User talk:Yerpo

	File status notifications archive
	FOP-Slovenia notifications archive

Welcome to commons Yerpo. What better way than starting off with a Quality Image promotion could there be? :-) --QICbot 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I dislike very much the fact that you're trying to sneak an allegation into the "disputed map" tag which is simply not supported by the relevant talk pages, since at Image talk:Bay-of-Piran maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg and en:Talk:Gulf of Piran there have been absolutely no remotely credible allegations whatsoever of "NPOV", in any usual or accepted meaning of the phrase. Instead, there have been only semantic hairsplittings over the possible speculated hypothetical potential implications of asymmetrical wording (even though I have explained in great detail that the aforementioned asymmetrical wording has nothing to do with me supporting Croatian or Slovenian positions, but is solely due to Croatia currently being the status quo power), and the use of an exonym. All the disputes are abstractly terminological and metaphysical, and have nothing to do with me advocating any particular position in the dispute between Croatia and Slovenia.

And even more importantly, according to the official policy Commons:Scope#.22Neutral_point_of_view.22 , it is generally not the reponsibility of Commons to adjudicate such matters. Obviously, an image which is being used to spread blatant falsehood can be deleted for that reason, but where there is a legitimate content dispute (some which are a hell of a lot more "POV" than anything involved in the Piran image, such as maps showing the status of Kosovo or Western Sahara) then it is not the role of us here on Wikimedia Commons to make decisions which the individual language Wikipedias can and should make for themselves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this discussion in one place, shall we? --Yerpo (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you created for example the category Cankova municipality. I just added the towns/villages in that municipality in the short explaining text. I think that that is useful when people search on a village name. Then it is easier to know in which category the image can be put. For example I tried a search on the name "Korovci" and found the image File:Kapela_Korovci.jpg with the category "Churches in Prekmurje". I think we can add to that photo also "Cankova municipality".
I am not familiar with your country Slovenia. What do you think about it?
Just an other idea. I live in Belgium and we have made for all 2419 cities and villages a separate category. Some of them are still empty (no images yet) but the advantage that the structure is there. What do you think, would it be useful to expand the existing 66 municipalities of Slovenia to 210 municipalities? Regards, Wouter (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will make categories for the rest of the municipalities, it's just too much work to do it in one go ;). List of settlements looks useful and I'll probably put it in the rest as well, but as for including images, there is one problem: Slovenia is noted for the lack of imagination in geographic names and some names appear many times throughout the country (see for example the disambiguation page for the name Log). So in some cases it is difficult to know in which of the settlements was the picture taken if it doesn't say in the description page. But yes, sorting existing pictures comes next and I plan to enlist some help from Slovenians when I finish this. For now I'm just categorizing those pictures that are included in the articles about settlements in Slovene WP. --Yerpo (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! The advantage when you do this with the help of other Slovenians is that there will be no typing errors because of the for me "difficult" characters. For situations as you mentioned with "Log" I experienced that it helps sometimes when I put a message on the users page and ask for the exact name and give a link to the disambiguation page. I also "follow" the page of the photo because the user may answer on the user page and/or change it him/her self in the description with the photo. The last half year I work also on Media needing categories and that is why I came accross photos of Slovenia that I wanted to put in the right category. Wouter (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some examples of photos from Slovenia that are uncategorized? I might be able to help. Is there some pattern (uploader, description, etc.) so I can find them easier? --Yerpo (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give examples of uncategorized photos is difficult. When I see new ones I will give you the filenames or may be better the name of the user. The most recent ones were almost all that are now in Category:Cankova. You can see it by looking at the photos and looking at the history. Often I look at the other contributions of a user when I have categorized a photo and do a search on a word (for example Cankova) to see whether there are more photos for the same category. Also I look sometimes at the contributions in the gallery presentation because then you can see immediately whether they are categorized (search on "Media needing categories"). In this case I did not do it with User:Lanfra and User:Doncsecz (there you find about 10 examples of uncategorized images). It all depends on the quality of the first photo I see. When very worthwile I spend quite some effort, when very small size or not sharp I just leave them uncategorized. Hope this helps. Wouter (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen the photo File:Kabverdi_2_048.jpg without a category. From the description I understand it is Slovenian. Computer translated "Volcanic crater on the island of Sal", but I could not find an island Sal. From the photo it looks more a place where salt is collected from the see. Could you give it the right category? Thanks. Wouter (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It's this Sal. I categorized the image and translated the description. --Yerpo (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Wouter (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is to inform you that the formal Commons:Graphic Lab School/Images to improve page has been split into three workshops (as in the English Wikipedia): Illustration workshop, Map workshop, and Photography workshop. You have received this message because you have the {{User Wikigraphist}} userbox, or because you are an active participant of the Graphic Lab. If you would like to continue to request or improve, you may do so in your preferred workshop. Note that the formal page should not receive further requests and current discussions should be closed soon. Thank you, and happy holidays! ZooFari 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Just wanted to let you know that I've listed File:Airbase Cerklje landing.jpg and File:Divača Airport from air wiev.jpg, which you imported from English Wikipedia, for deletion request. Unfortunately, the images uploaded by that contributor on English Wikipedia are all very likely to be copyright violations. More detail is available at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Slovenian military-patriot. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Z"Zbirke"se"Povzetek" in vse ostalo ne prenese na "Wikivir"(Povzetek) kot na Wikipedijo. Tako, da bom moral vse še enkrat narediti na "Wikivir"-u ali pa prenesem slike Gorice na "Galerija slik »Borovih gostüvanj« v Prekmurju".LP --Feri (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kako se ne prenese? Jaz vidim enak povzetek na Wikiviru kot na Wikipediji. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj pa pripis dovoljenja? Primerjaj z "Zbirko".LP --Feri (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Če misliš jezik sporočila, je odvisen od jezikovnih nastavitev uporabnika na vsakem koncu posebej. Povsod pa pove isto. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poglej to celo stran, sedaj pa to. Sta enaki? LP--Feri (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sta, razen naslovov poglavij in predloge za licenco, ki so v drugem jeziku (ker imam pač v Wikiviru nastavljen drug jezik kot v Zbirki), in kategorije, ki je samo v Zbirki. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pri meni se je ves čas na "Wikivir"-u prikazovalo

