Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Leftcry!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


File:MSM Blood Donation Map.svgEdit

 
File:MSM Blood Donation Map.svg 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)‎ | +/−

5.58.8.126 14:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Islam in Russia.pngEdit

Hi, in this file you used this source. But if you use this source, the other regions should be aligned with it too. For example, in accordance with this source in Tatarstan muslims make up 31%, in Karachay-Cherkessia 34%. It is not majority. But with 38% in Bashkortostan and with 31% in Tatarstan Islam is the most common religion. I think this argument is sufficient to refer to these regions on the map. --Регион102 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at the results of the latest census of Russia. Islam in Tatarstan makes up 55%, in Kabardino-Balkaria 55%, in Karachay-Cherkessia 48% (almost a majority), but in Bashkortostan it only makes up 38%. The description of the file clearly says "Areas in Russia with a Muslim majority." If the file description said something like "Areas in Russia with large Muslim populations", then Bashkortostan could've been included but for now it does not meet the criteria. --Leftcry (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It is wrong statement. In latest census of Russia there was no column of religion, question about religion was not asked. How this information were obtained? Obviously, it is not results of census. It's very questionable information. --Регион102 (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
This information is from an official survey conducted in 2012 by the RF. Either way if you change the statement in the description to what I had suggested then Bashkortostan can be added to the map. --Leftcry (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest the following description: "Regions of Russia with a significant presence of Muslims". What you can say about it? I think it is necessary to include Bashkortostan, because this region has a similar proportion of ethnic Muslims with neighboring Tatarstan. --Регион102 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning to the Euroasian Union fileEdit

I added the sources in the Spanish Wikipedia. Either they're not correct or there is some misunderstanding here. The information I've read is that Kyrgyzstan joined on the 1st of January, but there might be other sources saying that it will only join in May. Since it's possible that you don't speak Spanish, I may give you the sources concerning to that issue, here in your talk page (if you request it). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You may give your sources here, but before you do so please read these [1], [2], [3], [4], as well as the Eurasian Economic Union's official website [5]. As for Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, you did not provide any sources for their supposed candidate status. Please make sure that in the future before you add new information to maps, you provide sources not demand sources from other users. --Leftcry (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The information I had consulted, then, was misleading, since it mentioned the accession agreement of Kyrgyzstan that would come into effect on 1 January, though Kyrgyzstan will only become a full member in May. Concerning to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (and Tajikistan) I've consulted this source: [6], which is a Turkish source in English, and it has been considered as a reliable source concerning to Turkish and international issues. And it's natural that these issues are addressed in this source, since they concern to Turkic-speaking countries. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 0:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This source simply says they were invited to join the union, which is something that also happened to many other countries. Putting Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan on the same category as Tajikistan is completely redundant as Tajikistan is actually planning to join the union while Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan both made statements saying they do not plan to join the union any time soon. --Leftcry (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't take our disagreements (or perhaps not actual disagreements) as personally as they might be, since I'm actually looking forward to work with you whenever it's necessary. The most I regret is your comment that it was a "shame" that I only discussed some things with you after I was reported. I also had some disagreements about files concerning to Latin issues, and we could manage to solve them together, without any personal considerations. I wished that we could solve our eventual disagreements in the same way. And I explained that I didn't justify further the changes I've made, for a matter of lack of time (I'm not always on Wikipedia and I have more stuff to do... I assume that I should have explained better some of the changes, and I'd do but I had not enough time to do it). Anyway, I'm not on the mood of engaging in any edit warring, and the most reversions I've done in a page were 2 (in one file, or eventually 2 files). Well, take my reply as you wish to take it. I admire the hard work you've done, but I must confess that I think you overreacted. Yours faithfully, Mondolkiri1 (talk) 3:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is you?Edit

As you wish! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 7:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was the original version of the file before your edits. You simply ignored my comment about your source and re-inserted the information. If you continue such behavior, you may very well be reported. --Leftcry (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

