User talk:ALE!/Archive3-2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For older discussion, please see: User talk:ALE!/Archive2-2007 and User talk:ALE!/Archive 1

Formosa (AR) flag

[edit]

I checked the first specifications for Formosa provincial flag and they seems to be correct. Of course the manufacterers created a number of variants as habitual when complicate designs are not perfetly specified in the law. The main doubt was at fist the points of the stars (not quoted in the decree of adoption) but later was confirmet that were from 4 points by a comunication of Albert Perazzo from the Argentinian Vexillological Association (president) while Michel Lupant, president of the FIAV, reported 5 point from direct observation. I dont have more information on specifications. Do you have more info?. Please send me the current specifications, if changed, and i will correct my vector file and repost the image. Many thanks.--jolle 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the stars, the page https://www.fotw.info/flags/ar-p.html says, that the four points stand for the four administrative parts of Formosa. That is something I do not understand, because Formosa has 9 departments which are represented by the number of stars (nine).
The main difference between your representation and the representation which I assume is correct (http://www.formosa-web.com.ar/simbolos-02.php ) are the orientation of the stars (upright and not in a circle) and the number of laurel leaves. Your flag shows 14 leaves the flag I assumed to be correct shows only 7. See also the comments on: https://www.fotw.info/flags/ar-p.html
However, if you go on the page http://www.formosa.gov.ar and then click on "principal" and then on "Mi Provincia" on the left, you can find information on the flag. This flags shows 9 to 10 laurels and upright stars. I am confused now.
In sintesis I would say, that the stars have to be upright and that the numbers of laurels is too high. --ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments that appear in Fotw page came from the first reports, before we know more about the flag. The reference to the four administrative divisions seems to be a mistake (it is four pointed stars and nine districts); ad I don't wrote correctly english then my messages to the fotw list are resumed and edited by volunteers, and sometimes, after this process, the final published text has any error. The first description was obtained by Michel Lupant, president of FIAV, and publiched in Gaceta de Banderas #23 (1995). Later was slighty corected in some details (ratio, laurel numbers increased 10 to 14, and points of stars decreased 5 to 4)

The laurel number, the points of the stars, and the disposition and size of the stars, and even the size of the white triangle, are unregulated, and each manufacterer has created a different flag. The regulations of this kind of flags must be very accurate that is not the present case. Luckely as it has a very distinctive pattern, even changing details can be recongized as Formosa flag.

The laurel number vary according its size; the stars I believe that must be all upright. I created a new image with nine laurel, stars a bit greater and upright, but i don't believe that now is more correct than before. Please found it in Commons Category:Flags of provinces of Argentina --jolle 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Jaume. I think the new flag is very good! Whether it is really the most correct version we will probably never know until we see an "official flag". --ALE! ¿…? 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Crocodile in the Moon.jpg

[edit]

I was testing a new version of the bot. But doesn't matter anyway. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jusjih's reasoning

[edit]

Hi there! Jusjih apparently doesn't want to explain his reasoning. I'd let it drop. To me, it looks as if he's been harboring an old grudge over a minor content disagreement over at the en-WP that didn't even involve the use of admin rights. I don't understand what that's got to do with "trust" (I still trust him not to fool around with his admin or bureaucrat "powers", even though I disagree with him on that content issue), but if that's the way he wants it, let him have it his way. I'm sure there exists an appropriate Chinese proverb for the situation... :-) Lupo 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coloso

[edit]

Gracias. Saludos.

The Edge 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagen que creo que no debería existir en commons

[edit]

¡Hola buenos días! Navegando me he encontré con esta imagen: Image:Dibujo Javichu el Jefe.JPG. Creo que este tipo de imágenes solo utilizada como nick de un usuario no aporta nada a este proyecto con una finalidad menos altruista... Como experto en commons ¿tú que crees? Saludos. --Xavigivax 08:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esta permitido - asi lo entiendo yo por lo menos - que los usarios pueden subir una limitada cantidad para su uso personal en su pagina de usario mientras cuando las imagenes estan en conformidad con las reglas del derecho del autor. En fin, da lo mismo si esta imagen esta cargado en la Wikipedia espanola o aca. Si quieres tener mas opiniones, te recomiendo hacer una propuesta de borrado para esta imagen. Un saludo! --ALE! ¿…? 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Fcb981

[edit]

Hello, Ale, I just saw your comment at the user fcb981 talk page. I'm not sure what it was about, but it looks like it is getting worse with the user. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)mbz1[reply]

Please see this. -Fcb981 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRBot

[edit]

I'm testing somewhat, and have disabled automatic runs. If everything goes alright, automatic archival should start within the next few days. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you present again some improvements :-) --ALE! ¿…? 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted deletion req

[edit]

Simply because it was blanked by the creator? No problem if you want to undelete it as far as I am concerned but I do often see this sort of "creation" and when the only contributor blanks something I tend to assume they made a mistake? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't undelete. I was only unsure what to do with the deletion request page of the image which was linked at deletion requests but did not exist. --ALE! ¿…? 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I should have dealt with it --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologying. --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Image:BarrellwarehouseSMALL.JPG

[edit]

Did you even READ the discussion before you deleted the above picture and some others by the same author? The author of the picture agreed with the change of the license to the dual license {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}} so there wasn't any reason to delete the pictures! --Carstor 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of [edit] Image:Gordon Bitner Hinckley bronze bust conference center.jpg

[edit]

Hello, I am not an editor here; just one on Wikipedia known as Storm Rider. I am curious to understand your reasoning. The reason provided for deleting the image was that the image was assumed to be released to the public domain, which I understand to mean that anyone can use the picture and then the statement that the actual statue was "assumed" to be copyrighted. What that means is that you and I can not produce identical statues; however, we are not using the statue, but rather the public domain picture. I think your deletion was in error and request that you revert yourself. Please contact me on Wikipedia if you feel differently. I appreciate your work and realize that most of what you do goes unthanked. Cheers. Storm Rider

The copyright on the sculpture gives the author of the sculptures also to make derivative works of his copyrighted work, which are consequently also protected by copyright. (E.g. he could make a photograph of his sculpture and sell it as postcards.) Please see also Commons:Derivative works on this issue. --ALE! ¿…? 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bad tag ?

