Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Juandev

00-Alif-Wasla.png cs, en-3, es-3, pl-1
XHTML-2, CSS-2

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ŠimekMTEdit

Děkuji za odpověď. Na email info-cs@wikimedia.org jsem zaslal text se zněním: Dobrý den. Já, autor fotografií: MT 2005.jpg, MT 2010.jpg, MT 2000.jpg, MT 1995.jpg, MALIGNANT TUMOUR.jpg, Promophoto.jpg, souhlasím s tím, aby tyto moje fotografie byly zveřejněny prostřednictvím Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MALIGNANT_TUMOUR.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_1995.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2000.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2005.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2010.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2013.jpg) pod licencí Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (zkrácené české znění: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.cs; plné znění: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode). Beru na vědomí, že toto dílo může být libovolně upravováno a přebíráno dalšími stranami k jakémukoli účelu včetně komerčních.

Tuto zprávu pro jistotu pošlu rovněž z emailu skupiny MALIGNANT TUMOUR, které jsem členem. S pozdravem Robert Šimek

Snad to bude stačit. 07:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

KostEdit

Tady jsem Ti něco nahrál do odborné fotografie. --Gampe (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Díky. Příště použij správnou šablonu.--Juandev (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Která je ta správná? --Gampe (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Promiň, mýlil jsem se. Fotografie jsou ze srpna 2011 a to téma Odborná fotografie, ještě neexistovalo, takže šablona je správná.--Juandev (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ta skříńka nemohla být vyrobena v roku 1982, to se již nevyrábělo....bude to 1962

File:Roudný (Karlovice), roubenka č. 27.JPGEdit

Ahoj. Taky jsem dostal maila (předtím jsem s tím člověkem vyřizoval něco ohledně jednoho článku, tak si na mě vzpomněl), takže se chci zeptat, co s tou fotkou zamýšlíš. Imho by stačila odmazat SPZ, odstraňovat číslo popisné by byla z encyklopedického hlediska blbost. --Harold (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hele, já tomu nerozumím. Pán chtěl dát pryč čp. a SPZ, tak to teď nahraju podle jeho přání.--Juandev (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
SPZ ok, to chápu, ale opravdu nevidím důvod v popisku neuvádět přesná, veřejně dostupná data v podobě čísla popisného. Tvoříme encyklopedii, ten dům je vyfocený z veřejné cesty, číslo popisné asi bylo taky vidět, dá se zjistit na mapách.cz, čili jsem ho do popisu vrátil. Přímo v názvu souboru být nemusí, to je pravda. --Harold (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
OK.--Juandev (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use photo of drying fishEdit

Dear Sir/Ms May I use photo of drying fish for school books? Contact me at sandra.poon@pearson.com

Thanks Sandra Poon Pearson Malaysia

ESO ?Edit

Ahoj Juane, ono se řekne ESO, ale když některý bych namísto to be sorted dal do to be deleted. Ne, neboj, bylo to nadsazený, ale jeden příklad popisů za všechny špatné: File:Kabel na čokoládě.JPG .. kabel, no budiž, ale čokoláda? Stačí zadat do googlu, abys měl ponětí, co to je čokoláda. A jen tak mimochodem, to co je na obrázku nejspíš tady nenajdeš, protože google sortuje taky podle popisků. Sorry, nemám ambice všechny ty špatné, nebo nedostatečné popisky fotek opravovat, to předpokládám u autora .. už jen proto, aby tu fotku někdo našel a mohl použít k textu. Je to snad ten hlavní smysl commons, ne? Užívej dne --Krochoman (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No to je těžký. Pokud si myslím, že vím co je čokoláda - tak si to nebudu hledat na Internetu.--Juandev (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:ETA 314Edit

Ahoj Juane, přijde mi divný název kategorie Category:ETA 314, když názvy soborů, které jsi tam vložil začínají "ETA 412"? Nesplet jsi název té kategorie? Jinak chápu, že na Commons někdo uploaduje i snímky mající pro něj hlavně osobní význam, ale domníváš se, že snímky takovéto kvality/obsahu jsou pro Commons přínosné? Díky za porozumění a odpověď, s pozdravem --Krochoman (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ano, máš pravdu - je to chyba, samotný snímek ukazuje, že se jedná o jiný typ. Nicméně to již někdo odstranil, což je škoda. Ano kvalita je velmi špatná, nicméně zatím lepší snímky nemáme. Nemyslíš, že je lepší něco, než nic?--Juandev (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
ad 1) Nevím kam ses díval?!?, ale chyba je tam stéle - Category:ETA 314 stále obsahuje snímky vysavače ETA 413 ... ad 2) Na první velice tmavé a zrnité fotce je obyčejná šňůra se zástrčkou, která ŽÁDNÝM způsobem nedokumentuje vysavač ETA 413. Na druhé fotce, technicky stajně nekvalitní, je pouze část s tlačítky. Ani tenhle fragment dostatečně neukazuje, jak zmíněný vysavač vypadá. A když se ptáš, pak tedy ano, já si myslím, že lepší nic než tu mít tyhle fotky. Nedoufáš přeci, že by je někdo vložil na stránku wikipedie, že ne? Stejně tak si nedokážu představit praktické využití fotek z Category:Diazid SD a Category:Logarex products, přestože ty jsou už v lepší kvalitě. --Krochoman (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Nemám čas tady o tom diskutovat, takže takhle. Až se k tomu dostanu tak to přejmenuju a přefotím. Jinak využití těchto fotek vidím. To že zatím nejsou články o těchto předmětech neznamená že nebudou v budoucnosti a pokud nebudou v budoucnosti, tak se hodí do obecných článků jako například "vysavaš" - bude to velmi hodnotné spestření těch hesel.--Juandev (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Myslím Juane, že hlavně nemáš čas (i chuť) o své práci (snímcích a textech, které tady zanecháváš) dostatečně přemýšlet - a to je veliká, veliká škoda. --Krochoman (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated LicenseEdit

