User talk:Dbachmann

Soft redirect page

en:User_talk:Dbachmann

dave pape 15:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ∙ україн��ька ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tiberkul church.jpg. 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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. Butko (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well done. This was a perfectly legal self-made image. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello Dbachmann!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Chambers Yule Log.png is uncategorized since 25 November 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:BlankMap-Europe-v5a.png is uncategorized since 13 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Roma in Europe 2007 cropped.png is uncategorized since 16 January 2009. BotMultichillT 05:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Romani population average estimate.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Runes futhark old.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

As a consequence of the archaeological excavations at Arzhan, Republic of Tyva, to which reference is made in the text, the full eastern spread of the Scythians should be included on the map Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png‎. Ref.: [1]

The size of the kurgans, and quality of the findings now on display in the National Museum in Kyzyl, capital of the Republic of Tyva, surpass contemporary discoveries further west to Ukraine, and thus throw into question the 'origin' of the Scyths.

I have spent several years living in Tyva, teaching at the university - hence my interest.

Regarding the centum/satem map, isn't it rather artificial to place Romanian and French on opposite sides of the isogloss? Romanian appears among the satem languages and French among the centum languages. The words for "hundred" in these languages are "sută" and "cent" respectively; both are pronounced with an 's' (i.e. an alveolar fricative). But both derive from Latin centum.

The placement on either side of the line seems like an attempt to enforce some clear east/west split, at the expense of historical fact. --Saforrest (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again.You think i can upload this? footmen evolution and this Helmets.Its a sketch(es), from here Christopher Webber's page if i get his permission?. Megistias (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, you probably cannot upload somebody else's artwork just like that. You need to file a verifiable permission via Wikimedia's ticket system. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok i contacted both the artist and the magazine and i am expecting an answer.Megistias (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, could I also ask a question Owen7773 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An image you uploaded a while back has no information about source nor what is shown. Could you please add information? Thanks!

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.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Gladiatoria 113.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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

--Infrogmation (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:White_people_variety.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 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） ∙ +/−

MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¿Do you have this picture or other? --Viejo sabio (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2009 (UCT)

Sorry, I don't have that one. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you very much for the rest of Bollingen's images. A greeting. --Viejo sabio (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I find your previous map File:Iron Age Italy.png) much superior to your latest one (File:Iron Age Italy.svg). The former has a colour scheme that shows the linguistic affinities between the languages (and also has relief). So I've reverted to that for my article Scii. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Northern india blank map.png
• File:Orient 27 43 22 55 blank map.png
• File:Greece 34 43 17 30 blank map.png
• File:Pontic caspian blank map.png
• File:Europe plain rivers.png

BotMultichillT 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbachmann. A couple of other editors and I are looking to take the Horse article to FA status on the English WP, and we would like to use your image File:Chariot spread.png in the article. However, as an image in an FA article, it needs to include a source for the information you included in the drawing. Would you possibly be able to add this information to the description of the image? Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information about Ukraine

Hi Db, your map is not right. Ukraine has only 0,5% of muslim population (or 250,000) and your map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_in_Europe.png) is showing 5%. Please edit this mistake. Thanks! --93.141.2.49 11:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1500 B.C., Turkic-speaking peoples were probably mainly in Siberia, and Iranian-speaking peoples (and other Indo-European speakers) probably inhabited a greater area of central Asia (and even Kazakhstan) than what is shown on the map... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just figured out that it's "before present, not B.C. However, my remarks partly apply to File:IE3500BP.png... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[comment made at User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive3]

"In my opinion, a bas-relief is not a sculpture. A high-relief may arguably be a collection of diminutive sculptures in front of a stone face, but a bas-relief is clearly a 2-dimensional work of art, depicting a scene from only a single angle.

You might as well argue that an oil-painting is a 3-dimensional work of art because the paint layers have thickness.

Photographs of sculptures are legally considered original works, because lighting and choice of angle may be done creatively by the photographer. A bas-relief cannot be reproduced "orignally". This image is merely an unoriginal reproduction of a 2-dimensional ancient work of art and consequently not copyrightable. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

[end of comment]

I have reverted your comment made on my Archive. Archives are just that, not active discussions. Comments made on a talk page are very public, while those made on an archive are essentially invisible, except to you and me.

As to your point, perhaps you should have read the discussion while you were at my archive as it clearly addressed the points you made above.

