User talk:Paddy

archive till 2005-10-10
archive till 2006-08-21
archive till 2009-07-35

Autorisierung

Hiermit erteile ich Paddy die Erlaubnis, sämtliche von mir photographierten Bilder vom 1.8.2009 unter seinem Benutzernamen unter der Lizenzvorlage {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} hochzuladen. Siehe Radtour Bacherarch --anro (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Danke --Paddy (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg

Dear Paddy,

I think the time has come to have a discussion on this image. It was uploaded by Guety on February 15, 2005 and you re-edited the image of the subject, Ms. Gellar, 3.5 hours later to remove her red eyes. It was later cropped by other users to focus more on her...and not the photographers and cameras around her. I think you may remember this image since one doesn't easily forget the image of celebrities. To the best of your recollection, was the image license indeed "cc by 2.0" when you first saw it in February 2005? Only you can answer this question now since Guety left Commons years ago...and you were an Admin on Commons in 2005.

Maybe you first checked the license as an Admin at the time...I don't know. I note that the original uncropped resolution was 1024 X 768 pixels which implies it was indeed a genuine photo and may have been taken by Saudi, the flickr owner. This was the standard resolution for basic flickr accounts..which means that one only has 200 free images on flickr. After that older images in Saudi's account would automatically be deleted per flickr policy for such accounts when a new flickr image is uploaded to his account. This could be why when it was reviewed belatedly in December 2006, it was already deleted long ago. The difference between upload and the first failed review is about 18 months--very long. My question is this: do you remember this photo and its license at upload? You were surely monitoring new images in 2005 since you saw this image so quickly after upload as an Admin here.

Please make a reply on my talkpage. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Admin MBisanz has given me corroborative internet archive evidence to show the image was licensed freely at upload. As a result, I have performed a flickrpass on your behalf for this important image. I gave the reasons for my decision here in this image's discussion page. I hope you agree with my decision. After all, you were a trusted Admin once and I certainly trust your judgment when you inspected the original image of Gellar in February 15, 2005. If it was unfree, you would certainly have nominated it for deletion. However, feel free to leave me a message if you wish to confirm the license of Gellar was 'cc by 2.0'. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I note you also uploaded these 4 photos from Saudi's account on a cc by 2.0 license on February 15, 2005 and they all passed flickr review on this license because it wasn't deleted. It seems clear that all Saudi's photos were 'cc by 2.0':

• File:Dubai from the plane.jpg
• File:Fairmont Dubai.jpg
• File:Wild-wadi.jpg
• File:Burj Al Arab Hotel.jpg

Do you agree? Please let me know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please let me have some time to think. I just came back from a holiday. I hope it is not to urgent. Thank you for your good explanation on the matter. I will get my brains to work as soon as possible. --Paddy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• No need to rush. It is quite clear that Saudi took the image of Sarah Gellar. MBisanz found the wayback evidence here where Saudi made clear reference to Gellar, how close he was to her [when he took the photo], etc and the license was cc by 2.0...as is all his pictures. (Saudi later deleted the original photo but both Guety and you saw it and it is non-revocable) It even gave the date for the photo: 9 December 2004. Guety does not make many errors with image licenses or descriptions (Dubai-2004 film festival). In the original uncropped image Gellar was surrounded by more photographers but someone cropped it to focus more on her. There is no doubt in my or Admin MBisanz's mind that this is Saudi's own photo--same url link as the one Guety gave--and that was why I flickrpassed it (on MBisanz's suggestion) in your name since you saw it on the same day it was uploaded. It also helps that you uploaded several other photos from Saudi's account on the same day in Feb. 15, 2005 which shows Saudi's photos were cc by 2.0 as the wayback search indicates. Saudi never changed the license on his remaining flickr images which are also cc by 2.0 It is fortunate Commons had Guety in 2005 from the quality of his photos which all pass flickr review. Only a few images were deleted for being derivative work or duplicates...but he knew the right license. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can recall the incident although not very clearly. I know exactly that it was on of the first times for me to remove red eyes with „the gimp“. Fact is that in 2005 I was as an admin very strict with licenses (and would be today if I was not deadmin because I did not have the time up till now to perform admin actions :-(. So before editing the image I will almost certainly have checked the license. I also recall triple checking guety's contributions because of some awkward stuff guety was doing (I can not recall what it was and if it was on the WM commons or on de WP). That is how I became aware of guetys request „(Need some help with the eyes)“. But on commons I remember my stopping watching guety. That is he got a clear from me concerning correct licensing of images and I only continued to perform some random checks on guety. With all the other stuff you stated here I fully agree and I have to say you did some great research. The only question would be if Saudi is as aware of the license cc by 2.0 as people are on the commons. Since Saudi never changed the license I guess Saudi knows what Saudi is doing.

