User talk:Fransvannes

Image:800px-Korculatown.jpg

Hi, please don't upload thumbnails to WikiCommons. The original to this photo is almost 3 times larger. Thuresson 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:GradskitoranjRijeka.jpg

Thank you for uploading images on Commons.

Please add license tag(s) (see Commons:Copyright tags for more information).

Please add images to appropriative pages and/or categories where other users could easily find them.

EugeneZelenko 14:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cubist house Olomouc.jpg

Dear Frans, I am sorry. I do not know the architect. I have added the street name and a poor link. But I do not know nothing more. --Snek01 14:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the picture, this is NOT a cubist house but architecture in the Art Nouveau style (or Sessecion style as it was called in Austro-Hungaria). Hope this comment helps your paper. --Diligent 08:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Josef_Gočár_water_tower_Lázně_Bohdaneč_1910.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Josef_Gočár_Winternitz_Mills_Pardubice_1911.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Die foto van die kerk in Montreal

Kan die niet op de verwijderlijst? Ik weet nog niet hoe dat hier gaat maar het is gewoon een slechte foto, in alle opzichten - de onderste helft is onderbelicht, van die kerk staat er bijna niets op, alleen het gebouw ernaast komt er goed uit. Wat moet hij eigenlijk verbeelden? Van mij mag hij weg. Floris V 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ja, ik vind het ook geen aanwinst. Er zijn trouwens heel wat foto's die dat ook niet zijn, bijvoorbeeld omdat er al een andere was die bijna identiek is. Ik kijk hier eigenlijk nooit op de verwijderlijst, maar ik zou hem maar gewoon nomineren. Dan merk je vanzelf of zo'n nominatie hier eventueel not done is Fransvannes 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

tartu

hallo, it's easier to have one portal-page for one city Tartu (not two competing pages - page:tartu and category:tartu).

--Raul6 12:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But 1) category-pages have no galleries (the pictures apparead twice on your version! one in the gallery and once again later) and 2) lots of other places have both a cat and a regular page. Why would Tartu be an exception? Fransvannes 12:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Churches in the Netherlands

Dank van mij voor de hulp met uitzoeken! Deadstar 07:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in Utrecht

Dank voor de correctie, ik had Image:Unic-Utrecht.jpg naar Utrecht stad willen verplaatsen, maar had per vergissing de categorie pagina geopend. Staat die school in stad Utrecht? Dan kan Image:Unic-Utrecht.jpg omgecat worden. Groeten Havang 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ik ken het gebouw niet... Laat zolang maar even staan. Uiteindelijk moeten denk ik toch alle Nederlandse provincies een Buildings in...-cat krijgen. Om daar de kerken en de molens en t.z.t. ook de kastelen en de kloosters in onder te brengen. Iets voor later, denk ik. Fransvannes 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Toch nieuwsgierig geworden: het gebouw staat in de stad Utrecht. Fransvannes 08:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cathedrals

Cathedrals are religious buildings and are categorized accordingly in the whole Commons database. Please, stop to remove these categories and to impair the classification. --Juiced lemon 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cathedrals are religious buildings indeed, but all cathedrals are churches too. Therefore Cathedrals in... should be subordinated to Churches in..., as was the case in almost all coutries I checked (Germany, Slovakia, Austria and many others). I did not impair anything, but subordinated the few cathedrals-cats which were treated differently. Please also cases like this. There seems to be a discrepancy between what is done over here and what you would like to be done.

