User talk:Tm: Difference between revisions

Archives 12-06-2007/13-07-2009 13-07-2009/23-12-2010/ 23-12-2011/31-12-2012/ 05-12-2013/31-12-2013/ 27-01-2014/26-12-2014/ 01-01-2015/29-12-2015/ 10-01-2016/28-12-2016/ Current

I don't understand the problem. I took the pictures at Paris.--LeoFaria (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blindly reverting other people, and insisting in adding unrelated categories, as you have done here. Your past behaviour is well noted here. If you have any justification for what you are doing, then explain it, otherwise you'll be reported (again) to the admin board.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Transsiberian Irkutsk (4376400845).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） ∙ +/−

lNeverCry 00:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tm, on April 7th 2016 you uploaded about 30 files (from Republic of Korea Armed Forces?) without categories, can now be found at Category:Media needing categories as of 23 October 2016. Please help to categorize them. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them by myself, please check whether category Category:Marine Week 2015 (Korea) is okay. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snoopy Red Baron cartoon FLAirMuse 9Feb07 (15303308416).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） ∙ +/−

G I Chandor (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Інфографіки стосовно стану реалізації реформ у Збройних Силах України (27938021561).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） ∙ +/−

G I Chandor (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Let it pour (23732242490).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） ∙ +/−

— Ipoellet (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing those useful navigation links in Category:Gemma, that's stupid. Thanks. 2A02:2788:A4:32F:24F:4EFF:FE61:F5B9 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tm You have created the category Nature of Albufeira, then you have added four files of insect which specify in the title that the insects are images from Alentejo. Is there a discrepancy here? Kolforn (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Albufeira, these files coordinates place the files in a static caravan park on the outskirts of Albufeira please do not revert these files back to Nature of Albufeira. Who ever up loaded them to Panoramio has not placed the correct coords for these file. There title says Alentejo.

This files are named also Algarve and the coordinates are in Albufeira. This same panoramio was in Albifeira in the same year. Dont try to pretend to know more than the panoramio user that took this pictures. Tm (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pretending to know more than the original up-loader, I am just making an informed decision taking into account the incorrect information on other files that were transferred with these files. Can you please explain why the title of the files contain Insect "December Alentejo" and were transfered originally with multiple categories most of which you know were incorrect. These files are a mixture of wrong information and where transferred over to Commons with this list of incorrect category's, some of which you removed. They included - Albufeira, - 2013, - Albufeira,- best, -Distrikt Faro,- Ferragudo, - Jettcom- Macro Photography, - Luz, - Portugal, - Portugal - Sagres Lagos - Faro - Alentejo - Cabo Sao Vicente - Algarve, - Sagres, - Top Travel Photography. The coordinates on these files can not be believed as there are files from the same transfer such as File:Armação de Pêra.jpg from the same batch, and this has the coordinates 37.086577 -8.249288 which is clearly incorrect as this is Albufeira, and not Armação de Pêra, which the image clearly is! I do not wish to get into some sort of edit war with you. We are both working to improve Portugals covarage on Commons. I hope we can work things out together! I live in the Algarve so have a good knowledge of the area. Kolforn (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If as it seems you refuse to enter into dialogue with me concerning these four files I will assume that you now have no objection to me reverting these four files back to the Category: Alentejo Kolforn (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dont try to put words in my mouth. This files were taken in Albufeira, period. The filename and location indicate that, and it is not your whims that will change that. Tm (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file names also indicate Alentejo! period! Kolforn (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your insistence is epic, period. To say that you have sure that this images were taken in Alentejo, even say that "four files of insect which specify in the title that the insects are images from Alentejo" and "This is not Albufeira (...) There title says Alentejo", conveniently ignoring that :

1- The coordinates place this images in Albufeira

2-That the filename also says Algarve besides Alentejo.