[edit]

Hi ALE!

I noticed you put a tag saying the licence is not correct on the images I uploaded from the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes in Buenos Aires. The licence is PD-Art because it's a reproduction of a work of art I created, taking pictures from the paints and the frames in the museum. I don't understand why the frame has to be removed. (actually, I don't want to remove it, we have very few paintings with the frames, and they are important too). So if the PD-Art is OK for you, please remove the tags you added. Fabienkhan 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I will ask my fellow Admin collegues about that. It might be that you have to use another license than. --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hello, why to have removed these images, I am the creator and I authorize them with the use. Cordially, Galagorn.

These were non commercial license which are not allowed on Commons. --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the licence for commons but the images should be restored. Galagorn.
I restored the files. You can change the license now. --ALE! ¿…? 11:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Galagorn

Closed discussion

[edit]

Hi, I saw you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AXN Hblvd LilianaCorreiaNeves wikipedia Portugues.pdf - I added another file to those two, further down in the request and I didn't change the title. That file wasn't deleted by MECU: Image:LilianaCorreiaNeves wikipedia.pdf - could you do the honours? Thanks! Deadstar 07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

[edit]

Thanks for both warnings, I just answered here and here. Bye! Kordas 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial?

[edit]

Take a look at this {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}. It says that if you want to use this file commercially, you have to do this under the terms of the GFDL. Otherwise, you are free to choose between the GFDL and CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0. It doesn't seem like its non-commercial, just if you use it commercially you have to abide by the GDFL and if you don't you just have to use Attribution and Share Alike. What do you think? --Digon3 talk 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that I do not know enough about that license. But this really does not make it much easier for the users of our images, I think. Please do what you esteem the correct thing. --ALE! ¿…? 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its confusing and redundant. It basicly does the same thing as GDFL and CC-BY-SA-2.0. --Digon3 talk 15:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BarrellwarehouseSMALL.JPG as I think more discussion is needed before closing. --Digon3 talk 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Athenea Mata.GIF

[edit]

Could you have a look at this one, uploader is claiming own work but even if I can't find the image elsewhere I'm somewhat sceptical... Thanks, Finn Rindahl 12:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{user admin}

[edit]

Done. Regards Julo 10:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yug

[edit]

Hello ALE!, I'm Yug. The template requesting somes "other shares" is just a comment to encourage people to send us/me some feed backs. The template also provide a clear CC licence template, which make that the user may in reality do want he want, and if I get nothing back, I will do nothing. If you can correct my english to be clearer and always in this spirit, that's welcome.

Yug 08:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on the talk page of Licensing where this issue is discussed. I will copy now your comment there. --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borrado de una imagen

[edit]

Hola Ale, Como estas? Vos borraste el escudo de mi ciudad de Commons Image:Escudo Trenque Lauquen.JPG, me podes explicar porque?. Segun tengo entendido si la imagen tiene mas de 25 años en Argentina ya es de dominio publico o no?. En caso de no ser como pienso. Que tendría que hacer para poder subirla? Pedirle una autorización a la municipalidad, al intendente?? Gracias por Enseñarme! :D --Osolaborioso

La licencia {{PD-AR-Photo}} es para fotos y no se puede usar para dibujos. Para {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} la imagen necesita ser mas antiguo que 50 anos y no 25 anos. Y la plantilla {{Insignia}} no es una licencia. --ALE! ¿…? 11:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Te cuento que la imagen (el escudo de Trenque Lauquen) fue hecho en el año 1951 Autor: Don Pedro Biscardi (11 de Agosto de 1951) Aprobado por Ordenanza Municipal Nº 373/51 entonces se puede dejar en commons o no?--Osolaborioso
Si fuese asi y si fue publicadopor primera vez mas de 50 anos atras, si podria quedar. Te restauro la foto para que cambies la licencia a {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. Pone los datos que has encontrado en la pagina de discripcion del imagen por favor. --ALE! ¿…? 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias Ale, por tu atención, y por explicarme. Un abrazo! --Osolaborioso
Falta ahora que cambies la licencia de la imagen. --ALE! ¿…? 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlogs

[edit]

ALE!: Thank you for adding to Commons:Announcements. I had the March deletion request added to the announcer for a while but I think it was too difficult for the ordinary admin to deal with and it was left unattended. That's why I replaced it with the more recent deletion request months that were more ordinary backlogs in that anyone could take care of them (and I think it helped). Deletion requests requiring special knowledge might not be backlogs per se?

Anyways, thanks for your interest in the announcer and feel free to keep adding stuff.

Fred J 02:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte

[edit]

Kannst Du meine Benutzer(diskussions)seite hier auf Deine Beobachtungsliste nehmen? Falls die Nachfragen in Pöbeleien oder Schlimmeres übergehen? --Pjacobi 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

[edit]

Image:SmaugLiar.jpg ‎was deleted by you as no permission by the creator, Zsófia Ziaja. That's not true, a mail was mentioned by the uploader, in which the creator sent the picture for the uploader per her request. The image was still deleted. As the mails were not written in English it is hard to prove it for administrators not speaking Hungarian. But the Commons in probably for Americans from Americans - that's OK, just please, state it clearly. Long live your stupidity...

  1. I am not American. And please stay polite. Otherwise my motivation to explain vanishes.
  2. Please read first Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SmaugLiar.jpg. The permission was never sent to OTRS. That was why it was deleted.
  3. As soon as you send the permission to OTRS and when it is considered solid, your image can be restored.
--ALE! ¿…? 15:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnasium UNT

[edit]

Borraste del articulo los archivos image:Yanasuspa.jpg y image:Discobolo.jpg. El primero es el logo del campamento que organizo mi promocion por el año 2001. Fue diseñado por mi curso asi que es claro que tenemos todos los derechos para ponerlo donde tengamos ganas El segundo es una version (mia) del logo de mi antiguo colegio que tambien fue diseñado por alumnos hace mas de 50 años, tampoco viola ninguna licencia el hecho de ponerlo en la pagina. Agradeceria que restaures las imagenes cuanto antes Desde ya muchas gracias Ignacio Martinez