Why should Category:Esztergom Cathedral not be found under Category:Churches in Hungary (which would be very convenient for anyone interested in church architecture), while at the same time it is a member of Category:Churches in Esztergom? Fransvannes 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Van Ewijcksluis

Ik dacht dat jullie meteen een cat creëerden zoals bij ons voor ieder dorpje. Bij nader inzien is het misschien niet zo, waarvoor mijn excuses. Ik herstel het wel indien nodig. --Foroa 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jullie = wij in Nederland? Ik heb niet zoveel zicht op wat specifiek mijn landgenoten doen, maar ik vind zelf dat zo'n vier plaatjes per sluis (gemaal, kerk, molen, theater, noem maar op) een goed minimum is. Zijn er minder, dan komt zo'n sluis wat mij betreft in de algemene Nederlandse-sluizen-categorie. Van de Van Ewijcksluis hebben we er misschien net geen vier, maar die moeten dan maar vlug gemaakt worden... Fransvannes 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Verkeerd gecommuniceerd. Ik dacht dat Category:Van Ewijcksluis in de eerste plaats de naam was van een dorpje in Nederland. In België creëren we voor ieder dorpje een category, dikwijls zelfs als er nog geen beelden zijn, gewoon veel handiger en veel efficiënter.

Als er een flinke kans bestaat dat er ooit nog foto's over hetzelfde onderwerp bijkomen, dan creëer ik meteen een category bij de eerste foto. Dit vermijdt het alsmaar herstructureren en overpompen van een overvolle (volgepoefte) categorie naar de volgende, terwijl ook het zoeken heel wat eenvoudiger wordt. --Foroa 21:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Het blijkt inderdaad ook een dorpje te zijn. Dat wist ik niet. Ik vermoed dat het nog steeds in de eerste plaats een sluis is (dat wil zeggen: dat het dorpje naar de sluis heet).

Tsja, over de vraag of elk dorpje bij voorbaat een cat moet hebben of, analoog, elk gebouw bij voorbaat ook (ook al is er maar één afbeelding van: de kans op een tweede is in dit project per definitie flink groot) kun je verschillend denken. Ik steek mijn energie het liefst in het sorteren van wat we allemaal daadwerkelijk hebben en niet zozeer in het aanleggen van vooralsnog lege laadjes. Maar van jouw laadjes profiteer ik natuurlijk graag mee, als ze er eenmaal zijn. Fransvannes 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ministries in Sofia

Hello. I'd like to ask, do you think this category Category:Ministries in Sofia is properly named? I live in this country and exactly in this city and I can assure you that all Bulgarian ministries are located in the capital and can't be found anywhere else. So it's either "Sofia" that has to be replaced to "Bulgaria", or "ministries" with something else, you suggest what. The present combination however implies that there are Bulgarian ministries that are outside of Sofia, which is not true. Regards, Spiritia 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of that: just to be certain I chose this name. In some countries (e.g. Germany and Estonia) some ministries happen to be in other city's than the capital. In Bulgaria apparently not. I'm not against a move to Category:Ministries in Bulgaria, as long as this cat remains a subcat of Category:Buildings in Sofia. In the Bulgarian case such a construction is possible. In the German and Estonian cases it is not, and I don't know the situation elsewhere. Best, Fransvannes 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) By the way, there was also the analogy with Category:Embassies in Sofia and other embassy-cats. Should these also be renamed?

Well, about this I am not sure, I think all foreign embassies are located in Sofia, but there are consul offices around the country - I know at least one: the Turkish consulate in Bourgas. So, it depends on the terminology and scale of inclusion. About the ministries: even if you do not recat the images, i know it's a pain the ass, it would be nice if these explanations appear somewhere on the category page? :-) Excuse me if yesterday I sounded sharp or whatever. --Spiritia 12:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! Did my reaction give you such an impression? In that case: excuse me this time!.

What kind of explanation would the cat-page need? That all ministries in Bulgaria are in Sofia? (if its name is Category:Ministries in Bulgaria). Or that there are no ministries in Bulgaria in other cities than Sofia? (if its name remains unchanged). In the former case the categorzation gives the answer (since it is a subcat of Category:Buildings in Sofia!) In the latter case it does not, which is another argument to leave the present situation unchanged. Please also note that Category:Ministries in Sofia should not necessaryly be opposed to a virtual Category:Ministries in Varna or so, but can also be in opposition with Category:Ministries in Bucharest. Fransvannes 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token 6a35ff5c22ed495071389a7a2eefd142

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

tx

(Tallinn foto)--Beentree (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for the Rusalka pictures! Fransvannes (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sárospataki főiskola

Szia! Nem tudom mi ütött belém, nem Lajta műve. Köszönöm, hogy szóltál, javítottam. Satak Lord (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Köszönöm! Fransvannes (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Iceboaters.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Fransvannes!