I agree that a bas-relief may not be a sculpture within the usual meaning of the word. It is, however, a 3D work, not 2D. The direction and angle of the lighting can dramatically affect the image.

My view is reinforced by our formal policy on coins, Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. A coin and a bas-relief such as the one we are discussing have more or less the same relief.

Finally, our position that photographs of 2D works do not have a new copyright is based entirely on Bridgeman v Corel, which dealt only with 2D works. This is not a 2D work, despite your opinion to the contrary.

Feel free to try to change our well established policy on coins and similar works. However, until that policy is changed, works like this will remain unacceptable on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bridgeman v Corel does not address this case in any way, I fail to see why should be able to cite it in support of your point of view any more than I could cite it in support of mine.

If there is a court verdict stating explicitly that bas-reliefs should be considered "3-dimensional works of art" for the purposes of copyright law, I would be interested in seeing it. And after being shown such a verdict I would of course immediately concede that this settles the question. As long as there isn't, this is simply idle speculation.

If there is a precedent that makes your point that "dramatic effects" of lighting on bas-reliefs or coins should be considered an original work worthy of copyright protection, I would be interested in seeing it. As long as there is no such precedent, I see no reason why wikimedia should go beyond actual legal practice in assuming things to be copyrighted. I am sure you can also create a "dramatic" effect by reproducing a photograph using, say, red lighting, or no lighting. But as we both know, such an effect, no matter how dramatic, has no effect on copyright. --Dbachmann (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag_of_the_Libyan_Jamahiriya_1977.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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） ∙ +/−

Fry1989 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March, you tagged File:Armenian Empire2.png for deletion, but it appears that the nomination was not completed. I have re-nominated that file, along with another, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armenian Empire2.png. Cheers, Black Falcon (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you talk about my behavior when you make edits like this in which you replace sourced content with your opinion. When one says things like "fallen out of use completely", "has been used as continental boundary in Late Antiquity", "has been the commonly used continental boundary", one can hardly be trusted on one's words alone. You should know that by now.

You have actually been pushing your opinions blatantly on other pages as well, such as this. Your new description reads "Locator map of Serbia which has been altered to show Armenia instead of Serbia for some reason."??? Is this some kind of mockery? Comments like this have no place in descriptions. So what that another map was used, most of the maps are actually derivative works and this one makes it clear in the description.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my opinions, it has everything to do with encyclopedic content discussed at w:continental boundary and elsewhere. Also, you are edit warring against numerous editors, all bona fide map editors. People upload broken and erroneous maps to commons. These should either be corrected or deleted. Sometimes I cannot be bothered to do either, so I leave at least a comment warning people against using it in encyclopedia articles. --Dbachmann (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat this again: you deleted my sourced info. and replaced it with your opinions. You did the same thing on other maps, like the one I provided above. This little paragraph that you just wrote does not address any of the two instances raised above, and it does not explain why you feel like you have a monopoly in determining which maps are "erroneous" - despite being sourced - and which are not.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. your "sourced info" concerned Herodotus. In a map that has nothing to do with Herodotus. You, madam, are just a troll. --Dbachmann (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I at least had some source, while you had absolutely none. Using words like "standard", "most common", "most standard" requires that you furnish necessary evidence but I have not seen any of that as of now. That is undoubtedly the reason why you limit yourself to one sentence answers here and other pages. Answer my argument on the Europe map page,where are you hiding?--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I have "no source"? Please come to w:continental boundary and read all about it. It's an encyclopedia article. With references. --Dbachmann (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a job, and do not destroy my work! Your work is vandalism! --SeikoEn (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sumerian_26th_c_Adab.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 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） ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khashkhamer_seal_moon_worship.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 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） ∙ +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing everything up with the file. I went and put the Swedish into the language template. And I didn't mean to put the old category back in. Sorry about that. Hazmat2 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kievan_Rus'_historical_map_980_1054.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 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） ∙ +/−

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please tag images --Nikbot 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

thank you, dear Nikbot, but I wanted this image deleted. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaldean flag.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 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） ∙ +/−

84.61.164.191 15:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kapara relief Gilgamesh winged sun.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 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 ∙ рус��кий ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

AFBorchert (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Trijnstel_talk 10:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You now have the filemover right. INeverCry 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that your revert didn't work. Is it just my cache? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. The image is ok again for me at this point. Must be your cache. --Dbachmann (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great job tracking down the origin of the image.