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Dolní Stropnice, památná lípa malolistá a sýpka (2).JPG, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Dolní Stropnice, památná lípa malolistá a sýpka (1).JPG, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 08:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Dolní Stropnice, kaplička u rozcestí.JPG, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 08:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Dolní Stropnice, kaplička.JPG, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 08:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Dolní Stropnice, dům čp. 16 s předzahrádkou.JPG, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 08:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Photographer's Barnstar
Hello,

I love your image of the hair in a microscope (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_black_hair_surface.jpg) and was hoping to use it in a book of my poems that is coming out next summer. I realize it's in the Creative Commons; however, it has the "Share Alike" license, I need to obtain written permission since the publisher would likely not issue the entire book with that license. You will of course be attributed and I would be happy to send you a copy of the book. Please let me know -- & thanks for the great pics! -Nate nshoks (at) gmail (dot) com Nshoks (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Google maps spendliky.jpgEdit

 
File:Google maps spendliky.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.

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 | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--NNW (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)



Afrikaans | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | Lëtzebuergesch | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk | norsk nynorsk | polski | română | русский | српски (ћирилица)‎ | srpski (latinica)‎ | slovenčina | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | Tagalog | українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Juandev,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

 
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 11:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanksEdit

Hi Juan. Thank you for the cup of coffee on my talk page. I see you take beautiful photographs! I looked at some of your photos and I added a caption to one great barn photo. I need to go to work, but I will look at more later. Thanks again. Jim Derby (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


File:Unidentified disease on Opuntia ficus-indica (001).jpgEdit

Hi Juandev, this is a typical infestation with Dactylopius coccus. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was coining the idea if it is coshenille.--Juandev (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wrocław (003).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

The description of the image is incomplete! Can anybody identify the building?
Promiň Juane, obrázek je to hezký, ale zcela nedostatečně identifikovaný. Který je to kostel či stavba? Souřadnice? Dík za info! --Gampe (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Viz category. No problem to add it.--Juandev (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Teď jdu ale spát.--Juandev (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Čížová, hřbitov (009).JPGEdit

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 | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Čížová, hřbitov (009).JPG. 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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 20:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Knihovna geografie PřF UK/Stereo-diapositivesEdit

Proč skrytá? --Gampe (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Je to normální praxe, že se technické kategorie označující původ skrývají. Na Commons se totiž kategorizuje, podle toho co je na snímcích vidět, ostatní kategorie technického charakteru jsou skryté.--Juandev (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dobře, díůk! --Gampe (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are missing a }Edit

You have a typo in Your recent uploads, like here.

feydey (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Err, thank you. Good work for bot.--Juandev (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Tvary nekrotickych zon carodejnych kruhu.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 | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Tvary nekrotickych zon carodejnych kruhu.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 19:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Oslava, Nové Veselí.ogvEdit

 
File:Oslava, Nové Veselí.ogv 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 may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


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

Pristurus (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Cs-Benin.oggEdit

  File:Cs-Benin.ogg 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

INeverCry 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Wrocław (054).JPGEdit

  File:Wrocław (054).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pnapora (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 AnnouncementEdit

Round 2 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 second round of 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 were 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.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 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 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation Recording GadgetEdit

Visual workflow draft for pronunciation recording gadget; If you have trouble watching this video here, watch it on vimeo. A more extensive/explanative version is available.

Hey Juandev, as a contributor of pronunciation audio samples, please share your opinion on the creation of a gadget guiding through the whole process (recording, uploading and inclusion) and, provided that you’ll attend Wikimania, please feel invited showing your interest in a proposal for a presentation that will cover the gadget for 5-15 minutes (depending on the audience).

Questions? Do not hesitate asking me on my talk page. Thank you.

Message sent by Rillke (talk), delivery by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results AnnouncementEdit

Picture of the Year 2013 ResultsEdit

 
The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Juandev,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Photographer's Barnstar
Guten Tag,

wir möchten darüber informieren, dass wir Dein/Ihr Bild (Wiki-Commons)

zum Blick auf den Kozákov / Svatoňovice, Karlovice (CZ)

- selbstverständlich inklusive der Copyright-Hinweise und Urheber-Angaben - in unserem nicht-kommerziellen Projekt << FVKS-Kalender "Unterwegs" 2014 >> zum Thema „Ausblicke" verwenden.