About Tajikistan in the EEUEdit

Do you think it's fair to remove Tajikistan from the potential members of the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union (2014).svg), since both Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are also potential members and you contested it. If the other 2 are removed I think it would be logical to remove Tajikistan from that map. But if you have any objections concerning to that removal, I'd be glad to be informed about informations that may justify the inclusion of Tajikistan though not Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan. By the way, the source I've used to include Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as potential members, along with Tajikistan, is http://www.worldbulletin.net/economy/152032/eurasian-economic-union-begins-today . Thanks for your attention. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You already shared your source and I have effectively responded, however you have simply ignored my comment and continued to add Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. It's a shame that you finally began discussing only after you have been reported. As for your claims of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan being potential candidates of the EEU, that is incorrect, they have both made many statements about not planning to join the Eurasian Union any time soon. The source you have provided only says they were invited to join the union, it says nothing about them actually taking steps towards EEU membership. As for Tajikistan, it actually made statements about wanting to join the union and has taken action towards becoming a member. I have already told you all this the first time you brought up the issue, I hope that this time you actually read through my comment and not ignore it so that I won't have to repeat myself once more. --Leftcry (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, I assure you I read the whole reply. Sorry for not discussing it more deeply previously, but I was busy with stuff that doesn't have to do with Wikipedia. OK, then, let's make it stay like it is.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, according to that source, neither Uzbekistan nor Turkmenistan said that they were not interested about joining this union. The source says that they're evaluating the invitation, which I guess is at least a 1st action about the invitation. (unless my concept of action is wrong). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

donbas war mapEdit

Hello. I am messaging you and a couple others. Maybe this [7] should be updated? (Lilic (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)).

File:BlankMap-World6.svgEdit

He just reverted the same file back. You have agreed on that? I didnt understand it then... --Anastan (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anastan, you really should try to comply with Commons policies. bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I agreed on a possible inclusion of de-facto states if a full discussion and consensus is made on the talk page. I do not, however, agree with the current inclusion of Kosovo as it is not NPOV to include one partially-recognized state but not include the rest. It's also not very accurate and doesn't have it's own code which isn't very helpful if you want to make maps. @Bobrayner: edit warring and editing without a consensus doesn't really comply with Commons policies either so before telling Anastan to do that please do so yourself. --Leftcry (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we eliminate name the extra paths, consolidating them into one path per named region, or at least name them properly? FRX has six, the first three being:
id="path2168"/>
     <path d="M 1270.2063,361.00553 C 1269.9433,360.43353 1269.1693,360.55753 1268.6963,360.64553 1269.2233,360.66353 1269.7273,360.78353 1270.2063,361.00553"
id="path2172"/>
     <path d="M 1270.4863,363.95753 C 1270.9753,363.25253 1270.4283,362.04653 1269.4863,362.51753 1269.9373,362.91553 1270.2713,363.39553 1270.4863,363.95753"
id="path2174"/>
path2184 is the large island to the south east of France (Corsica), path2182 is the main country of Metropolitan France, path2166 to path 2174 are the four small islands to the West of France. Names for them?
Also I would be interested in using this map for derivative work, but can only do that if the edit warring ceases. I think a separate map showing Kosovo is better than trying to incorporate it here now. File:BlankMap-World9.svg? Delphi234 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Update The File: Google Street View coverage.pngEdit

Please upload a new version of Google Street View coverage.png file to add Madagascar unofficial and Uganda official and change Argentina to partial coverage.

Old versionEdit

 

New versionEdit

 

  Done --Leftcry (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your German language map - flawsEdit

Leftcry,

You probably don't know this, but German is official and native to South Tyrol, Italy. Thus, your "updating information" is actually disinformation. Exactly the same thing for East Belgium. Furthermore, if associated states (concerning the EU) are mentioned, Switzerland is to be mentioned as well - and 65 % speak German natively there.

What was your motivation for all this? Cannot have been knowledge about the actual subject. Please revert to the correct version again and then inform yourself, or keep your hands off in the first place. Obrigado. 2.242.127.31 22:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, yes I am aware of the fact that German is official to South Tyrol and East Belgium, however the map does not include any subdivisions and refers only to the number of speakers nationally. Second, there are no associated states mentioned so neither is Switzerland. And finally, before being rude on my talk page, claiming I have no knowledge about this subject and telling me to "inform myself" read COM:TALK and learn some manners. --Leftcry (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded UN mapsEdit

Hello!