In light of its actual subject matter, should the file be renamed? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, there is a much better quality scan at bnf.fr, so I suppose we could just upload that under another filename. I would like to keep the old image around though, as it has really made wikihistory over the past seven years or so. I actually remember the original debate on this image back in 2005. --Dbachmann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably certain that it's just the word "Spiritus" written upside-down for some reason... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you may be right. Interesting, it never occurred to me that "spiritus" upside-down would look like "baruch", but I'll retract my claim. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Looking at the image again, the bottom two "Non Est"s are written mostly upside down, so writing "Spiritus" upside down is consistent with that... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. I was misled by the "capital S" used for Spiritus. --Dbachmann (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The license of this image now appears to be CC NC. Not sure what it was before [2]. Thoughts. James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looks ok to me. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbachmann, I like your picture of Indo-European Expansion (File:IE expansion.png) that you created all the way back in 2005. But there are some problems with it, if you check the English Wikipedia talk page (here), you see that a user has listed several errors in the image. I would agree with all of the points made in that list, except perhaps Crete and Cyprus as I think they were at least partly Greek by that date. Other anomalies would be the Etruscans in Italy and I'm not sure about the arrangement in Iberia either. Another issue may be Anatolia, my understanding is that the Northern coastal region of Turkey was non-Indo-European for a long time after 2500 BC. The Kaskians and the Hattians lived there and in central Anatolia at that time and the Hattian area should only be Indo-European at 1000 BC, after the Hittites conquered the Hatti, in around ~1800 BC. Apart from those problems it's a nice map, but I think the issues should be resolved since this has now become such a frequently used image (several dozen articles on English Wikipedia alone use it). It would be really nice if you could create another expansion layer at like 500 BC or so. In fact it would probably be better to start with a higher resolution map, because that old one is very small for modern displays. --Hibernian (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, I drew this picture as a brief sketch of the situation back in 2005. At the time, there was next to no coverage on the topic and a rough sketch was better than nothing. It is high time that the picture was replaced. I have always been aware that the image is only a rough illustration and not to be taken as accurate in any detail. It should just be superseded by a better map. So, the guy who made the list of complaints should just invest a little more effort and draw an improved map. It will be pointless to "fix" my old map, a the quality is simply too low. It could as best serve as a starting point on which to base the new maps. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Celtism - Zero response to call for discussion. We're the only two who seem to have bothered with it. Looks like it's up to us. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I accept "Celtism" as an awkward synonym for "Celtic Neopaganism", so at least as long as the category isn't duplicated under several synonyms I suppose I don't care too much what it is called. But I agree that a move to "Celtic Neopaganism" would be preferable. Even if "Celtism" may (or may not) be acceptable, it certainly isn't unambiguous. The primary meaning of "Celtism" is much wider, referring to "the Celtic character" in culture, language, etc., certainly not limited to polytheistic or pre-Christian topics. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:RavenBannerYork.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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） ∙ +/−

Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odin Vendel helmet.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 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） ∙ +/−

Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black people 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 gallery, 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europe plain rivers.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） ∙ +/−

JuTa 11:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:IE expansion.png, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My support to your viewpoint here. I'm virtually speechless. Kind regards.--Gilwellian (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If a file has been on Commons for several years, do not tag it for speedy deletion. Open a regular deletion request instead. In addition, do not remove information from the description page. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry, I meant to mark it as "copyrighted", not as "speedy". Also, I did submit a formal deletion request for the parent image. I am not aware that I did remove any information, I rather added what information I could find. I actually did spend some time researching this, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allah-eser.jpg ‎ . --Dbachmann (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this page's talk. I left you a message. 174.17.25.26 17:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What page? Give me a link or expect me not to bother. --Dbachmann (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of al-Qaeda in Iraq.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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 ∙ Plattd��ütsch ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Axiom292 (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scythia-Parthia 100 BC.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） ∙ +/−

KDS4444 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:World 820.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） ∙ +/−

JuTa 11:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder Seal of Khashkhamer

Dear Dbachmann, I have written a book called "A Journey to Faith: Why the World Needs Jesus Christ" which follows the genealogy in the Bible from the time of Abraham to Jesus. When looking at the time of Abraham I explain what the City of Ur was like including the worship of the Moon-god Sin (Nanna) which is represented on this cylinder seal as the crescent moon. I would love to use this image in my book but my publisher requires a written permission for me to use this. As you have uploaded the image, could you reply in writing that it is OK for me to use this (I realise it is in the public domain, but my publisher still requires written permission). Kind Regards - Paul Brunton. PaulBrunton64 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dear Paul, the image is simply a scan from a book published in 1915 (Donald A. Mackenzie, Myths of Babylonia and Assyria, 1915, p. 50). If I can give you permission to use this image, you can just as well give yourself permission too (yes, you have my permission of course, but you don't need it, and I can not really "give you permission" for something you are free to do anything, I could as well "give you permission" to write a book about Jesus, which as I see you already did without asking me). --Dbachmann (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images were first published by Fackler in the following report for the U.S. Army. They were then republished in countless articles and books.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY by M.L. Fackler, M.D.

