User talk:Tano4595

When you upload images such as Image:Placa_de_asiento.png you give links like http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/r/ra/railking/156317_5656.jpg instead of http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=156317 which contain the license info and other information regarding the image, please do so in the future.

And also upload the larger version of the image, that is much preferred and in JPEG format rather than PNG for photographic images.

Give none-direct urls which contain information on the image
JPEG not PNG for photographic images.

Thank you. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, thank's. Tano4595 22:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can b.t.w. get bigger versions of the stock xchng images by clicking on the small one, you must be logged in though. It's much better if you'd upload the larger ones, they are much more reusable. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But SXC seems not a good site. They asks adress, fone, etc. Tano4595 23:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just make something up, say your name is Hedvick Biggelwuurd etc. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Image:Tren vapor.jpg, source says "The author ( fokko ) must be contacted before using the photo for any commercial work." [1]. So I think it is "noncommercial", not "PD". -- Infrogmation 18:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Escribo al autor para solicitar publicación GFDL Tano4595 21:48, 11 dic 2004 (UTC)

Bueno, gracias. -- Infrogmation 21:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ya autorizó la licencia GFDL. Tano4595 21:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problem image

I read Image talk:Placa de asiento.jpg. Image is not PD, and author does not agree to release. I will delete the image. I think images from SXC should NOT be used here, unless photographer writes to say ok. Please look if there are other problem images. Let me know if I should delete some images. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm am going to go through the SXC images you uploaded, deleting where the user has not given a free license. ed g2s • talk 23:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lamento que hayas borrado imágenes cuyos autores brindaron generosamente, pero te concedo razón. Sin dudas, quien dedica el 25 de diciembre a esto debe saber del tema mucho más que yo. Saludos, Tano4595 22:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

St. Peter's

I have uploaded a higher resolution images and nominated it at COM:FPC LoopZilla 09:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Graf Spee.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Graf Spee.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Thuresson 20:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the category Seaplanes

Obviously, you did not read the page:category:Seaplanes

It states:" For the purposes of categorization, this includes amphibious planes, float planes and flying boats."

You have added an additional category unnecessarily. Granted, the cat name is confusing. My problem was that a general term would be accurate, but not guessable by naive users. Do you have alternative general names? Note that float helicopters are also not included, as well as water capable jets, since planes are propeller driven.

How about eliminating Seaplanes, your new cat, and calling them all 'Water capable aircraft'?

-Mak 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

categoría

Hola, cambié las imágenes Rail section.JPG y Image:Rail entier.JPG a una categoría más específica, porque Category:Steel-profiles refiere a perfiles para estructuras, no Rail. Saludos, --Tano4595 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my spanish is terrible I prefer English. No problem, with the modification, seems a lot better. I have found that category.Romary 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licencias

Hola Tano, acerca de las fotos (grappamiel y voto verde) son fotos que saqué yo con mi cámara digital y cuando las estaba subiendo elegí ponerlas en el dominio público. Si el anuncio de dominio público no quedó, no se por qué fue. La verdad no tengo experiencia, son las primeras imágenes que subo.

Si vos podés ponerles ese anuncio de más. (de ddominio público cedido por el autor: Ernesto Alves)

Muchas gracias.

--Ernalve 02:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary Surgeon

Can you explain why you think Image:Veterinary Surgeon.jpg is a copyvio. It is copyright and licensed under cc-by-sa, as are all my contributions. This is pretty standard licensing for Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this: Photograph © Andrew Dunn, 11 July? --Tano4595 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite right - that's me. The photograph is copyright of the photographer and then licensed for use under cc-by-sa. You should know that nearly all photographs licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons are copyright of the photographer. If you have uploaded some of your own photographs, you might like to read through these licenses carefully. -- Solipsist 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tarea

Gracias por marcarlas Tano, las he desenlazado de pt:wiki y explicado el asunto al subidor, dentro de unos días las borro. Anna 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hecho. Anna 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Acabo de ver tus contribuciones y está claro que necesitas los botones de administrador. Tienes diez segundos para decir que no. ;-) Sanbec ✉ 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No te preocupes, lo que no entiendas, lo preguntas. Yo tampoco me entero de mucho, mi inglés no de más de sí. Conviene apuntarse a la lista de correo y visitar el Village pump, a veces se entera uno de algo.