== Licensing: ==

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.htmlGFDLGNU Free Documentation Licensetruetrue

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0CC BY 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 truetrue

You may select the license of your choice.

tole.

Sedaj je vse OK, hvala še enkra. LP --Feri (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This media may be deleted.

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

Masur (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could've tried finding the image on PLoS pages yourself (it isn't that hard to find) instead of just popping the "no source" template on the description page. They moved the file so the link got broken. I put DOI link under source instead. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, File:Anton Azbe Self Portrait.jpg and File:Anton Ažbe 1886 Avtoportret.jpg are not duplicates - I reverted your tag. They are, quite obviously, scanned from different intermediate copies, processed independently and are visibly different in tone curve and white balance / saturation (only a look at the original canvas can tell which is closer to it). The small pic is not a scaled-down clone of a bigger one (which was, BTW, cropped and doctored to remove book title imprinted on its dark background). Regards, NVO (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in this case, I think it would be useful to describe the (known) modifications to avoid confusion — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I modified description in PL-wikipedia. Thank you. Julo (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yerpo,

I'm doing the design for a kids' book about cave animals. I'd like to use your image of Leptodirus hochenwartii. It would be one of seven animals used in the book. It is for very young kids who are just learning to read, but are intrigued by interesting animals. Please reply to anders@mightymedia.com. Thanks!

Dear Yerpo,

I am writing a book chapter on Biospeleology where I am planning to use an image uploaded by you "Leptodirus hochenwartii". What formality I have to follow please reply. jb@caves.res.in. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.168.87.20 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon,

I hope you do not mind me contacting you but in searching the internet for images of Chirocephalus croaticus, I came across your image on wikipedia which I would be interested in using for ARKive, if you would like to become involved.

ARKive - www.arkive.org - is a unique conservation initiative.

Films, photographs and audio recordings of the world’s animals, plants and fungi are being gathered into one centralised digital library. To date we have created digital multi-media profiles for over 5,000 species, digitising and storing more than 40,000 still images and over 60 hours of moving footage. These important audio-visual records are being preserved and maintained for the benefit of future generations and are being made available via the ARKive website.

I am able to send some more detailed documentation that will tell you a lot more about the ARKive project should you provide an email address. Please take some time to have a quick look at our award-winning website and see examples of species which have been ARKived at www.arkive.org.

Please let me know if you have any queries. I am contactable at the below email address.

I hope to hear from you soon. Best wishes,

Helen Roddis Helen.Roddis@wildscreen.org.uk

"Over the past few decades a vast treasury of wildlife images has been steadily accumulating, yet no one has known its full extent - or its gaps - and no one has had a comprehensive way of gaining access to it. ARKive will put that right. It will become an invaluable tool for all concerned with the well-being of the natural world.” Sir David Attenborough

"ARKive is a noble project, one of the most valuable in all of biology and conservation practice. It has whatever support I am able to give it." Professor E. O. Wilson, Harvard University

Hello, yes I saw that you moved some emblems to the Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Slovenia, I didn't know about this category, but I'll add them from now on.

Is a Creative Commons license not good for these pictures? On the Slovene wiki it says „Slika predstavlja pečat, emblem, grb ali njegov del. Zanjo avtorske pravice ne veljajo ali pa je v javni lasti.“ So as far as it's public property and author's rights cannot apply, it can go under the Creative Commons license as well, no? --Gcsaba2 (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The emblem's description is public domain, but the actual image made from this description is a creative work, therefore protected by copyright laws. So you can draw an emblem based on the description yourself and license it any way you wish, but if you get them elsewhere, you have to respect the author's choice of use permission. The appropriate slovenian license template is sl:Predloga:Neprosti simbol, the one you quoted is meant primarily for very old emblem depictions; in other cases, the "V ostalih primerih menimo, da se na Wikipediji tovrstne slike lahko objavljajo pod pogoji poštene uporabe" distinction applies. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK so delete all the picture... --Gcsaba2 (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ne vem, če predloga za vlada.si še velja, ker povezave več ne delajo, toda pod slikami piše "Fotografije so v formatu JPEG in v kakovosti, primerni za tisk. Ob navedbi avtorja fotografije in vira jih lahko uporabljate brezplačno." (npr [1]), kar je ok za zbirko?--Sporti (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V večini primerov piše (foto UKOM), ne vem pa kaj točno naj bi pomenilo (foto: Nebojša Tejič/STA, vir: UKOM)[2]. --Sporti (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ne bi si upal rečt kako je s tem. Splošni pogoji se približno ujemajo z licenco {{Attribution}}, pri fotkah ne-UKOM avtorjev pa dvomim da veljajo. Pomoje bi bilo najbolje napisat mejl in jih vprašat s katero od licenc soglašajo ter kako je s fotkami od STA. Potem naj za ziher napišejo novo pojasnilo na OTRS. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ja no sredi leta 2010 se končajo lastne slike in starejše so samo še od STA. Sicer pa če že, bi bilo dobro narediti nek standarden dopis glede slik in ga poslati na več državnih oz. javnih zavodov. Tega za vlado je verjetno poslal Dbc334, ker je on ustvaril predlogo. --Sporti (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No pa še nekaj - Galerija Picase Dolina Soče med drugim tudi s precej rastlinami in kakšno živaljo, v glavnem sicer brez imena (če pa jih prepoznaš in so za naložit...). --Sporti (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valentin_Inzko.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） ∙ +/−