Hola Ignacio!
  • El primero (image:Yanasuspa.jpg) fue nominado hace mucho por una possible violacion del derecho del autor y por que nadie ha participado en la discucion fue borrado. Te todos modo me intereseria quien fue el autor, vos otro chico de tu promocion?
El autor de la imagen Yanasuspa 2001 es la promocion 2001 del Gymnasium UNT. Tengo el archivo cdr original, tengo el mail del chico que la paso de papel a la computadora. La idea de primero fue planteada entre todo el curso, despues se bosquejo en papel se paso a computador se le dieron unos retoques y se convirtio en el logo del campamento del curso.
Necesitamos que el autor del dibujo manda un e-mail a OTRS dando permiso. --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aparte de esto el primer dibujo es casi 100% fuera del alcance del proyecto. ("Wikimedia Commons es un repositorio central para los proyectos Wikimedia": "Colecciones privadas de imágenes y similares no son deseadas".
La imagen Yanasuspa 2001 no es un imagen privada. Al dia de hoy se reconoce a ese campamento como uno de los mejores de la historia. El colegio es un colegio experimental de la Universidad Nacional de Tucuman.
No lo importa a nadie si fue considerado el "mejor" campamento de la historia. Eso es muy relativo. Si no estas conforme con mi decision por favor abre una discussion en Commons:Undeletion requests. --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Con respecto al segundo: Yo simplemente no creo sin pruebas que este logo tiene mas de 50 anos. Por favor demostrame que fuese asi. Si realmente fuese asi, lo mismo tienes que elegir otra licencia por que vos no sos el autor.
Supongo que esta prueba es suficiente

http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/blogger/2269/430/1600/9jul1958b.0.jpg Espero que podamos solucionar esto pronto. Saludos Ignacio

No es suficiente por que esta foto es del ano 1958. Nostros tenemos el ano del senor 2007. Falta un ano para poder usar {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} si no tienes otra prueba mas antiguo. --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El colegio fue fundado en 1948 eso podes constatarlo en la pagina oficial de la Universidad Nacional de Tucumna http://www.unt.edu.ar/gym/inter.html Aca podes ver una foto de la primera promocion http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1764/i3anowh4.jpg

Ok, he restaurado este imagen del discobolo. --ALE! ¿…? 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sobre la imagen yanasuspa que tiene que decir el email?

Por favor lea Commons:OTRS o Commons:OTRS/es. --ALE! ¿…? 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. Despues de mandar el email, que tengo que hacer?

Tienes que esperar hasta algun admin con los derecho de checkear OTRS (yo no los tengo) confirm que el permiso esta correcta y suficiente. Entonces este admin puede restaurar el imagen y poner una plantilla que indica el numero de OTRS. --ALE! ¿…? 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un cordial saludo --ALE! ¿…? 07:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Ale. Oscar piensa que el articulo es irrelevante y debe ser borrado. Yo creo que el esta equivocado. Vos que pensas? Muchas gracias--Natacho 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El articulo Gymnasium UNT en la Wikipedia espanola? Lo unico que yo puedo decir es, que con los criteriors de relevancia en la Wikipedia alemana podria quedarse el articulo. Por que el Gymnasium es bastante particular en Tucuman y tiene algunos ex-alumnos "famosos" (o por lo menos tan relvante para que tengan su propio articulo en la Wikipedia espanola). Pero no se que criterios de relevancia tendiran Ustedes en la Wikipedia espanola al respecto. --ALE! ¿…? 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos de discos

[edit]

Ale, fotos de discos, como éstas [], ¿no deberían ser borradas?. Saludos, --Roblespepe 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CD is ok I think, but I am not aboslutly sure about the other ones. Maybe you could file a deletion request for these three? --ALE! ¿…? 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Secession Map of the United States, 1861.png

[edit]

I was wondering if I could get a copy of that PNG which was deleted because it was superseded. I have a feeling that the SVG that replaces was done by a poor tracing job which makes it look more like a comic map than the likely clearer borders on the PNG. Thanks. gren 08:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the file, so go ahead. --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Khmer Rouge flag.svg

[edit]

Hi. Could you have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Khmer Rouge flag.svg? the debate seems to have died out and I think it would be safe to procede to deletion now. --Soman 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check usage does not work at the moment so please stand by. --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, the image and duplicate Image:Khmer Rouge Flag.png‎, was used in quite a lot of articles interwikied to en:Khmer Rouge. --Soman 12:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THX

[edit]

>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Quelle_jeder_Erkenntnis.jpg&curid=2774979&diff=7749630&oldid=7611800 ... HAND (Have A Nice Day). ff JaHn 22:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from Junín

[edit]

All these photos were taken by me:

Is there any problem with the resolution? I can upload higher resolution versions.

Regards, --Germanramos 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Junín Borchex Lago 01.jpg. An upload of high res images with EXIF data would really be more convincing that these images were taken by you. --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurado de imágenes

[edit]

Hola!... Podrías revisar y, en su caso, restaurar las imágenes eliminadas por Siebrand que subió el usuario Fbaltra señaladas en su página de discusión], pues muchas (sino todas) son PD según la legislación chilena, no procediendo su borrado directo sino que, en el mejor de los casos, una consulta de borrado (seguramente tienen como "source" la Biblioteca Nacional o el Museo Histórico Nacional)... Gracias de antemano...

Saludos, --Yakoo 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, soy Hendrix, y me has bloqueado incorrectamente

[edit]

Hola, me has bloqueado como usuario por unas imágenes subidas a las páginas "Juventud Peronista" y "Norma Arrostito" y me dices:

"Despues de las advertencias has subido otras imagenes no libres. Por esto te he blockeado por dos semanas. ---ALE! ¿…? 13:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"


Las imágenes eran "Escudo_monto.jpg", "Montos.gif", Arrostito_gente.jpg, Tapalarazon12-3.jpg, Cristianismo_y_revolucion.jpg. Lamentablemente, debo decirte que si consultaras (o leyeras la página) antes de bloquear, te hubieras enterado de que las dos primeras imagenes fueron creadas por una organización armada guerrillera en el año 1969, en Argentina. Es obvio que su autor es "Anónimo". Los derechos de autor de los símbolos de las organizaciones guerrilleras clandestinas simplemente no existen. Me pides que diga "donde las encontré", y lo había hecho: puse claramente "archivo propio". Esto significa que no las "tomé" de ningún lado, sino que las tengo en mi archivo desde 1970, es decir, desde hace más de 37 años.