>> http://www.kalender.fvks.eu

>> http://kalender.fvks.eu/2014/04/11/blick-auf-den-kozákov-svatoňovice-karlovice-cz/

Wir hoffen, alles korrekt umgesetzt zu haben.

Der Kalender begleitet auch unseren im Jahr 2014 laufenden Fotowettbewerb (fotowettbewerb.fvks.eu), ebenfalls zum Thema „Ausblicke".

Grüsse FVKS - Förderverein Kulturstadt Görlitz-Zgorzelec e.V. kalender@fvks.eu, Agata, Cornelia, Matthias fvks (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zlonice, výtah.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zásmuky, mariánský sloup, svatý (001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Železniční trať Bošice - Bečváry u Zásmuk (002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zásmuky, družstvo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PP Hradiště, stromky.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


File:Český Krumlov, Široká ulice.ogvEdit

  File:Český Krumlov, Široká ulice.ogv 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JiriMatejicek (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Golf Resort KarlštejnEdit

The Sand Mine is next to GRK. Look at google maps. Greetings Tiefkuehlfan (talk) I have it changed ! Greetings Tiefkuehlfan (talk)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pískovna u Golf Resortu Voškov, profil.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NPP Vosek, struska (001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lovčice (okres Hradec Králové), znak na kostele.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NPP Vosek, struska (005).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lanová dráha Diana, kolečko.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Štěrk se struskou.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Železná struska.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NPR Kněžičky, majka obecná (002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Medoújezdský potok, obnažený břeh.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PR U Eremita, cesta.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PR Vysoký tok, slepýš.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NPR Kněžičky, prvosenka jarní.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hořejší Kařezský rybník, neznámé rostliny.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Řebřík, sklep.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Tažná tramvaj 03.jpgEdit

  File:Tažná tramvaj 03.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 21:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Miocenní sladkovodní vápenceEdit

Hi, even if theese pictures are clearly some "geological cross sections" (term used in my mother language too), on commons this category is more useful for diagrams/schemes images. All the pictures you cited, are indeed yet categorized as "outcrops", and so part of geological pictures metacategory. Because theese photos are of great quality, i take the initiative of categorize "Miocenní sladkovodní vápence" in "geotopes" too. If you know more of the legal status of the park, fell free to move it ina more specific category as "Geological parks" or even "Geoparks‎". Regards. --Ciaurlec (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thx. I dont know much about geology. Pictures are from the natural monument site. In the Czech republic I am not sure if we have geoparks, probably not, because geological sites are parts of natural protection.--Juandev (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rdestice hustolistáEdit

Plants on photoes described as Groenlandia densa belongs to genus Callitriche. Certainly it is not Groenlandia. Kenraiz (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. I was not certain. As I have seen some originaly uploaded images if G. densa, they looked different. I will move it away from the category.--Juandev (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Chemický vzorec (001).jpgEdit

  File:Chemický vzorec (001).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rhadamante (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Chemický vzorec (002).jpgEdit

  File:Chemický vzorec (002).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rhadamante (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Chemický vzorec (003).jpgEdit

  File:Chemický vzorec (003).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rhadamante (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Chemický vzorec (004).jpgEdit

  File:Chemický vzorec (004).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rhadamante (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Rotate picturesEdit

I beg you, please don't rotate pictures under the same name, because they often are used exact that way, and you may destroy an exact calculated composition. Make it a new picture, for instance: xy.jpg will become xyrot.jpg or something like that. --Siga (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Any example? I use the rotate bot, so I cannot do it the way you want. BTW, you cannot rotate it back? Sure you can, its a wiki.--Juandev (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Does the bot give a new name after rotating? The case: User:Olyngo asked to rotate of Blbunder.jpg by template, but I want to use the picture unrotated. So there should be two pictures. If I realize by chance, that someone rotates the pictures in use, I can make a second picture. But it would be better, if the bot gives a new name. So in this case I removed the template rotate'90, till I know, what will happen exactly. Is it your bot, can you chance it? --Siga (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not aware of breaking any rule. If you want to change it propose it to the community.--Juandev (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jiří Helekal, portrét.jpgEdit

  File:Jiří Helekal, portrét.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

  Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

okEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Praha,_Wenzigova,_film.jpg - but there is the issue of the duplicate occurring. JarrahTree (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So we delete the other one.--Juandev (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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 | 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, Juandev!

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:

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").

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.