You have ZERO proofs that this images were taken on Aentejo, and yet on a whim, you want this images to have been taken in Alentejo and all appoints to this images have been taken in Albufeira. You even claimed that an image taken by the same photographer was not Albufeira and yet you were reverted, and finally admited that this image was in Albufeira. Call that knowing well the were you live. Tm (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I did revert this particular image back to its correct location of Category:Avenida 25 de Abril, Albufeira after some research. Unlike you I try to research all the images I work on. In the case of these insect why don't you try looking at where the coords place these insects? One of the images is on the concrete apron of the Busy swimming pool on Albufeira Municipal campsite. It is highly unlikely that this insect sitting on the branch of a tree would have been found there!. All the other insects are in a small area of this campsite. Judging by the discrepancies in the Co-ordinates of other images in this group it is open to speculation as to the accuracy of the coords. Kolforn (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had quiet enough of these silly games with you! My edits have all been done in Good faith. It is not worth any more of either of our time disputing four files about four tiny insects. Maybe they will be very happy to live in Albufeira from now on.

Hi Tm - when uploading pics of animals in zoos (e.g. File:Duisburg 20160702 MAP 8729 (29080235504).jpg), please remember most species have a "Category:Genus species (captive)" or "Category:Genus species in zoos" subcategory, which should be used, rather than the basic species category. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tm, this and some other images need categorization. Since you were the uploader, your help would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Lotje 06:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• File:Sd Kfz 182 Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B (Tiger 2) (4536495014).jpgNilfanion (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you by yours two votes.Anyway. Sincerily. Vicond

Hi, thank you for your great work with categorization of Panoramio files.

Please note that Praga is a district of the Polish capital Warsaw, while Prague (Praha) is the Czech capital. Especialy when the file name contains words "Warszaw, Poland" as here, the two sites whould be not confused, even though the Latin name of Prague is also Praga. --ŠJů (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LIRR Signal Clearance (8459820770).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） ∙ +/−

Train2104 (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the following action:

• (Move log); 22:29 . . Tm (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Asian model leaning against a palm tree.jpg to File:Delicious asian model with a great body leaning against a palm. (6775969659).jpg over redirect ‎

That's a woman, not a soufflé, calling her "delicious" is kind of sexist. The page you moved it from had a suitably neutral name. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with @Mattbuck: here. This whole Category:Model at beach (Philips advertisement), and several other photos by the same photographer, include some “problematic” filenames. While language gap and good intentions may be argued to show that it was not meant to be as creepy as it comes across as, here’s a very good opportunity to do that kind of “improvement file-renaming” I cannot disagree with. (For the record, I believe that Tm reverted the renaming in this case not to keep the word "delicious" but the number "6775969659"; keeping meaningless IDs from source repositories in filenames upon upload is both discouraged by COM:File naming and yet routinely done in most Flickr uploads.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billar (7476033032).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） ∙ +/−

JesseW (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aberdeen Harbour Map 2013 (28236395202).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 ∙ ပအ���ုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

De728631 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima and of the Angel of Portugal were originally posted to Flickr with version 1.0 of the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark; however, in order to keep them Commons requires a specific reason why those images are in the public domain. Please replace the templates with a proper public domain license template. All your Fátima files need this information. Can you edit them? Anjo Sozinho (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

• File:Faro (33287732191).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561756104).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561761404).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561762424).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561764394).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561769574).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561931354).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561932494).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561970434).jpg
• File:Fátima (32561977364).jpg
• File:Fátima (32590588133).jpg
• File:Fátima (33021615950).jpg
• File:Fátima (33021635940).jpg
• File:Fátima (33249103982).jpg
• File:Fátima (33249423422).jpg
• File:Fátima (33276547031).jpg
• File:Fátima (33276589701).jpg
• File:Fátima (33276590731).jpg
• File:Fátima (33276599131).jpg
• File:Fátima (33276799781).jpg
• File:Fátima (33364243636).jpg
• File:Fátima (33364245706).jpg
• File:Fátima (33404612475).jpg
• File:Fátima (33404820845).jpg
• File:Fátima (33404836315).jpg
• File:Fátima (33404845955).jpg
• File:Lisboa (32573029704).jpg
• File:Lisboa (32573033784).jpg
• File:Lisboa (32601664503).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33032775020).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33032776430).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33032788520).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33032810980).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33032811660).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33032812850).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33375307386).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33375333606).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33415605735).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33415605995).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33415607235).jpg
• File:Lisboa (33415616525).jpg
• File:Porto (32487073614).jpg
• File:Porto (32487074464).jpg
• File:Porto (32515362783).jpg
• File:Porto (32515373693).jpg
• File:Porto (33329809315).jpg