Letterman Army Institute of Research Division of Military Trauma Research Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219

Institute Report No. 239 July 1987

SEE http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

How shall we proceed?--RAF910 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to put the info in the "other versions=" box?--RAF910 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some stricter Muslims object to so many symbols that the mosque icons are actually some of the relatively few which are innocuous. Not entirely sure why you've adopted a purist definition of what is an Islamic symbol in the current version of the page. AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to the mosque clip-art, which as you say is completely innocuous, I am objecting to the use of the term "religious symbol" to mean "clip-art". Of course you can use a mosque image as "clip-art" to imply "Islamic" (although you may still be misunderstood as trying to convey the meaning "mosque" rather than "Islam"). But we should discourage people to do so on Wikipedia (and commons remains first and foremost a repository for images potentially to be used on Wikipedia), because there is no place at all for clip-art in Wikipedia articles (with the possible exception of articles that are about clip-art).

Apart from the clipart problem, people appear to think that "religious symbol" means "some kind of logo used to represent some religion". This is not what the term means, and it is childish to attempt to come up with "religious logos". It is true that some religions have used such emblems in their history (most notably the fish emblem used by early Christians during persecution, here the fish is rebus writing for Jesus, but it is used as an emblem to convey "I am a Christian"). There is no reason to expect other religions have comparable emblems. A "religious symbol" is, in fact, a symbol used to represent a specific notion within a given religion. E.g. the bread and wine are Christian symbols representing Christ, or the Alif is a Sufi symbol representing both divine unity and Man. --Dbachmann (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your concerns may be interesting in a philosophical sense, but I'm not too sure that they change much of the practicalities involved in determining whether something something occurs as a symbol -- and they've led you into some kind of edit war with User:Cathy Richards, and to seem to take a side in inter-Muslim disputes by purging gallery Religious symbol of all images which might possibly be objectionable to Wahhabis/Salafis/purists. The hexagram was not particularly religious in content when it began to be identified as a symbol of the Jewish community in central Europe during the late middle ages, but I imagine that many Jews today would object to purging it from lists of Jewish symbols, and much the same is true of the crescent or star and crescent in Islam... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you say yourself, your "religious symbols" categorisation is causing trouble and edit wars. This is sufficient reason to make this a practical problem, not an abstract philosophical one. You seem to be making no distinction between "Jewish symbol" and "symbol of Judaism"? This is unfortunate, and I would argue part of the problem. I made a Category:Islamic crescents. This is intended for images where crescents are used explicitly in an Islamic context. This is very different from just lumping any "crescent" as automatically within an "Islamic" scope, which is nonsense. Similarly, not any hexagram is automatically a star of David, but if we have an image that explicitly depicts a star of David, of course it is to be categorised as a Jewish symbol. Even an "Islamic crescent" is not a "symbol of Islam" by any stretch, even though it may be an "Islamic symbol". I am afraid I find it quite tedious to be forced to point out this kind of thing explicitly.

I will be very happy to categorize File:Flag of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress.png as an "Islamic symbol" (better yet, Category:Islamic logos subcategory), but neither can it be categorized as a "Symbol of Islam", nor can a random image like File:Crescent.svg be categorized as "Islamic" any more than File:Hexagram.svg should be categorized as "Jewish", either directly or via category transclusion. As for the religious symbols page, this is slightly disturbing because it is a "content" page hosted on commons and so tends to receive less scrutiny and seems to be exempt from having to cite its sources. Controversial content should be delegated to Wikipedia exclusively, where all the content quality guidelines have to be applied, in this case w:Religious symbol (which is an extremely poor article, but at least it is tagged as such) --Dbachmann (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there's been no meaningful edit war on gallery Religious symbols (less than 50 edits over 8 years, only two of them explicit reverts), and I'm not really the main editor on that page. Since you're the one who is in some kind of struggle with Cathy_Richards, YOUR actions would appear to be causing more "trouble" and edit wars than mine are! I'm sure that your abstract symbolic metaphysics might be of interest in some particular contexts, but they appear to have little relevance to the practical task of improving Wikipedia and/or Commons... 12:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