--Gampe (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Borová Lhota, kaplička.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Veletín, sušení.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

VicugnaEdit

Stáhl jsem si Vámi doporučený Vicugna uploader ale musím říci, že z něj nejsem příliš nadšený. Vadí mi následující:

- při načítání souborů do uploaderu nejsou vidět miniatury snímků v adresáři, ale pouze jejich popis

- Není mi jasné, jak mám pojmenovat a popsat soubory najednou v dávce (wizzard má možnost kopírovat údaje ke všem následujícím souborům s možností výběru požadované možnosti), zde jsem našel pouze kopírovat pouze údaje předchozího snímku bez možnosti výběru požadovaného

- dále mi vadí nemožnost jednoduchého kopírování například jména souboru jednoduchým přetažením názvu do pole popis --Petr1888 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chválov (Nechvalice), pastvina.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Juandev,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth 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 (2015) 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 were 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.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bělehradská (Praha), rekonstrukce (170).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 09:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Bělehradská (Praha), rekonstrukce 15 (004).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 09:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Bělehradská (Praha), rekonstrukce 15 (002).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 15:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:VW Golf, stěrače, oprava (002).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 20:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Unknown organic object (01).jpgEdit

  File:Unknown organic object (01).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File talk:VW Golf, stěrače, oprava (002).jpgEdit

You: "What is this?" Me: "Orphaned talk page of a duplicate you uploaded." Reventtalk 13:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The duplicates listed above were all 'identical' files, as in SHA-1 matches. Images you accidentally uploaded twice. Reventtalk 13:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, OK thx.--Juandev (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (014).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 21:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Struhařov (okres Praha-východ), duha.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zvánovický potok (003).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Český Dub II (022).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jihlava, Masarykovo náměstí 58, horní síň, strop, svorník.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (020).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 02:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (019).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 02:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (018).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 03:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (001).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 04:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Boženy Němcové (Český Dub), č. 18, narušená omítka II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (015).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 21:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Boženy Němcové (Český Dub), č. 18, narušená omítka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Janov nad Nisou, socha IV.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Klívie, nemoc (001).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgická (Prague), rekonstrukce (013).jpgEdit

Reventtalk 23:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Re. CategoryEdit

Moved to User talk:Allforrous#Category.--Juandev (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Please don't nominate categories for deletion, just use the move function. Greetings --Jonny84 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? I dont understand you.--Juandev (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want rename categories use the move ("Přesunout") function and don't make new ones. --Jonny84 (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think my way is faster. That is a problem of someone else, who creates wrong category.--Juandev (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The Commons rules say, that categories shouldn't be deleted (It also could be linked on another projects). Moving a category is also simple and fast..--Jonny84 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
OH, I see. Ill do that than. Thanks for the information.--Juandev (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't need the move template. On the top of the site under "More / Další" you can find "Move / Přesunout". This works fast. --Jonny84 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thats cool. But same to you, try Cat-a-lot extension.--Juandev (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please use the word County like it's already used on English Wikipedia en:Category:Villages in Strzelce County. Thanks. --Jonny84 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is pretty confussing - for Czech village categories we use District. So is there any policy regarding that. Because polis "powiat" linked to "county" is the same as Czech "okres", "District" here on Commons.--Juandev (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
But in USA this district, would be called county.--Juandev (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, this is for further discussion I guess. Some pl cats are created via pl system some not. But commons is global, so we should talk about one system.--Juandev (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
e.g. you want me to use "county" for pl "powiat", but I can see here tree of "powiate" in cat name: Category:Powiats of Poland.--Juandev (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


Read the rules instead of erasing my edits: Commons:Rename a category. 1) "Rename process: If you want to do the move yourself, you need to do two things: Move the category page using "move" tab from the top bar of the category page. Move the included pages (files, subcategories, galleries etc.) from the old category to the new category. You can use Cat-a-lot tool which can be activated in your personal preferences." and "Should the old category be deleted? If the old category name is a correct old or synonymic or alternative name of the subject or a correct expectable name for such a category, it should by marked with a <tvar|template>{{category redirect}}</> template permanently.". --Jonny84 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Look Johnny84. Different cases, different needs. I would delete one of the Lubieszów categories, the above citation doesnt say we cannot delete a category. PS. it would be better if you structure your posts to me better, because each case you are talking is different.--Juandev (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
1) It's not my fault, if you are not able for multitasking, but starting talks on many talk pages... 2) In that case it's clearly. The category name has no errors, so it shouldn't be deleted. --Jonny84 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kamenitý rybník, plocha II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Topělecký rybník, rákosiny.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Topělecký rybník, konstrukce hráze.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Krašovický rybník (Čížová), kachny II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zálesný rybník, plocha II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Praha, rekontrukce Belgické (017).jpgEdit

  File:Praha, rekontrukce Belgické (017).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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Kategorizace pražských domůEdit