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to engage in a edit war with you, So in good faith can you explain why you wish to categorize a Bridge as a form of transport when it is quiet clearly a structure, all be it to carry some form of transport. You could say the same about a boardwalk or a staircase but they are structures built to facilitate Transport. Lets not fall out over this I'm sure we can come to some sort of consensus. Kolforn (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not waste my time to explain something as simple as how to proper categorize Category:Bridges, Category:Bridges in Portugal and all its subcategories. There is a consensus in previous categories, so no need to waste my time explain something as simple as this. If you continue trying to delete proper categories of Category:Bridges in Silves is your onus to proof that this categories are wrong, but what is bridge is for decoration? nuclear fission? or is it to facilitate transportation between two points? Tm (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for clarification from administrators noticeboard as you are unable to work with me and resort to needless sarcasm, which is not done in good faith and helps no one. Kolforn (talk)

Please do not edite my Talk page again,

So stop adding what i never wrote in your talkpage. Tm (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You first moved the category:Bridges in Silves from Category:Silves to Category:Transport in Silves. You then decided to create Category:structures in Silves after I had asked you to agree that it was a Structure rather than a form of Transport. If you had been clear that this was your intention there would be no need for this bad feeling. Kolforn (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:MTA Bus Time on iPad (6751625899).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 ∙ če��tina ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

(t) Josve05a (c) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYCB 6779 (6751625967).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） ∙ +/−

(t) Josve05a (c) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:MTA Bus Time on iPad (6751625899).jpg

And also:

• File:NYCB 6779 (6751625967).jpg

Yours sincerely, (t) Josve05a (c) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A prolix essay is a not a fit caption for five photographs of Christ Church, Downend. Users of Wikimedia Commons need only to know what an image is, so that they know to what uses they may put it. Repeating the same discourse as the caption for each photograph proves its futility. Posting it once, at Downend, South Gloucestershire, owuld make sense and get more readers.

Secondly, Downend is in South Gloucestershire, not Bristol. If you don't believe me, follow the link from Category:Christ Church, Downend to the Historic England website which will tell you.

Edit warring wastes your time and mine. Please stop. Motacilla (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Again you? The lenght as nothing to do with value. And the description on this images are fit. So please stop wasting my time, two years ago, six months ago and now, again.

• And what about Downend being in South Gloucestershire, not Bristol, what i have to do with that???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? The original description did not mention Bristol, but your "description" added the false information of this church being in Bristol. If you don't believe me, follow the history from one of the files or the addiction of this church to categories of Bristol. That will tell you, who was the one that added this false description and worng categories and then threw the guilt to other innocent user. Tm (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how you wanted File:Oporto (Portugal) (23932563322).jpg? I've running into trouble with this user who over-crops and saw in his edit that he did the same thing to this image of yours.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Thanks for the info and the alert. This and other images images are part of a sett uploaded by me, that have borders and watermarks. So cropping borders and watermarks are fine, but stating that overcroppes is an understatement! I´ve reviewed this users crops of images uploaded by me (and reverted as necessary) and many of his images have crops of 20, 30 40 or even 50%. About crops and composition, this user should readCommons:Overwriting_existing_files#Substantial_crop_or_un-crop. Tm (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have sorted some images of Leeds Castle in Kent into the category Leeds. The latter, however, is about the city in West Yorkshire. That's a different place. So, please check whether something really belongs into the category you want to put it in. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment This were moved from being uncategorized to being categorized (wrongly). But thanks for moving them to the proper place. Tm (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tm, now you may remove the Oporto pictures from the Category:Images with borders.--MedioWikiInit (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Elfman in Alberta Ferretti 02.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