Procedo a preparar tu candidatura Sanbec ✉ 08:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your admin vote has closed. I regret to inform you that you did not meet the 75% support required for administratorship at Commons. Please don't let this dissuade you from being active at Commons and please, feel free to try again in the future. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging unsourced/unlicensed images

Hi, when you tag an unsourced or unlicensed image, please use {{subst:nsd}} (unsourced) or {{subst:nld}} (unlicensed). That way, the date will be added automatically. I'm finding many images that you tagged where the date given was several weeks earlier than the date you actually tagged the image. Thanks! Angr 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Micrometro.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Micrometro.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Vernier.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vernier.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary double level cat

re: this... sorry. Was planning to restructure this some (which is the reason for the redlinked cat), and the loop was temporary. Cheers! // FrankB 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to [2]

Why has this been changed to Category:Mathematics in art ?

Tessellations may not always be artistic, of at all Gordo 11:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories.

Revision as of 2006-06-05T08:36:09 (edit) Tano4595

Why change Category:Mathematics to 'Category:Mathematica diagrams ? Gordo 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture candidates/Image:Stacheldraht 05.jpg

I see you started a Featured Picture nomination for Stacheldraht 05.jpg and perhaps because the instructions were a bit confused didn't complete all operations needed. So I have completed the nomination, you might want to vote for it :-) --Tony Wills 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size is a bit below guidelines (only 1447x1085 instead of suggested 1600x1200 minimum) and focus at full resolution is slightly off so I don't know whether it will get far, but thought it should at least be given a chance :-) --Tony Wills 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waugsberg has uploaded four new versions, Image:Stacheldraht 93.jpg, Image:Stacheldraht 92.jpg, Image:Stacheldraht 39.jpg, Image:Stacheldraht 37.jpg. You might want to nominate one of them (remember the FP nomination process involves creating a subpage for the image and then a link to that page is entered in the FP candidate list). --Tony Wills 11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Global Warming Art images

A big license problem!

Category:Global Warming Art images license

GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2; with no Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.
The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License Version 2.5

These two licenses are incompatibles, and the Creative license (NonCommercial) isn't free!

Zimbres 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DELETING CATEGORIES

I am strongly requesting that you stop deleting the Botany Category from the Seeds gallery article. This must stop now. WayneRay 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

De ese agua no beberé

Yo me limito a trabajar sobre las imágenes, y prefiero mantenerme al margen de todos los trolls plantilleros, galeristas y categorizadores que pululan por aquí. Básicamente porque la mayoría son unos maleducados. Eso sí, puedes consultar en COM:VP. --Dodo 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps and continents

Hello,

Categories by continent are for continents according to the 7 continents model, as defined in w:Continent#Number of continents. I choosed this model because it's the most common one in the World. The picture in Category:Categories by continent states this choice.

Don't remind me instructions I contributed to set up. I recently created this draft Commons:Territorial division of the World, which is currently open for comments. If you disagree with the previous scheme, I think it would be a good place to give your opinion. --Juiced lemon 08:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hispanoparlante solícita

Hola Tano, no estás equivocado. Al parecer el subidor confunde churras con merinas (dicho español hablando de razas de ovejas, por si en tu tierra no se utiliza tal dicho y no lo pillas ;))Efectivamente, el software con el que está hecha la web es GNU, pero no los contenidos. Un saludo. Anna 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He revertido a tu edición poniendo el motivo en el resumen (en inglés, of course), espero que sea suficiente, si vuelve a ponerlas le avisaré. Anna 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image Image:Stacheldraht 93.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stacheldraht 93.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 09:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting deletion templates

The deletion request is still open; please do not remove the templates until it is closed. Thank you. -- Editor at Large • talk 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT under any circumstance remove {{Delete}} from pages unless the relevant discussion is closed. Which it isn't. I have blocked you for 2 hours for you to cool off a bit. -- Cat ^chi? 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sobre el bloqueo de mi cuenta

Si te fijas, verás que esas plantillas se pusieron masivamente y sin crear la correspondiente página de discusión en cada una de ellas. Sólo se creó la que corresponde a Category:Transport. A mi entender, el proceder de esa forma es cuando menos temerario. Hubiera debido ponerse sólo en Transport y aguardar el resultado; no se alcanza a comprender qué sentido tiene el poner plantillas en forma masiva, sin aguardar el resultado de la consulta, y lamento que consideres como inapropiado mi comportamiento. Más bien, creo que debieras revisar la actuación del controlador del bot que las puso.

