User talk:CmdrDan

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

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

[edit]

Why...

[edit]

are you adding non-existent categories to images? Please don't do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again...

[edit]

Either make the cat first, or do so immediately after tagging the images. Please don't leave them hanging with redlinked cats.

Also, please make your cats as tightly defined as possible. Since we already have an "Apartment buildings in Manhattan" category, I converted your new cat to "Full-block apartment buildings in Manhattan".

Finally, when there are multiple images in the same category -- such as in Category:The Belnord -- please add the category to that parent category, and not to each of the images in it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-08-07 18-59-31 WikiWand Home Page Screenshot.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hchc2009 (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:WikiWand Logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hchc2009 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear CmdrDan,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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 was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Catalog Page for Salvator Mundi (painting).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:Catalog Page for Salvator Mundi (painting).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sale amount for Salvator Mundi (painting).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:Sale amount for Salvator Mundi (painting).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Sale amount for Salvator Mundi (painting).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Catalog Page for Salvator Mundi (painting).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclipse full map United States.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

B dash (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louise Rosenblatt 25 90.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

B dash (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, B dash (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yann (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Afrikaans | azərbaycanca | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | Nederlands | norsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | sicilianu | Simple English | suomi | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | Ελληνικά | български | македонски | русский | српски / srpski | українська | հայերեն | मराठी | हिन्दी | বাংলা | മലയാളം | ไทย | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | עברית |العربية | فارسی | +/−


Hello CmdrDan.

You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yann (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Executive Orders of New York City, USA

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Eeo-118=NYC-2020-june-01.pdf and File:Eeo-119=NYC-2020-june-02.pdf. Yet where is the evidence that they are licensed under CC-Zero? I cannot find it at https://www1.nyc.gov/ yet I am considering renaming my uploaded File:2020-06-01 US New York City Emergency Executive Order 117.pdf to "File:Eeo-117=NYC-2020-june-01.pdf" being shorter. If no evidence of CC-Zero, I plan to change to PD-US-GovEdict.--Jusjih (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. You are right. (I knew I shouldn't have used upload wizard; drats.)
Usage now conforms.

--CmdrDan (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just uploaded more files named after your way.--Jusjih (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:SCOTUS-Oct 03 2022-Main Document-Brief amicus curiae of The Onion filed=20221006144840674 Novak Parma Onion Amicus Brief.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ilex verticillata (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Superseding Indictment for Santos

[edit]

Thanks for this upload: File:USA v. George Anthony Devolder Santos, aka, Groege Santos-Superseding Indictment-2023-10-10-Doc Num 050-Main Document=gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.50.0 1.pdf. There is a typo in the also known as clause. I suggest putting in move request from "...Groege..." to "...George..." If you need my help, {{Ping}} me on this page. DutchTreat (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Thank you!
--CmdrDan (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Even though I'm initiating this discussion, I want to note that I really appreciate the effort you've taken in copying these files to Commons. SWinxy (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files being used as galleries

[edit]

Hi. I think you made a mistake by turning File:CBS Broadcast Center-Historic Plaque-02-medium=PXL 20240222 174715846.RAW-01.COVER.jpg and several other files into user galleries. That's not really how either one works. User galleries are usually special pages under a sub-page of a users name, like User:Allen4names/Gallery. Not just a couple of images added to a file. Although you can create a mini-gallery using the "other versions" field in the file summary, but it doesn't involve a special subsection of the file or the "user gallery" template. You can just add "</gallery>" to the beginning with the file names as normal but in the "other versions" field of the summary or create a gallery under your user name. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic?

[edit]

I have seen the category Category:Problematic photos of plaques. You have also assigned one of my photos there. The category contains no explanation and is not linked anywhere. May I ask what the category is good for? What is problematic? From my point of view, it is an arbitrary and personal collection of pictures. Such a collection should rather be on a user page and not as a Commons category. But even then, the question of what is problematic remains. I am inclined to submit a deletion request for the category. XRay 💬 05:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello XRay,
I am in the early phase of a project about plaques.
I am assembling groups of images for this project and related presentations. Again, I am just beginning this process.
"Problematic" as I am using it here is a very general characterization that includes all manner of "problems" relating to readability/legibility including, but not limited toː
  • focus
  • exposure
  • framing
  • "glare," erosion, corrosion, or other factor(s) affecting text
  • design features/flaws, viz., "Highly reflective plaques"
You're right.
I need to move my project work to my user pages.
I need to learn how to use HotCat and Cat-a-lot with User categories.
Regarding your image, the problem (from my point of view, is the off center framing and the difficulty reading the text on smaller plaque. I mean no harm nor judgement.
That said, I am impressed with your categorization and the extensive information and documentation you have added to your work.
--CmdrDan (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the category should be deleted. Try to use user pages. --XRay 💬 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please do not add red links to files. If you add a red link, please create the category too. In this case High quality photos of plaques: The images are not high quality images and not quality images. Please nominate the images first at COM:QIC. Then they may be quality images. --XRay 💬 17:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highly reflectivs plaques

[edit]

Sorry, but what are Highly reflective plaques. I can't find links and explanations. Do you mean Reflections in glass? --XRay 💬 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly reflective" is referring to the design or construction of the plaque; different from Category:Reflections_in_glass. Closer to Category:Reflected photographers in plaques, but, again, that's the result while "Highly reflective plaques" is the cause. That's my current thinking.
Thank you for asking--thank you showing me and helping me discover these categories,
--CmdrDan (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A category should always be assigned to at least one other category. It should also adhere to standard schemes. In this case, the glass in front of the plaque is reflective. Please read COM:CAT. --XRay 💬 19:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CmdrDan: if I'm reading your comment correctly it seems like your trying to combine two different subjects here, the construction of the plaque and a tangential quality of the plaque (I.E. being reflective). Although I agree with XRay that your wrong on that because the glass in front of the plaque is what's actually creating the reflection but lets say it wasn't for a moment. Commons:Categories is pretty clear that "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." That's something you should always keep in mind when creating categories. They generally shouldn't be a combination of different subjects, ideas, physical properties of something, Etc. Etc. It's better in those cases to just create two different categories and put the file in both. Although it's totally pointless in this case, since again, the glass is what's reflective here. Not the actual plaque. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Problematic photos of plaques 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!


XRay 💬 19:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User categories

[edit]

Please read Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories: Categories shouldn't be created to collect files based on a user's personal opinion (e.g. User:Example's favourite pictures); user galleries may be used for such purposes instead as described above. I think that this is relevant for your user project Category:Plaques project: relevant categories. Thank you. --XRay 💬 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CmdrDan. This category name seems to be misspelled. Should it perhaps be "Black and white photographs of men wearing three piece suits in the United States Capitol Complex" (with "United States" spelled out and "complex" instead of "comples")? Since it's still empty, you could create a new category with the correct spelling, or you could move the category (or have someone move it for you if you aren't able to do moves). I'd be glad to move it for you if you decide to do that -- just let me know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]