Elisfkc (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rose McGowan in Roberto Cavalli 02.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

Elisfkc (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rose McGowan in Roberto Cavalli 01.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

Elisfkc (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Focus on the foot (1324170539).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） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isto foi o quê? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for uploading images, but please stop adding Unidentified aircraft as a category, when the aircraft are patently identified. It is irksome to patrol the category to find someone has filled it with aircraft images that are easily identified or worse identified in the title or text!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisboa II (6244344815).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） ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not move files this way? it just pushes the issue deeper. When these files stay in a large (and apparently incorrect category) city-level category, they are quite well seen and sooner or later someone will move them to a correct pigeonhole. Also, the district tags in panoramio filenames are often incorrect, don't take them for granted. Retired electrician (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining this edit? Your edit didn't include an edit summary. 80.221.152.17 00:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Fabulous Invitation (23447512123).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） ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Cliff (24345053493).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） ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're new to this: Commons is a wiki, and since you're not its sole contributor, you are expected to show a collaborative attitude instead of undoing other contributors' work without providing an explanation. Given that I've not only taken the time to make the contribution you choose to undo, but also had to come here and write this message, could you be so very kind as to provide the aforementioned explanation?    FDMS  4    20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, i´am not new to this as i have 10 years 9 months and 20 days of times and 1 171 071 editions in Commons. In any case see Commons:Categories#Category_names - especially in case you do not know what are the policies of Commons - where it says "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form.". In any case you were the one that made the improper move and so you are also not the sole contributor, and with your move you undo other users contributions. Tm (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Category:Bridges in Portugal by name, bridge categories being named in English is not something I came up with. Ponte Pedro e Inês is not a proper noun (only Pedro e Inês is), but one term (likely not all) Portuguese speakers use to refer to the bridge – even if it was a proper noun, the bridge's English Wikipedia article being named Pedro e Inês bridge for seven years certainly counts as "established use". I don't see the category ever having been renamed from an English title to the Portuguese one, hence I just corrected a mistake in accordance with the language policy I linked to in the edit summary.    FDMS  4    21:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See again the policy. The bridge is refered as Ponte Pedro e Inês as a proper name by this name by portuguese speakers in Portugal (do you speak portuguese natively to know what a proper noun is in portuguese?). This is Commons, not English Wikipedia, so different projects and no the name of the article is not an "established use". To quote again do not rename proper nouns on an ad hoc name, per language policy and the more specified Commons:Categories#Category_names, linked from the first one. Tm (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any arguments why you think it is a proper noun? German speakers use the term Apfel to refer to an apple, that doesn't make Apfel a proper noun either. Also, how can the world's most popular encyclopedia and the 5th-most visited website not count as an "established use"?    FDMS  4    21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What as to do german (germanic language) with portuguese (an latin language)? And apples to bridges? No, i dont have an argument as to why Ponte Pedro e Inês is a proper noun. I "only" have a knowledge of portuguese as my native language (i´am portuguese) and that is enough. Or do you have nat knowledge of portuguese as an native or any arguments why you think it is not a proper noun?. See related discussions about proper nouns and languages like Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. and several other older. The fact is that this bridge is properly named, popularity is not the same as established use (or are you appealing to numbers or popularity). Also Commons is not the same as the english wikipedia, different projects and policies (and no, Commons is not subservient to wnglish wikipedia). The fact is that Commons does not make ad hoc translations, as you tried to make, per policies and discussions linked. Tm (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: NSFW