La foto Arrostito_gente.jpg especifica claramente el autor: Es la Revista Gente de Argentina, y la foto fue publicada por primera vez hace más de 25 años (dato que se extrae de la misma fecha de la revista), por lo tanto es de dominio publico, y la de Tapalarazón.jpg también, porque la fecha del diario La Razón de la foto es de hace mas de 25 años.

Idéntico caso es el de Cristianismo y Revolución.jpg

La primera vez que subí imágenes me hicieron la advertencia, y volví a subirlas todas de nuevo con las aclaraciones y especificaciones pertinentes. De manera que:

¿Podrías hacer el favor de desbloquearme y subir las fotos de nuevo? Muchas gracias. Hendrix. Dirección IP es 190.49.243.209, y el identificador del bloqueo es #8690

Hola Hendrix. Hoy no voy a responder a todo lo que has dicho. Pero solamente una cosas:
  1. "Autor oviamente anonimo": Eso dices vos, pero lo tienes que comprobar.
  2. "no source": Archivo propio no es la fuenta para la fotos. Porque nececitamos comprobar que fueron prublicados y tomadas mas de 25 anos atras.
  3. Ademas fuesite blockeado por toda tu historia de problemas. (Muchos imagenes borrados.)
Te recomiendo leer de nuevo mucho en las seccion Commons:Community Portal y sus subpaginas. --ALE! ¿…? 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip K Dick

[edit]

Why deleting photographie of philip k dick Philip ? Pirouette1963 3 october 2007 21h39 (from fr.wikipedia.org.. sorry don't know how to creates here a link to my acount on wikipedia.Fr!)

This image has been deleted three times on Commons because Commons does not allow Fair Use, and this image is still copyrighted by Nicole Panter per w:Image:PhilipDick.jpg.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete (or tell me what to do)

[edit]

Hi there. A while back, you deleted the following image from Commons after a lengthy debate. [1] If you recall, the debate was along the lines of "did Roger Ebert really upload this", etc. (the image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia mainspace and is still there to this day).

I did some hunting and found an e-mail address on Roger Ebert's website that is specified as the address to send questions of copyright to regarding use of materials from the site. I sent that e-mail October 5th. Today, I received a response from Roger Ebert himself, confirming that he did upload this image to Wikipedia mainspace and agrees that it can be released under the GNU license he originally uploaded it under. I can send that email to you if you want. But mainly, I'd like to clear this all up, get this image onto Commons, etc. What should I do? Night Ranger 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: As Roger Ebert appears in the photo he obviously did not take this photo, but someone else did. So this "someone" has to license the image under some free license. Roger Ebert can not do this. Please have a look again at the discussion. I mentioned that there. --ALE! ¿…? 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reuploading the image, but please submit your email from Roger Ebert to OTRS, making sure that it includes info from the actual copyright holder (the photographer or its heir or assign), as mentioned above. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consulta

[edit]

Hola Ale, queria consultarte, quiero subir el escudo de mi universidad, no estoy seguro que sea libre. Se puede de todas formas obtener algun permiso de la universidad para publicarlo?. Muchas Gracias Saludos --Nacho —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Como muchas veces la respuesta es: Eso depende.
Nececito mas informacion sobre el escudo de tu universidad:
Cuando fue hecho?
Quien es el autor?
Cuando fue publicado por primera vez?
En que pais fue publicado por primera vez?
Despues de haber obtenido esta informacion podemos ver si el imagen esta libre de derechos o si tienes que pedir permiso. --ALE! ¿…? 08:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

[edit]

Hi there - thanks for your response to my question. If you have a chance to take a look at my RfA, I've put on another comment. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and reconsider your vote if you see fit - otherwise cheers & happy editing --Pumpmeup 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borrado de imágenes

[edit]

Hola Ale! Siempre que subo imágenes, encuentros tus contribuciones de borrado de esas imágenes. Ahora me pregunto, qué tengo que hacer para el no borrado? Siempre pongo la fuente de donde saco la foto, aclaro eso, e igual las borran. Esto me desalienta mucho a seguir contribuyendo. Espero tu ayuda, saludos. --Santiago matamoro 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered on your talk page. --ALE! ¿…? 09:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos propias de pantallas gigantes en estadio

[edit]

Ale, ¿estás seguro que una foto propia tomada de una pantalla gigante en un estadio es una "obra derivada"? No te pido tu interpretación personal, sino si sabés que así sea tratada judicialmente. Lo digo por la que marcaste sobre el recital de Bersuit Vergarabat. Saludos. --Roblespepe 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Si estoy seguro. El derecho del autor de la filmacion tiene el director y el camaragrafo. Vos has tomado una foto de esta filmacion y por ende has hecho un trabajo derivado de la filmacion. Vos tienes el derecho de la foto pero no tienes el derecho del autor de la filmacion. --ALE! ¿…? 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Gracias Ale--Roblespepe 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consulta

[edit]

Hola Ale! te quería hacer una consulta, sobre algo que todavía no entiendo. Subí a commons una foto que saqué de Flickr [2] y la subí con la licencia Creative Commons Attribution 2.0; y me la marcaron para borrar. Te quería preguntar, ¿en ningún caso en el que diga Algunos derechos reservados en Información adicional, puedo sacar la foto de ahí? ¿Que fotos puedo subir de Flickr? y otra cosa, ¿que diferencia hay entre Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 y Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0.? te agradecería que si podés, me respondás estas preguntas; así sé que fotos puedo subir, y no te doy trabajo al fijarte mi lista y marcar los errores. Gracias! --Santiago matamoro 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La foto esta debajo una {{Cc-by-nc-2.0}} licencia. NC significa non commercial y fotos que no se pueden usar commercialemnte no estan permitidos en Commons. --ALE! ¿…? 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consulta

[edit]

Hola Ale, te hago una consulta:

Encontre estas dos imagenes aqui y aqui. Por lo que se ve, la licencia indica que si tienen mas de 70 años se pueden utilizar (o es que el autor tiene mas de 70 años muerto? o los que aparecen en ella?)

