User talk:Hoverfish
Please, use my English Wikipedia talk for messages: en:User talk:Hoverfish.
Welcome!
[edit]
 First steps tutorialOur first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.  Getting helpMore information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
 Goodies, tips and tricks
 Made a mistake?
| |
| (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) | ||
Cbrown1023 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Picasa images and OTRS
[edit]Hi, you have processed some of my OTRS requests recently and I have 2 questions. First is that since my user identity and the one of my Picasa albums (my real name) have been established several times here, is there a shortcut to requesting OTRS for every photo I upload to Commons that was previously uploaded there? My other question is about file moving. Today I uploaded by mistake File:Dsc03785small.jpg without setting an appropriate destination name. I tried to delete it and re-upload it with another destination name, but it didn't work. So I found out about renaming files and listed it there. Since I will be contributing a lot and this mistake may happen again and again, my question is, how can I apply for File Mover rights? Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The best way is to state in the Picasa album that the images are under a free license (like CC-BY-SA 3.0). Then while uploading new files, don't use the {OTRS pending} template, but paste a link to the place in the Picasa album where we may verify the license. User rights may be requested at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ciudad de la Costa 1
[edit]- Hi Zeroth! This is about File:CanelonesCiudadesCiudadCosta.svg. In October 2007 you uploaded this map, which included in red Barra de carasco and Parque Carrasco, which are included in the Ciudad de la Costa according to the 2004 Ley 16.610 [1]. But then in 2009, you marked these two regions in green. Why? (If you prefer to answer in Spanish, I understand it fairly well). Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Como estas? Mirá, el cambio (erroneo, el cual ya reverí!) se debió a un diferente conceptualización de Ciudad de la Costa respecto a la definición de los Municipios del Departamento (antes Juntas Locales). Por alguna extraña razón la jurisdicción del Municipio de Ciudad de la Costa no incluye a Paso Carrasco (que tiene un municipio propio). Gracias por advertir el error. Un abrazo, --Zeroth (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hola Zeroth. Gracias por la explicación y la corrección. Me parece muy útil tu serie de mapas svg. Que pases bien. Hoverfish (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hola otra vez! Busqué en OpenStreetMaps para ver quien hizo la catrografia de la Ciudad de la Costa, porque noté que después de Solymar no esta pronta. Me sorprendio ver que eras tu! Entre tanto he hecho para wikipedia File:Ciudad de la Costa.png. Si puede ayudarte, tengo también el "layer" de las cajes sin otros elementes (colores, letras. etc). Deja me saber. Saludos, Hoverfish (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Je je, el mundo es un pañuelo. Ahora me estoy dedicando a algunas localidades menores del departamento de Canelones. La imagen te quedó preciosa. No obstante no pude evitar notar que es extraída de google maps, lo cual no esta permitido debido a una incompatibilidad de licencias. Creo que ante esta situación no hay otra opción que esperar a que este pronta la de OSM o buscar otra fuente libre, no te parece?. Saludos, --Zeroth (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- No creo que Google Maps tenga derechos en un mapa hecho a mano (con nuevas lineas) en una transparencia vacia. Me tomo dos dias de copiar esta mapa con lineas tracadas sobre el original. Pero si sabes que un mapa hecho de ese modo esta considerado como "extraido" y viola el copyright, lo eliminaré enseguida. Gracias por el feedback. Hoverfish (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Lamentablemente ni siquiera eso puede hacerse. Esta prohibido realizar cualquier obra derivada de google maps, y dibujar sobre una transparencia usando el google map como base es justamente eso. Lo siento. --Zeroth (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Gracias por tu respuesta. No siento tener que borrar lo. Si sabia utilizar el OMS lo haria allí. Pero lo he intentado y no encontré como hacerlo... Hoverfish (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lo propuesto para borrarlo, pero me han dicho lo que he hecho no viola el copyright de Google Maps. Esta es la página de discusión de la eliminación: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ciudad de la Costa.png. Así que probablemente todavía se puede utilizar en la wikipedia. Saludos. Hoverfish (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Bueno, he leído la propuesta para borrado. Parece que hay un par de elementos a considerar. Ojalá pudieran usarse, veremos que dicen los mas experimentados. Un abrazo y arriba! --Zeroth (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hola de nuevo Hoverfish. Le he pedido al usuario que cerró la consulta que revea su posición. No es que esté inclinado hacia una u otra opción, pero creo que no había un consenso claro en ninguno de los dos sentidos y que se estaban aportando interesantes argumentos que pueden sentar un importante precedente para los que como tú y yo, estamos interesados en la cartografía. Un abrazo y veremos que sucede. --Zeroth (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for one, no one voted for deleting it. There was discussion about the keep vote but no delete vote. But apart from this, I have gone through a sharp learnung curve in OSM as you will notice if you look at the Ciudad de la Costa. Any day soon the 100% free alternative will be there. But I do have a bad feeling as I do not like Bing, Yahoo, Microsoft, and their block. I know it is hard for Google to do an exception for Wikipedia. I am part of the Google effort myself, though I have not been contributing beyond level 1 yet. But mostly I care for Wikipedia. So if an experienced administrator thinks it is for the best interest of Wikipedia to keep my work, it is fine by me. I am just not going to trace another map from Google any more, as I don't like to go against their wish, even if they have no legal right to forbid me tracing my maps. Hoverfish (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
La posición de Geni (talk · contribs) es que es una obra derivada de una obra no libre, por lo tanto aunque no tuviera el "
Delete", su opinión es clara. El tema con Google y Wikipedia, es que no podría haber una excepción solo para este proyecto, ya que todo lo que se utilice aquí puede ser reutilizado en cualquier otro sitio (bajo algunas condiciones mínimas como citar la fuente). Buen trabajo en OSM, cualquier consulta estoy a tu disposición. Un abrazo, --Zeroth (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ciudad de la Costa 2
[edit](Copy of discussion from User talk:Jcb)
Hi Jcb, and thank you for closing the deletion discussion of File:Ciudad de la Costa El Pinar.jpg. Actually I proposed the deltion after I heard that I might be violating copyright. But it turns out there are more opinions and facts that I didn't know when I nominated it. Now, this map is a low resolution derivative of this one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ciudad de la Costa.png, which has not been closed yet. Can you please also close or comment on the original too? As long as this remains open I am not sure how to proceed with using the derivative map (actually it is a series of 8 or 9 to be used in infoboxes as small location maps). And if the original must be deleted can I still use the derivative ones in Wikipedia? Hoverfish (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Done - Jcb (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jcb, i wanted to ask you why you closed this deletion request when there wasn't a clear consensus to keep the image (or delete it). I think commons can benefit for further discussion about a method that could be considered by many as derivative work of a non free media. Thank you for your time. --Zeroth (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- In both DRs it has been concluded that plain information is not copyrightable and that in this case only plain information was used. Jcb (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
|
File:Colonia_flag.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Fry1989 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
copyright issue
[edit]Hi! It looks like another editor noticed the same copyright problem you did, and has tagged them as copyvios. They'll likely be deleted soon. If you find other images that you think should be deleted, this page is a good starting point to figure out how to mark them: Commons:Deletion policy. --ragesoss (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
TUSC token f1b548252b08f5e94ccaa17f7c062c8d
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Autopatrol given
[edit]
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. INeverCry 18:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Filemover added as well. INeverCry 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, INeverCry. Much appreciated. Hoverfish (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Municipios de Canelones
[edit]Hi Hoverfish. The images of the Municipios de Canelones created by CITY_MDV: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/CITY_MVD are right or close enough. On the other hand, this image has some serious problems like wrong mayor cities and sublimits and i advice you to nominate it for deletion. Regards! Zeroth 18:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:Ciudad de la Costa.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Powers (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Churches of Montevideo
[edit]Thanks, Hoverfish, for so many nice church pics you uploaded. Hope I can contribute with decent articles for all of them! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Hoverfish. Yes, I get what you mean. I am trying to find as much information as I can - and, last but not least: put first the churches I personally know to be "socially important". I am keeping apparently insignificant small churches for the very end. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Monuments in Uruguay
[edit]Hi Hoverfish. First of all: let me agree with you that THESE CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH ANYTHING. There are national monuments, local-interest monuments, "unacknowledged" monuments and plain non-monuments of any kind. In any case, the only "recategorization" I am doing so far is putting all the "... from Uruguay" things into their respective departments (apart from adding other useful categories that have to do with the thing shown on the image, but nothing to do with this WLM instance).
