Ayashi No Ceres Scan Italy Map

14.01.2020by admin

Ayashi No Ceres English Dub
Ayashi No Ceres Manga
Ayashi No Ceres Scan Italy Map 2016

Contents.question What must i write in the case of source when i upload a photo that i take it by myself??? Please answer me 22:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Copyright violation this image was deleted but i have permission from the photographer, how do i get this image to work again. It won't let me reupload it. — Preceding comment added by (. ) 2014-07-12T15:17:46‎ (UTC) The uploader claims to have designed the passports, but has not provided any evidence that this is the case.

Passports are typically created by governments. 15:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)There isn't any claim on design. The image like thousands of others on Wikipedia were taken and are fair use. Images of scenery are not designed by the photographer, the same way an image of a passport is simply a depiction of an object that exists by said photographer. Passports are indeed owned by governments, but a search on the majority of passport pages uploaded and complimentary photos show no evidence that they have been uploaded by either governments nor sourced from government websites. I'd like it if you highlight government contributions to the following pages and passports: Canadian, American, British, European Union passports etc.Would it be better if I were to draw the passport as I see it then upload it? — Preceding comment added by (. ) 2014-08-25T19:59:27 (UTC) If this was created in the mid-19th century, then why did you specify on the file information page that it was drawn today?I did not specify the date of the file, Stefan4, the computer did when saving the file from the web.

The above is not about the file, but about the picture. The picture can not be dated exactly, neither the original photograph, nor the colored one. Anyway, I tried to explain the background, I am not making a or my point, I hope to upload a beautiful picture from former times. And help is appreciated. It is the first time I use these pages, as already stated.

— Preceding comment added by (. ) 2014-09-16T20:01:41 (UTC) The painter needs to follow the instructions in the talk page notice and contact OTRS. If the painter is dead, his heir should contact OTRS instead.

22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Stop reverting my deletion notices For your benefit and to allay your ignorance, read my comment on this page! — 16:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Stop removing deletion tags from files nominated for deletion! If the tag is removed, users might overlook the fact that the files are up for deletion. 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)The files are NOT up to be deleted. Anybody, especially bots, can tag anything to be deleted. Learn your copyright laws!!!

Please back up your claim according to the copyright laws of the US and the relevant countries, Furthermore, we have thousands of documents on Wikisource claimed by Google. I bet you didn't read my notice, or your English is too poor to understand it, or the Google copyright notice. So please desist from interfering in Wikisource projects. — 16:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)There are still revisions of the files with the unfree Google notices and those revisions are still to be deleted. You may NOT upload Google notices as Google holds the copyright to those notices! - 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)You have a point regarding the notices.

I compiled a list of all DjVu files with the Google copyright notices and will help remove them in the coming days. You can see the list. — 08:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)You should be very careful, Ineuw, about making personal attacks on talk pages.

Your statements about Stefan4's 'ignorance' and language skills, above, might be seen as such, and the Wikimedia projects take personal attacks very seriously. Though you may not have intended to insult, the tone of your comment could certainly be misunderstood. Talk pages are a more-or-less public forum.

16:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Google Front Notices Do you plan on compiling a list of all files with such a front notice?It would be 'useful' to know which files might need to be 'fixed'. 21:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)I'm not sure how to find all of them. I spotted some when looking at recent uploads, and those are the ones I nominated for deletion.

The problem when people take a file from the Internet is that people do not only upload the public domain material, but also other material which is contained in the file, in this case a full page of text written by Google. This is somewhat similar to, where someone uploaded a file containing both a public domain image and non-free EXIF metadata, and then the Wikimedia Foundation took down the EXIF metadata when a takedown request arrived (while leaving the rest of the file). In that case, the claimant also wanted to take down other material, which the Wikimedia Foundation refused to do.