Please do not revert irrelevant promotional file description. As you did here File:Courtney (model) 3.jpg, File:Courtney (model) 5.jpg,File:Courtney (model) 9.jpg and File:Courtney (model) 11.jpg. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant. See the description and how it dewcribes the photoshooting, the model and the photographer. It is not promotional material. It describes what the photo depicts, the photographer and the conditions of the shooting. Tm (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are too much long unnessery description. Commons is not anyone's personal blog, where s/he tells the story behind her/his click. Please do not revart father. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a rule that dictates how long should the description be, but even if its long but necessary. As i said above, this descriptions relates how the shooting was made, how is the model, how the shooting occurred and other relevant info. There is not a rule that dictates how long should the description be. Please do not revert description good further, incluiding deleting descriptions in other languages other than english. Tm (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tm, please be aware that you may get blocked if you continue this edit war. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what rules? See above why the descriptions are relevant. In what rules are you basing the deletion of this relevants descrptions. Or is it again one administrator defending another administrator, irrelevant of merits and rules? Tm (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the VP you edited the comment of Moheen Reeyad, removed the NSFW warning of Yann and removed my comment. Also, different from what you seem to assume, edit warring can be a valid reason for a block. I am not simply defending a colleague, I have looked myself and concluded that your behaviour is inappropriate. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You continued you edit war, after having responded to my warning --> block 1 week - Jcb (talk)

I did not deleted anyone texts. Maybe it was the fact that i started writing before anyone started edited and saved after, and that deleted the removed the NSFW warning of Yann and your comment. Again in what policies do you base your decision to delete the descriptions? May i point to who was that started the edit warring, after i explained why the descrptions are relevant? Again in what rules are yiu based to say that my "behaviour is inappropriate". I merely undeleted the original description. In what right do you decide that a small and abstract and generic description is better then one that describes in detail the photoshooting, the conditions of the ~shooting, and who is the model? Tm (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear that inclusion of this text was disputed by at least 3 users. Continuing to revert at this point is sufficient reason for a block and you are well aware of that. This text can only be re-included if that would be the outcome of the discussion. Any admin who sees the today edits of the 4 image description pages and the messages at this talk page will see that a block at this point was inevitable, independent from what they may think about the disputed description itself. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the the images were edited by several more than 3 users and not one cared to delete the description (even the original uploader that was... surprise... [[User:Moheen Reeyad|Moheen Reeyad}}. Or are their opinions and editions irrelevant now? As you are clearly against this descriptionsJcb care to explain, based in policies and rules, instead of your subjective judgement, why the deletion of the relevant descriptions is according to policy? It seems that until know i did not cared to explain why the deletion of that text is according to rules.

As you seem to acuse me, on Village Pump, of persistant blocking for edit warring, it seems i will have to defend my honour, albeit the good smaritan that is Fæ

Instead of going all the way to 2010, as it is long ago (and i´ll admit that until 2014, maybe some blocks were partially or totally proper). This is also to Davey2010 who seem to be badly misinformed about the reasons for my last blocks. Will you withdraw what you wrote on Village Pump and change accordingly? Or will you continue accusing me of something that now you know is false? See below the two of you

Block in January 15 2014, made by you Jcb blocked me and less than one hour later you unblocked me. The reason for my block and speedy unblock? Your stubborness not to delete a file that was nominated by me to speedy deletion and you kept refusing the speedy deletion request. Anyway, after being blocked and unblocked by you, the file was deleted anyway, after more user time wasted.

Block in June 13 2015 and unblocked less than a day latter. The reason? An administrator using his block hammer to win an discussion|. Why the unblock by the same administrator? Because the case came to the Village Pump and was unblocked because of what several users called conflit of interest and or administrator abuse

Block in November 16 2016, the last one. Again some bureacrat decided to follow his own rules, instead of Commons policies. Again unblocked, less than four hours latter, after several users and administrators complained of this abuse in my talk page and Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

So will you, after my contextualization, claimed that you blocked me for 1 week justifying that i´ve "been blocked so many times already for edit warring, that a week seems more appropriate than e.g. a day."