Por otro lado, es muy sugestivo el motivo que usas para bloquear mi cuenta: "I have blocked you for 2 hours for you to cool off a bit": no has sido capaz de poner "ediciones arbitrarias", "remover plantillas de mantenimiento sin justificación", "vandalismo" ni ningún otro motivo que pueda considerarse comprendido en alguna política, sino que has apelado a un argumento emocional. Esto resulta inaceptable en la comunidad, por lo menos hasta donde yo sé, y ya me dirás tú si estoy equivocado al respecto. Espero una disculpa de tu parte, por haber bloqueado mi cuenta con una especie de burla y por tomar como válido lo que hace un bot sin molestarte en revisar el historial de mis contribuciones, que ha sido especialmente centrado en las categorías. Saludos, --Tano4595 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Si hubiera puesto un "eliminación de plantillas de mantenimiento sin justificación" en el resumen de bloqueo, eso habría implicado de forma injusta que eras un usuario problemático, eso sería injusto para contigo. Se había empezado una discusión centralizada sobre la plantilla {{Delete}}, el sentido es iniciar una discusión ya que se pretendía un cambio global con la nominación. Una plantilla {{Delete}} no debe ser borrada nunca de una página, sin importar las circunstancias, siempre que haya una discusión abierta sobre la misma. -- Cat ^chi? 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image included in article

Greetings:

Your image of the colorfully painted reenforced concrete bridge Puente_Tacuarembó in now included in the English Wikipedia article en:Truss_bridge as an example of a pony truss.

Regards, en:User:Leonard G.

Vandalisme

You make a great lot of Vandalisme by remove Categories from Categories. Is it a option as stop that? haabet 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. Commented at user talk:Haabet. Regards, Finn Rindahl 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism becorse he/she remove Categories as it been impossible to finde the Categories. what the sense by Categories if you make it impossible to finde the Categories?haabet 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeat: The edits made by user:Tano4595 removing double categories is NOT "vandalism" by any definition. I'm writing a longer reply in Norwegian at user talk:Haabet. Regards, Finn Rindahl 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Light Cameras

Howdy, I just wanted to ask about this edit. In my opinion, it appears that Category:Objects on roads fits this item perfectly; and it doesn't appear to overlap in the category hierarchy. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWTC and TWTC Nangang Categories

Even though the TWTC Nangang is belonged to Taipei World Trade Center, but Taipei World Trade Center is differ than TWTC Nangang in location, scales, and exhibitions. Rico Shen ^contact... 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation work

I noticed that you did some great reorganisation about categorisations by country. Good work and courage while you are reorganising our world. --Foroa 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography by state

I just spotted that you are removing a lot Category:Geography of the United States from a number of Category:Geography of STATE items. I'm just curious as to why... it's common practice to have such a tree of categories. Would Category:Geography of the United States by state be preferable within Category:Geography of the United States? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trams and trains related signs

It appears to me, that you mix signs, which are intended for train drivers (engine drivers) or tram drivers, with signs, which caution drivers of road vehicles against trains or against trams. --ŠJů (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Category:Impossible objects

Hello. Can you please share with me your arguments for removing this category? Semantically it is even more precise than the other one, despite that it is a level higher. Actually both these categories are equally relevant, in my humble opinion. Please answer me here, I'll watch your talk. →Spiritia 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I answer here, as you like. I'd made those changes working in over-categorization subject. Now Category:Penrose triangles is in Category:Impossible objects. Regards, --Tano4595 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the rule and I foresaw this answer... If you really insist on these being categorized in only one category along the tree path, let it be the deleted (upper) category. As I said, both are relevant, but the upper one is the more precise one. I'll change... →Spiritia 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okey, I agree your changes. Regards, --Tano4595 (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of cities in Italy

Hi Tano4595.

I noticed that in many countries, the cities are categorised in the country itself, the province and sometimes the regio. The country organisation greatly facilitates the search/browsing of a city as you don't have to know geographical organisation details to find a city. Moreover, provinces and regios don't overlap always precisely, so there overlapping categorisation is unavoidable. I think that it is up to the people that organise their country categorisation to decide how they organise it. Personally, I prefer to respect the organisation preferred by the people that live in that country. --Foroa (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you not only want to empty almost completely the "cities in Italy" category, but remove equally the cities in some regio's such as Emilia-Romagna. This does not sound a good idea as the rationale behind a category system can be different per country, area, province, language group, ethnic group, religion group, historical areas, administrative, election, police and juridical organisation. Personally, I would never venture such drastic country categorisation changes without the agrement of the people that spend so much energy (and probably discussions) to create the system. --Foroa (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Foroa

Sorry, I was writing here when you wrote the message in my page. I agree about provinces and regions, but not about the others items. I think the rule of avoid over-categorization is usefull and independent of the persons or the nacionality of the persons. Regards, --Tano4595 (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree, and looking in many countries, I am not the only one. Don't forget that categories are equally used for quick browsing and finding.