Prince Kassad (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sv. Areh = sv. Henrik [3]--Andrejj (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pa res, hvala za link. Jaz sem se ravnal po temu. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your request for a comparison map. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate the Slovene text on this page (especially in the image)? I need to know if the image is OK for the Commons or not. Thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same image you dealt with before at sl:Pogovor:Drinske_mučenke#Dovoljenje_za_sliko. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it is the same image I dealt with, yes. The permission text is in Hungarian, not Slovene, but as far as I can decode it (with help of Google Translate), it says that the author permits "fair purpose" use on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that both the author and the uploader have a lot of difficulties in understanding the copyleft concept (or even copyright, for that matter). I think that "fair purpose" mentioned in the permission doesn't refer to Fair use in the legal sense, but some vague idea that the image should not be used for anything fishy. Generally, the permission is insufficient for Commons even ignoring the vagueness, because it only mentions "use on Wikipedia".

I tried to explain (here) what has to be done in order for the image to be useful for Commons, but about the only response I got from the uploader was that he doesn't wish to disturb the author anymore. Later, he asked again what has to be written for the author to sign (bottom of that talk page), but we apparently overlooked it. I can answer that again if you think it would help, but that's about the last thing I'm prepared to do for this issue. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email on OTRS (he sent it to the wrong one the first time around) and it just restated that post. I am going to go ahead and close the discussion as no permission. Thank you for your assistance. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoštovani Yerpo!

Mislim, da si narobe razumel, kaj piše v dovoljenju avtorja. Avtor prav hoče, da se slika objavi ne le na Wikipediji, ampak povsod. Ne vem, kaka ovira je tukaj. Po Tvojem zapletenem pismu v angleščini, ki ga jaz ne razumem dosti, so odgovorni pri OTRS prišli do sklepa, da slike ni mogoče obnoviti. Prosim Te, da vzameš na znanje naslednje, ker verjetno ne razumeš madžarsko. Tukaj je original in prevod slikarja slike. Slikar je tudi prvič hotel, da se slika objavi, vendar je pozneje dodal besedo povsod. Sedanji tekst, ki ga je napisal lastnoročno, se torej glasi: Én Tápai István rajzoltam a Drinai vértanúkról szlló képet. Ezt a képet ajándékoztam barátomnak Stebuniknak. Ezt a képet lehet használni a Vikipédijánés mendenhol becsületes célokra. Tápai István 11. április 2011. Prevod: Jaz, István Tápai, sem narisal sliko, ki predstavlja Drinske mučenke. To sliko sem podaril svojemu prijatelju Stebuniku. Ta slika se sme uporabljati na Wikipediji in povsod v poštene namene. Tápai István, 11. aprila 2011. Mislim, da je besedilo zadosti jasno. Če je kaj narobe, ni avtorjeva krivda in mislim, da bi bilo pošteno, da se to upošteva in da se že enkrat dovoli povrnitev slike. Avtor je napisal tako, kot je mislil, da je po Wikipedijinih predpisih najbolje, da bo slika gori. Če je kaj premalo ali preveč, povej, pa bo on napisal tako. Poleg tega: če je on meni sliko podaril oziroma jo naslikal zame, potem je logično prenesel tudi pravice name. Četudi to ne bi bilo, je njegova volja jasna. Ne vem, kje je ovira? Ti si v angleščini tistim na OTRS napisal tako učeno, da so sliko blokirali še nadalje. Če si že napravil to, napravi še to malenkost, da jim pojasniš oziroma pojasni meni, kje naj bi bila v kakem dovoljenju pomanjkljivost. Hvala za razumevanje. Pisanje se pa nanaša na dva fajla: na sliko in pa na dovoljenje, ker slikar nima računalnika.

File:Drina'-1 Tapai.jpg

Če sem narobe razumel, oprosti.

Tvoja razlaga, ko sem še enkrat pregledal, je popolnoma napačna. Če piše slikar: mindenhol, to je povsod, ali to ne pomeni fair use in the legal sense? Ti praviš takole: "fair purpose" mentioned in the permission doesn't refer to Fair use in the legal sense, but some vague idea that the image should not be used for anything fishy.

