtalk 16:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

BjorkEdit

Thanks for the clarification! The two requests came in one after the other, and were very similarly named, so it was a tad confusing. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. It took me a second too. Except when I googled the author and Bjork, it led me back to Commons and that's when I noticed the difference in the file names. GMGtalk 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Need help again!Edit

Hello sir! I hope you are doing fine! Need some help over here! What can I do, so this picture is ok? Regarding copyright issues. - Ελ Γκρέκο (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Ελ Γκρέκο. What we would need in order to determine the copyright status of the art is information about when it was created and/or by whom. It's likely quite old, but we would need to have an idea of how old. GMGtalk 14:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It's around late 1800's. We need to know the one that took this picture or the one that created the image (painted it)?⟵Ελ Γκρέκο♔Go ahead♔ 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ελ Γκρέκο: Because it's a faithful reproduction of a two dimensional work, we're really just concerned about when the artwork was created, and the photograph would only be covered under a separate copyright if it introduced original creative elements. For example, taking a scan or a photograph of only the Mona Lisa makes no new copyright. Taking a photo of your buddy and his mom posing in front of the Mona Lisa would make a new copyright for the "non-Mona-Lisa" parts of the photo. GMGtalk 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Got it! So a photo like this one wouldn't have any copyright issues by itself but by the depiction of it. But how can we know who was the creator of the image? I am trying to find the painter but no luck so far! It's certain that it was created more than a century ago. But I can't find by whom!⟵Ελ Γκρέκο♔Go ahead♔ 15:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, if we can just find a source to substantiate when it was created, that would also be enough without knowing the author, so long as the original work was more than around 120 years old. But other than the plain copyright stuff, I'm afraid architecture and artwork related to Orthodoxy is well outside my area of expertise. GMGtalk 15:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Good! I am sorry for asking you all these questions! I'll try to ask the uploader about the date it was created! If that could actually even help somehow!⟵Ελ Γκρέκο♔Go ahead♔ 15:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
No worries. I expect that actual answer is something like "this was taken from X cathedral, and the artwork from the interior is from circa 18th century", but we need a source to actually say that this is the correct answer. GMGtalk 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I sent them already. When/If they get back to me I am going to ask for a source as well! Thank you anyway for your help!⟵Ελ Γκρέκο♔Go ahead♔ 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BlockEdit

Ah, a range block. I was collateral damage then? :0 Thank you for fixing. Was a bit shocked to see "block for harrassment and vandalism". regards, --Merbabu (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Merbabu:. I just clicked the wrong box when clicking lots of boxes. No harm intended. If I can ever be of any help feel free to stop by. GMGtalk 01:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
All good. :) Better to have you checking up on things rather than not at all. :) --Merbabu (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons AppealsEdit

Dear GMG,

Thank you for your contributions at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#An_Appeals_and_Mediation_Board:_a_proposal. You wrote

"If I remember correctly, this dispute went from here, to UDR, to AN, and back to UDR before it was resolved."

  • What do UDR and AN mean?

Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you wrote that we use the higher standard of free cultural works. But there no problem resolution, or protection for contributors (uploaders, GLAMs) is discussed. OTRS-nl thinks it follows some copyright law, and has the right to apply unspecified rules of Commons and WMF they however don't (want to) declare, are they secret? (If you like you could answer in the discussion itself, i can repost there if you prefer.) Hansmuller (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Hans. Sorry if I was using confusing language. COM:UDR is the venue for requesting undeletion of files, and COM:AN is the administrator noticeboard here on Commons.
As to the difference between the law and the standard applied on Commons, maybe it's a bit difficult to explain. For our purposes, it is the difference between what is legal and what is ethical. For example, it may be legal in many circumstances and jurisdictions for your employer to lie to you, or otherwise unenforceable under the law. It is however not ethical for them to do so.
For the purpose of Commons, because our mission is to make free content available for our sister projects and the public at large, we have determined that our standard for "ethical" is the definition of "free" under free cultural works, which entails:
  • The freedom to use and perform the work
  • The freedom to study the work and apply the information
  • The freedom to redistribute copies
  • The freedom to distribute derivative works
There may be any number of licenses or other terms that satisfy some of these criteria, but not all of them. These may be legal in the strictest sense, but we have determined for our purposes that they are not ethically useful in accomplishing our mission. GMGtalk 14:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