Nazdar. Koukám, že děláš v té kategorizaci pěkný čurbes. Za ty roky už sis možná mohl všimnout, že v Praze (a prakticky všude jinde, snad kromě Ostravy) kategorizujeme území i budovy primárně podle evidenčních částí obce, tedy podle čtvrtí, nikoliv podle městských obvodů nebo samosprávných městských částí. Pokud by sis toho dosud nevšiml, tak by tě to mohl trknout nejpozději ve chvíli, když jsi založil kategorii Category:Houses in Prague 5, která naprosto nezapadá do existujícího systému kategorizace, a musel sis všimnout, že zůstala sirotčí, zařazená jenom v jedné neexistující kategorii. Že kategorie domů v Praze 5 není zařazena vůbec v žádná nadřazené kategorii domů, to už je zase asi spíš o nepochopení principu kategorizace než o nepozornosti. O tom, že i při názvech kategorií jednotlivých domů je vhodné respektovat obvyklé zvyklosti, v jakém formátu se české adresy zadávají, ani nemluvě. To "no." tam ani nenese žádnou informaci navíc, například že bys tím vyjádřil, o jaký druh čísla jde. Půlku těch kategorií máš stejně duplicitních, protože tě vůbec nenapadlo se podívat do kategorie dané ulice, jestli náhodou ta či ona vila už svoji kategorii nemá... a že slovo "Helenka" má primární význam zcela určitě jiný než vilu na Smíchově, to tě aai taky samo netrkne, co? --ŠJů (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Čili kategorizovat podle částí obce ne obvodů. Tak já moc poslední dobou v Praze nefotil, takže jsem to zapoměl.--Juandev (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Helenka a jaký prostímtě? --Juandev (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No pardón, ale snad je jasné, že ty smíchovské vily dostávaly názvy podle běžných ženských jmen (většinou asi manželek nebo žen investorů), a ne že ty ženy se jmenují podle těch vil. Samotné jméno "Helenka" rozhodně neoznačuje vilu na Smíchově, to jméno funguje v běžném jazyce jenom jako přívlastek ke slovu "vila" a ve spojení s ním (podobně jako okresu Semily nelze říkat jen "Semily", pokud to není v tabulce, kde slovo "okres" je v záhlaví). Tímto stylem byly na přelomu 19. a 20. století pojmenovávány vily ve stovkách čtvrtí, obcí a měst. Těžko jde tuctové ženské jméno samo o sobě považovat primárně za označení jedné pražské vily. "Vila Helenka", to už by šlo, protože to opravdu je asi silně dominantní význam, ovšem jako plně jednoznačné označení se, jak Google napoví, používá "Kordova vila Helenka" - pak už by nám nemělo hrozit, že do té kategorie budou padat i stejnojmenné vilky ze všech koutů naší vlasti, třeba ta Rychtářova říčanská vila Helenka. A názvy kategorií v Commons by pokud možno měly být od počátku výstižné a jednoznačné.
A co se týče toho "zapomněl" - no tak pokud zapomenu, tak věnuju dvě tři vteřiny, nanejvýš minuty, tomu, abych se znovu rozkoukal, než tam začnu vkládat fotografie. A zakládat kategorie aniž bych se napřed rozhlédl po existujícím kategorizačním stromu, to už je vyloženě absurdní. Přece vůbec ani není možné zakládat kategorie, aniž bych se podíval, do jaké nadkategorie ji zařadím, a tedy jaké kategorie už existují kolem. Nepřijde ti divné, když zakládáš kategorii, pro kterou ani neexistuje patřičná nadkategorie (nebo je skoro prázdná, protože slouží něčemu úplně jinému), a nenajdeš tam ani žádné sesterské kategorie, i když musíš tušit, že fotografií k těmto tématům tady jsou nahrané tisíce?
Jinak tu ještě máme problém "Buildings" versus "Houses". Je otázka, proč se to tak stalo, ale z praxe vyplynulo, že základní větví kategorizačního stromu, která je nejpodrobněji územně členěna, jsou kategorie "Buildings" tedy kategorie budov. K ní je spíše sekundárně jako nadřazená kategorie někde doplňována kategorie "Structures" (stavby) a různé podřízené kategorie, mezi něž může patřit i "Houses", tedy domy. Kategorie "houses" je nepraktická proto, že zahrnuje příliš různých typů staveb (od venkovských zemědělských usedlostí přes venkovské i městské rodinné domky (to jsou v podstatě "Villas", ale my ten termín používáme spíš jen pro výstavní architektonicky cenné vily, i když vlastně znamená všechny rodinné domky) až po městské blokové domy, kde zase zahrnuje celý přechod od starých gotických či renesančních domů po "činžáky", přičemž není jasné, jestli mezi "Houses" mohou patřit i bytovky, paneláky, věžáky. Takže vlastně ta kategorie "Houses" nedává moc velkou přidanou hodnotu oproti té kategorii budov (Buildings). Kancelářské budovy typu "skleněná krabice" asi už "Houses" nejsou, ale co s domy, kde byly byty postupně nahrazeny kancelářemi? Jsou to stále "houses", i když už neslouží pro "housing"? Tedy, existence kategorie "Houses" v zásadě sice není špatně, ale pokud nechceš tuto kategorizační větev pro dané město vytvořit a naplnit systematicky, tak nahodilé zakládání těchto kategorií opět vytváří spíš duplicitu a čurbes v systému - krom toho když už, asi by právě bylo třeba vytvářet spíš specifičtější kategorie pro konkrétnější typy domů, a to už by asi bylo natolik komplikované a bylo by tolik mezních a smíšených případů, že by taková kategorizace nakonec nebyla funkční. Takže prosím, zůstaň radši primárně u těch existujících kategorií "Buildings", které máme systematicky založené ve všech krajích, okresech, pražských čtvrtích i ve všech významnějších městech, a jakékoliv specializované podkategorie zakládej jen v případě, že to máš důkladně rozmyšleno a chceš to dotáhnout do konce, ne tam šoupnout jen dva tři domy a "po mně potopa", tu dřinu ať dodělá někdo jiný. Výhledově by asi bylo dobré vytvořit i systematické kategorizační větve pro jednotlivé typy domů, ale vůbec to není jednoduché, proto taky se to asi ještě nepodařilo. --ŠJů (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Kategorizace provozoven a závodůEdit