It happens very often that I try to categorise in a country (for many pictures, you know only the (beginning of) the city name and the country name) which I don't know (especially in Germany and France), and I have to give up because I don't know the arrondissement, province of region, so I cannot find it.

Whatever position you take on this, this impacts the work of most people organising their country information, so I don't feel I have the right to force them one way of another. So, so far, I will respect the Italian organisation until they decide to change it. --Foroa (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t understand what you are talking about. I'd read Commons:Categories#Over-categorization again and I don't see where are the rules about diferents contries or preferences. And last but not least, ¿what about Commons:Categories#Why is over-categorization a problem? So, if you know that there are many categories having a problem, the best way is solving it. --Tano4595 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very happy with the wording in Commons:Categories#Over-categorization as it is not clear at all. In fact, what is unclear in the text is that the overcategorisation concerns one single categorisation rule/organisation. I have no time right now, but this evening, I well produce a more detailed explanation how many valid categorisation organisations can co-exist in a country; over-categorisation is not the same as overlapping category organisations. In the mean time, I would invite you to try to find the right category for a picture which has only a town name such as Castillon, Châtel, Beveren, Berchem, Jemeppe, Meuse, Frankfurt, Berchem, fr:Villers, Colleville, Crécy, Cérilly, Naves ...

Anyway, for me, the most important categorisation organisation is the one which is used by all people visiting another country, which is the same used by the postal services: the name of the country and village/city is sufficient to find the place. And this is even more important for people that try to categorise pictures in a foreign country. --Foroa (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, my friend, that categories can co-exit (v.g. Category:Province of Reggio Calabria = Category:Provinces of Italy + Category:Provinces of Calabria -> Category:Calabria -> Category:Regions of Italy); this is usefull and don´t break the rules. Is not the same when somebody categorizes in all of them at the same time (Provinces of Calabria + Calabria + Regions of Italy). Such a way makes no sense, in our world, today... if I want to find a city, and I know the city name, I just use a search engine.

In the other way (city name and country name) it will be thousands of pages in each country category, and this is no usefull at all. If I wish to hide somebody, I command him into a multitude :) Regards, --Tano4595 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, for us, the most important categorisation scheme is the town/country categorisation as its saves most time in searching and browsing. Even with thousands of items in it (only textual subcats), each item is only one to three clicks away. Don't tell me you can replace this with the search function. Try to find the As, Our, Villers, Saint-Denis town in Belgium. And this will even get worse because I guesstimate that only 10 to 20 % of the towns in Europe are in the category system. So I would certainly suggest to each country to have a country level city and towns category as this has a proven efficiency effect on categorisation. (which is not a luxury if you know that commons has a categorisation backlog of hundreds of thousands of images).

In parallel of this, in Belgium we use a categorisation system that matches plus minus the structure of the legal/administrative hierarchy: Provinces-Municipalities-Towns-Hamlets (with an exception for the Brussels pseudo-province). 35 years ago, the 2600 villages have been artificially regrouped into 589 municipalities, but most people keep adressing the original village so does the postal system). There have been attempts to add overlapping region (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels) and community (French, German and Flemish) organisation category systems, but so far, we managed to keep out of politically dangerous situations, because we have a simple two way category system. (there are other potential cat systems such as juridical areas, church areas, regions such as Ardennes, Kempen, ...)

Anyway, I feel that if in a country, they feel that they should do their geographical categorisation in a certain way, I will not change that behind against their way of working. The most important is that they feel at home here and that they find their optimal way of working. --Foroa (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That´s fine, I agree each country has it own legal/administrative hierarchy, but you are pushing me in another way, the way of over-categorization. I feel not undertanding the subject you want to (or the reciprocal, you don't undertand the subject I'm trying). Perhaps you are talking about categorize "Cities of Italy" in "Italy", instead of "Geography of Italy"? --Tano4595 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) PS: By the way, "Tano" means "Italian" :)[reply]

(Reset indent) Indeed, I am discussing about cities of xxx that should contain what the names says. The more I look at it, the more I see a big mixup. You have the category:Cities by country, category:Cities and villages by country, category:Villages by country and even category:Municipalities by country. What I am talking about is about the first two ones which tend to be overlapping/similar.

My personal primary need is to accelerate my categorisation work. Most of the time, when you have an image pertaining to a location, you have the (essential part of the) village name and the (guessed) country. So, I look in "cities in xxx". This works perfectly for a number of countries, such as Poland, the Netherlands, Russia, Israel, Lithuania, Belgium, Turkey, Serbia ... Basically, their clean "Cities in xxx" category contain what the names says: the list of cities (and villages) of that country.