the NIAID's labsEdit

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/novel-coronavirus-sarscov2-images NIAID Rocky Mountain Laboratories authored these photographs. Presumably NIAID Rocky Mountain Laboratories is not a contractor inasmuch as uploaders of these same to Commons have labeled them works of US govt employees.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea if they are contractors or not. GMGtalk 19:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Coronavirus an déi Jonk.jpgEdit

Hi, you nominated this file for speedy deletion. Whats the exact reason, knowing that the author published the file as free from copyright as you can read on the foot of the picture. Kee Cyopyright means no copyright. so there is no violation op copyright. --Les Meloures (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

PS. the same for File:Coronavirus an déi Jonk 2.jpg --Les Meloures (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well Les Meloures. Maybe there's something here I'm not aware of, but even with the statement at the footer, I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "no copyright", and I don't know that we can interpret that to specifically mean a CC0 public domain dedication. Normally we would need the creator to contact COM:OTRS and specify a specific free license, or indicate one publicly online in a way that can be verified. GMGtalk 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
At any rate, I have converted the speedy deletion nomination to a deletion request for further discussion. GMGtalk 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yoot Inc.Edit

Want to expand on your reasoning? @GreenMeansGo: Russianoldschoo (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Russianoldschoo: Because it's not clear what possible educational purpose this image may serve. Wikimedia Commons is not a general repository for images, but only for files that fall within the scope of the project, which generally requires them to at least be potentially educationally useful. This normally excludes things like random memes, joke images, or generic trivia from online. GMGtalk 13:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Edited linkEdit

I Boldly edited your link now that the target was archived - hope it was the correct discussion and you don't object. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Much appreciated. GMGtalk 15:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Answered...Edit

--Ganímedes (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

block of User:The LauterEdit

Hi,

can you, please, point me where in Wikimedia Commons this sockpuppet was used abusively? Thanks. Ankry (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ankry: See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otgo. This was one of several sockpuppets where there is apparently a history of providing false or misleading information on uploaded files, with the apparent purpose of utilizing multiple accounts in order to avoid scrutiny. The master is not blocked, but their uploads are nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Otgo.
I realize I probably could have provided additional information in the log entry to make it clearer. If you believe that the block was in error, you are free to reverse it without consulting me. GMGtalk 11:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I have seen enwiki SPI, but I am still not sure if there is any sockpuppetry abuse on Commons. I do not intend any urgent actions. However, I would appreciate if you make a note / explanation about this block in COM:ANU for records and/or for further discussion, if needed. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  Done GMGtalk 12:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for following up and feel free to provide any feedback you have that may help me improve my decision making. GMGtalk 13:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020021110009349Edit

Hi GMG :) Just letting you know there's a ticket you might want to take a gander at (it's related to the issue just above). Regards, --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Gee fiz @Nat:. I'm quite confused. Sent you an email. GMGtalk 23:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Also relevant Ticket:2013040210002435. Pinging @Sphilbrick: to see if they think we should just kick this to the mailing list. GMGtalk 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:CDC inmate meeting.jpgEdit

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

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


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: unfree stock image
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | British English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

BevinKacon (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Löschung von South Park BildEdit

Warum löschst du ein Bild zu einem Artikel, wenn der Ersteller des Bildes damit ok ist, dass das Bild bei Wikipedia ist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dettmero: Sprichst du Englisch? Entschuldigung. Ich spreche kein Deutsch. Perhaps someone such as @Túrelio: can help to translate. GMGtalk 20:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Sure. Why do you delete my Picture from the South Park game? I am the creator. It's a mix from the Presskit and my own creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dettmero: The images of the characters are copyrighted and non free. This is only a place for free media, which means you can't copy a work created by someone else. GMGtalk 01:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Profane Trump Sign with Protestor.jpegEdit

 
File:Profane Trump Sign with Protestor.jpeg 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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)