User talk:ANGELUS

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page. This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ANGELUS.

This is the user talk page of ANGELUS, where you can send messages and comments to ANGELUS.

Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Put new text under old text. New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible. Click here to start a new topic.

Be polite. Be friendly. Assume good faith. No personal attacks.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, ANGELUS!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour 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 help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator (find an active one) on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply mark it like this: {{rename|the_new_name|reason_for_renaming}} and wait for an administrator or filemover to rename it. Do you want to have your picture removed, for other reasons? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Police ranks

Hi Angelus, thank you for creating images of the Italian Police ranks. It would be greatly appreciated if you could add the ranks below "Vice Commissario" of the following organizations: Polizia di Stato, Polizia Penitenziaria and Corpo Forestale dello Stato. Also, the coat of arms of the CFS would be fine - if you like and if you have time, of course. Thank you! 190.148.217.110 16:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Angelus,

about the ranks of Polizia di Stato, e.g. File:Agente scelto ps.png, you cite as source the website poliziadistato.it. However, the website is under a CC-NC-ND license. Could you please clarify wether you created the images from scartch or you uploaded them from the website. In the second case, in my opinion, the images would be a copyvio and should be removed.

Please answer in my talk page.--Japs 88 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Don Carlo.jpg

When I click on "nominate for deletion" it automatically notifies anyone who has be involved with the photo. I do not know of any way not to notify you since it just does it for me. Sorry to bother you. --Hold and wave (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Confused by an edit

I don't understand the reason for this edit, nor why it's flagged as a minor edit, given that it deletes a substantial amount of information. Not trying to say I dispute the edit, per se- I just honestly don't understand it, especially since the content you deleted had been added automatically by an official Commons tool for dealing with derivative works. Any explanation would be appreciated. Cheers. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Authorship of Logos

Greetings! I would like to clarify that for any company logo you cannot claim authorship since the logo was designed by the company. The fact that you are the uploader of the logo is recorded in the file history. The same applies for a painting in which case the authorship does not change even if it is in the public domain. Hope this makes things clear. --Jovian Eye _talk 02:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Assassin's Creed logo.svg

File deletion warning

File:Assassin's Creed logo.svg 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 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!

  Sreejith K (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.png

Hi, according to our policies a SVG is not an exact duplicate of a PNG. You cannot uses {duplicate} nor {speedy} for that. Also please don't use both together. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

File deletion warning

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).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 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!

  204.197.232.5 00:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File deletion warning

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).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 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!

  Claritas (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File deletion warning

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).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 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!

  Trycatch (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Falcone e Paolo Borsellino

Caro Angelus,

chi e cosa ti fa pensare che questa foto è di dominio pubblico? Innanzitutto se pure fosse da considerare una semplice foto il suo copyright durerebbe 20 anni a partire dal marzo 1992, vera data di realizzazione e non dal 1987 come erroneamente riportato. Ma la verità è che questa non è una "SEMPLICE FOTO". Pertanto il copyright dura 70 anni. Purtroppo quello che ha rovinato il rispetto e la tutela del diritto d'autore è proprio l'uso improprio di internet e la scarsa informazione sulle leggi che lo regolamentano. Ti chiedo pertanto di cancellare la pagina riguardante la foto in questione. Cordiali saluti

Tony Gentile

L'autore della suddetta foto

--Saurovigiani (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please exercise much more care when marking images as duplicates

Unfortunately for you, File:Fernande vintage nude photo 2.jpg is not the same photo as File:Fernande (vintage nude photo).jpg. Notice how the woman is turned to a different body angle, and has a somewhat different posture? They are photographs from the same session, but they are NOT the same photograph. I'm going to upload higher resolution versions of some of these French postcards, hopefully within the next few days, but in the meantime you should be rather careful in handling cases of claimed duplicate images... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@AnonMoos - First of all, please do not use CAPS in my talk page! Btw, do you have vision problems? I have reported as duplicates these two photos:

• Fernande vintage nude photo 2.jpg
• Fernande (vintage nude photo) 2.jpg

Even a blind man would see that it's the same image! Next time please be careful before making wrong observations! Angelus^(talk) 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I made a mistake. I was confused by the uploading of images with names very similar to other existing images (differing only by whether or not parentheses were present in the name). I'm going to upload higher-resolution versions of the JA40's shortly... AnonMoos (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're now a filemover

Hi ANGELUS, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
• Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
• For guideline when to rename a file, please see here. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 00:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Grazie

Grazie mille per la proposta che hai fatto...ti ringrazio infinitamente. Io qui su commons ci capisco poco-nula delle regole e delle varie cose interne...mi limito a caricarci su i file che faccio...però questa "certificazione" non fa che rendermi molto orgoglioso! Grazie ancora! --Gigillo83 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Giampaolo Di Paola.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Giampaolo Di Paola.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 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!