I saw that you uploaded these two maps File:South Asia (ed)update.PNG File:Location-Asia-UNsubregions.png on Wikimedia. There are significant flaws however with these maps. I was hoping whether you could correct them

1) on the first map, Iran (included into West Asia/ME per all other global definitions but that here aside) is added to the south Asian region. In the legenda it says "also included by the UN". However, this is wrong. The United Nations has many departments. The UNSD (United Nations Statistics Devision) is one of them. Per this department, Iran is added into South Asia. However, all other UN departments do not add it to South Asia. For example, UNICEF (another UN department) does put Iran into the Middle East.[www.unicef.org/infobycountry/northafrica.html], or the WFP.[www.wfp.org/countries]

2) second, there is an error for the map that it even created. The UNSD has never created such a map and published it. Why? Because that never was and remains the intention of why this deviation definition of South Asia is in use by them (The UNSD). To understand this one needs to do research on the site. This definition namely was purely and solely made for certain statistical conveniences for the UNSD itself, while they gather statistics.[unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm] By uploading that map their intentions are therefore extremely misinterpreted, as it was never ment to be or show itself as some territorial region or area on any map, which unfortunately, the map you have uploaded does. This is perhaps the largest error about the whole matter.

Therefore, I would suggest deleting the map from commons, as it misinterprets completely the intention of the UNSD department of the UN as proved. Both two maps do. On top of that, for Iran especially, it completely confuses a lot of people unintentionally. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, etc are all in South Asia per many definitions, however, Iran is never put in there. It's always in the Middle East/West Asia. Therefore creating a map that shows boundaries per a department-only used definition (the UNSD of the UN) is wrong and misleading on all fronts.

Thanks in advance and thanks for reading my message.

Regards. 84.241.201.5 04:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you doing?..Edit

Please stop reverting those maps. Not knowing what the UN includes in their data is one thing, but pushing a certain point of view because you don't know what is going on is another..

The UN has published a map on behalf of South Asia and West Asia, and Iran is not included into South Asia by them. So stop saying "it is included by the UN" because that's not true as their officially published maps show. They have never brought out a map that shows they do include Iran there. The only map they released from the official cartographic center does not include it.

Here the Official released maps by the UN for South Asia and West Asia:

www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/Southeast-Asia.pdf (South Asia)

www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/westasia.pdf

And here the link for the official cartographic center : www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

We are ought to show what the sources provide us, and the United Nations OFFICIAL maps don't include it in South Asia as you can see.

So stop with this.

Orangesaft (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Every single one of the sources you provided do not even open. If you read the official geoscheme of the UN (such as this [8]) then you will see that they categorize Iran as South Asia, not West Asia. You can read the articles on Wikipedia about and check all of their official sources if you want to get a better understanding en:United Nations geoscheme, en:United Nations geoscheme for Asia. Either way, the uploader originally uploaded the map of South Asia with Iran and the map of West Asia without Iran (as he based it upon the United Nations geoscheme), if you want to change that don't go out changing his map, but instead you can upload your own. I would also advise you to read COM:NPOV. Commons is NOT Wikipedia. The rules on Wikipedia do not apply to Commons. Next time, before you start reverting a user's maps on Commons, please read its rules rather than reading the rules of Wikipedia and applying them to here. --Leftcry (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not ever again replace the maps on many Wikipedias with your own without discussion, as well as change some of the information on those articles! There must be a consensus on changing the maps, you can't just do it yourself. If you continue such disruptive behavior you will be reported. Also do keep in mind that PNG's and JPG's are inferior to SVG's, so if you made your own map maybe it would've been a better idea to make it as an SVG. --Leftcry (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
== What are you doing?.. ==

Please stop reverting those maps. Not knowing what the UN includes in their data is one thing, but pushing a certain point of view because you don't know what is going on is another..

The UN has published a map on behalf of South Asia and West Asia, and Iran is not included into South Asia by them. So stop saying "it is included by the UN" because that's not true as their officially published maps show. They have never brought out a map that shows they do include Iran there. The only map they released from the official cartographic center does not include it.