Quisiera que me saques esa duda, ya que tengo una imagen de 1900 que quisiera subir, y primero quiero comprender la licencia.

Muchas gracias.

Saludos. The Edge 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El autor necesita tener mas de 70 anos de muerto. Una foto tomado 99 anos atras (1908) puede estar protegido todavia si su autor tenia 20 anos en el momentode sacar la foto y si ha muerto 55 anos despues (1963). La foto estaria protegido hasta el ano 2034. --ALE! ¿…? 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hola nuevamente:

Comprendo el punto, la foto tiene aprox 130 años, pero no tengo datos exactos del autor, es de suponer que podemos aplicar la licencia, pero no tengo exactitud, ¿la puedo utilizar?

Para las fotos que te cite arriba (que tienen unos 90 años), ¿se tiene certeza de la licencia y los 70 años? ¿o se supone tambien?

Saludos. The Edge 12:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos older than 100 years are usually ok. --ALE! ¿…? 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, muchas gracias, cualquier consulta que me hagan la referencio a esta charla.

Saludos. The Edge 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disculpame por responder en ingles. Debe ser la costumbre. --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fine for me! Thanks! The Edge 14:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola!

[edit]

Hola!, veo que marcaste la foto C11-M IMAGE.jpg como que no es libre, no lo es me di cuenta hoy la foto es de EFE, borrala. Otra cosa esto ¿No se debe borrar? esto ya que son fotos de EFE no de 20minutos.es: Image:Felipe Pérez Roque - UN.jpg --Belb 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Esto no tiene la fuente muy clara, me dijieron que no basta con poner solo Agencia Brasil hay que poner el enlace de donde està la foto en la web de Agencia Brasil[reply]

Me haces el favor de marcarlo con una plantilla que diga "sin fuente" --Belb 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estas ultimas fotos son totalmente perfectas y citan la fuente. --ALE! ¿…? 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

[edit]

Bueno, pero mis imagen las uso en Wikipedia en Español y al otro dìa ya las usa wikipedia en Inglès y luego la alemana, la arabe. --Belb 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nombres que signifiquen

[edit]

OK Ale, tomo nota. Suelo ponerle a las fotos nombres que signifiquen algo. Lo que pasó en estos casos es que eran fotos de Flickr, y mantuve sus nombres originales, porque creí que había que hacerlo. Saludos, --Roblespepe 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No importa! Todos aprendemos algpo todos los dias. Por favor cambia la proxima vez el nombre original a algo significativo. Pero tambien es importante poder encontrarlos en Flickr, eso puedes hacer con un enlace a la pagina orginal de Flickr. --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un caso marcado como derivative

[edit]
Foto maracada como "derivative"

Ale, a la foto que agrego aquí le pusiste "derivative". Pero se trata de una foto directa del baterista en el escenario lleno de humo, delante de la pantalla gigante. En primer plano claramente pueden verse las manos del público, desde donde se sacó la foto. No es trabajo derivado, es una foto directa. --Roblespepe 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disculpame, se veia como una foto de una projeccion de video. --ALE! ¿…? 10:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consulta

[edit]

Hola Ale, te hago una consulta:

Vi que esta foto aqui tiene una licencia que indica que si la misma fue publicada hace mas de 25 años en Argentina pasa a ser dominio publico.

¿Esto es correcto? Porque tebgo fotos de 1970 del grafico que quisiera saber si la pueden utilizar.

Saludos.

The Edge 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Si las fotos fueron tomados en la Argentina y si fueran publicados mas de 25 anos atras en la Argentina, si! Por favor cita la fuente. --ALE! ¿…? 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK, excelente dato, si, obviamente citare la fuente.

Muchas gracias.

Saludos. The Edge 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuevas Imagenes

[edit]

Hola Ale, acabo de subir algunas imagenes, segun las sugerencias que me diste los ultimos tiempos.

Son 6:

  • una foto sacada por mi aqui
  • una imagen de mas de 130 años, que lo hablamos arriba y la subi aqui
  • cuatro imagenes de mas de 25 años, que me comentaste arriba y las subi aqui, aqui, aqui y aqui.

En todos los casos te pido que verifiques si las licencias y datos que he brindado son correctos y suficientes, y si en algun caso resta alguna info me avises. Luego te pido tu aval (si es posible que figure en las mismas), algo similar a como hiciste aqui, para que las mismas tengan cabida en commons y no haya dudas de otros biblios.

Muchas gracias amigo.

Saludos. The Edge 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un saludo! --ALE! ¿…? 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hola amigo, muchas gracias por la pronta respuesta.

Te comentare mas de las 3 imagenes que no tienen el OK (las 3 que dice "Estan bien" las considero OK).

Respecto a:

  • Image:Santiago Santamaría 1982.jpg: 1982+25=2007, el Mundial de España fue en Junio (todos lo son, puedes ver esta puntual aqui), por lo cual supera los 25 años. De todas formas es verdad lo que dices de la duda, agregare ya mismo en la pagina de la foto el mes para evitar dudas de fechas. Buen dato, gracias.
  • Image:Hinchada Newell's Old Boys.jpg, no, lamentablemente no la tengo en mejor resolución. En realidad la foto era más grande y la recorté para que no sea tan grande, valga la redundancia, y no tengo la original, mil disculpas.
  • Image:Isaac Newell.jpg, el enlace me funciona ok, me lleva a la pagina donde esta la foto (es la 1° que aparece, al lado de "un ingles visionario"). Lo que si, no sabria decir quien es el autor, pero si los años - isaac newell muere en 1907, por lo cual en el peor caso la foto tendria 100 años, pero muere a los casi 60 años, por lo cual la foto debe tener entre 120 y 130 años, de todas formas 100 tiene seguro (fecha de muerte).

Creo que con eso cubro las dudas, ¿no? De todas formas aguardo tu confirmacion o cualquier otra duda que tengas para responderte, y recien luego de los 6 ok las utilizare, para evitar cualquier problema o duda.

Muchas gracias.

Saludos.