well, "dude", I tried to explain my rationale in spite of your tone, but I can see now this wasn't the right decision. If you think that semantics is irrelevant when building the category system I would just suggest you try to avoid becoming involved in this kind of exchange. --Dbachmann (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't explain your reasoning behind your classifications in such a manner that those without advanced degrees in philosophy can understand it, then such classifications would appear to have little little relevance to the practical task of improving Wikipedia and/or Commons. (Note: I actually have an advanced degree in a relevant field, though not philosophy.) I often respect the things that you do, but every so often you go off on a semi-strange personal tangent (such as on the Labrys-Lesbian connection), and in such cases it's useless to expect people to follow you... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I got it, you didn't like my explanation. Enough already. Here is the short version: "Symbol of Islam" != "Islamic Symbol". Just name your categories in plain English and try to avoid misunderstandings or ambiguities. The end. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are some doubts concerning this image, that you uploaded years ago. Somebody declares that www.lindenmuseum.de can't be its source. Can you comment on this? Is it possible that you make a mistake? Ankry (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• see archive.org. But this is immaterial anyway, this is just a random url where it was hosted, the reason the image is free is because it reproduces an 11th-century manuscript drawing, not because it happened to be hosted on lindenmuseum.de or anywhere else. I really don't see why anyone would bother to dispute such a thing (and if they do, why they would not spend 30 seconds with archive.org to check). Dbachmann (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The problem was not a license, but the real source. Somebody claimed it was false. No problem now. Ankry (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:LAK-617.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the 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.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

diff -- it was a typo (not by me). --Dbachmann (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames zoomorphic knife mount.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 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） ∙ +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

---

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Taplow drinking horns.jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

Elisfkc (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English families 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 ∙ +/−

Wikimandia (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sumerian MS2272 2400BC.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 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） ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you disagree with a license, nominate the file for deletion instead of removing the license. You are causing unnecessary maintenance work. Jcb (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I note a licence that is obviously spurious, would you prefer if (a) I removed it for being spurious or (b) did nothing? In my view, I am doing part of the maintenance work and I don't see how it is "unnecessary". The people causing said maintenance work are those adding spurious licencing claim, I don't see how I am "causing" the problem by noticing. --Dbachmann (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the license from a file, after some time a bot will add it to Category:Media without a license: needs history check. Then somebody has to look at the files in those category one by one, to find out why it has no longer a machine readable license. This is a time consuming process. If you find a file with a bogus license, please do (c), press the "nominate for deletion" link from the left menu and tell what's wrong. This way the proper process is started at once and it cause the least workload for the administrators. Jcb (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is precisely why I am doing it, I mean to flag it for review. I come across these cases when I am busy researching something else, and I will not have time to review and explain the problem, but I wish to point out there is a problem. If you think that there is none, you are free to just roll back my edit and restore the licence the way it was. If you think there is a problem too, you can handle it in any way you would handle it if you had noticed it on your own. Or, you know, you could just do nothing and leave it for somebody else to deal with, it's not like either of us can fix all of the problems, we all have to set priorities.

I just realise you are the person I had the "3d" discussion with. So in this context, please allow for the possibility that I understand what you are telling me and still, in full knowledge of the facts, might come to a conclusion different from yours. --Dbachmann (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to come to the conclusion that you should cause unnecessary maintenance work, please do not act based on that conclusion. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you do find it quite difficult to hold a conversation. The entire point revolves around the judgement of what is "necessary". Please let it rest. If you think I did something worthy of administrative intervention, please ask other administrators to contact me in the future. --Dbachmann (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what the proper procedure is and I explaned why your deviation of that procedure is disruptive. Following proper procedure is not optional. Please make sure you don't flood maintenance categories again. We are pretty understaffed and we can do without such stubborn actions. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong oppose - You did not reflect on the block reason at all. Above I requested that you would follow proper procedure, which you refused. I explaned to you why your deviation of that procedure is disruptive, but you made up that there would be something personal from my side, which is of course not the case. By refusing to follow proper procedure, you are frustrating maintenance work. As long as you apparently don't understand that, I don't think you should be unblocked. I am prepared to lift the block myself as soon as you promise that you will no longer remove licenses you disagree with, but start a DR instead if you think the license is invalid. Jcb (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You see what I mean there. Jcb should have recused himself from the block and ask input from other admins before applying it.