Here the Official released maps by the UN for South Asia and West Asia:

www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/Southeast-Asia.pdf (South Asia)

www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/westasia.pdf

And here the link for the official cartographic center : www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

We are ought to show what the sources provide us, and the United Nations OFFICIAL maps don't include it in South Asia as you can see.

So stop with this.

Orangesaft (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Every single one of the sources you provided do not even open. If you read the official geoscheme of the UN (such as this [9]) then you will see that they categorize Iran as South Asia, not West Asia. You can read the articles on Wikipedia about and check all of their official sources if you want to get a better understanding en:United Nations geoscheme, en:United Nations geoscheme for Asia. Either way, the uploader originally uploaded the map of South Asia with Iran and the map of West Asia without Iran (as he based it upon the United Nations geoscheme), if you want to change that don't go out changing his map, but instead you can upload your own. I would also advise you to read COM:NPOV. Commons is NOT Wikipedia. The rules on Wikipedia do not apply to Commons. Next time, before you start reverting a user's maps on Commons, please read its rules rather than reading the rules of Wikipedia and applying them to here. --Leftcry (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I made a typo while copying the first link for South Asia by the official UN cartographic division. Te other two open just perfectly.
Here are the links anyway again:
www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/Souteast-Asia.pdf
www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/westasia.pdf
www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm (<- the homepage of te official UN cartographic site)
See now??
You're pushing for something that holds no official ground. The UN has never released a map putting Iran into South Asia. Check the last link; that's the official UN cartographic agency. The United Nations geo scheme doesn't hold any geographical or geo-political groud, which unlike the map you reverted to does.
That source says nothing about any map. The UN has never released a map putting Iran into South Asia. That's what were ought to show. If they put it into South Asia on a map, then we can also show it on the map. Their own map about west Asia puts Iran there as you can see (!) So I don't know why your trying to grab yourself about a purely statistical classification that is not even put on a map by themselves (for obvious reasons)
The map you reverted to is plainly wrong because they dont put it in South Asia on their own maps. The UN puts Iran into west Asia on their maps, not South Asia. I can back that up, while you can't. Also you have to grasp that people know this for ages on eng.wiki, and have been discussing it for long on the talk pages etc. And the consensus was to keep Iran into West Asia and not South Asia. This statistics taking definition is only used by the UNSD department of te UN and It stays at that. So for you to hop in all of a sudden and to revert maps and stuff, it's a bit odd. :P Orangesaft (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not just about them putting it on maps, it's about what they classify it as and I already have backed that up with the source and already existing articles. A map is a visual aspect, however the classification is used for a lot more than just maps. If there was a discussion on the English Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that it is okay for all of the other language maps, so stop your disruptive behavior. Also stop using so much space on my talk page, is it that hard to keep everything in one paragraph? --Leftcry (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
your "source" personally notes that the regions and territories put into groupings don't imply relation or coherence towards each other and it's only used for statistical convenience. Do i need to almost literally copy paste it for you from the same page? West Asia is merely a new termination that replaces the Middle East, nothing else. It's a geo-political entity. And Iran is a core nation of the Middle East. Whatever a single department of the UN says without publishing any maps or whatsoever, is irrelevant. No board or government even uses that definition employed by them. And yet you're here to PoV push to show for South Asia including Iran because one department of the UN says so. As you know, all other departments of the UN don't include it into South Asia, or do I need to point that out as well? That by itself completely destroys any claim by you that it's used by te UN, cause only one department of the UN does so, and not the UN in it's whole. So you're wrong about only that already. All institutions, boards, and departments do include iran into West Asia, for solid reasons such a geo-politics, history, etc. Why on earth do you wanna use a map that includes a nation that is only added there per definition of a board of the UN, and that only for statistical convenience? (And that only used by themselves) I don't wanna post the tons of sources that put Iran into west Asia just here, cause I think this can be solved by discussion. Perhaps not on your talk page but who knows. The fact that you randomly hop in and change a map and therefore distort many stable articles is another thing. I really suggest you start looking up bit about what is west asia, te Middle East, South Asia, etc. Start with the CIA World Factbook, a worldwide used source for countries. [[10]] Orangesaft (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The source clearly shows where the UN categorize Iran. For most statistical purposes as well as many other official documents, the UN lists Iran as South Asia. The fact Iran may be commonly refereed to as West Asia rather than South Asia is not relevant for this map as the user who uploaded based his information on the UN classification. You also mentioned that I am here "to POV push", as I already mentioned before, POV pushing and NPOV is not applied to Commons. It is only a rule for Wikipedia. Read COM:NPOV if you want more information about that. Again, as I mentioned numerous of times, don't change/revert someone else files, but upload your own instead. Leave their file alone and let the different languages Wikipedias decide which map they would want to use for their page. --Leftcry (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DST MapEdit