Summery: I am sure to have checked the license on flickr. And I would say the license is correct and fits the needs of the commons. Greetings --Paddy (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. It is appreciated. In this case, the situation was quite clear...both with Guety's upload history and the way Saudi licenses his photos. With kind Regards from BC, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwetzingen Schlosspark Skulpturen 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Burg Landskron Oppenheim

ahoj paddyez, Ich habe soeben eine Kategorie für die Burg aufgenacht: Category:Burg Landskron (Oppenheim) Gruss --anro (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gesehen ;-) --Paddy (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanalnetz Wiesbaden

Hi Paddy, warum fügst du stets eine zweite QI-Nominierung desselben Bildes ein? Das Bild wurde doch schon einen Tag zuvor nominiert und von mir bestätigt. -- H005 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nein, das war mein Fehler, sorry! Es wurde nie nicht nominiert. --Paddy (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kanalnetz Wiesbaden 2009-09-12 04 pregamma 1 reinhard02 key 0.18 phi 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Interesting image, good quality -- H005 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

FP nomination

Hello, I nominate your picture as featured picture: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kanalnetz Wiesbaden 2009-09-12 04 pregamma 1 reinhard02 key 0.18 phi 1.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for taking a liking in my image :-) I feel flattered. --Paddy (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You can Support your own picture. Yann (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Paddy!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

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

BotMultichillT 06:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:DXB, Dubai.jpg was uncategorized on 27 September 2009.

File tagging File:Popcorn00.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Popcorn00.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

—LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WTH? It was published PD why would I need permissions from the author? Do you also have to seek permissions from every PD-US-GOV authors? I think not. Anyhow if you think this image was not PD go ahead and delete it. --Paddy (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually remember exactly what I was thinking when tagging this one, but I guess the reason was the combination of the deprecated, non-specific PD tag and the fact that the source and copyright status links do not work at this time (it's often good to provide a quote as well in case permission links go rotten). Would {{PD-author}} fit? If so, please change the {{PD}} tag to that. Anyway, if you're adamant that the copyright status information was clear about the photo being in the public domain and given your contribution history, I feel comfortable removing the problem tag. Sorry about the disruption and thanks for taking the time to respond. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that the way media has been taged changed a lot. I really can not keep up with which mechanisms commons uses checking and what the correct way to tag images is now. So what I do is put my energy into making and uploading my own images. This already costs a lot of time. To be honest I do not recall the exact circumstances when, how, why, etc. I uploaded the image. I only recall that I asked in IRC if this qualifies as PD. The answer was yes but I do not remember who and how many answered yes. So what do we do? Either you trust me that it was PD and we keep it. Or we just delete it. We have already quite a few images of popcorn. Usage of the image is also not to big. greetings --Paddy (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletionlog/cs

Hi! Is MediaWiki:Deletionlog/cs something that needs to be kept. It doesn't look like it is being used by anything, but I wanted to check with you since you created it. --Killiondude (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an accident ;-) Greetings --Paddy (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I've deleted it now. If for some reason we ever need it, it can always be restored. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

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

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

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

The images we would like you to check are:

• File:Popcorn00.jpg
• File:Robinson, George Frederick Samuel-02.jpg

BotMultichillT 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sepp Kerschbaumer Gedenkstein.JPG

Hi Paddy, Frohes Neues Jahr noch!! Wo hängt denn die Gedenkplatte? salu--Symposiarch (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Das Photo stammt nicht von mir sondern von Fantasy seine vier Tilden wurden nicht geparst beim speichern und bei dem Nulledit von meinem bot wurden sie dann geparst. Ich habe das manuell korrigiert. Danke für den Hinweis. --Paddy (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Null Ahnung was Nulledit und parsen ist. Aber du wirst mir das im Rheingau erklären.--Symposiarch (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Images of the Burj Al Arab