In France, this is well organised, but you have to know the name of the region or the departement, which is often a problem, especially with often recurring names (such as starting with Castillon, Châtel...). In the municipalities of Germany, it is well organised too, but you need again to know the names of the state, region or district, which is often a problem if you know only the first part of the city name (I.e. Frankfurt/Frankfort). On the other hand, in the cat Cities in Spain and Italy, I am completely lost. So I hardly categorise images in those countries because it is just too time consuming to find things. (In Belgium, we created the categories for most villages upfront so categorisation work is now much quicker too)

In parallel to this "city of xxx" list which should be as flat as possible, we need the traditional hierarchical administrative/geographical cat organisation (subdivisions, regions/provinces, districts/arrondissements, municipalities, towns, hamlets, ...). But don't tell me that, because we have a proper hierarchical/administrative categorisation organisation, that we have to give up our most important flat list: cities in xxx.

In conclusion, what I am saying has nothing to do with overcategorisation but with several category systems in parallel, such as a city that can belong simultaneously to the region, province, district, aggrandisement, cities in xxx ... category organisation. And in that context, the official text in Commons:Categories#Over-categorization is very incomplete as it discusses only the problem in one single categorisation logic to which you refer all the time, but nobody seems to mention the natural "parallel" and overlapping organisation schemes you will find in most mature categorisation systems. --Foroa (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understood what you said, although I disagree about the usefully. The way proposed ("city that can belong simultaneously to the region, province, district, aggrandisement, cities in xxx ...") is a typical over-categorization problem. Parallel and overlapping are different tools. For instance, Category:Dunhuang works in a right way with Category:Cities in Gansu + Category:Cities along the Silk Road ("parallel" categories, OK), but is overlapped with Category:Cities in China and Category:Cities in Asia (over-categorization problem).

Search of categories (and files) is easier when the subject is well know by the editor (where Dunhuang is), but the categorization in overlapped categories is a big problem in the general plan of Commons. Please, note that the problem is not only for cities; each file must be provided with correct categories when somebody upload it, and must be searchable. But the tool is not over-categorization, it's a search engine. If don't, we'll have thousands and thousands of files not only in "Cities" but also in "Physics", "Science", or any other topic. Look, for instance, Category:Plantae... We can´t handle 110,439,557 files showing them in two or three clicks! So, the system is supported in sub-categories. I agree with the official text in Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. Regards, --Tano4595 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
End of copy

Imágenes sin fuentes e imagen desaparecida

Hola Tano, supongo que eres administrador de Commons. Hay dos imágenes de Alondritz de la ciudad de Cumas en las que no especifica la fuente: una de ellas es ésta: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cueva_de_la_Sibila_cuma_DSCN3813.JPG. Dicho usuario no ha creado su página personal, ni en Commos ni en Wikipedia en español, y mi nivel de inglés no alcanza para decírselo. Que conste que si fueran borradas, el artículo de Cumas en que incluí esta y otra imagen subidas por él, se quedaría sin imágenes. Prefiero esto a que permanezcan en Commons en el estado actual ¿Puedes avisarle tú? No muestra actividad desde hace casi un año (agosto de 2007), quizás se haya retirado.

Sobre la imagen desaparecida, lo expuse en le Café. Te adjunto el dif., por si puedes averiguar qué sucede. Dicha imagen está rota en el artículo Santuario de los Grandes Dioses de Samotracia, que estuvo en portada como AB el 6 de julio de 2008. Te lo agradecería mucho. Esto es todo. Espero no darte mucho trabajo: Muchas gracias. Un abrazo. Dorieo (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tano, muchísimas gracias por contestarme tan rápido y por facilitarme la lista de administradores. Recurriré a Alhen, si no me contestan en el Café. Te estoy muy agradecido por tu interés ;). Un abrazo. Dorieo (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias Tano. Ya lo han solucionado entra Alhen y Chabacano. Un abrazo. --Dorieo (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorie Italia

Mr. Tano, can you stop, please, your destruction of the categories of Italy?! You cancelled a lot of Categories, and so you interrupt the chain to find all the under-categories! Italy has Regions, and this have Provinces, and this Cities (Comuni). This division it's applied to the geography, to the archaeology, to the art, etc. Everywhere you made a lot of damages because you cancelled middle-categories! STOP THIS NOW! Or I will be obliged to call an admin! --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:DenghiùComm: Mind your manners, please. You are talking about me, and in a wrong way. I don't cancelled not damaged anything, and I don't want to. If you have any specific fact to talk about my editions (perhaps wrong editions?), please, do it in that way. You shouldn't talk in a generic way of "damages" and "destructions". Regards, --Tano4595 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Tano, i can not enough english to explain what I wont; so I try in italian because you speak spanish. I hope that we will understand us.