Sorry - I wasn't aware you're doing it right now. Please go ahead, but compare my version, as Brazil have changed. Would be great to see these changes incorporated, but I won't do any edits right now as you're at it! --Cubitus (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't know you were going to update the map too. I was only going to add Chile and Nagorno-Karabakh, which I already did, so you can go ahead with your edits. --Leftcry (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed 3.svgEdit

Slovenia and Finland should be darkblue. --92.76.121.160 00:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Update The File: Google Street View coverage.pngEdit

Please upload a new version of Google Street View coverage.png file to add Senegal official and Iraq with landmarks only.

Old versionEdit

 

New versionEdit

 

  Done by Eugen Simion 14 179.223.47.108 23:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:European Union Faroe Islands Locator.svgEdit

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:European Union Faroe Islands Locator.svg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file description page.

Deutsch | English | español | français | മലയാളം | polski | português | svenska | 日本語 | +/−


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: the version you uploaded (2015-03-18) appears to be a derivative work of File:Blank_map_of_Europe.svg, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic licence. This is incompatible with the original version's licence. I'm not 100% sure of how one is supposed to proceed in such a case; I suspect it's just a case of adding (not replacing) the license (or another compatible license) for the current version. It may however be that you need to upload your version as a separate file. Either way, be careful about the licenses which apply to files on Commons.

P.S. I added the lakes in the Murmansk Oblast to Blank map of Europe.svg as you suggested.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not licensing the files. I will do so in the future. --Leftcry (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Further European Union Enlargement.svgEdit

Please see COM:OVERWRITE. If you want to make a map of something other than the de jure status, then you are welcome to create a new map. But please do not continue attempting to repurpose an existing map. TDL (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That current map is already not using the de jure status as it includes Kosovo. Maps should be consistent, so they should either include all break-away regions or none at all. Obviously you can't not include any break-away regions in this map as the EU has official statuses for some of them, therefore they should all be included. You can't just pick and choose which break-away regions should be in the map and which shouldn't. --Leftcry (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not picking which states to include, I'm following the sources on the matter rather than developing contrived and arbitrary rules on "consistency". Not all disputed states are equal. Kosovo is recognized by most states, while Northern Cyprus is only by 1. Armenia is also a disputed state. By your logic, any time Armenia is depicted on a map, we'd also need to show Northern Cyprus, which is silly. We should follow the sources on the matter.
In this case, Kosovo has a recognized status by the EU, while Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, etc. do not. Kosovo and the EU have intialled a treaty,[11] and it has been given a membership prospective. A contractual relationship such as this is clear evidence of de jure status. Conversely, the EU's treaty with Georgia explicitly recognizes Georgia's "territorial integrity and the inviolability of the internationally recognised borders under international law".[12] Thus, in the context of the EU, Kosovo does have de jure status while Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not.
This is very context dependent. File:United Nations Members.svg rightfully dose not depict Kosovo, because within the UN system it has no status. But were it to be granted observer state status, then it should be depicted. That wouldn't mean we would suddenly need to include every single disputed state just because Kosovo gained a de jure status. TDL (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Armenia isn't a disputed state as no one claims it's land. It isn't recognized by Pakistan but that doesn't take away from it's sovereignty. Kosovo is claimed by another state just like all other break-away regions. The general consensus regarding these types of maps is that one should either include all break-away regions or none at all. Even though Kosovo is recognized by most states, it cannot have a different status than the others. The number of recognitions isn't usually taken into account, but instead it is categorized into "Recognized by at least one UN member", "Recognized by at least one non-UN member" or "Unrecognized". --Leftcry (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Armenia's sovereignty is clearly disputed. Pakistan's position is that it is not a sovereign state. How can you claim that it's sovereignty isn't disputed? Whether another state claims its territory is a red herring. A lack of counter-claim to the territory does not imply that it's sovereign. See en:Terra nullius for a detailed explanation of the concept.
Can you point me to the discussion where this "general consensus" that "one should either include all break-away regions or none at all" you speak of was established? I know you have been promoting this viewpoint for quite some time, but a single editor does not a consensus make. TDL (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Previous accountsEdit