After what i showed and linked above will you still stick to what you know now to be untrue? The last time that i was blocked for edit warring was in Juanuary 5 2013. Thats almost 4 and half years ago. Will you so unblock me and so participate in the discussion in the Village Pump, or will i continuen blocked of discussion this matter, even if i participated before and aswered to the initial user that reverted my editions?

Or will you still be saying that the block is according to policy (despite i the fact that i aswered in the VP and in this page to Moheen Reeyad, or do you not care to follow the rules and policies, not giving an solid and factual block rationale, even after what is being said n the Village Pump and what i said above? Tm (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Unblock, enough hours have passed for any point to be made. The blocking administrator was involved, as rather than protecting the file temporarily from edits, and thereby by-passing any drama, they entered into the edit-war, chose which side was "right", and then blocked Tm for reverting their "sysop" edit. No administrator should be acting to block other users where they have chosen to take action that makes them a direct party to an incident. Tm may be considered admonished, but Jcb has a lesson to learn from this case as to how to remain sufficiently independent and when to defer action to fellow administrators. I suggest Jcb let other admins take the call on whether Tm should be the subject of admin actions in the future. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fae, please don't attempt to create confusion. I was uninvolved, until I came in to stop the disruptive behaviour. I gave them the opportunity to stop the behaviour without being blocked, but they prefered to continue and to get blocked. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no confusion. Instead of protecting the file and letting the community finish discussing changes, you made reverts based on your personal preferences and became a party. This was in advance of taking any action. From the point where you decided what version was "right", you were pre-empting any community discussion, after all, who is going to start debating with an admin who is threatening blocks? Your actions were involved and inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose block - As per WP:BRD Tm added the information, Tm was reverted and so the next step should've been for Tm to discuss it which they didn't, I get the whole mellow thing but there's been 7 blocks for edit warring admittingly 2 were overturned however that doesn't make it all better, Nothing against Tm but if I were the blocking admin it would've been for much much longer. (Also I've updated my comment at VP, Thanks), –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support unblock: Let him work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Between the statements you gave above the unblock template, and the comments made by other users, I think an unblock wise. (I came here because the blocking admin left a request at COM:AN for review by an uninvolved admin.) As it's been more than four years since your most recent edit-warring block, aside from those that were overturned, I don't think this block length is reasonable; if you deserved a block (no opinion there), the block length you've experienced is a good deal more reasonable for what you did, and if you didn't deserve it, of course unblocking you quickly is the only appropriate course of action. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FUERZAS COMBINADAS INCAUTARON ARMAMENTO Y MATERIAL SUBVERSIVO EN EL VRAEM (21149648851).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） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FUERZAS COMBINADAS INCAUTARON ARMAMENTO Y MATERIAL SUBVERSIVO EN EL VRAEM (20953767660).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） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisbon 44 (14659303116).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） ∙ +/−

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tm,

Regarding Category:Senado Federal do Brasil and Category:Chamber of Deputies of Brazil: I see your point, but please don't confuse the organizations with the respective buildings. If there are more images or subcategories related to the actual building, please categorize them individually. Let's keep it consistent.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as in case you do not know the building of the Congress is divided in two parts. The building of the chamber of deputies and the building of the senate, and 99,5% of the photos were taken or are about the buildings and evets inside said building and all categories are related to physical spaced in the congress buildings. Tm (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken there. Many images show members of the two chambers, while only few are actually showing the plenary chambers itself. To make things worse, we actually have Category:Files from Senado Federal Flickr stream with almost 100k images, which are taken all over Brazil. They are currently all categorized as a “Building in Brasília”. It's important to have a clear separation between the two “houses” (not buildings, but corporations) of the Congress and the Congress building, because they are not at all identical.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I´m the one that uploaded almost all images related with the senate and i know very weel what are the categories and what kind of imagery there is, and when i say that 99,5% of this images are taken inside said buildings, i´m afraid you are mistaken there. Also as you do not know portuguese, but if you knew you would read that the senate and the chamber of deputies, you would understand that the buildings is divided in two sub-buildings (the senate and the chamber), so this categories should and are for several years categorized under the proper building. Tm (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't matter if it is 0.05 % or 99.5% of the images. It also doesn't matter what you believe, I don't understand. Some of the images are related to the Congress building and should be catgorized as such, while others are simply not in any way related to the building. To remedy the situation, I propose to create a new category Category:National Congress of Brazil and potentially additional categories for specific parts of the building, to have a clear separation. Would you agree to that?