Your uploaded images of the Burj Al Arab have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 03:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Eläkeläiset 2010 05 15 0197.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Notiz an mich selber: Ich will das wirklich weghaben --Paddy (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fairmont_Dubai.jpg

File:Fairmont_Dubai.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lorch 2009-08-01 08.jpg

Dein Bild hat jetzt auch eine Verwendung... Ergo bibamus--Symposiarch (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Brot 2010 11 07 000.JPG

So ist das einigermaßen unbrauchbar. Wo gekauft? Was für ne Sorte? Soviel Zeit muss schon sein, finde ich. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Besser so? Backen hat schon recht lange gedauert (besonders auf den Sauerteig warten) da war ich mit der Beschriftung etwas schludrig, sorry. --Paddy (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 24hours

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 24hours for the following reason: {{{2}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Paddy you have been blocked for 24 hours due to unacceptable behaviour in a number forumn[1][2][3] when your block expires you are welcome to participate civilly but further similar such incidents may result in further blocks for longer durations. Gnangarra 02:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not really care too much about the 24h block. What I do find unacceptable is the fact you blocked me on the same users request who caused me to be annoyed in the first place and who squealed on me for his being annoyed here which then in turn caused me to tell him he is a grass and that is the definition of someone who squeals. Also you point out that two of the reason you blocked me are that I called him a grass which is pejorative but not vulgar. Alvesgaspar squealing on me on user problems without letting me know also is dislikeable. And blocking without warning me also is not very nice. No wonder the project is loosing contributors. If this is your aim you are doing it right. Not so friendly greetings --Paddy (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I also was about to request for you to be blocked for the above comments, so it would have happened regardless of who made the request. You might find that it would actually serve your cause better if you refrain from such language. --ELEKHH^T 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But you did not. So what is the point telling me? But just to let you know if you would have done it I also would think it friendly to warn me before you do so and inform me if you did. Maybe I would have said sorry it will not happen again. I did not have the chance. So there. --Paddy (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I just made another complaint at AN/U on your recent behavior. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reblocked Paddy for continuing harassment and incivility.[4][5] Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: continuing harassment and incivility. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I wanted to upload a couple of pictures today. But I will not until this continuous behaviour on FPC sustains (have better things to do than upload pictures for an ignorant crowd of haters of animé images and censors). You yourself admit: "It seems that Citron's comments could border on trollin,...". I would go even further and call it definitive trolling. Every grown up who had sex education in school knows that most of ejaculation comes from a prostate secretion. But even this is not the point. All fictive characters may it be comic or animé may do superhuman things. Look at superman he can fly. Therefore it is a valid point to make that there is no Easter bunny!. I can even prove it to you!

The other reason was Alvesgaspar who was defending unacceptable behaviour of GerardM. He is even calling the block "unfair and irrational". And I just agreed with mattbuck who suggested to stop baiting.

I know your block is unfair and unjust unlike the first block. But it is not me who has to haggle with his conscience. Furthermore I will not cry. Just give me more reasons to refrain from contributing to this project with pictures from my camera. Thank you --Paddy (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If Alvesgaspar was baiting you, he certainly achieved his aim. I'll be happy to unblock you if you agree to disengage from your conflict with him (as well as Citron). Commons is not a battleground for free-speech issues. Regardless of your disagreement, you are still expected to interact with other editors respectfully. Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Look I am not going to haggle with you about the last 24 h of a block which I do not deserve. And I certainly refuse to be blackmailed. And I totally disagree on the free-speech issue because of this edit. --Paddy (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrators notice regarding you

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Paddy. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Florent Pécassou (de-adminship)

Please clarify. Did you mean keep as an administrator? Or remove admin rights?--Chaser (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reine Zeitverschwendung

Hallo Paddy,

mach Dir wegen Alvesgaspar nichts daraus. Es gehört zu seiner Grundeinstellung, mehr oder minder direkte Sticheleien abzusondern und sich dann ganz vornehm auf zurückzuziehen, nicht dazu zu stehen und den Dummen zu spielen. Auch Logik sucht man in seinen Äußerungen vergeblich, wie z.B. in meiner letzten FP-Kandidatur, wo er sich als Dauernörgler profiliert und Gründe abliefert, die weder Hand noch Fuß haben. Aber so ist das. Sich mit der Type zu beschäftigen wäre reine Zeitvergeudung. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nordenstadt

Nordenstadt 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!