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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

BotMultichillT 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Az Imádság Háza 3 Arad.jpg is uncategorized since 19 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Az Imádság Háza 2 Arad.jpg is uncategorized since 19 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Arad főtéri paloták1.jpg is uncategorized since 19 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Az Imádság Háza 5 Arad.jpg is uncategorized since 19 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:VdmBochtOosterdiep17I.jpg was uncategorized on 20 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Image:VdmBochtOosterdiep17III.jpg was uncategorized on 20 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Houses of culture and Category:Palaces of Culture

Hello! I see that you are the creator (and/or the main contributor) to these two categories. I think it is confusing to have different capitalization in the two. Would not it be nice to make to more uniform? I think that it would make more sense to "decapitalize" Category:Palaces of Culture to Category:Palaces of culture than to do the opposite renaming in the "Houses of culture" category. I feel that while an individual palace's name should have capitals ("Karaganda Miners' Palace of Culture"), the generic should have lowercase ("palaces of culture in Kazakhstan"). If you agree, could you initiate the renaming? Vmenkov (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Category:Palaces of Culture was a mistake. I'll do the renaming (not now, but soon). Fransvannes (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Hello, looking at the talk page of File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG I saw oppose that image; it would be of great help if you'd list your opposition to it. Thank you.HP1740-B (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. Fransvannes (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gran hotel de Cartagena

Hello Fransvannes.

I have seen that you have changed the category of this building.

[[1]]

I have removed this building from the category of hotels a couple of times. This "gran hotel" is no longer a hotel from, at least, 40 years ago. So I think that it has been placed in a wrong category.

--Nanosanchez (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Former hotels are in the hotel cat, as former churches are in the church cat. Cf. Category:Hagia Sophia (anno 2009 not a church and not a mosque). Otherwise it would be impossible to view hotel or church architecture. Fransvannes (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. We shall leave it as you say.

--Nanosanchez (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi, I nominated File:Univ-Craiova2.jpg, File:Kulturpalota varoshaza.jpg, File:002d Bp.VII.Rákóczi u.18.jpg for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The first one seems to be copyvio indeed. However, I have no reason to think that the second one is not a work of the original Hungarian uploader, and the third one is definitely a work made by the original uploader (szerző = R.Jenő). Regards, Fransvannes (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably have notified the original posters. I do that usually. Hekerui (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you will remove the third nomination: there is no doubt about the origin of that one. Fransvannes (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Palatul Lloyd Timisoara.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Palatul Lloyd Timisoara.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

Images licensed NC and/or ND are not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That must have been a bad mistake of mine. Or the Flickr uploader changed the license in the meantime. (I hope the latter happened.) Thanks for your intervention. Fransvannes (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Волынская_губ.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Волынская_губ.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Masur (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Brink 89 Deventer.jpg

Hoi Fransvannes. Ik zag dat je van bovenstaande foto de categorie kerk in... had verwijderd. Dit gebouw is echter toch wel een kerk. Zie bv. deze lijst, met de volgende entry:

12533 Deventer Brink 89 Doopsgezinde kerk G Kerk en kerkonderdeel 1891 T.E. Kuipers Kerkelijke gebouwen 207732 474119 52.25258379 6.159451415 Brink 89 Deventer.jpg http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lijst_van_rijksmonumenten_in_Deventer_(plaats)&redirect=no&useskin=monobook&oldid=22725053 2010-09-27 03:15:26

