User talk:Wilfredor/Archive 15

File:2.5 Ayuda AB.jpg

What's your problem, The Photographer??? OF COURSE IT'S MY OWN JOB. Look at those pics: 1 and 2. They're screenshots of my own PC using Photoshop. I made the original. Why do u try to destroy my job? Last time, you deleted a file that I uploaded without any advice, in spite of I tried to explain that hasn't any rights and was a screenshot of my computer. But now, THE ORIGINAL PIC IS MINE. How can I move the text if the image wasnt mine? If you need more proofs, tell me what change do u want me to make and I'll do it.

I advice you: It's the last time u try to broke my job without proofs. Next time, I denounce u. For now, I will delete your ad. Don't put it again. Ph03nix1986 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ph03nix1986: Por favor, no tome este asunto personalmente. Es necesario colocar siempre la derivación del trabajo. Yo nomino cientos de imagenes a borrado, esto evidentemente fué un error. Usted puede denunciarme donde lo desee :) --The Photographer (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lo comprendo, The Photographer. Soy reversor y verificador de Wikipedia en español, y nomino frecuentemente artículos para su borrado. La cuestión es que tenemos que hacerlo basándonos en una serie de pruebas y criterios. Siendo muy "exigentes", puedo admitir el borrado anterior aunque me parezca ser demasiado "tiquismiquis", con todos los respetos. Pero en este caso, ¿cuál es la razón para proponer su borrado por no ser mi propio trabajo? ¿Qué argumentos hay para asegurar que no lo he creado yo? De hecho, esa imagen la diseñé "de cero" para no utilizar la oficial del PHL. No es mi intención denunciarte ante nadie, es una medida extrema que estaba dispuesto a tomar ante la injusticia de ver destruido mi trabajo sin argumentos. Sencillamente, y desde el más absoluto respeto, deberías ser más prudente antes de colocar este tipo de plantillas. Borraste la anterior, dejando un hueco importante en uno de los manuales más utilizados de Wikipedia en español. Para evitar "de largo" volver a pasar por lo mismo, subí esa captura en su lugar, ya que era de una imagen que había creado yo mismo con Photoshop. Y apenas unas horas después, veo que pretende ser borrada y por idénticas razones.

Del mismo modo, has propuesto para su borrado esta imagen, que he utilizado como principal en mi perfil hasta hace pocos días. No sé si volveré a usarla, puede que sí, pero actualmente es cierto que no está en uso y si se estima oportuno que debe ser eliminada, lo acepto. Volveré a subirla cuando quiera utilizarla de nuevo. Pero he de insistir, en adelante procura ser más prudente, tengo cientos de imágenes creadas personalmente con Photoshop en mi cuenta, y muchas forman parte de artículos buenos y destacados, o manuales. Un saludo. Ph03nix1986 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ph03nix1986: Gracias por la recomendación. Por cierto, yo simplemente nomino a borrado y un administrador se encarga. Te invito a leer trabajos derivados para que puedas comprender el asunto de mejor manera. Cuando realizas una impresión de pantalla estás haciendo una obra derivada de la original, por ejemplo, la original debe ser citada aunque sea de tu misma autoría. Es una manera de llevar el orden dentro de commons. Siento mucho que alguien haya borrado tu imagen anterior, sin embargo, no es un asunto personal. Yo cuando veo una impresión de pantalla y la fuente no es tácita, veamos algunos ejemplos: El caso de File:Missmanz.jpg es una obra derivada de la foto de atrás que es una biblioteca y de la foto de una manzana presente en la letra "a", ahora bien, suponiendo que realmente seas el autor de ambas fotografía no es algo tácito, debe ser especificado en "source". Veamos otro ejemplo más claro, tenemos a File:Liga de Revisores oro (3).png lo cual es una clara violación al usar el logo de Wikipedia sin atribuir, entonces asumes que eres el autor del logo de Wikipedia. Yo pude haber nominado todas estas fotos con el logo de Wikipedia y con seguridad serían borradas, sin embargo, te pido de igual manera ser cuidadoso y atribuir los trabajos que realizas. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