The Edge 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No necicitas mi aval para usar los imagenes. Creo que ya esta todo bien. Pero si tienes dudads en el futuro tratare de responderlas. Pero yo - como toda persona humana - tampoco se todo ;-) --ALE! ¿…? 15:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ja ja, ok! No hay dudas que tienes mas experiencia que yo en estos temas.

Saludos y muchas gracias. The Edge 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tefen pic

[edit]

hi. i took thous pic yesterday in an open pubic space!!! i have copyright on them as their photographe!!! Talmoryair 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with you tefen pictures. They seem to be ok. But you should put a {{FOP}} on the description pages.
However, I have some problems with other pictures of yours, as you should have noticed. --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:First_argentine_coin.png

[edit]

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‎ ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:First_argentine_coin.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my early uploads I suppose. Unfortunately, I could not find the source yet. Before deleting please inform me, so I can replace the image with one of the current one peso, which shows this old coin. --ALE! ¿…? 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Marshall_Poe.JPG

[edit]
(copied from my user talk page, User talk:AnonEMouse)

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） ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Marshall_Poe.JPG. This image 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. ALE! ¿…? 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I did just that, forwarded the email, the same minute I uploaded the image, and it says as much on the image. And this isn't the first one I've done just this way, I'm a reasonably prolific contributor to commons, and a trusted user (Flickr image reviewer). This is, however, the very first time my image was tagged for deletion in the meanwhile until the OTRS folks reacted. I wonder if you would be so kind as to remove the deletion tag to give the OTRS people time to react. It quite often takes them a number of days (I have done this before!), and it would be a shame if the image were deleted in the meanwhile. --AnonEMouse 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Image_tagging_for_.22no_permission.22 for a discussion of the more general case. Thanks. --AnonEMouse 18:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. --ALE! ¿…? 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that means it was just a mistake? If so, OK. We all make mistakes. :-)
I admit, I was worried - I've got a good record getting images from searching, but getting released images by email is very hard, takes lots of back-and-forth emails with the photographer, and sometimes even with OTRS. I wouldn't want to lose one of those! :-) --AnonEMouse 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Macroglossum stellatarum01.jpg‎

[edit]

Hello, according to de:Datenbankwerk#USA, there is no database law in the USA, so your reason for keeping this image is invalid. -- Prince Kassad 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even more it is valid! --ALE! ¿…? 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because do not use the images to clone this stock photo web site is actually a restriction on distribution, and not a reference to database law. -- Prince Kassad 16:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not, because we are not cloning (duplicating) the database, we are just using a couple of images. --ALE! ¿…? 09:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pennsylvania Route 222 map.png

[edit]

I don't understand your close of this. The image is completely unused and inaccurate, so why do we need it? --NE2 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is tagged as a superseded image. And it did not seem to different to me from the other image. Well if you insist I will delete it. --ALE! ¿…? 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the right side that it differs; the PNG only shows the southbound direction. As seen on the PennDOT county map (large PDF), both directions are officially PA 222. --NE2 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the file now. --ALE! ¿…? 15:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --NE2 02:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image message

[edit]

Dear Sir / Madam

I do not understand your message regarding images Pope Pelagius I and Pope Benedictus I. Both images have source information and copyright tag. Since these are very old images the author is unknown. I have added URL info in case that is what you want. Please be more specific in your requests.

Hansjoseph 13:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is a good start. Without that, it is impossible to verify whether an image is in the PD or not. However, it is still unclear who the author of these images is, when he died if he did so already. Images are in the PD 70 years after the death of its author. As this can not be confirmed all the pope images would have to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new images

[edit]

Images Italian Navy

[edit]

Hello I'm italian Excuse me for my english the image Classe Stromboli.jpg was elaborated by me, but i say that i took from a site and i say the site. if is copyright violation you can delete. The image is older than 20 years and then isn't copyright violation, and the image CIWS Breda Dardo.jpg too, because the images are older than 20 years.

The image San Marco San Giusto.gif is from a site of Italian Navy and i can use template PD-ITGov-Military-Navy

If is copyright violation you can delete--Gaetano56 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for images of popes

[edit]

Hi there

I have been asked by a colleague from the Afrikaans Wikipedia to see if I can help him out: he is unclear what else is necessary at images such as Image:Anterus.jpg, since you have marked similar images (Image:Benedict I.jpg and Image:Pelagius I.jpg) as not mentioning the source. The images are two-dimensional representations of the icons inside en:Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls: the author(s) are unknown and the images themselves are centuries old. Perhaps you can advise him (or me) on how he can correctly tag these images? Anrie 13:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see on this image how the icons appear on the walls. Anrie 14:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose that most of them can be used. However, the never ones showing recent popes might still be protected by copyright law. Please add this useful information to the images' description page. --ALE! ¿…? 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Copyright tags

[edit]

Hallo ALE!, you have reverted my edit of removing {{Cleanup image}}, {{Rename image}}, {{Rotate}},{{Convert to SVG}}, {{Superseded}} and {{Vector version available}} from this page because they have no relation to the copyright tags. You asked for a place for these templates: they all are listed at Commons:Templates, so I think there is no objection to romove the tags from COM:CT. --GeorgHH 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! Finally I know where to find them. I only ponder whether other users will also find them ;-) . --ALE! ¿…? 09:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image fron Foro Base Naval

[edit]

Why you want delete fotos? I've permission from webmaster of http://base.mforos.com/ and then what's the problem? My be the license isn't correct? We can change it but no delete fotos. I think in this case this is the correct license. The same is with webmaster of www.histarmar.com.ar and with webmaster of Argentine Navy. They has given me permissione but i must to mentione their site and i've mentioned site.--Gaetano56 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The webmaster is not the author of the photos. So he is NOT the owner of the copyright.
  2. This permission sounds like a wikipedia only permission because you did not make clear that also commercial use and derivative works have to be allowed.
--ALE! ¿…? 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you want delete all my images. Why? i don't put images without license--Gaetano56 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But some of your license / permissions are just not good, which means free enough for Commons. Please respect the rules. --ALE! ¿…? 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nude pictures

[edit]