You need a list of National Monuments? Take a look at the website of the Comisión del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación, where you can find World Heritage Sites, National Historic Monuments (you will have to open an XLS file for every Department), Intangible Heritage, etc.
Good luck with this! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Hoverfish. Just looked at these uploads. As regards the baptismal font, I already have seen it (and added to "Baptismal fonts in Uruguay"), and I really don't know where that can be. Of course it is not "Faro de Punta Brava"; it is not "Iglesia de Punta Carretas" either, which I know perfectly. That baptismal font is placed "somewhere in Uruguay"... Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Looking further: this user has clumsily copied "Faro de Punta Brava" in a lot of places that are actually Fray Bentos, Dolores or other places on the shores of the River Uruguay. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories
[edit]Hi Hoverfish. OK, for me it's no problem leaving the "general" categories. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Bad categories
[edit]Hi Hoverfish, regarding your question "I have classified until now thousands of images from Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Uruguay to their respective categories, like Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Montevideo, ...Maldonado, Colonia and all. I hope this is correct as there is no way back at this point. If not I should notify someone in the contest about it" im telling you there was no need at all for you to do those categorizations, since a bot categorized them in their correct respective categories looking at their ID number. Also i've seen you made some mistakes like this, and this putting the same image in two different departments... also, and i don't mean to be rough.. you should ask before the start of the contest about if the categorizations you were doing were correct and not after a point where "there is no way back".--Zeroth (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why you named this section "bad categories". I have categorized more than 3000 of these Uruguay files and I didn't catch 2 that had a doubled category. IMO it isn't all that "bad". Hoverfish (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- The bad starts when there is a bot doing it right already for every photo of the contest. And by the way, almost every "Edit summary: " you add to the pictures is wrong. Yo put "replaced: Cultural heritage monuments in Uruguay → Cultural heritage monuments in Montevideo)" when in fact you are replacing them for many other places besides Montevideo.--Zeroth (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the edit summary I defined was "move to specific category". The rest comes from not having turned off the "add replacements to edit summary" option. Sorry for the confusion. As for bots doing the work, I didn't see any while I was working and no one notified anywhere visibly. If you are an insider to the contest and knew it, good for you not having lost your time in vain. All I saw was a general category becoming huge and I thought it would do some good to depopulate it. I didn't expect anyone to praise me for it. In any case our paths will not cross in the future, so happy editing. Hoverfish (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Assiette_girafe.jpg
[edit]Thank you for cropping the photo for the Zarafa (giraffe) article. However, the final version (uncompressed) displays vertically stretched for some reason (at least on my Firefox/PC). The middle version (here) seems fine. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8107:D67B:9411:7E56 20:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It should be a cache problem on your side. Have you tried to bypass the page's cache on Firefox? While you are on the page where the image looks elongated, please press Ctr+R and see if it is resolved. I have checked in both the English article and the French one with various browsers and they all show it square... Let me know if the problem persists. Hoverfish (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Also click on the main image in File:Assiette_girafe.jpg and press Ctr+R. I hope this resolves it for you. Hoverfish (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Important message for file movers
[edit]
A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.
Possible acceptable uses of this ability:
- To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
- To perform file name swaps.
- When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)
Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.
The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Aguada has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
File tagging File:Treminal de Aviones art.jpg
[edit]
|
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Treminal de Aviones art.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:Treminal de Aviones art.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request. |