  79.27.139.152 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Commons Rollbacker.svg

Hello ANGELUS, can you tell me what happened at File:Commons Rollbacker.svg#filehistory? There should be three file versions and the page versions which are here. A mistake? Or do I oversee something? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Simply I renamed this file, then I changed my mind and I reuploaded it with the old name and marked the other version with {{bad name}}. ;-)

Greetings. Angelus^(talk) 03:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, aaah - I should better watch the dates. ;) ... and you should not mess around! :P

Okay, then the older two file versions are would be deleted - aren't they needed anymore? Maybe place a note/link on the bad name file page to this section for explanation. Going to bed now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I placed a link! ;-) However no, they aren't needed anymore. Good night! :-) Angelus^(talk) 04:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Moe Epsilon

Thanks for watching out for my talk page, but it was me who added that, browser logged me out when I left for en.wiki. :p — Moe ε 10:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No inconvenience at all :p — Moe ε 05:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Template

Ciao. Ho provato ma non sono riuscito a sistemarlo. Probabilmente manca una class.css che rende quei link "ad aggiornamento" e non come collegamenti, ma non ho idea quale sia. Non so, forse potresti provare a usare il layout di un altro template, tipo Template:Welcome/layout, facendo un po' di adattamenti... Mi spiace--Trixt (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

IP comment

Hi ANGELUS, are you really sure that it was vandalism? --Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg

The thumb of File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg looks smaller than the images it's next to, at COM:ICON. Any idea why? And there was already File:Admin mop.svg - why is the new version better?

On a related note, if you look at COM:ICON you'll see there's no Commons bureaucrat icon, and it shouldn't be hard to make one using the SVG tool of the Wikipedia bureaucrat icon, and the Commons SVG logo. That would be nice to have. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The thumb was smaller than the images it's next to, due to a problem of proportions. The mop was too long compared to the Wikipedia logo. However, I fixed the problem.

Anyway the new image is better because it has less weight and better proportions.

About the Commons bureaucrat icon, I have created three different versions:

• Commons Bureaucrat.svg
• Commons Bureaucrat (2).svg
• Commons Bureaucrat (3).svg

Choose the one you prefer. Greetings! Angelus^(talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Definitely this one, to match the existing Wikipedia one. My only concern is that as so often the lower-contrast grey Wikipedia logo is easier to adapt for different icons, especially at low sizes. I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done to tweak this, like maybe lighten the Commons logo for the smaller size (needed for {{Bureaucrat}})? Rd232 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is not much to do for tweak this. This is why I created the other two icons, because at low sizes they are clearer and less confused. Angelus^(talk) 19:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, those alternate versions don't seem any better at small sizes. Is it possible that moving the tool icon up within the SVG would help, so that it overlaps the top of the Commons icon instead of the centre of its circle? Rd232 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag

Ciao. Va bene, buon lavoro.--Trixt (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, ANGELUS. You have new messages at Trappedinburnley's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Italiano | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Svenska | +/−

CPA catalogue gallery

Please, do not revert, when images are moved from the page Файлы из категории Stamps of the Soviet Union не попавшие в галерею каталога ЦФА into the page like Каталог ЦФА (4001-5000), because the former is created for the purpose of the identification of stamps in it and moving them into pages like the latter. This is stated in the header of the first page I'm talking about (although the statement is in Russian, you can use Google Translate or something like that to translate it into another language). 79.132.171.215 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pyranoscope shoot.gif‎

I do not understand your edits on this file. Why do you delete several valid Categories and insert a single nonexistent one instead? You have realized that it is an (large) animation consisting of 25 frames? Greetings Jahobr (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the categories because, frankly, when I see the image, in the file description page, it seems not to move and it seems static. Greetings. Angelus^(talk) 15:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Glaciar Perito Moreno8 - Argentina.JPG

Hello, just coming to say: Thank you for the new version! Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A talkback from ain92

Hello, ANGELUS. You have new messages at Ain92's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Italiano | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Svenska | +/−

Incubator logo and mop

Hi, Can you help me create a sysop logo and bureaucrat logo for Wikimedia Incubator such as you did at Wikimedia Commons. Source Kindly regards. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are the logos:

• Incubator Administrator.svg
• Incubator Bureaucrat.svg

I hope they go well! Let me know. ;-) Greetings. Angelus^(talk) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