I saw you tagged 3 images I uploaded yesterday. It's your right to think it doesn't meet the project's scope but that would be nice to precise why! Aren't artistic pictures part of the project as well? Are these images more "out of the project's scope" than many other nude pictures and paintings already available? Or are they just 3 scapegoats? Commons has also the potential to offer graphic/artistic material to deal with outside of the other Wikimedia projects. As long as it's not pornographic and as long as it's quality has a minimum of value, I don't understand why these images would be out of the project. Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW these images are part of many uploads I did yesterday among whose it was mainly Black and Asian women. Indeed I realized that a large majority of the nudes on Commons were showing White/Caucasian women so I wanted to correct this racial bias (which I hope was not on purpose). That means these uploads also have a potential of information and education. If a young person see the category "nude women", it's better for him to see different types of people. Ifnot Commons might unconsciously give the impression that people is mainly white. And that can indirectly lead to racism. If the project on Commons is to show the diversity of reality, that purpose has to be considered. Thanks for your comprehension. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TwoWing. I personally think that most of the images you uploaded are usefull to the project and will be used for their high quality. However, some images, like the one of the nude woman playing with a handheld console is hardly within the project's scope. What do you want to use it for in Wikipedia, Wikibooks or Wiktionary? I can not imagine any use for it. To say it again: Most of the other images are probably ok and were not tagged by me. --ALE! ¿…? 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that Commons is not a project only made for other Wikimedia projects. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HansJoseph (Stupid)

[edit]

Vielen Dank! I think I now understand!(?). I have read the links you indicated and must confess that the information is rather confusing. Your explanation helps a lot. (send the same thing to other novices) I shall now fix the other images with PD-Art and the info as set up in Anterus.jpg Would you plse some time in the coming week check them and let me know if everything is OK now. Thanks again, Hansjoseph 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not stupid but new. --ALE! ¿…?
Yes, new as well. I have now updated all the images. Plse confirm that all is OK now. How are the protected tags removed? Thanks again.

Regards Hansjoseph 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When are the protected tags removed from the corrected images??
Hansjoseph 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:First_argentine_coin_-_1813_-_reverse.png

[edit]
Image deletion warning Image:First_argentine_coin_-_1813_-_reverse.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

ALE! ¿…? 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self nomination. --ALE! ¿…? 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Img.

[edit]

Hola, ALE! la imagen Telefe.gif no debería ser borrada ya que es logo de un canal de televisión de la República Argentina?, este tiene derechos de autor. --Belb 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

= Imágenes de Bariloche

[edit]

Estimado Ale, he visto que has opinado y solicitado la bajada de algunas imagenes de Bariloche. Aparentemente, es porque pensas que la persona que las subió no es el autor, aunque no he visto tengas pruebas de ello (solo la suposición que como no contribuye en demasia entonces no puede ser el autor). Al respecto, te quisiera aclarar, que por contactos que he mantenido con dicha persona (que es fotografo y diseñador gráfico profesional) Yo SI creo que son de su autoría (es más no las he visto en ningún folleto o medio gráfico de Bariloche). Te pido si en virtud de esta aclaración por favor podes reponer las fotos, que tanto embellecían el artículo de Bariloche. Atentamente, Usuario: Uruk = Wikipedia en español

Deletion request: Polydactyly.jpg

[edit]

I'd like to ask you to revisit the Polydactyly.jpg deletion request that you closed.

I created the image, I hold the copyright, I hold a conditional subject release, and that subject release does not permit use of the image in the way that's required for use on Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, as the creator and copyright holder of the image, I request that you remove the image.

I do not know how it came about that Guidod re-uploaded this image - possibly he manipulated it? - but if you check through the file history you'll find I was the original uploader of the image too. By continuing to host the image on Wikimedia you place me in violation of U.S. Federal law, which I really do not appreciate.

I don't know how to be more clear about this: this was all in the deletion request. Feel free to email me if you need more information. Ikkyu2 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Map-Northern Patagonia-Argentina-political.png

[edit]

Dankesen!

Si es solo por lo acentos, se podrían agregar con el GIMP (o photoshop) sin mayores complicaciones.

El problema que tengo es que este mapa lo hice con un programa que tengo instalado en una computadora que en está a 13.000 kilometros de donde estoy ahora. Y la verdad es que tampoco tengo mucho tiempo como para instalarlo y preparar todos los datos de nuevo. :o(

Si tenés el tiempo y la paciencia para arreglar la imagen, agregandole los acentos, podés sobreescribirla. Si encuentro los templates que usé para el mapa también te los podría enviar.

Saludos, Mariano. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marianocecowski (talk • contribs) at 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte mein Konto löschen

[edit]

Hallo ALE! Ich möchte Dich bitten mein Benutzerkonto Al-qamar auf den Commons zu löschen, da ich es sowieso nicht brauche. (Gerademal ein Bild hochgeladen). In der Regel gibt es mehr als genug Bilder (z.T. schlichtweg zuviele), zudem ist das ganze mir rechtlich nicht ganz geheuer (da kenn ich mich überhaupt nicht aus). Meinetwegen kannst Du auch das einzige Bild Löschen, es gibt Dutzende ähnliche. Vielen Dank. --al-Qamar 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos Che Guevara en Cuba

[edit]

Hola Ale: he visto que han sido borradas varias fotos del Che Guevara en Cuba, de mas de 25 años de antiguedad y en el PD según la Ley cubana. Porf ejemplo esta: Image:Checuttingcane.jpg. Pero no hay razones (que según la plantilla son mandatorias). La única razón es "same reason as above". Y above no hay ninguna razón. ¿Vos sabés de que se trata? Un saludo, --Roblespepe 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fijate en Commons:Deletion requests/2007/12/05 y Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cheministro.png de esta fecha. --ALE! ¿…? 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foto BAP Aguirre and Dezevenprovincien

[edit]

I don't Know

I've copied the image and the licence. All that is written in en:Wiki i've copied. The same is for Dezevenprovincien that i've copied from sr:wiki. I,ve written that i hope is a free image in the discussion and i say that you can delete it if you know isn't free--151.32.192.31 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the description page of Image:Dezevenprovincien.jpg: There is no (!) license tag! Concerning the BAP image: This image is surely not under a CC license and it also listed for deletion on en.wikipedia: [3]. --ALE! ¿…? 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cubiertas de libros

[edit]

Hola, ALE!