Ne le slikarjeva, tudi moja volja je, da je slika gori, drugače je ne bi postavil. Ali pa misliš, da jo je on narisal za Wikipedijo zato, da jo bo kdo zbrisal?--Stebunik (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V zadnjem dovoljenju ne piše o "pošteni rabi", ampak da se lahko uporabi povsod in v vse namene. To je napisano in madžarsko in angleško. Angleško piše takole in mislim, da več od tega res ne more nihče zahtevati: "I István Tápai drew 2011 the image of Drina Martyrs. I permis: This image can be used on Wikipedia and everywhere. 2012. III. 1. Tápai István." Če je bilo prejšnje dovoljenje pomanjkljivo, mislim, da to zadnje ni več. Hvaležen bi Ti bil, da dokončaš ta maratonski tek za postavitev nazaj slike. Hvala. --Stebunik (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To dovoljenje spet nič konkretnega ne pove. Zelo točno sem napisal na tvoji uporabniški strani (sl:Uporabniški pogovor:Stebunik) kaj mora pisati v dovoljenju in kam je treba tisto poslati. Povedal sem tudi, da več kot to nisem pripravljen narediti za objavo te slike, niti ni v moji moči. Prosim, da to spoštuješ, kar sem (očitno zmotno) mislil da nameravaš, glede na odgovor "Hvala za pojasnilo in pomoč." — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tebi se to zdi preprosto, zame ni, vendar bom poskusil, seveda ko bo več časa. --Stebunik (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pls help me in getting the right license details for the images i uploaded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i've sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, regarding the Vadivelu image. this is how it was: http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=33qp5u8jc1hs4, now wat do i do? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can't see your e-mails, so I don't know what was in there. If you got permission form The Hindu newspaper, then you just wait and somebody will tag the image as OK. But I have a feeling that you didn't really get any permission because you don't understand the point here: you cannot just take some random picture from some random website and publish it on Wikipedia. That's copyright violation - you can only look at them, but you can't publish them elsewhere. I understand that you want to illustrate the articles, but Wikipedia only accepts works that are free to use for everyone. Some pictures from some website are usually not. Only the author can decide that, and he has to say it explicitly. Articles about Indian film stars will just have to wait until somebody takes a picture of them and decides to share it freely. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then its gonna be really hard for me. I guess I cant do anything. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your timely feedback! Truthskr (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at your resoration of rename request after my decline. Another file mover has declined your request.

1. file is in use on many Wikis &
2. The en:wp surname is more matching than your suggestion.

Plz do not go for further rename requests of the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Yerpo, I noticed that you took File:US embassy Ljubljana.JPG, and I was wondering if you might be able to help with a photo of the Russian Embassy in Ljubljana. It is required as per User:Russavia/Required_photos#Slovenia. The embassy is located at Tomšičeva Ulica 9, and it next to the US Embassy (I believe). Can you possibly help with that? Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but I can't promise it soon; I don't live in Ljubljana so it will have to wait until I go around the center with my photo equipment again some day. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First make sure it passes Commons:FOP#Slovenia. I couldn't find anything about the building. --Sporti (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's unfree (work of Costaperaria, who died in 1951).[4] Photos of it will be eligible for Commons only in 2022. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, whilst we can't host it on Commons, it can be uploaded to say dewiki and other local projects where FOP rules aren't taken into consideration. Then in 2022, we can move it to Commons :) russavia (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravo, zdaj imamo naslednji predlogi za Slovenijo: Template:PD-Slovenia in Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt (velja tudi za slikovna gradiva v uradnem listu, ne samo za tekst).[5] (str. 28) --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Hi, as you've created Category:Ajdovščina municipality. Per [6], its name is grammatically incorrect, therefore it should be renamed either to 'Ajdovščina (municipality)' or 'Municipality of Ajdovščina'. Which version seems better to you? I'd choose the first one for easier sorting. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All categories of municipalities in Slovenia are named this way. --Sporti (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking of renaming them so that the titles will be grammatically correct. Do you think this would be redundant? Is there any other objection to this? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we come to a consensus on :en, first. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we've reached a consensus there. Please let me know if there is some additional issue in naming these articles. In addition, also names such as 'Mokronog - Trebelno municipality' are grammatically incorrect: we should use the en dash instead of a hyphen (or minus sign). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Anton Jansa - portret.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:Anton Jansa - portret.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Radio Slovenia studio and wikipedians.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:Radio Slovenia studio and wikipedians.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Živjo, sliko File:10th anniversary of Slovene Wikipedia - Jernej and Delo.JPG bi bilo treba izbrisati. Meni se je sicer zdi škoda, po drugi strani pa je članek avtorsko zavarovan in slika ne spada sem. Kaj meniš? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio Slovenia studio and wikipedians.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there is no relevant reason to make exceptions. It may only lead to (us) being accused of double standards some day. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know perhaps the species in the following two images?