Ik heb de categorie category:churches in Deventer op gezet. Groet, Pompidom (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prima, ik had hem niet als kerk herkend (schuilkerk, wat je zegt...). Ik zal er ook maar even een omschrijving bij zetten. Groeten, Fransvannes (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ikzelf stond er ook van te kijken. Op luchtfoto's (Bv Bing Maps met bird eye-view) is het goed te zien dat er nog heel wat achter deze gevel schuilt. Groet, Pompidom (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Heart-Jesus-church.jpg

File:Heart-Jesus-church.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Túrelio (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Most probably the license was changed on Flickr in the meantime. Nothing to do about it. Fransvannes (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Passages

Category discussion notification

Category:Passages has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Malformed Deletion Requests

Hello, Please take care when creating a deletion request: you created at least 20 malformed DR which bring a lot of work. Use the gadget available in your preferences. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to a gadget I was never aware of (I suppose you meant the quick delete gadget).

By the way: it is very unfortunate that deletion nominations apparently can only be done correctly by using a hidden gadget. Users who are not aware of such hidden gems and try to find their way in a very complicated deletion procedure, are confronted with rather unfriendly messages. I am sorry for bringing you unnecessary work. Friendly instructions and insightful procedures are the best way to avoid such work (and at least 20? That's too bad... If that's true I wonder why anyone didn't warn me earlier. The oldest of those 20 must be one of weeks ago, if not longer.) Fransvannes (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Madlienas_baznīca_2000-06-17.jpg

File:Madlienas_baznīca_2000-06-17.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!

MacMed (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Lielvārdes_luterāņu_baznīca_2000-05-20.jpg

File:Lielvārdes_luterāņu_baznīca_2000-05-20.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!

MacMed (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Grobiņas_pilsētas_dome_2000-06-11.jpg

File:Grobiņas_pilsētas_dome_2000-06-11.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!

MacMed (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Grobiņas_baznīca_2000-06-11.jpg

File:Grobiņas_baznīca_2000-06-11.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!

MacMed (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Engures_baznīca_2000-06-24.jpg

File:Engures_baznīca_2000-06-24.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!

MacMed (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pildid eesti Vikipeediast

Hei! Aitäh, et aitad eesti Vikipeediast pilte Commonsisse viia. Roboti pakutud kirjad kahjuks ei ütle selgelt, et algne üleslaadija oli ühtlasi ka autor. Need kirjad võiks umbes nii parandada (täpsemalt). 88.196.241.249 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hästi, teeme nii. Aitäh seniste paranduste eest! Trv. Fransvannes (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Olimpia Elbląg team photo

It was a typycal "promotional material" license type with non-commercial/no-modification clauses. A.J. (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dziękuję! Fransvannes (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

bistrita aurie

The image is taken in en:Vatra Dornei. Cezarika1 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rotation at File:Manastirea Neamtului - July 2008 - icoană.jpg

Hallo Fransvannes, you rotation tag at File:Manastirea Neamtului - July 2008 - icoană.jpg (or at others - e.g. File:Manastirea Neamtului - July 2008 (3).jpg) was incorrect. Please always specify the rotation based on the thumbnails and/or try to use the RotateLink. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nicolaas Molenaar

Category:Nicolaas Molenaar 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 category, 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. 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!

JuTa 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Evert_Margry

Category:Evert_Margry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

84.61.131.15 19:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Gerrit_Rietveld

Category:Gerrit_Rietveld has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

84.61.131.15 19:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Országos Általános Kiállítás.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old_England_(Brussels)

Category:Old_England_(Brussels) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

M0tty (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:E.Sacharias - Aia 5,5a,5b - 1935.JPG

File:E.Sacharias - Aia 5,5a,5b - 1935.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!

russavia (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Brīvības ielā 47.JPG

And also:

• File:Romanova bazārs.JPG
• File:Ķemeru viesnīca 2000-06-10.jpg

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Casadelfascio.jpg

File:Casadelfascio.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!