El 1/1/2008 he subido 3 cubiertas de libros a Commons:

Por las 2 primeras recibí de tu parte "Image deletion warning". En cambio, por la última hubo un aviso de "copyvio" de parte del usuario Lin linao, sin embargo vos luego le quitaste ese aviso y cambiaste la licencia de "GFDL" a "PD-ineligible". Pero, ¿no debería seguir el mismo criterio que "Evita Casamiento en Junín"? Son dos libros similares y de la misma época.

Con respecto a "El Tango en Junín", dado que fue publicado en 1985 (más de 20 años de antigüedad), ¿no debería ser "PD-AR-Photo"?

Saludos, --Germanramos 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango y Evita: Si puedes demostrar que estas fotos usados en las tapas de los dos libros fueron PUBLICADO por primera vez hace mas de 25 anos atras. Podriamos decir que las fotos son PD-AR-Photo y que el texto en la tapa es PD-ineligible.
La ultima tapa he marcado como PD-ineligible por que no hay ningun nivel artistico en crear una tapa que esta hecha de letras comunes.
Espero que mis respuesta estan suficientes. --ALE! ¿…? 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... entiendo la diferencia. No había considerado que unas tienen foto y otra no. Pero en el caso de "PD-AR-Photo", creo que no son 25 años de publicado sino 20. Al menos eso dice la etiqueta. ¿Los 25 años no son desde que se tomó la foto? En el caso de "Evita Casamiento en Junín", la foto fue tomada hace más de 50 años (Evita murió en 1952) y debe haber sido publicada miles de veces desde entonces. Pero tendría que encontrar al menos un caso que lo demuestre, ¿no?
En cambio en el caso de "Tango", como el libro se publicó en 1985 ya se habrían cumplido los 20 años de publicación y la foto tiene al menos 70 años, dado que el Café Tokio cerró en 1937.
Por supuesto y como siempre, tus respuestas son muy buenas. Muchas gracias por la ayuda. Saludos, --Germanramos 16:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consulta

[edit]

Hola Ale, te traslado esta consulta:

La categoria Category:Newell's Old Boys redirige a Category:Club Atlético Newell's Old Boys, sin embargo no logro que deje de aparecer como subcategoria, es decir que no solo redirige sino que ademas aparece como subcategoria, ¿me darias una mano?

Mil gracias. Saludos. The Edge 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deberías usar {{category redirect|nombre de la nueva categoria sin el "category:"}} en estos casos y no #REDIRECT. Un saludo! --ALE! ¿…? 12:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Espectacular! Mil gracias! Saludos. The Edge 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imágenes

[edit]

Hola!! Me has dejado nota de algunas imágenes que no están bien etiquetas. Las tres las subí antes de que existiera la plantillita actual, y cuando llevaba muy pocos meses en la wiki, pero en el resumen pone de dónde vienen:

No sé qué más datos darte. Si quieres, me pongo en contacto con Nat Krause para que confirme la licencia. Es lo único que puedo hacer. Saludos, Airunp 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Stamp}} no existe en Commons. Por favor lee tambien Commons:Stamps/Public domain. Capaz esta pagina es de ayuda.
Y si, contactar al autor original seria bueno. Capaz podrias poner tu corespondencia con el la pagina de descripcion de las imagenes. --ALE! ¿…? 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crest Audace Vespucci y Lupo

[edit]

Hola Ale

He visto que hablas español y asì te escribo en español. No se escribir ni hablar bien, y perdoname por eso, pero siempre mejor que ingles. Yo soy italiano. ¿y tu de donde eres?. Por las fotos los crest son mis recuerdos de mis años en la Marina Militare de Italia y son mi propriedad y asi he hecho las fotos y he ido a subirlas aquì. Por las fotos de los buques peruanos son de la wiki inglesa y he ido a subirlas con su licencia.

Un abrazo latino--Gaetano56 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Gaetano56! Aleman es mi idioma materna.
Bueno con respecto a los "crest": Si ellos estan en tu posesion, pero el trabajo artistico fue hecho por la persona que ha disenado los "crest". Vos tienes una copia y has sacado una foto de tu copia. Pero tu no eres el autor de los disenos originales. Por eso, tus fotosa son una violacion de los derecho del autor.
Con respecto al buque peruano: No todas licencias en la wikipedia inglese son correctas.
Un saludo y tene la confianca que no es nada personal contra vos. --ALE! ¿…? 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Suanhild-Reliquiar.jpg

[edit]

Source de Wiki [4]--Bonio 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not sufficient, because on the German wikipedia there is no permission for using the image. --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
von der Domschatzkammer Essen freundlicherweise zur Verfügung gestellt. So it is good for deWiki and not good for Commons?--Bonio 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. We need the permission via e-mail directlly from the Domschatzkammer to the e-mail address mentioned in the "missing permission tag". Please also read Commons:OTRS. --ALE! ¿…? 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San luis prov arg.png

[edit]

Hi. The reason you were never informed about the tagging of the above image is that you weren't the uploader. Anyhow it's good that you tagged the image with the relevant source info. I was just wondering if it would be possible for you to send in the e-mails from User:ALE!/Flags to the OTRS team. That way the images could be tagged with the more standard OTRS tags and the permission would be stored in the database. /Lokal_Profil 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not pay attention to who was actually the uploader. OTRS did not exist at that time. I'll see whether I still find the relevant e-mails. Anyway, the author, User:Jolle, is also active on Commons nowadays and could give directly the permission to OTRS. I will contact him. --ALE! ¿…? 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already contacted him, see: User talk:Jolle#Permiso para el uso de tus banderas en Commons. Now I am waiting for an answer. --ALE! ¿…? 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: borges, the infinite and me

[edit]

Hola ALE. I've seen you have marked for deletion the image Borges, the infinite and me.jpg. I thought I have done everything correct this time, using Flikr and only with images with CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. The original file is CC-BY-SA, if I have not read bad. But perhaps I have done any mistake. Please tell me what. Best regards, --Lucien leGrey 10:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes you copied correctly the license from Flickr. But the license on Flickr was NOT correct and should be reported as a copyvio in Flickr. --ALE! ¿…? 13:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ALE!/Archive3-2007&oldid=634698740"