--MB-one (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as i said above it "doesn't matter what you believe" as i said above that the images and categories are already properly categorized and more the specific parts of the building and its subpartsare already have proper separation in proper categories.

I think there was some consensus that the bot doesn't add such categories to its uploads. You should not bypass it by adding these categories via Cat-a-lot etc.. Thanks --A.Savin 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Autotranslate|1=14 days|2=Vandalism: Cat-a-lot misuse despite of warnings|base=Blocked}}

Since you do not bother to reply and continue same way, (and given the previous block log) 2 weeks block --A.Savin 06:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: could you please provide links to the vandalism, or the preceding discussion about the use of cat-a-lot, being referenced in this block? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thread above --A.Savin 09:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only apparent complainant then, is you; surely this makes you a directly involved party, in fact the only involved party, and you should not be taking action here?

Apart from "I think there was", I do not see any links to prior discussion, or a consensus, that Tm should refrain from adding certain categories to the Panoramio bot uploads. Neither do I see any specific prior warning before this two week block. This is not the normal process for blocks, nor do Tm's actions appear to be "vandalism" by any existing definition we use on Commons.

Please add some links to the evidence for this block, and the policy you are enforcing by applying this block. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested them not to bypass the Panoramio bot consensus = I'm involved party? OK, next time the block will be without warning. --A.Savin 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As said, there was no warning given before this block, just an earlier statement with no references to an existing consensus about categorization, nor any link to the offending edits made by Tm. Yes, if you are the only complainant and there is no obvious consensus (or policy) supporting your action, I see no other conclusion apart from that you are an directly involved party, in fact the only other party here. Your threat to block Tm in the future without any warnings is unhelpful and pointlessly inflammatory. Please avoid creating drama around a block that you are responsible and accountable for.

Administrators are required to work constructively with others, I have already asked for the evidence for this block which makes an allegation of vandalism against Tm. Unfortunately the evidence for this block has yet to be provided. Without evidence it is unclear if the block is valid, how Tm is expected to change their behaviour, how Tm should appeal this block, or how to amend their actions in categorizing these uploads in the future.

With regard to what I presume is the issue, it's guesswork as you have supplied no links, using country categories at a high level is not vandalism. By blocking Tm's account you appear to be stopping Tm's work in improving precisely this categorization issue, for example Tm's last edits, made six hours before your block, were like this, changing Category:Russia to Category:Moscow Oblast. Tm's intention appears to have been to get the images roughly categorized then start refining the categories. This is perfectly normal behaviour for Commons contributors, not vandalism. By blocking Tm's account you are stopping the improvements you were asking for.

I'll ask for the block evidence once again, as perhaps it is my fault that my question was not clear enough, and if there is no meaningful evidence available, I'll consider if there are alternative ways to approach this that do not require any more time from yourself.

Question 1: Please provide a link to the consensus with regard to categories for the Panoramio bot uploads that you have referenced and this block relies on.