Ještě jednou zdravím. Nejsem si úplně jistý, jestli je šťastné kategorie jednotlivých závodů, provozen, dep atd. nějaké firmy nazývat zrovna pořadovým číslem. To bychom pak takhle mohli přejmenovat i kategorie vozoven a garáží pražského Dopravního podniku (klíčovskou garáž na "Garáž 2", žižkovskou vozovnu na "Vozovnu 8" atd. Ale budiž, pokud je to u firem jako PPL nebo JUTA nejobvyklejší způsob, tak nezbývá než to akceptovat, i když samozřejmě srozumitelnější by bylo označovat je podle lokality, popřípadě podle původního účelu dané budovy atd. Každopádně pokud už pro názvy kategorií zvolíme tato krycí čísla, tak pak je bezpodmínečně nutné, aby kategorie měly pořádný popis (nejlépe úplnou adresu budovy, pokud ji mají přidělenou), a aby byly patřičně kategorizované podle adresy (město, příp. ulice), případně podle určení budovy (závody JUTA by asi šly do příslušné kategorie Factories nebo Industry, pro logistické areály zatím žádnou specifickou kategorizační větev lokálně nemáme). --ŠJů (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ano, ideální to není. Například v případě Juty se navíc čísla závodů měnila - může pak vzniknout pěkný čurbes. Nevím ale jak jinak to přehledně dělat. Podle lokality myslíš jako podle sídla toho závodu?--Juandev (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Nevím, jak je to dneska u těch logistických firem. V dobách socialismu bylo obvyklé, že podniky měly velmi systematicky číslované provozovny (ČSAD závod 512, Fruta závod 05, Laktos závod 04 atd.), ale téměř vždycky tomu číslu odpovídalo místní označení, tedy ČSAD závod Semily, Fruta závod Mochov, Trojská nebo Kyjská mlékárna atd. Tipoval bych, že i normální řidič PPL spíš ví, že jede z Hradce do Malešic, než je by jel z 35 do 14.
Když se podívám na web PPL, tak tam názvy dep najdu v rolovací nabídce menu u položky Nabídka zaměstnání - takže depo 14 tam má název "Praha sever", depo 31 tam má název "Praha (Jažlovice)", depo 10 má název "Praha západ", depo 01 název "Praha východ", jinak je většinou názvem depa jméno města, kromě depa 80 "All You Need".
JUTA taky používá k označní závod normálně názvy měst, viz [1], akorát je problém, že půlka těch závodů je ve Dvoře Králové nad Labem (01, 03, 07, 11, 14, 15), takže pak je potřeba použít zároveň číslo i název města ("JUTA závod 03 Dvůr Králové nad Labem"). Asi tedy bude vhodné uvádět v názvu kategorie vždy obojí, číslo závodu i místo závodu, stejně jako se to používá na těch webech. --ŠJů (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Respektování kategorizačního stromuEdit

Juane, prosím tě, zkus při zakládání nových kategorií aspoň trošku respektovat existující kategorizační strukturu a nové kategorie do ní normálním způsobem začleňovat. Chápu, že nějakého začátečníka, kterého sem škola donutí nahrát dvacet fotek a pak už ho tady znovu neuvídíme, nemá cenu do toho zasvěcovat, ale ty přispíváš dlouho a intenzivně, tak by se asi vyplatilo, abys na sobě zapracoval a pokusil se osvojit si ty základy, které mnozí jiní pochopí hned a intuitivně.

Teď před pár dny jsi založil Category:Streams in Bruntál District. Tu jsi ovšem nezařadil do žádné nadřazené kategorie potoků, tedy Category:Streams in Moravian-Silesian Region. Bodejť, protože pokud bys tuto kategorii hledal a podíval se do ní, tak by sis všimnul, že moravsko-slezské potoky zatím nejsou rozděleny podle okresů. Tedy se rozhodni: buď budeš respektovat existující stupeň kategorizace, tedy to zařadíš do té existující kategorie, anebo se tedy rozhodneš vytvořit v tomto kraji podkategorie podle okresů, ale to pak tedy s sebou nese tu práci, že musíš roztřídit všechno, co už v té nadřazené kategorii je. Pokud děláš polovičatou práci, že založíš novou podkategorii, strčíš do ní něco svého, ale zároveň nevytvoříš celou sadu kategorií dané úrovně a nepřetřídíš do ní obsah nadřazené kategorie, tak tím v kategorizaci děláš chaos (protože v té tvé nové kategorii pak chybí to, co by v ní mělo být) a samozřejmě tím přiděláváš práci ostatním, kteří pak po tobě ty nedodělky musí nahonem dodělávat. V daném případě řekněme založení té kategorie z hlediska budoucnosti nebyla chyba, protože v některých krajích už potoky podle okresů začínáme třídit, ale zkus prosím respektovat existující kategorizační strom a rozvíjet ho systematicky a nikoliv nahodile, a pokud nemáš dokonale zažité základní principy, například do jakých kategorií musí patřit podkategorie křížící dvě témata, tak pak je snad lépe nebýt v zakládání nových kategorií tak iniciativní a měl bys radši preferovat umísťování souborů do těch již založených úrovní kategorií.