Also, could you please publicly disclose the accounts which you have edited with in the past? Failure to do so can be seen as an attempt to avoid en:WP:SCRUTINY. TDL (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Which accounts are you referring to? There was only one account I had prior to this one, however it only had a few edits and I don't even remember what that account was called as it was before I became an active user on Commons. --Leftcry (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that you've edited prior to your current account. A bit more digging has convinced me that you previously edited as User:KronosLine. However, that account has much more than a few edits, and was active on commons. Do you deny that KronosLine is your prior account?
Any other accounts we should know about? TDL (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That is the account that I was talking about. By a few edits I meant that I only had it for a limited period of time and was not as active as I am now. That account is how I started contributing to Commons, first to PNG files and later to SVG files. I never had a problem with that account, the reason I stopped using it was because I forgot the password to it. --Leftcry (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a hard time accepting your explanation that by "a few edits" you really meant 500+ edits. But of more concern is that further investigation has lead me to conclude that KronosLine is clearly the same editor as User:WhyHellWhy. Do you acknowledge this?
And I'll ask once again, are there any other accounts you have edited with we should know about? TDL (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No, User:WhyHellWhy is not an account that I have used. I have only used KronosLine in the past. I am however very familiar with that account as I have been following many of its edits before. Some of the other account I followed in the past were User:Russavia and User:Giorgi Balakhadze. --Leftcry (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I must say, your denial really is not very believable given the evidence. Shortly after WhyHellWhy was indefinitely blocked for "POV-pushing with pro-russian agenda, purpose-created account for edit-warring", you (as KronosLine) resumed WhyHellWhy's POV-pushing and edit warring (ie [13] vs [14] or File:BlankMap-World-v2.png.) TDL (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not POV-push there. I did review the consensus that was going on the page Russia and saw that people did in fact agree with removing that map. After a few days I did just that and I even remember one user in that discussion thanking me for that edit. As for the edits on File:BlankMap-World-v2.png I followed WhyHellWhy's edits after I saw his activity on Wikipedia, given he was blocked I wanted to see for what reason that was. In this specific map, I did not see a problem with his edits so I reverted back to them, however in maps such as File:Azerbaijan Russia Locator.png I saw that he really was trying to POV-push (even though NPOV does not apply to Commons) so I did not touch those maps. --Leftcry (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.
See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

العربية | Azərbaycanca | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | jbobau | 한국어 | Kurdî | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

INeverCry 04:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Recognition of same-sex unions in the United States.pngEdit

 
File:Recognition of same-sex unions in the United States.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | 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)‎ | +/−

Turnless (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US.svgEdit

 
File:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US.svg 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)‎ | +/−

Reventtalk 07:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Time zones of Europe.pngEdit

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | 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)‎ | +/−

Turnless (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Map of Russia - Time Zones (October 2014).svgEdit

 
File:Map of Russia - Time Zones (October 2014).svg 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)‎ | +/−

95.80.217.226 11:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

File:LuganskPeoplesRepublic.svgEdit

 
File:LuganskPeoplesRepublic.svg 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)‎ | +/−

Glovacki (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File:UTC hue4map X world Robinson eng.pngEdit

 
File:UTC hue4map X world Robinson eng.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | 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)‎ | +/−

C933103 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (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, 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)‎ | +/−

Igor Balashov (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

File:New-Map-Francophone World.PNGEdit

 
File:New-Map-Francophone World.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | 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)‎ | +/−

Openlydialectic (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Leftcry".