21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC) As some indication of the size of the issue you are going to create by enforcing on this, I've started an attempt to identify Indez pages for wokrs at Wikisource that may have an issue. I will note I've had to flag quite a few Google sourced files alreday because of 'missing pages' in scans as well as scans that are of low quality.Perhaps you could look through: and identify the files you object to so that this issue can be dealt with comprehensively, rather than there being a lack of communication between Wikisource and Commons (which is something of an issue at the moment.) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Other than that it's a case of looking at Page 1 of every djvu file uploaded To commons.

A tool for whcih is not beyond the bounds of technical possibility. 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)A Commons search and a thhumbnail scan:-, I counted at least 66 in 1000 on a not very detailed scan. File Not Free PUFs at Wikipedia Hi StefanNot sure whether you are more active here or at En Wiki, so leaving this here. I see you have previously had run-ins with User:StanTheMan87 at En Wiki re dubious non-free use rationales. That user name is now blocked but he's back and being as obnoxious as ever as User:StanMan87.

Not really sure how to proceed as I do not have the time to get into the slanging match that will inevitably ensue if I file a sockpuppet report. Your thoughts?- 13:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)South Korea Fair enough, I agree that if the cite is wrong, you should revert my change.

But, if you know the cite is wrong, then you also need to fix it - otherwise other people are going to waste time making the same mistake I did. 14:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Right. There are also various other rules in which seem to indicate that works remain in the public domain if the copyright expired before the law was changed in 1987 and 2013. The rules seem to be a bit complex. 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) I don't understand the 1976 date in. The rule before 1987 was thirty years, so any work after 1957 would still be under copyright in 1987 and again in 2013, even if the creator died in the same year. I don't read Korean, so I can't help with this, but the fact that the template and the summary don't match is creating problems - I just closed a DR where one party quoted the template and the other, the summary.

17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)The Japanese copyright act of 1899 (, article 23) originally gave a 10-year term for photographs. South Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945 (see ) and might have used the same or a similar copyright law during the Japanese rule. Assuming that the 10-year term was still in use until the law was changed in 1987, this gives a 1976 cut-off date. Maybe this is what happened, and this would then explain the text in the template. There is some discussion about the photograph term on the template talk page. 18:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

— Preceding comment added by (. ) 2015-03-30T16:28:02 (UTC) The files were nominated for deletion by me because they seem to be (but I must have missed that some of them are in use in, making them in scope). Another user nominated them for deletion because there is no information about the copyright status of the images. The copyright holder should follow the procedure at so that permission can be documented. The copyright holder to the text is presumably the person who wrote the text, and the copyright holder to the photographs is presumably the person who took the photographs. 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Brendan Fraser Main gallery:. Has been listed at 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.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.

Ayashi No Ceres English Dub

If you had thrown an eye into the descriptions of the files, marked with 'no license since.' By you, you would have recognized, that there only was a closing ' at the end of '. Has been listed at 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.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 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! 20:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Helloooooooooooo. I just saw you had declined my request to move the above picture to a more sensible title. Removing the ordinals (II) which are completely redundant. I do however think I put in the wrong request number in though.:/.

Feel free to reply on my talk page. 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Removing redundant information is not a valid reason for renaming a file. Adding extra information is not a valid reason for renaming unless the filename is too ambiguous. There is some explanation about what 'ambiguous' means at and there is more information in. The current file name identifies the depicted person, so the file name is not too ambiguous. I suggest that you read. Renaming reason #4 is meant for files which are used by a template which depends on a certain filename syntax and for works such as books which are split up on multiple files.

This is none of those. 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC) But then surely it makes sense to remove irrelevant/redundant information?:/ 23:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Removing redundant information is not a valid file renaming criterion, see. Normally, it is up to the original uploader to decide the file name - and the original uploader is free to include redundant information in the file name. 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Coats of arms etc.

Hi - I have been pointed in your direction by a fellow contributor and I hope we may be able to work together, in any small way, to enhance Wiki. You'll be able to see immediately by looking at what's being going on, so to cut to the chase would uploading the 's from cause any issues? Many thanks & looking forward to hearing.