{{User talk}}

Hello, I saw your request in Jebulon´s talk page, so -after helping him out- I took care of the Spanish version: see Template:User talk/es cheers, Poco a poco (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Template:User talk/fr. Could you please check if i didn't make mistakes ? Thanks a lot.--Jebulon (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:General Bonaparte giving orders at the Battle of Lodi.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Photograph that portrays, with an excellent quality, a painting with an important historical value.--IlSistemone 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Colosseum.svg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments This icon can typically represent the Italian history and art.--IlSistemone 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Coat of arms of the House of Gelmini 2.svg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Very nice & good quality.--IlSistemone 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:The O'Rahilly Ballylongford3.jpg

Hi, I'm from en.wiki; I was wondering if you could help me correcting the name of a file? File:The O'Rahilly Ballylongford3.jpg is an old version of File:The O'Rahilly Ballylongford3 (1).jpg that has not been corrected (you can see that it is a little bit tilted compared to the image with (1) in the name). I don't have move or renaming privileges, so I can't correct this on my own. Can you move File:The O'Rahilly Ballylongford3 (1).jpg to File:The O'Rahilly Ballylongford3.jpg? Premeditated Chaos (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your questions about your pictures in VIC

Hi dear ANGELUS,

Your pictures of De Gasperi and Gambino (both italian politicians, lol) are fine, no problem. But you're now going to experience the qualities of some of our friends. Especially one of them think that "galleries" are essential, and "opposes" (or at least recently "discuss") if any picture candidate has no "gallery". Many of us think he is wrong, and we have a lot of disagreements about this, and about what is (or must be) a  Oppose. If you read comments all around your pictures, I'm sure you'll understand the problem. He changes some scopes by himself, without giving apparently information to the author, in the case of your pictures . I personally think there is no need of galleries, there is a discussion about that, maybe could you participate, as you are involved. Please have a look to the Valued Images Guidelines too, it is interesting. --Jebulon (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, me again.

Since my message above, I've changed my opinion about galleries, because of wise arguments of User:Slaunger (He is one of the creators of the VI project, and he knows very well what he is talking about). Answering your question ? because of the bot, I suppose... Well, in case of galleries, the bot tags automatically the picture with the , but not if we have only a category. Therefore, I think, maybe WS was not wrong, but I disagree with his way to do, because for the current rules, there is no mandatory for a gallery, and then, 1) "no gallery" is not a valuable reason for an opposition, 2) nobody has the right to change the scope I have chosen, except myself. Cheers.--Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for all your good contribs. Commons can be happy to have such a contributor. -- RE rillke questions? 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Treaty of Rome, signing ceremony.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

• Good, but geocoding is needed. Yann (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Done --Angelus ^(talk) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now. Yann (talk)
•  Support - Best in scope of the photo relates to Italy. --Katarighe (Talk) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Alcide De Gasperi, portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment It is better to make a connection to the scope of the category. If you want to make a link to an article done in the "reason".

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment - Ok, thank you for the suggestion. Angelus ^(talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't think a subscope is warranted here. พ.s. 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question What does it means??? And please, next time, you don't have to change the scope removing the category that I entered! Angelus ^(talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Carlo Gambino, portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment Geocoding is needed. Yann (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Done --Angelus ^(talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment The same with the profile, even with a lower resolution, is maybe more illustrative...--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• The scope that I entered for this photo is "portrait", not "mugshot". ;-) --Angelus ^(talk) 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• OK. ;)---Jebulon (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't think a subscope is warranted here. พ.s. 22:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question What does it means??? And please, next time, you don't have to change the scope removing the category that I entered! Angelus ^(talk) 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Colosseum.svg