Kdyby ses trochu rozhlédl po kategorizačním stromu (u letitého uživatele bych čekal, že to udělal už dávno), věděl bys, že potoky standardně patří do nadřazené kategorie "Bodies of water". Pokud to náhodou nevíš, dvouvteřinovým nahlédnutím se to dá zjistit. Ty jsi ovšem založil úplně mimo jakýkoliv systém kategorii Hydrology in Bruntál District. Pochopitelně jsi vůbec nepřemýšlel o tom, kam tato kategorie patří do kategorizačního stromu, o čemž svědčí, že jsi ji nezařadil vůbec do žádné nadřazené kategorie hydrologie. Jinak by sis asi všiml, že kategorie Hydrology vůbec ani nemá podkategorii Hydrology of the Czech Republic, natož podle českých krajů, natož podle českých okresů (a pochopitelně používá předložky "of", tedy hydrologie něčeho, nikoliv předložky "in", tedy hydrologie někde). Protože v Česku podrobně kategorizujeme hydrologické jevy, nikoliv hydrologickou vědu (ta obvykle nemá územní podkategorie do takové hloubky). Opět: pokud by ses byť jen pokusil svoji novou kategorii zařadit do správné nadkategorie, musel by ses porozhlédnout po kategorizačním stromu a musel by sis všimnout toho, jaké kategorie existují a pro daný účel se používají. Musel by sis všimnout, že Bodies of water in Bruntál District tu existuje už od října 2014 a že stejným způsobem se vodní toky a plochy kategorizují ve všech 14 krajích a 76 okresech Česka. Ano, některé věci člověk fotí častěji a jiná témata třeba jen výjimečně, ale jde pořád znovu a znovu o ten samý princip: respektovat existující kategorizační systém a nezakládat kategorie bez rozmyslu, živelně, naslepo, nahodile, bez kontextu a návaznosti na tu existující strukturu. Kategorizační systém nemůže fungovat tak, že si každý založí takovou kategorii, jaká ho zrovna napadne, aniž by se vůbec podíval, jestli pro stejné téma už neexistuje kategorie pod jiným názvem, a ještě k tomu ji do toho systému nezařadí na správné místo (pokud to místo ani nehledáš, tak pak není divu, že ten kontext nenajdeš). Někomu možná dělá problém angličtina, ale vždyť proboha nikdo nefotí tolik různých témat, že by se těch pár slovíček a jednoduchých syntaktických pravidel prostě nemohl naučit, jako se člověk učí programovací jazyk... A když něco fotím poprvé, tak prostě strávím pár minut fulltextovým hledáním a u slovníku, než dané téma v kategorizačním stromu najdu. Nebo to najdu přes interwiki pomocí české Wikipedie. Jen jde o to, aby člověku došlo, že nelze kategorizovat, aniž by člověk respektoval kategorizační systém. Kategorie nejsou nahodilé hashtagy. --ŠJů (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dneska ráno při kategorizování jsem konečně zjistil, jaký je správný kategorizační strom. Takže už to dělám. Ale je to pěknej záhul, když není vytvořenej. Já tolik času nemám, respetive mě to nebaví. Otázka pak taky je, jestli při přechodu na tagy bude vůbec potřeba, podle mě moc ne, protože pokud něco bude zařazeno v kategorii obce nebo okresu, tak si Wikidata vytáhnou od jinut informace o tom, jaký je to kraj a země.
Takže bych to rád dělal tak abych moc nenarušil současnou praxi. Bohužel ale nexistuje cesta, která by kombinovala přidání podrobných kategorií a snadného zjištění kam to zařadit. Do obecných kategorií, nebo národních kategorií to řadit nechci, protože protože mi nižší správní zařazení přijde ochuzení.
Nechci tě, nebo někoho otravovat, špatnou prací, ale mě to nebaví. Znamená to trávit nad tím dny a týdny a to mě nebaví. Máme rok 2017, dneska by šlo všechny tydle věci dělat poloautomaticky, což by hrozně urychlylo celej systém. Všude jinde to mají jednoduší (zonerama, rajče, Picassa) a naše Nadace nedokáže za 10 let naprogramovat usnadnění. Takže bych byl rád, kdyby se více lidí zapojilo do nátlaku na Nadaci, aby se s tím konečně pohlo.--Juandev (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Tak on každý systém má své výhody a nevýhody, a každý systém se dá nějak zdokonalovat. A zrovna systém kategorizace používaný na wiki projektech má docela hodně těch výhod, je docela dost intuitivní (i když pro tebe asi ne dost) a zároveň geniálně jednoduchý a univerzální. Mně tedy připadá, že je docela velmi jednoduché nahlížet do kategorizačního stromu a zorientovat se v něm, a je dost lidí, kteří to zvládají téměř napoprvé. Ty máš takový velmi svérázný styl, který vypadá, jako že se po existujících kategoriích a jejich logice a zvyklostech moc nerozhlížíš, ale asi je to opravdu jen nedostatek určitého citu a ne nedostatek vůle. Někdy to může být přínosem, když se na věci díváš jinak a třeba začneš kategorizovat podle nějakého kritéria, podle kterého tu nikoho předtím ještě kategorizovat nenapadlo, ale pokud se přitom dostatečně neorientuješ v existující struktuře kategorií a nezačleníš do do ní, tak tím dost pravděpodobně vnikne spíše chaos nebo nějaká mrtvá kategorizační větev, která nemá šanci se ujmout.
Proti Rajčatům a Picassům s jejich tagovacími systémy má wiki kategorizace právě tu výhodu, že při vší své jednoduchosti je strukturovaná. Proti tomu jsou bohužel Wikidata jen velmi nedomyšlený nedodělek, který skončil docela brzo ve slepé uličce. Za ty čtyři roky od jejich ukvapeného nasazení se už bohužel nepodařilo pořádně vyřešit ani jednu ze zásadních chyb v jejich koncepci, a vypadá to, že je snad nikdo ani vážně neřeší. Pokud někdo plánuje zbourat funkční kategorizační systém a nahradit ho nějakými tagy, tak se obávám, aby to nedopadlo ještě hůř. --ŠJů (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Church_of_Saint_Martin_in_Okrouhlice_(Benešov)Edit