• File:Two butterflies mating.jpg (Melitaea athalia?)
• File:Turtle - Struga, Macedonia.jpg

Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, albeit a bit more unsharp, is File:Skrzat Okroglice.jpg. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies could be Melitaea athalia, although I don't know butterfly taxonomy nearly well enough to dare say for sure. The turtle looks like a European pond turtle with almost completely abraded carapace. The third is quite unsharp, but it's definitely a grasshopper, not a cicada. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have some additional images (animals and plants) and will upload them gradually so any help in identification is more than welcome. The turtle definitely looks like Emys orbicularis. In any case, I have to buy asap those macro (extension) rings. Have a nice stay in Italy. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't make much sense to upload images as unsharp as the grasshopper if you don't know the ID, the rest I can have a look at. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the worst, because it was taken from distance with a strong zoom. I hoped you could nonetheless recognise the species. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:25, 14 August 2013 (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:Reprodukcija Vaske situle.JPG

And also:

• File:Vaska situla-kopija.JPG Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:MHM55)
The bugs depicted in the set you took are almost certainly Acanthosoma haemorrhoidale, so Acanthosomatidae, not Pentatomidae. I recategorized one, but then I saw that it would be more work than I am able to do right now (categorization, renaming requests, descriptions), so I defer it to you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. --MHM (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a wikibreak for some time to think about how you communicate with the people around yourself? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how patronizing this sounds? You're not exactly in the position to be able to act this way. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think that as a dr., you may now run around and insult people like you see fit, don't you? Congratulations for the title, but I find these insults dishonest and distasteful, and I'll tell you a secret: they don't go well with it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my first reply wasn't as diplomatic as could be expected, but in my opinion, you were taking words out of context (later repeating it several times), which is in fact dishonest, at least in my book. Dragging my title into this is really low, so please, refrain from commenting this further on my talk page, I don't want this to spiral out of control. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my comment and apologise to you for mentioning your title in relation to the conflict. No matter how hard I sometimes find to edit here and how much hatred and dislike I feel directed towards me, it was wrong that I tried to escalate the conflict instead of finding a way to talk to you about my concerns in a mature way. The point that I wanted to make is that we are both members of the same project and we have to learn to collaborate respectfully and assume good faith despite evidently fundamental differences in our viewpoints. If we can't come to agreement, then it is the best to get an impartial third opinion. As to taking words out of context, I've already explained to you that I have not taken words out of what you perceive as the necessary context to mislead, but because it didn't seem necessary to me. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both of us have to get used to breathe in and count to 10 before replying in discussions like this. I understand that I can get undiplomatic when irritated (for which I apologize), but please also understand that each particular discussion isn't conducted in vacuum, unrelated to others. Expecting the same starting attitude when discussing very similar controversies over and over again ignores basic human psychology. Yes, AGF is crucial, but we're just human and when we talk about something as vague as the relation of actual works to an unknown legal standard, there is a lot left to imagination.

So we must figure out how to deal with Slovene FOP/DM cases as a community (at slwiki), because impartial foreigners aren't familiar with situation in our country and would have to operate with even more assumptions than us. At the end, it always comes down to a third opinion anyway (the closing admin's). I believe the right way is to dig up as much specific literature as possible, maybe seek an expert opinion, and then apply that in a consistent manner. Until we do, applying the worst case scenario within a range of vague interpretations does way more harm than good and should be avoided, in my opinion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I also had to get used to keep the same attitude when discussing similar unfounded objections again and again. I believe that foreigners are actually better at judging the situation, exactly because they are mostly not personally invested and are thus more impartial. However, they must be given all available relevant information. It is not about applying the worst case scenario, but applying the policy that when we don't know / are not sure of the copyright situation, we delete the image. On the rest, I agree with your reasoning. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided the source that I've mentioned.[7] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, I'm typing the answer right now. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if the municipal coats of arms are covered by the public information act, then probably an UDR would be in place for this file. I'm not sure how to formulate it though. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yerpo. You have new messages at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Battle for Rožna Dolina border pass. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

. --Sporti (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yerpo. I saw you have flagged some of the images I've uploaded as up for deletion, because there is no proof of license. Well, in both cases (Gary Yourofsky and Laurent Bisch) I have contacted the authors of the images (which depict themselves in person) and asked for permission to put it on Wikipedia. Both have agreed to this. Therefore, I do not believe the images should be deleted. However, seeing as both persons are not users (that I know of) on any of the Wikimedia projects, I can't get them to come here and say this out loud to everyone.

I don't think the pictures should be deleted, but do as you see fit. If they do end up deleted, there will be no hard feelings from me, as I understand why it was done.

Thanks. Sentient Planet (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

My name is Laurie and I'm the Project Manager for na2ure, an NYC-based startup toy company. We featured this photo of yours (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aphid-giving-birth.jpg) in our upcoming app, and wanted to thank you. Thank you!

na2ure is all about designing science play. We developed a game-changing platform called ferret that classifies ecological data into an intuitive network that can be easily learned through play. The high end value of our work attracted STEM>STEAM icon John Maeda, as well as the VCs behind LittleBits, Sphero, Makerbot, and Shapeways. The science has been vetted by MD's and PhD's, tested by kids, and praised by educators as appealing to all ages.

None of this would have been possible without your work. Thank you.

The app is available on the iOS platform and will be released to the public soon. Be sure to follow us on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Anigramit) and Twitter (@anigramit) for a quick, easy way to share the news with your social media network -- and to keep up to date on all the great stuff we’re doing.