124.149.151.113 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Palatul Comitetului de Stat al Planificării.jpg

File:Palatul Comitetului de Stat al Planificării.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!

128.250.5.245 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Poznański_Palace

Category:Poznański_Palace has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Poeticbent talk 20:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Great Saint John's

I observe that you created a category :Interior of Grote of Sint-Janskerk (Gouda).

Could you possible re-categorise this as "Grote Sint-Janskerk, Gouda".

• "Grote" means "Great". So it means "the bigger church of St John", implying that there is another church of St John in the vicinity of Gouda.

If the same error has spread to a number of categories, could you fix it, please?

• There is an ongoing Wikimedia error in creating categories that turns locations into disambiguations i.e. people put locations into brackets instead of behind a comma.

"St Stephen's Church, Newtown" not "St Stephen's Church (Newtown)". The bracket is wrong. Brackets are used as disambigs when identity needs defining: John Bloggs (painter), John Bloggs (politician).

Churches, at the lowest level of Parish Church are always and essentially known by the name of the parish as well as by the dedication. It is a matter of belonging to the parish.

Cathedrals are first and foremost known as the cathedral of the region. For example: Notre Dame is the the Cathedral of Paris. Even though it is called by its saint's name, it cannot be separated from its region, because it governs (ecclesiastically speaking, that region.

Except in a few instances, cathedrals are known by the formula :"Lincoln Cathedral" not "St Mary's Cathedral, Lincoln", and definitely not "St Mary's Cathedral (Lincoln).

The exceptions include "Notre Dame, Paris" and a few similar churches which are best known by dedication. In cities with two cathedrals, they are known by Saints name or denomination or both. e.g. "St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne" and "St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne".

Abbeys are also generally known by location, even when the saint's name is also known.

Amandajm (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Before I change anything, I would appreciate a link to a page indicating what ambiguation system prevails (and what is wrong or erroneous) and what language prevails (please note that Grote of Sint-Janskerk is the full name of the church, in Dutch). Until so far I haven't found any guidelines on this, which means that tomorrow another user, with a different taste, may ask me to undo my changes. Fransvannes (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Drei-wahrzeichen.jpg

File:Drei-wahrzeichen.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

A333 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Blocul ARO Bucuresti.jpg

File:Blocul ARO Bucuresti.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!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Asilosantelia.jpg

File:Asilosantelia.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!

84.61.176.82 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Freedom_Square_(Budapest)

Category:Freedom_Square_(Budapest) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Franciscan_Square_(Budapest)

Category:Franciscan_Square_(Budapest) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trinity_Square_(Budapest)

Category:Trinity_Square_(Budapest) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Fransvannes⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

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 7 March 2014. 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)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Fransvannes,

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) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Вікі любить Землю, 1–31 травня / Wiki Loves Earth, May 1–31, 2014

Вітаємо!

З 1 по 31 травня 2014 буде проходити конкурс «Вікі любить Землю», метою якого є фотографування пам'яток природи. Цього року конкурс став міжнародним. Зі списками пам'яток природи України можна ознайомитися тут. Приєднуйтеся!

Більше інформації про конкурс читати тут. – Оргкомітет «Вікі любить Землю» (in english) 20:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:National_Historical_Museum_(Albania)

Category:National_Historical_Museum_(Albania) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Glorious 93 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Muzeul_Naţional_de_Artă_al_României

Category:Muzeul_Naţional_de_Artă_al_României has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Strainu (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of uploader credit

Hello, you are being contacted as a user who has previously [or currently] included "* Uploaded by Example" in your file uploads. A bot task has been approved to remove this specific phrase from files because it can be misleading when attempting to attribute the file creator. As an alternative, RileyBot is willing to tag your uploads with a user category instead. Please respond stating if you opt-in and if you have any specific requests (addition of user category, etc); if there is no response within two weeks, consent will be implied. Please note, this message has been left by an automated bot, however, a user will be tracking your response. RileyBot (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)