¿Te refieres a la explicación o al resumen de edición? Que barbaridad, ¿por qué tantos trámites? Entiendo que este tipo de cuestiones se planteen en imágenes con derechos de autor, pero en todos los casos estamos hablando de "bases" que tienen utilización libre y sobre las que se permite efectuar modificaciones. Además, en el caso del logo de Wikipedia, ¿es erróneo indicar que el trabajo es mío solo porque utilizo en una parte de él el logotipo de Wikipedia? ¿Entonces mi trabajo no se tiene en cuenta? Por esa regla de tres, las casas serían propiedad del fabricante de ladrillos. O no podría haber derechos de autor sobre ninguna canción basándonos en que el aire que ha permitido al cantante utilizar sus cuerdas vocales no es de su propiedad. No estoy muy puesto en el uso de Wikimedia, pero me parece muy injusto que no puedas atribuirte la autoría de una imagen en la que has invertido buena parte de tu tiempo solo porque utiliza, parcialmente, una imagen que tiene derechos libres y que está etiquetada para su reutilización con modificaciones. Ph03nix1986 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Amigo, estas malinterpretando las cosas, basta con atribuir (mensionar de donde sacaste el logo de Wikipedia). De igual manera si alguien utiliza algunos de tus fotos para hacer obras derivadas ellos deben citarte (Derivate work of "Miss Manzana.jpg" by Ph03nix1986 , Basado en el trabajo de XXX). Por favor, te pido que leas el enlace que te pasé arriba. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

¿Y cómo lo hago? ¿En qué apartado y cómo tengo que introducirlo? Ph03nix1986 (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No encontré mejor forma de explicarlo que con este ejemplo. Cualquier duda me pegas un grito --The Photographer (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, me pongo con ello ;) Ph03nix1986 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Os Filhos de Pindorama. Cannibalism in Brazil in 1557.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Os Filhos de Pindorama. Cannibalism in Brazil in 1557.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The majority?

Did you honestly mean to say, "Gays are the majority"? The majority of what? Surely not the majority of contributors to this site. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: yes, principals "contributors" --The Photographer (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalismo

Hola, el usuario @Denniss: esta borrando todo las imagenes que subi elimino una imagen de ezequiel zamora que era una mejora del retrato original y elimino varias imagenes mias por que ? por favor restaura lo que me borro--Colaborado12 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Colaborado12: Voy a estudiar este caso y te mantengo informado. --The Photographer (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

gracias. , aqui la imagen de todos modos lo cambie pero tu ve por que la elimino y me informas --Colaborado12 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ezequielzamora.jpg

venezuela

hola, quiero informarte que que https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela estoy muy confundido primero el IDH esta en muy alto desde hace dias y creo que no es el correcto, el mapa de venezuela tiene la zona en reclamacion creo que eso se discutio hace mucho y bueno esta otra vez, puedes pasarte por hay a ver si todo esta en orden gracias,--Colaborado12 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg

Tagging a file that has been around since 2008 and is used many times for semi-speedy deletion isn't very appropriate. If you think something is wrong with the file you can go through the regular deletion process. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Done @Multichill: Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Photographs of Maison Maizerets 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. But please improve the filename. --XRay 04:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maison Maizerets 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Please improve the filename. "Photographs of" isn't a good choice. --XRay 04:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Université Laval, Quebec, Canada 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Relique dans Église Saint-Charles-Borromée de Québec.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 04:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Relique dans Église Saint-Charles-Borromée de Québec 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 04:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Photographs of Maison Maizerets 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Université Laval, Quebec, Canada 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Photographs of Église Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin, Québec, Canada 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château Ango des Maizerets.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please check the verticals and please check (and improve) the filename. --XRay 07:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)  Done @XRay: Thanks --Wilfredor 14:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)  Support Good quality now. Thank you. --XRay 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Université Laval, Quebec, Canada 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, maybe some CA on the nearest post on the right. -- Ikan Kekek 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks Ikan, please, could you add a note, i cant see it --Wilfredor 17:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC) I added a note. I'm not sure it's CA. If it's not, just let me know. -- Ikan Kekek 08:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: I cant to see any CA, however, its a temporal object (to mesure the snow) and i removed it. Let me know if its ok. Thanks mate --Wilfredor 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) It's fine and I'll promote, but if what I saw was just the product of some blurring and not CA, why not revert? -- Ikan Kekek 11:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC) yes you are right --Wilfredor 16:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC) I don't understand what happened to my promotion, so I changed the status again to promotion. -- Ikan Kekek 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)