Again, thank you! Laurie Vazquez Project Manager, na2ure manager@na2ure.com

Hi, thanks for the notification, but I'm not the author. The photo was taken and first uploaded by the now inactive user MedievalRich at the English Wikipedia project, I just transferred it to Commons. Make sure that he is credited, not me. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks so much! - Laurie Vazquez, Project Manager, na2ure, manager@na2ure.com

Živjo, lahko pogledaš, če je kaj v OTRS sistemu za File:Miroslav Cerar.jpg in File:12th Slovenian Government (1).jpg? --Sporti (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Je, ravno urejam. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pa Cerar? --Sporti (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Čakam še odgovor, sem vprašal, kako to, da je UKOM lastnik avtorskih pravic, če je fotograf z STA. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, je ravno prišel odgovor in je zdaj zadeva rešena. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starogorski rokopis.gif 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） ∙ +/−

79.41.237.29 10:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saigonnightskyline.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） ∙ +/−

Gunnex (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdravljen, šele zdaj sem opazil, da si 9. maja 2016 izbrisal mojo fotografijo Petra Prevca, ki je bila glavna profilna slika njegove angleške wiki strani in zelo lepa. Edina fotografija njega z velikim globusom v naročju. Res škoda, da si izbrisal. Ob uploadanju sem jasno navedel, da gre za mojo fotografijo in da se odpovedujem avtorskim pravicam. Obstaja kakšna možnost, da jo vrneš? Hvala. --Topjur01 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Topjur01: če sem odkrit, se ne spomnim, zakaj sem sliko označil kot kršitev avtorskih pravic (običajno to naredim, kadar ji manjka kaj od osnovne opreme ali kadar najdem kopijo kje drugje na internetu), dopuščam seveda tudi možnost, da sem se zmotil. Na žalost na Zbirki nimam administratorskih pooblastil, tako da bo moral to postoriti nekdo drug. Navodila so na strani Commons:Undeletion requests. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yerpo. Do you think File:Slovenske Konjice flag.gif is a copyrightable file or is it free (considering this is public information)? I really would not like to have images deleted for poorly grounded reasons. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eleassar for the late response, I overlooked this. It's complicated situation; by my understanding of the relevant laws, it should be free because it's a work by a public insitution, although many municipalities show copyright notices, especially those that have commisioned graphic designers to design their symbols more recently. I don't see anything like that here and the design is mandated by the 1992 act, so I think it's free as far as copyright is concerned. {{Coat of arms}} should cover the issues. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dry Cimarron Scenic Byway.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） ∙ +/−

 

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Živjo, Yerpo. Je v permissions-sl@wikimedia.org priletelo kaj pošte (za naložene slike)? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ojla, dobro da si vprašal. Je prišlo, ampak od OTRS nisem dobil obvestila o novem zahtevku, niti se ni prikazal kot nepregledan v vrsti, tako da sem ga našel šele z izrecnim iskanjem. Sem uredil. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleassar, daj prosim ti sporoči g. Borovniku da je vse ok, če ga boš kaj videl. OTRS ima probleme in ne morem odgovoriti na zahtevek, bom poskusil kasneje še enkrat. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hvala. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yerpo, I've fixed the issues regarding your comment in the QI image nomination here. Could you please review it once. Cheers - Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

an approval mail for the tagged photos of Predor Karavanke from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Salzburger_Nockerl has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the author. Please leave the photos online until the mail has been procedured.

Thank you and BR

--Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salzburger Nockerl: ok, thank you. You can put {{OTRS pending}} on description pages so that they don't get deleted (I'm not an admin, so it's not in my hands). Next time, I suggest you obtain permission before uploading, so it's less complicated. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lahko pogledaš kaj je s slikama File:Klavdija Kutnar.jpg in File:Tomaž Pisanski age 70.jpg, ki čakata na potrditev? --Sporti (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Na slovenski OTRS ni (še) nič prišlo, mogoče na Zbirkinega, do katerega pa jaz nimam dostopa. Mogoče bo problematično, ker slik nista donirala avtorja. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha zgleda je na Commons OTRS, vsaj bot je dodal predlogo OTRS received... --Sporti (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yerpo, I noticed you created the landing page for WLM in Slovenia. Welcome in Wiki Loves Monuments! Checking the status I noticed one translation is still missing, the one of this template: Template:Upload campaign header wlm-si.

I also noticed that the landing page is both available in English and Slovenian. People will arrive through the CentralNotice banner on the Slovene version of the page, but foreign speakers will not know how to switch to English. Can you please add a link on the page for the non-Slovenian speakers how they can find the Slovene version. Please also add a link to the Slovene version, so that people that arrive on this page from a different path can read in Slovene. Thanks! If there are any issues, please let me know! Romaine (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translated, thanks for the notice. I'm considering reworking the landing page with the new template, but your suggestion makes sense either way, with my approach to bilinguality. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever option you choose is up to you, just make sure the people can switch languages.

This template needs a translation into Slovenian too: Template:Cultural Heritage Slovenia.

The upload wizard for Slovenia now accepts the &id= parameter and enters the ID of the monument in a separate box that fills this template (added to the file page). Greetings - Romaine (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be another one - {{SpomenikSVN}}? --Sporti (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I forgot that one. Nevertheless, {{SpomenikSVN}} is a warning about reuse restrictions that only concerns monuments, but not all cultural heritage sites with EŠD numbers are monuments. So perhaps they can stay separate - {{Cultural Heritage Slovenia}} for use in the Summary section and {{SpomenikSVN}} in the Permission section. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 

العربية | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | English | español | فارسی | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | magyar | македонски | 日本語 | Nederlands | português do Brasil | română | سنڌي | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | +/−

---

Dear Yerpo,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 12:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 

العربية | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | English | español | فارسی | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | magyar | македонски | 日本語 | Nederlands | português do Brasil | română | سنڌي | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | +/−

---

Dear Yerpo,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just in the case that you are not yet aware, one of your images is used in a scientific article, see [8]. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How nice! Thanks, I didn't know that. Best, — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your hard work Mitjas1 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize but it was to late. Thank you for telling me but two is not "a lot of pictures". Greetings. --Beninho (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were at least 4 that I saw, but it's fine if you bear it in mind in the future. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly get out there for a picture in the next few weeks. I'll give you a heads-up when I upload it to Commons :). Nate • (chatter) 17:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks in advance :) — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to update you...I still intend to get these pictures, but the weather here hasn't been the best, and wildfire smoke didn't help last month in getting a 'blue sky' picture of the church. I promise I'll have them when I can get out there. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. There's no rush. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading images for Wiki Loves Monuments!