Best M 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Hiiii, saw you declined the move of the above painting I only asked for it to be moved as her name is jumbled up and that in itself is a tad silly. Plus its a fairly simple title and does not really say anything at all.:/ 20:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Even then there arev two people in the painting. 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Files may only be renamed if the request satisfies a.

If you wish to change the rules, please start a request for comment on the guideline talk page. The filename correctly identifies the depicted person, so this case looks similar to 'Only information is the location (narrow)' in, for which there was consensus not to permit renaming under reason #2. I overlooked the fact that there were two people on the painting, which maybe changes things in this case.

22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) About your recent delete requests:, the Central Bank of the Republic of China is a governmental institution and its data is allowed to be used by the public. According to the CBC website: 'In order to facilitate better utilization by the general public of the information on this website, all of the Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)(herein known as CBC)’s publicly posted information and materials that are protected under copyright provisions may be utilized by the public without cost in a non-exclusive, reauthorization-available manner. The users may, without restriction on time and place, reproduce, adapt, edit, publicly transmit, or utilize in other ways, and develop various products or services (herein known as derivations).' 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC). According to, ROC money is unfree. If you have evidence of the contrary, please start a discussion at.

Note that the page you linked to doesn't apply to 'works specifically identified by the CBC'. I don't know exactly which works that statement refers to. 15:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC). — Preceding comment added by (. ). I'm in Sweden. 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi Stepan I am Talking here from Nigeria what of you I want to know? Thank 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

What are you asking about? Looking at your contributions here and on Wikipedia, it looks as if we have not had any interaction before. 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi Okay thank is better I know where you are as knew mine no problem unless we share experience and moralist thank. 19:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Libya. I cannot find the text to the 1984 Libya law, but most references I have seen is that it was about stronger deposit requirements of publications, and not a rewrite of the 1968 law.

Not following those requirements do not result in the loss of copyright protection but I'd guess they would severely limit the rights. Most place I see mentions the 1984 law but then gives the text of the 1968 law, and at the least says the 1984 law is 'based upon' the 1968 one.seems fairly up to date, with references to both laws, but lists the durations as being the same as the 1968 law. They are basically relying on a Berne Convention article which allows countries which had long conformed to the Berne Convention to maintain shorter periods of protection than those which Berne otherwise began to be mandated in the 1970s. It sure seems that if the 1984 law changed any durations, that paper would mention it. The paper seems to be for a doctoral thesis, but they do appear to have at least seen the text of the 1984 law.

It is possible there have been other amendments to the law, since several places do say that there are 50pma terms, but I can't tell if that was due to another unmentioned amendment, or a misreading. Not sure what to think.

18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)According to SOU 1956:25 (right), the minimum copyright terms were first added to the, but didn't become mandatory until the. I suppose that a country could choose not to upgrade to the Brussels Berne Convention if it has already ratified an earlier version and it might be possible to keep a shorter term for pre-existing works. Tells that Libya has ratified the Paris Berne Convention, but there are several Paris Berne Conventions.

Given that Libya ratified the Berne Convention in 1976, I'd assume that Libya has ratified at least the 1971 Paris Berne Convention, where the minimum copyright terms are supposed to be mandatory. I have no idea what Libya changed and I don't have time to read 400 pages of an academic paper, but I think that it would be useful to include a warning on all pages where we reference the 1968 law as we can't be fully certain what Libya changed between 1968 and 1984 until we get access to the 1984 law. 20:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Article 7(7) of the Berne Convention states: Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention, which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs, shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.

I wonder if that meant only countries which had previously agreed to the Rome Act (from 1928). If so, not sure Libya would be allowed.

But, some countries are still allowed to maintain shorter terms if they wish. Is Libya's notification; they do explicitly say they agreed to the 1971 terms. So, it may well be that ratifying that the 1976 ratification is what lengthened the terms to at least Berne minimums of 50pma, even if they did not explicitly made a law amendment, and even if not mentioned in the 1984 act.

22:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Please remove nomination for deletion: File:Weinkellerei Wallot in Oppenheim Briefkopf.jpg Hello Stefan2,thank you for your concern regarding the image Weinkellerei Wallot in Oppenheim Briefkopf.jpg.The image is a scan of the letter heading of the Wallot wine-making. The company was founded some when beginning/mid-19th century and stopped operations in 1912. There is certainly no longer any copyright attached to this letter heading.Also - as stated in the file's comment box - I have been in touch with a descendant of the wine-making's owner. Although under German law they also would not have the right to permit usage, I was encouraged to use the scan. 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Vector map of Paris Hello, I see your streets map of in vector. Can you do the same for Paris 11th and Saint-Denis with the stadium?

- 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Wallis Giunta Hello. I came across this image that was uploaded recently. I tried to list it for a license review, but this somehow doesn't appear in my toolbox. Perhaps you can look into it? Karst 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC). — Preceding comment added by (. ).

is to be added if a file is sourced to a third party website and someone needs to verify the licence. In this case, the uploader seems to claim that the photographer is someone other than the uploader, so I nominated the file for deletion instead. 11:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Comment by Stefan good morning, I don't understand what does unclear notability mean, would you help me to understan, I' m trying to pass an exam at university that consist at publishing on Wikipedia. Please help me to understand what's wrong.

Has been listed at 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.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 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! 19:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Hello, I answered on my user page, but maybe you haven't seen my answer.I found this file there:The author, Paul Sherman, claims it is a 'Public Domain jpeg image'.

It is stated again in the Terms of use section of his website that the pictures are Public Domain.However, it seems that this is a retouched version of this picture:, already present on Commons. It has been taken by the International Space Station Crew on March 19th 2003, and it is public domain (at least in the US). (Look at the little clouds in the lower left corner for instance, they are the same on both pictures).

Therefore, would'nt a retouched version of this picture be also in the Public Domain? 10:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Slette fil. Alligator in my plateHi there. It's so good you warned me about naming pictures. I did not know there was such a template.

Now I can use this template with people who really do not care to put a meaningful name to their pictures. Have you bothered to check how many pictures I have asked to be renamed in Wikipedia, for not having meaningful names? Once I could not remember the name of the animal I pictured - or I was not sure if there were different animals in the picture- and called it 'Animalia', weeks ago, and now my attention is being drawn. Have you also noticed how many pictures I loaded to Wikipedia? (No, I am not waiting for thanks, thank you.) This is the latest image I uploaded.

I think for the first time in my WP experience I used a 'really' fancy name. 08:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)I think that's a useful template.

The uploader, whether an experienced user or not, is the most likely user to know what the file displays and is often able to come up with a better file name, and the template may also have the effect that the uploader chooses better names in the future. 14:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Commons bot inactivity Hello! Your bot has been listed at as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure we'd like to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the ) you can rerequest the bot flag at should you need it again.

Regards - 17:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Wrong Licence Stefan,I am aware that i uploaded under wrong licence type this file However i am not able to remove it. Could you remove the file or change licence cc to trademark section.File:Bone Univesity.png.

Is this permission good enough?plz donot go on nominating my images for deletion.plz talk to me firstSee #4. You need to provide evidence of permission before the file will be renamed. 21:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)alright.

Ayashi No Ceres Manga

Dont rename this file.but plz dont delete the images ive uploaded. Im going to add the below given permission on all the images.will it be good enough?PERMISSION-As mentioned on, photos featured on the FIVB Photo Galleries are downloadable copyright free for media purposes only, and only if FIVB is credited as the source material.That page states that the file is available under a licence which is not acceptable on Commons. You need to provide evidence that the file is available under a licence which is acceptable on Commons. 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Sir, I think u r making an error of judgement.