Io non voglio contestarle tutte le cancellature che lei ha fatto della categoria "Cities of Italy": certamente mi hanno sorpreso, ma non mi importano molto. Forse questa categoria con tutte le città d'Italia potrebbe creare delle over-categorisation, ed allora lei avrebbe ragione. Certo però che non trovo molto corretto il suo modo di procedere: lei cancella come un bulldozer questa categoria a tutte le città, e non si pone nemmeno la domanda che cosa si intende esattamente con la categoria "Cities of Italy": un elenco completo delle città italiane? un elenco solo di quelle più importanti? un elenco di quelle minori? Ecco, forse sarebbe stato più corretto che prima di metterci mano, togliendo questa categoria a centinaia di voci, lei avesse iniziato una discussione con i vari utenti e semmai con chi quella categoria l'aveva creata, per decidere pacificamente tutti quanti insieme che cosa andava veramente fatto. Lo dico così, semplicemente per dirle come dovrebbe procedere con correttezza, visto che in Commons non c'è solo lei a lavorare... Comunque le ripeto, a me personalmente quella categoria "Cities of Italy" non mi interessa. Quindi chiudo qui. Quello che però trovo insopportabile sono le interruzioni che lei ha fatto in numerosissimi punti nella catena delle categorie. Quello che lei ha cancellato come redundant o over-categorization erano invece anelli importanti della catena, che permettevano di trovare rapidamente i soggetti che si cercano. Debbo premettere che l'Italia è suddivisa amministrativamente in Regioni, che sono suddivise in Province, che contengono a loro volta i Comuni, che posseggono delle Frazioni o delle Località minori. Questo schema gerarchico, ad albero, si può ritrovare ad ogni livello di ricerca, sia che si tratti di suddivisioni amministrative, che di monumenti, che di arte, di geografia, o quant'altro. Lei mi ha chiesto di dirle quali sono i punti che io le contesto; veramente ne sono centinaia, ma io ora le farò solo alcuni esempi. Cominciamo proprio dall'Italia: qui [3] lei ha interrotto il collegamento fra l'Italia e le sue suddivisioni regionali, che adesso invece bisogna andarsele a cercare. Sembra che la sua preoccupazione ed interesse primario sia solo quello di ridurre le categorie, e lo fa anche quando non conosce le zone geografiche, creando dei danni seri. Difatti non considera che, oltre alle suddivisioni amministrative vi sono anche quelle geografiche, per cui una categoria può (e deve!) trovarsi anche in diverse sotto-categorie. Questo lo dimostrano i suoi interventi irresponsabili che ha fatto qui [4] dove ha tolto la "Provincia di Napoli" a "Procida": lei lo avrà fatto perchè Procida è già categorizzata in "Campi Flegrei", ma i Campi Flegrei sono un'area vulcanica a nord di Napoli di cui Procida fa parte; ma Procida fa parte anche della Provincia di Napoli (area amministrativa), allora se lei toglie Procida da qui, in Provincia di Napoli risulteranno tutte le città della provincia meno che Procida. Dunque non lo deve fare! Lo stesso errore lo ha fatto qui [5] togliendo la "Provincia di Salerno" al sito archeologico di "Elea-Velia" (è lo stesso discorso: la città antica fa parte del Cilento, che è un'area geografica che è contenuta nell'area amministrativa della Provincia di Salerno: deve esserci in entrambe le categorie!); e qui [6] con Paestum ha fatto un disastro anche maggiore perchè oltre a togliere l'area amministrativa (Provincia di Salerno), ha tolto anche l'area geografica (il Cilento), perchè per lei è sufficiente la Magna Grecia! Ma lasciare solo Magna Graecia non basta, perchè Paestum non esiste solo nella storia ma anche nella geografia e nell'amministrazione! Anche per il "Vallo di Diano" ([7]) lei ha tolto la Provincia di Salerno, quando poi essa è citata addirittura all'inizio della pagina! Allora, visto che questi suoi interventi dimostrano che lei non conosce nè la realtà attuale di questi luoghi, nè queste aree geografiche, nè le loro suddivisioni amministrative, io la invito caldamente a non proseguire in questa opera distruttiva che è un danno per Commons, e non un'opera buona come lei invece crede di fare. Grazie per la sua collaborazione! Tanti saluti e buon lavoro! Le augura --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caro amico, grazie molto! Il vostro messaggio è di molto sussidio me. Correggerò necessario, se non le avete fatte prima. Tanti saluti e buon lavoro! --Tano4595 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie per la sua risposta. Qualche cosa (molto poco!) l'ho corretta già io. Ma lei dovrebbe ripercorrere tutte le sue cancellazioni per verificare se sono veramente corrette o no. Un grande lavoro che sarebbe giusto se lo facesse lei! Grazie! Saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities inside other cities?