However, we have noticed you have not enabled e-mail. To be eligible to win a prize the contest, you need to enable e-mail. This is what to do:

1. Check the top right of your screen, and log in if you have not done so already
2. Go to your preferences
3. Scroll down to Email Options
4. Enter your email address and click "Allow other users to email me"
5. Click Save
   

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ipavec House.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  Support Good quality. --Halavar 09:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yerpo,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.

Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team, 08:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Zdravo, Yerpo! Bi morda vedel, kaj je to za en žužek? Mi je bil fotogeničen, pa sem ga slikal s telefonom. --romanm (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanm: kolega, znalec, pravi Galeruca tanaceti (nima slovenskega imena). Samica, zadek ima poln jajčec, zato je tako napihnjen. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Najlepša hvala! --romanm (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zdaj sem našel še slovensko, vratičev lepenec se mu baje reče. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dendrocopos major juv Vrhnika.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 Good quality. --MB-one 10:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2021 (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:Cimaisondepute1.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav! Na wikiju je slika sl:Žan Serčič nastavljena File:Žan Serčič.png, katera je pa videti kakor posnetek zaslona iz pogovorne oddaje (idk, Dobro jutro ipd.). Se tako šteje kot kršitev AP? Hvala. A09090091 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A09090091: : zaslonski posnetek avtorsko zaščitene TV-oddaje je res copyvio. Predlagam, da vprašaš uporabnika Moonhalh, od kje je. Tudi če ne bo odgovora in ne boš našel točne oddaje, jo kar predlagaj za brisanje kot verjeten copyvio (vira nima) in umakni iz članka. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala. Bom storil kakor si povedal. A09090091 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kako pa lahko trdiš, da je bila objavljena pred 1963? 1963 je bil gospod slikan, letnice objave v denimo publikaciji pa ne vemo. Kaj meniš? A09090091 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Res ni 100 %, ampak za take primere pmm lahko malo pogledamo skozi prste. Če je znano osebo slikal znan fotograf, je bilo v tistih časih običajno objavljeno. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vendar Zbirka jemlje take stvari skrajno resno, to vendarle piše tudi v njenih pravilih (ne spomnem se v katerem). Bom požrl slino, vas je pa vse več takih, ki gledate skozi prste (nedavno tudi Mhladnik s študentskimi slikami spomenikov)! A09090091 (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Jaz sem sicer bolj na strani previdnosti, ampak v takih mejnih primerih menim, da ne tvegamo bistveno. Saj pravi pravilo - če obstaja resen dvom o statusu, se delo izbriše, jaz pa mislim, da verjetno je poteklo 25 let od objave preden je bil sprejet nov zakon o avtorskih pravicah. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasprotoval ne bom, se mi pa preventiva zdi boljša kot kurativa. Hvala za odgovore, LP, A09090091 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but I will be uploading several pictures over the next couple days of the church and the school next to it, which I hope will be very helpful. Nate • (chatter) 05:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot about this, thank you. I'm sure it will be helpful, I went ahead and created a stub about your city on slwiki (sl:Sheboygan, Wisconsin), so one of the photos will definitely go there. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please correct the syntax of the permission for File:23.Matura 1926, Maribor.jpg. Compared to the tagged file, it seems to be unclear for me whether there is a permission. But I am not on OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pieris rapae Dol.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 Good quality. --Kritzolina 17:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Živijo. Opazil sem, da je bil pri mojih fotografijah File:Slovenski parlament.jpg in File:Vila v Homcu.jpg izdan zahtevek za brisanje. Vila je baje problematična, ker je delno Plečnikovo delo, za parlament pa ni navedenega vzroka - je kaj podobnega? In seveda, zakaj določena dela Plečnika niso problematična? Miha Peče (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miha Peče: obe fotografiji sta na žalost problematični iz istega vzroka: ker sta zgradbi še avtorsko zaščiteni, ju ne smemo ponujati pod povsem prostimi licencami. Tudi pri parlamentu je naveden vzrok - tukaj. Problematična so drugače vsa Plečnikova dela v Sloveniji, v Avstriji in na Češkem pa nimajo naše omejitve. Konkretno, naš zakon prepoveduje komercialno uporabo fotografij avtorsko zaščitenih zgradb. Je res, da je Commons nepridobiten projekt, a sprejme le fotografije, ki so proste tudi za komericalno rabo. Upam, da je razumljivo. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sedaj je razumljivo. V preteklosti sem objavil nekaj fotografij Plečnikove cerkve v Pragi, pa me je seveda zanimalo, zakaj to ni bilo problematično. Imam še vprašanje, če veste odgovor: a) Baje se lahko slika trg, npr Trg revolucije, čeprav je seveda ta tudi arhitekrurno avtosrsko delo, za katero še vedno velja avtorko pravo. To prav razumem?; b) In če lahko slikam trg, potem se v ozadju lahko vidi stavba parlamenta. Kakšno prakso imete v tem primeru? Miha Peče (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miha Peče: ja, za ulice in trge še nisem zasledil, da bi bilo sporno. In načeloma drži, če je na sliki cel trg in je stavba dokaj neznaten del kompozicije, spada podoba zgradbe pod pravilo Commons:De minimis, potem je ok. Je pa presoja malo odvisno od navdiha ljudi, ki bdijo nad avtorskimi pravicami - nekateri so zelo striktni in predlagajo za brisanje skoraj vse, češ, "lahko bi slikal trg mimo te zgradbe". Ker je pravno gledano to sivo območje, je potem malo več pregovarjanja v predlogih za brisanje. Prosim ne vzami osebno in upam, da ti ne ubije veselja do prispevanja. Kot ga je že nekaterim. Spotoma, ko vidim, da fotografiraš arhitekturo - oktobra bo slovenski natečaj Wiki Loves Monuments, toplo vabljen k sodelovanju (na pogovornih straneh se slovenski wikimedijci tikamo, tudi mene seveda ni treba vikati :) ). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala za pojasnila. Ne bo mi vzelo elana, bo pa potrebna prilagoditev, vsaj en priročnikm z letnicami stavb ne bo odveč ;) Natečaja WLM se torat -upam- udeležim. Pri pršnjem mi je zmanjkalo časa, pa sedaj nisem niti prepričan, če bi sploh lahko sodeloval, ker nisem bil pozororen na letnice (slikal sem Ilirske bloke na Ruski ulici, zgrajene v 30ih letih). Miha Peče (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Za objekte nepremične kulturne dediščine je priročen vir Register kulturne dediščine, ostalo je kar težko. Bo pa kmalu objavljen "prečiščen" seznam, kjer bo izbor gotovo neproblematičnih objektov. Podoben bo lanskemu, le posodobljen z morebitnimi novorazglašenimi spomeniki. Sodelovanje mimogrede ne vzame skoraj nič časa, dovolj je pobrskati po zbirki in naložiti starejše fotografije, če ni časa za nov fotolov. Ni treba, da so posnete oktobra. Za Ilirske bloke sicer mislim, da niso razglašeni za spomenik in na žalost že tako ne bi šteli (lahko se sicer motim). — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilirski bloki so spomenik, imajo EŠD: povezava. In kolikor je meni znano, arhitek ni niti znan. Se bojim, da je to spet mejni primer, čeprav fotografije v WMC obstajajo, niso izbrisane. Čas je pa potreben za dobro fotografijo, najprej moraš najti učinkovito stojišče in kompozicijo, potem pa čakati na ustrezne vremenske in ostale (npr. promet) razmere, itn. Miha Peče (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Na žalost vse, kar ima EŠD, ni nujno spomenk - konkretno ilirski bloki so samo "registrirana dediščina", tako da ne. Pri spomenikih posebej piše "spomenik lokalnega pomena", "spomenik državnega pomena" ali "neznan status". Čas za fotografiranje pa vsekakor razumem :) — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala še za to pojasnilo, nisem pričakoval takšno selektivnost. Vidim, da je to razloženo tudi na uvodni strani natečaja, bom moral bolj pazljivo brati. Miha Peče (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, to je absolutna zahteva glavnih organizatorjev - da je objekt pod spomeniškim varstvom. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miha Peče: natečaj je zdaj odprt. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala. Imam že nekaj kandidatov. Miha Peče (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yerpo,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2022, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 150K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 35 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.