Question 2: Please explain which of Tm's actions are vandalism as alleged, and provide a link to the policy or official guidelines that Tm has broken that require a block of their account.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As three hours has now passed, I'm presuming you are not especially interested, or are busy with more urgent matters. I have asked for an independent review at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Review requested of two week block of User:Tm for vandalism. Thanks for your replies to my questions about this block. --Fæ (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: @Tm - Just to avoid any confusion, you've been unblocked and there are no conditions or sanctions. You are free to continue editing as you were before the block. Take care. Daphne Lantier 22:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have suppressed the block notice, it is withdrawn, despite the ridiculously bad faith comments of the blocking administrator on AN/U and the lack of any apology for their incompetence. I am sorry that the administrator making this bad block has left a permanent blemish on your block log, and appears to have learned nothing from the experience, choosing instead to make allegations of "corruption" against everyone else. Please keep a mental marker for this event, should other bad administrative judgements from the same person happen to arise in the future I suggest we dig it out for a second examination and push for a speedy desysop. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW Fæ I'd support a desysop, Not the first time this admin got his head stuck up his own arse and certainly won't be the last - He'll probably block me now not that I really care. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains files automatically uploaded by Panoramio upload bot to be checked, categorized and renamed. Please be so kind: Do not remove this files. Thanks a lot. --Frze ^{> talk} 04:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You were the one that first moved files already properly categorized, to categories outside of proper categories hierarchy. So dont start by removing this files from its proper categories. Thanks

Hi, I put those files into Category:Unidentified rice-based food because they weren't pilaf. Pilaf doesn't contain brown beans. It seems to be a fantasy dish, something between a pilaf and South American Beans-and-rice. I'll revert them back. Please discuss if you really think that they're pilaf. - Takeaway (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t understand why you remove Category:Enrique Simonet from paintings by Enrique Simonet

???

--90.94.25.235 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment See Category:Paintings by Enrique Simonet and Com:OVERCAT. Tm (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an aircraft!!!--Petebutt (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four days of your stubborness in deleting a category instead of correcting. Quoting LX in the image history page "If you know what it is, how about adding some proper categories and information instead of edit warring?". Tm (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions render categories like Category:Russia completely unusable. Also, it has been suggested several times to gather Panoramio photos in dedicated categories, given their varying degrees of quality. I've spent quite some time today on such projects, and I strongly disapprove that you empty and delete them without any discussion. -- Gauss (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please care to read User_talk:Tm#Foi_bloqueado_e_n.C3.A3o_pode_editar_en_Commons_durante_14_days and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#Review_requested_of_two_week_block_of_User:Tm_for_vandalism, before you accuse me of vandalism, and also care to read how image uploaded from Panoramio are categorized. Your "categorizing" this images into oblivion by trying to make some compartmentalized categories that no one will care to categorize in several years is what i would call "vandalism" (not really vandalism, but just an attempt to hide said images). As you called me a vandal without reason or cause, i will, as i did with the administrator acting as an berserker tried last time, i will not honor your staments with an answer. Tm (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment 2 Hi Tm, I have read the pages. You move pictures in the upper upper upper categories (I wrote before). Gauss creates new categories. An example: I found this picture in the Category:Images from the German Federal Archive years ago. Meanwhile, it is well-sorted. My request: Do not empty the categories "Panoramio photos of ..." Many thx Hystrix (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Hystrix dont you see that by "categorizing" this image into categories "Panoramio photos of ..." this is an attempt to sweep this images under the rug? As i explained in your talkpage i´am (and several other users) "making several basic categorizations, starting with categorizing images into the country categories and with time i (or several other users) categorized or will categorize then into more suitable categories, but alas this takes time" and by shoving this images down a memory hole , just to "clean" some categories no one will properly categorize them in years if ever? So the existence "Panoramio photos of ..." categories are counterintuitive and "vandalism" (see my definition above of this vandalism in quotation marks) and are counter to proper categorization. Or will we start creating main categories like "Gauss photos of ..." as a subcategory of cities, countries, etc? This image should be in the main categories and not in some under the rug categories, just to "show" how pretty neat said catgories are, showing the main room, but shoving the undesirables to a darken memory hole. Thanks. Tm (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauss: Indeed, it's useless to request this "Party of crooks and thieves" about anything. But I'm sure users like Tm/Tuvalkin will one day end up in global ban, because there surely will be tghe last straw sooner or later. Just patience... --A.Savin 01:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And here's to hoping you'll be desysopped sooner rather than later! ..... Just patience..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]