Since he took it upon himself to issue the block, he should at least have posted his rationale here.

instead he is now trying to explain his reasons of the block. The exchange above represents a bona fide difference in opinion. This is fine as long as one side is not abusing their admin privileges to push their own view in a personal dispute.

I was not blocked as a result of the above disagreement, instead I was blocked without explanation a few days later.

On Wikipedia, I would expect the offending admin to undue their dubious block on their own, recuse themselves, present the case to an uninvolved admin, and abide by their decision.

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to decide if I am guilty of blockworthy behavior, and if so, to issue a block complete with a coherent explanation of their rationale. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are well aware why you were blocked, but I will spell it out: in this 25 January edit you wilfully ignored the discussion from 7-8 January above and continued your disruptive behaviour. Jcb (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now on the Village pump. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you reevaluate File:Protestant Reformed Confessions in Europe.png which you uploaded?

The map has obvious factual errors, if it is meant to represent the present. The map looks more like the immediate aftermath of the Protestant demographics of post-World War 2, after the expulsion of the (predominantly Protestant) Germans from former German territories annexed by Poland and Soviet Russia. That is, before the increase of irreligion in the traditionally Protestant countries and areas of Europe.

For instance England and Wales are erroneously depicted as wholly Anglican and Scotland as wholly Presbyterian, and the Protestants in Northern Ireland as only Anglican. Protestantism is no longer a majority in any of the UK countries, let alone each distinct Protestant sect, and in Northern Ireland the Protestants are predominantly Anglican and Presbyterian. In Estonia, Protestantism and Christianity are not a majority, irreligion is the majority there.

There are also other inaccuracies mentioned in the file page and in the discussion page itself.

I would recommend a name change like File:Protestant Reformed Confessions in Europe (1950).svg by adding a year, which then would make this map accurate and relevant.

Your sincerely, Artoxx (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand, the number "1950" suggests that this is meant to represent the situation in 1950. You seem to complain about this, or you seem to wish to have a map representing the more recent past, but this is just what this map is supposed to show, i.e. the situation in c. 1950. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would adapt my description from "Distribution of Protestantism in Europe" to "Distribution of Protestantism in Europe in c. 1950", but as you can see in the section above, someone with admin buttons has decided to act like a jerk, so I'll just have to ask you to make the edit on my behalf for now. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Can you add South Sudan and Montengro in File:Christ Islam.png which you uploaded?

Sources for the religious demography of Montenegro: https://www.monstat.org/eng/page.php?id=394&pageid=57 and South Sudan: http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries

Yours sincerely, Artoxx (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I requested this from you, as you uploaded this map and also because many Wikipedia articles use it. Only two countries need to be added.

Yours sincerely, Artoxx (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map represents the situation in 2006. If you want to update it with post-2006 information, it might be better to create an entirely new map. Showing South Sudan in a map representing 2006 statistics would be an anachronism. Please feel free to update the map for 2017 and upload it, perhaps under a different filename. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homo floresiensis, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens woman.Musée des Confluences.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 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） ∙ +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
Didn’t you learn from Wikipedia that blank edit summaries are evil? Use HotCat – it always cares about summaries and can do all things about categories, adding or changing keys included. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I have been on Wikipedia since 2004, with about 300k edits so far I believe, and I don't exactly recall "blank edit summaries are evil" being one of our core project policies. It was more along the lines of "be constructive and use common sense" and "the gadgets are for the users, not the users for the gadgets". If you think there was a specific case where I was doing something stupid or causing damage, feel free to point me to the diff and I'll look into it. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Can you add User:LenguaMapa and File:Lenguas indoiranias.PNG, File:Iranian languages distribution.png File:Oghuz languages.PNG, File:Lenguas altaicas.png, File:Lenguas altaicas v 2 (2017).png, File:Idioma kurdo1.png to your watchlist. This user is POV pushing in these maps. All these maps were created by users based on academic reference. Unfortunately this user does not care, and uploads inaccurate POV versions. If this user uploads these POV versions, please revert them.

Thank you.

Maphobbyist (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Great Turkish Empires 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 ∙ +/−

E4024 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pontic Caspian climate.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） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europe20000ya.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） ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:IE expansion.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） ∙ +/−