Please fill in this short survey and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2022.

Kind regards, Wiki Loves Monuments team, 09:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oedemera sp. (Ljubljana).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 Good quality. --Красный 05:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helleo Yerpo, if you can see in d:Q121144852 all the articles in the wikipedias are meaning Slovenia and Carinthia Styria - only the article in the slovenian is without rakouso, so the Wikidatabox is situated better in Central Europe. regards 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC) -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yerpo,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Hola Yerpo,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Olá Yerpo,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre "Corpos plurais no esporte"!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports.

Sunshine Fionah Komusana (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravo! Kako lahko bi povezal novo kategorijo z wikidato? Ker sem vpisal tule, ampak se ne pojavijo podatki v commonsu. Kaj je zdaj problem? DoncseczII (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V medjezikovne povezave jo moraš še dodati, pod "Multilingual sites" vpišeš wiki "commons" in vneseš "Category:Ivanci". Sem naredil. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ischnura elegans F Opekarna.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  Support Good quality. --XRay 17:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aphrophora alni Opekarna.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  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📸If you are a professional or amateur photographer, volunteer, or have pictured and uploaded your images for the international Wikimedia photo contests, we need your help!

✍️Within the project Heritage Guard Network, we are collecting responses from people who have experience photographing, especially in nature-protected areas or cultural monuments and faced some risks. This will help to sum up the final papers and answer the main questions that we asked for this seed project.

📜SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE FORM BY 5TH SEPTEMBER: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeJJ7sB3ToupXJ-M9d1Hy36-JTqxTfVzbhva3oXGOymjZEO-A/viewform

We welcome you to join our questionnaire, share it with your friends, and contribute to the important project devoted to cultural and natural heritage! We will share the final results with you afterward. OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]