Richtest (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bilder aus Oppenheim

Hallo Paddy,

ich weiß nicht, ob Du in der Gegend von Oppenheim wohnst, habe aber gesehen, dass Du Bilder der Katharinenkirche gemacht hast. Hättest Du vielleicht auch Bildmaterial, um die Überreste von Mariacron bzw. die heutige Ansicht zu illustrieren? --Schwäbin (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, wir haben nur eine Wiki tour-de-vin mit dem Rad dorthin gemacht. Ich wohne in Wiesbaden. Vielleicht denke ich mal dran wenn ich wieder da bin. --Paddy (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke, ich bin schon an andere, wohl näher wohnende Wikipedianer verwiesen worden. --Schwäbin (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

fr|Burg Ehrenfels pendant le Wiki tour-de-vin 2010

Habe mir erlaubt dein Bild zu promovieren...--Symposiarch (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For excellent defending of free speech, knowledge and content

	The Sexuality Barnstar
	A big Thank you! for your efforts to treat everything as equal as anything else. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Hello Patrick, do you remember where did you take this photo? I am trying to categorize it more deeply but just can't guess where you took it ;-) -- Blackcat (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Sonnleiten 2012-02-17 riesenslalom.ogv

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sonnleiten 2012-02-17 riesenslalom.ogv. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Sonnleiten 2012-02-17 riesenslalom.ogv]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Saibo (Δ) 22:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole email correspondence has been sent to the German OTRS-Team. According to one team member I explained the License correctly and fully. I even gave them the Links to short and full CC-BY-SA legal text. The answer of skiline.cc did not satisfy the OTRS-Team member. He has my approval to contact them in order to get a satisfactory answer. --Paddy (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hipping

Jetzt mit Artikel auf de.wikipedia. salut --Symposiarch (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Praha 2012 01 08 014.JPG

File:Praha 2012 01 08 014.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Praha 2012 01 08 040.JPG

File:Praha 2012 01 08 040.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tour-de-Vin 2012 06 16 006.JPG

File:Tour-de-Vin 2012 06 16 006.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Praha 2012 01 08 008.JPG

File:Praha 2012 01 08 008.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:St. Peter 2009-08-01 03 pregamma 0.6 reinhard02 key 0.28 phi 8.jpg

File:St. Peter 2009-08-01 03 pregamma 0.6 reinhard02 key 0.28 phi 8.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:St. Peter 2009-08-01 16 pregamma 0.6 reinhard02 key 0.28 phi 6.jpg

File:St. Peter 2009-08-01 16 pregamma 0.6 reinhard02 key 0.28 phi 6.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Burg Rheinstein 2009-08-01 37 pregamma 0.6 reinhard02 key 0.28 phi 6.jpg

File:Burg Rheinstein 2009-08-01 37 pregamma 0.6 reinhard02 key 0.28 phi 6.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!

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure File:Phospholipase.svg is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure File:Phospholipase.svg you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Files in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the file talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the file to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fotonutzung

Lieber Paddy,

kannst du mich bitte mal über meine Emailadresse kontaktieren? Es geht um die Nutzung einiger deiner Fotos.

Vielen lieben Dank

Ecomae 09:33, 6 June 2013 (MEZ)

habe Dir eine E-Mail gestern über commons zukommen lassen. -Paddy (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Vatican flag 300.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Vatican flag 300.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.

JuTa 17:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Look what I did. --Paddy (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

wikiTour de vin

schau : de:Portal:Rheinhessen/Artikel des Monats salut--Symposiarch (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

sehr schön. LG --Paddy (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Silbermuenze-1-unze-krugerrand-rueckseite.png

File:Silbermuenze-1-unze-krugerrand-rueckseite.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!

Gruener Panda (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Leiterbahn ausfallort elektromigration00.jpg

Hi Paddy. Magst du dein Foto kategorisieren? Ich finde keine passende Kategorie. --Leyo 10:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, ich schau heute Abend mal was ich da machen kann ok? --Paddy (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:Krugerrand-coins-size-comparison.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Krugerrand-coins-size-comparison.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Krugerrand-coins-size-comparison.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Masur (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)