Gentile signor Tano. Vorrei segnalarle un altro grosso danno che lei ha fatto con delle città in Calabria. Lei ha tolto una serie di città dalla Category:Province of Reggio Calabria per metterle in una nuova categoria da lei creata "Category:Cities in Reggio Calabria" (per esempio qui [8]) che è una vera follia! Reggio Calabria è una città e non esistono altre città che stanno dentro questa città! Esiste poi la Provincia di Reggio Calabria che ha un suo territorio in cui rientrano diverse città minori. Per intanto ho fatto cancellare questa sua nuova categoria come "bad name" e le città sono confluite nella categoria generica delle "Cities in Calabria". Le sarei molto grato se lei individuasse di nuovo tutte le città che aveva tolto dalla categoria della Provincia di Reggio Calabria e ridesse loro questa categorizzazione specifica. Grazie per la sua collaborazione! Saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saludos Tano

¡Hola Tano! ¿como andás? una vez más, mi nick name —al igual que mi equivalente en Wikipedia— es un derroche de imaginación así como de patriotismo jaja... Hace algún tiempo que ando acá en Commons, ya tuve como dos nicks distintos pero por olvidarme de las contraseñas —y lo que es peor, de mis propios nicks, ahí no habían mails de WikiAdmin que me salvaran— me tuve que crear el más obvio y absurdo para no caer en la misma... Te cuento que lo de las categorías lo descubrí hoy, y al subir estas fotitos recién salidas del horno me di cuenta de todo el proceso, ya que por lo general escaneaba cosas de libros como la Gran Enciclopedia del Uruguay o en algún caso fotos de Flickr, pero jamás le había prestado atención a lo de las categorizaciones. De ahora en más lo haré siempre, y si querés hacerme notar algo yo estoy dispuesto a aceptarlo, ya que tanto en la vida como en Commons o Wikipedia estamos para aprender. Algún día de esto edito un poco mi pagina de usuario en Commons ya que literalmente no existe, pero siempre está la discusión por si vos o quien sea desean contactarme. Te agradezco pila tu recibimiento y ayuda, y si puedo ayudarte en algo estoy dispuesto.

Para terminar con una pequeña ironía del destino, el 31 de octubre de 2006, cuando ingresé como usuario a Wikipedia, vos también fuiste el que me recibiste en mi discusión. Estoy un poco al tanto de lo que hiciste allá, y la verdad que es admirable. Bueno, sin más que decir, un abrazo y hasta pronto, coterráneo montevideano.

Uruguayo-92 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vos que tenés súper ojos :)

Hola Tano, todo bien por aquí, espero que tú también. La categoría ponía esto: {{bad name|Category:Cities in Calabria}}
Reggio Calabria is a city! There are not other cities in this city!

Different way, it is necessary to divide all the Cities in Calabria in the different Provinces of Calabria (and there is the Province of Reggio Calabria too!).

But the name of this Category is absolutly wrong and to delete!

fue borrada por User:Rlevse y creada por User:Warburg. Espero que sirva la información, si necesitas algo más dame un silbidito. Saludos. Anna (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

El creador (warburg) la categorizó únicamente con [[Category:Cities in Italy]]
En tu primera edición de esa categoría (el 7 de julio) tú añadiste [[Category:Province of Reggio Calabria]]
Tu siguiente edición un minuto después fue para cambiar [[Category:Cities in Italy]] por [[Category:Cities in Calabria| ]] como pones en el resumen de edición de esa revisión: (Removed category "Cities in Italy"; Quick-adding category "Cities in Calabria" (using HotCat.js))

Las siguientes tres ediciones (15 de julio) son de User:DenghiùComm. La primera donde quitó la barra vertical de cities in Calabria y las otras dos retoques de formato en el texto que puso, eliminando espacios entre líneas. Esa es toda la información que hay en el historial de revisiones.