Radek Linner (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello Juandev, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh, thx. I was wondering whats wrong.--Juandev (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Goethova lávkaEdit

Ahoj Juane, mám dotaz k této tvé editaci. Goethova lávka je ta, kterou v Mapách.cz mají označenu jako Gogolovu lávku? Z jakého zdroje máš ten název? --ŠJů (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pokud to vzadu je Lázeňský most, tak to vpředu nemůže být Goethova lávka. Ta je úplně jinde, pokud tedy ještě vůbec stojí. --ŠJů (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Díky za upozornění. To jsem se asi zmílil.--Juandev (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Category move request.Edit

Hi! SjU asked to move the Category:Jesuit garden you created. I did some digging and came up with the name in Czech. Could you please have a look? Thanks!   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Extrahované fotografieEdit

Zdravím. Všiml jsem si, že jsi už v roce 2011 extrahoval řadu fotografií z Fredyho "kolážových" scanů, například tuto. Bohužel jsi ovšem do zdroje (parametr "source") neuvedl správně odkaz na zdrojový obrázek, z něhož jsi dělal výřez, a ani k původním obrázkům jsi nepoznamenal, že už z něj byly jednotlivé obrázky extrahovány, takže bude teď celkem těžké ty obrázky spárovat (a dost možná tím přiděláš práci někomu, kdo je bude časem extrahovat znovu, protože nebude tušit, že už jsi je extrahoval). Asi by bylo dobré tu sadu fotek znovu projít, k extrahovaným fotkám doplnit odkaz na zdrojový obrázek a ke zdrojovým obrázkům doplnit odkazy na extrahované fotky.

Krom toho jsi k extrahovaným obrázkům dal licenci PD-self, jako bys ty sám byl jejich autorem a uvolňoval k nim autorská práva, ačkoliv autorem je podle původních údajů Fredyho dědeček. Pozor na to, pokud nahráváš cizí obrázek, tak nemůžeš použít žádnou šablonu "self". Podobnou chybu ovšem udělal i Fredy, protože ani on nebyl autorem těch fotek, ale nanejvýš by mohl být dědicem majetkových autorských práv nebo mít hypotetický konkludentní dědův souhlas ke zveřejnění. Ale do toho bych radši nešťoural, protože Fredy mnohdy zjevně svému dědovi připisoval i notoricky známé historické fotky, které pravděpodobně sehnal úplně jinde – u těchto scanů je aspoň pravděpodobné, že to je fakt v rodině. --ŠJů (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Když už mě takto peskuješ, tak s tím samozřejmě nic dělat nebudu. Měj se.--Juandev (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Files by Juandev without descriptionEdit

Hi Juandev, does it really make sense to have this special category for you? --Arnd (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Still it make sense as other simmillar categories. In this case i.e. there is no English description. I am awaiting some tools which may help with this.--Juandev (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

File:MOV 0311.webmEdit

  File:MOV 0311.webm 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:MOV 0313.webmEdit

  File:MOV 0313.webm 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:MVI 4969.webmEdit

  File:MVI 4969.webm 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Juandev".