Considero que si tú cometiste un error fue el de no darte cuenta de que el nombre de la categoría era incorrecto, ~~y colocar una cat redundante, puesto que Category:Province of Reggio Calabria es una subcategoría de Category:Provinces of Calabria y esta a su vez de Category:Calabria,~~ o sea que si alguien cometió un "gran daño" fue el creador, no tú, pelillos a la mar ;). Anna (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC) P.D: Olvida el segundo error, no me había dado cuenta de que provinces y cities son cats paralelas. Algo me estaba chirriando en la cabeza mientras le daba la comida al perro, ¡qué torpe! Anna (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Puedo usar esta foto?

Hola. Estoy escribiendo en la :es:Wikipedia la biografía de esta señora, y me preguntaba si puedo usar la imagen de la wiki inglesa (la del vínculo ‘esta señora’ de más arriba). Como verás, la persona que la guardó en :en:Wikipedia la declara licenciada GFDL diciendo Granted under GFDL license in e-mail correspondence with Author, mails archived at permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, pero el caso es que creo que la imagen no está en Commons, o al menos no la encuentro. ¿estaría muy feo que yo la cargara en Commons repitiendo los datos? Perdona la molestia, pero paso por aquí de pascuas a ramos y siempre con dudas. Procuro, eso sí, molestar cada vez a un administrador hispano distinto; te ha tocado :) ¡Muchas gracias! Vivero (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Bueno, al final me he armado de valor, he leído las instrucciones, y he bajado la foto en [[Image:Charsolomon TProskouriakoff.jpg]], explicando de donde he sacado el material. ¿Te importaría mirar si he hecho algo mal? Ya te digo que he trabajado en commons muy pocas veces. Perdona las molestias Vivero (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Muchas gracias! Perdona la confusión. Había pensado en principio en incordiar a Anna/Gusgus/cookie, pero al entrar en su página vi tu nombre, y a ella la tenía "repe", de haberle dado la lata en otras ocasiones, así que derivé la agresión a tu persona. Quedo muy agradecido.Vivero (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statistical charts and diagrams

Hi, I proposed to rename the "Category:Statistical charts and diagrams" to "Category:Statistical charts" , see Category talk:Statistical charts and diagrams. Could you take a look, and respond. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorías

Hola Tano4595, ¡gracias por trabajar para no tener categorías redundantes! Sin embargo, en algunos casos - como este - tiene sentido categorizar en dos categorías de quienes una está también parte de la otra. En este caso, los "loops and bights" están usados para hacer nodos. (De hecho, vengo de creer otra categoría porque ya no encontré la "Category: Loops and Bights" en la "Category: Knots". Ahora voy a pedir de suprimir la categoría original) Además, la "Category: Knots" es la categoría más especializada que la "category:ropes", y no parece prudente suprimir algo de la categoría más especializada en el caso de categorías redundantes. Bueno, de todos modos sería amable de no suprimir categorías aunque está claro que de veras están redundantes. Graciás, Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC) PS: Perdoname mi español de mala calidad por favor.[reply]

Category:Railway lines

Category discussion notification

Category:Railway lines 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

File:Spacetime3b.jpg

BotMultichillT 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Spacetime3b.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Spacetime3b.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Category:Venturi

Venturi 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ariadacapo (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

File:UP Diesel.png

File:UP Diesel.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Foundations

Foundations 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Computer-generated_images

Computer-generated images 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Beams

Beams 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tano4595

Problem image

St. Peter's

Image Tagging Image:Graf Spee.png

Definition of the category Seaplanes

categoría

Licencias

Veterinary Surgeon

Re:Tarea

Admin

Tagging unsourced/unlicensed images

Image Tagging Image:Micrometro.png

Image Tagging Image:Vernier.png

Temporary double level cat

Changes to [2]

Categories.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Stacheldraht 05.jpg

Category:Global Warming Art images

STOP DELETING CATEGORIES

De ese agua no beberé

Maps and continents

Re:Hispanoparlante solícita

FP Promotion

Reverting deletion templates

{{Delete}}

Sobre el bloqueo de mi cuenta

Image included in article

Vandalisme

Red Light Cameras

TWTC and TWTC Nangang Categories

Categorisation work

Geography by state

Trams and trains related signs

Removed Category:Impossible objects

Categorisation of cities in Italy

Imágenes sin fuentes e imagen desaparecida

Categorie Italia

Cities inside other cities?

Saludos Tano

Re:Vos que tenés súper ojos :)

¿Puedo usar esta foto?

Category:Statistical charts and diagrams

Categorías

Category:Railway lines

Please help replace this outdated license

Copyright status: File:Spacetime3b.jpg

Category:Venturi

File:UP Diesel.png

Category:Foundations

Category:Computer-generated_images

Category:Beams

Navigation menu

Search