Hi Angelus, you have reverted one category of this image. Why do you think that the image Colosseum.svg belongs to the category P icons? In my opinion, P icons includes a style with a special background. Unfortunately, you had reverted without an additional remark. Kind regards -- Con-struct (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A "P icon" is a "Portal/Project" icon. So all icons that can be used in a portal or in a project, can be included in that category. They must not have a specific style. Cheers. ;-) Angelus^(talk) 15:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Battle of Lodi, painting.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support The nitpicker strikes again: at this time "Napoléon" was only "Bonaparte"...;)--Jebulon (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC) BTW, who took the picture ? we have a mention "own work"...--Jebulon (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I took this picture a few years ago. ;-) Angelus ^(talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Please create gallery and link to it in the scope. พ.s. 10:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done - But please, next time, do not change the scope that I entered! Angelus ^(talk) 13:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Edmond Leboeuf, photograph.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support He was not only General, but Marshall of France.--Jebulon (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I fixed the description page. ;-) Angelus ^(talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But you where not wrong: at the time of the picture, he was only general ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Donald Duck portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment It would be useful to add "portrait" in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  
•  Done - Angelus ^(talk) 13:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good, useful, interesting and best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - not a free file. Please see the extended debate on a similar object at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif. I've nominated the file for deletion. --Claritas (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment - Please, discuss it on the appropriate page! Then, if for any reason, the community will consider your deletion request right, the file will be deleted. For the moment, if you do not have other objections or appropriate motivations, I restore the positive vote. Angelus ^(talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment - Your negative vote is invalid because here is not the right place to talk about this! Here you just have to assess the value, purpose and usefulness of this image! And if you do not have objections concerning these aspects, your vote is invalid! --Angelus ^(talk) 14:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• It's perfectly valid. As we're going to delete this file in a few days because it is a copyright violation, making it a valued image is a pointless exercise which will only cause more work when the file is deleted.--Claritas (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• If the file will be deleted, however would not cause any additional work! Angelus ^(talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support no problem for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - not a free file. พ.s. 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Prove it!!!! --Jebulon (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly! I agree with Jebulon. Angelus ^(talk) 19:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Yann (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I am waiting for the closure of the deletion request for closing this nomination. Yann (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok thank you! ;-) Angelus ^(talk) 14:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support No problem to decline it. --Katarighe (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Icon of Colosseum.svg

File deletion warning

File:Icon of Colosseum.svg 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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Planimetria Amantea.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Planimetria Amantea.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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Superman vs Lex Luthor.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Superman vs Lex Luthor.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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Colosseum.svg

File deletion warning

File:Colosseum.svg 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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tigranes II the Great.png

File deletion warning

File:Tigranes II the Great.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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Treaty of Rome.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Treaty of Rome.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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

PD-Italy

Ciao. Cerco di essere didascalico per non tediarti troppo con discorsi che probabilmente non ti interessano piu' di tanto, quindi se hai qualche dubbio domanda pure nello specifico. Dunque, il template di it.wiki indica la data di creazione perché prende in considerazione la data e il luogo di creazione della fotografia, mentre quello di Commons prende in considerazione la data e il luogo di prima pubblicazione (ci tengo a precisare che attualmente il template di Commons e' comunque incompleto, in quanto chi ha fatto la modifica sulla data di pubblicazione si e' dimenticato di integrarla con l'applicazione della legge anche a opere di autori italiani - l'ha indicato nell'oggetto della modifica ma non nel template). In it.wiki vengono considerati data e luogo di scatto perche' si pensa che l'articolo 92 ("20 anni dalla data di produzione") si applichi a qualunque fotografia basta che sia stata scattata in Italia. In Commons vengono considerati data e luogo di pubblicazione perche' si pensa che sono questi dati, oltre alla nazionalita' dell'autore, che determinano quale legge sul copyright applicare (ce ne sono anche altri di dati da applicare, ma questi tre sono i fondamentali). Ti faccio un esempio pratico per spiegare meglio. Facciamo finta che un francese faccia un viaggio in Italia nel 1990 e fa una fotografa "semplice" ad un albero. Torna in Francia e, nel 2000, pubblica la fotografia su una rivista francese. Nel 2012 un utente vuole caricare la fotografia per visualizzarla in Wikipedia. Riassumendo:

• Data di creazione della fotografia in Italia: 1990
• Data di prima pubblicazione in Francia: 2000
• Data al momento del caricamento: 2012
• Nazionalita' del fotografo: francese

Quale legge sul copyright applicheresti? Quella francese (che non ha eccezione alla regola del "70+morte dell'autore") o quella italiana? Se applicassimo il tag di it.wiki, il file si potrebbe caricare affermando che la fotografia e' stata scattata in Italia e che sono passati venti anni dalla creazione. Su Commons non si potrebbe caricare perche' si applica la legge francese, non quella italiana.--Trixt (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondo me la scelta piu' logica e' quella di usare la data e il luogo di prima pubblicazione per determinare quale legge sul copyright si applichi. E' infatti inconcepibile che solamente per il fatto che una fotografia e' stata scattata in un dato luogo si applichino le leggi di quel luogo e non quelle cui e' soggetto il fotografo o quelle del luogo in cui la fotografia viene resa pubblica. Pensa ad esempio se tu dovessi fare un viaggio negli US e tornare in Italia dopo una settimana con le tue fotografie, che pubblichi su Facebook: pensi che sia giusto applicare le leggi degli US (supponendo, cosa che non e', che gli USA abbiano, al pari dell'Italia, una legge che dichiari "statunitense" qualunque foto fatta negli USA) o quelle italiane, cui tu sei soggetto in quanto italiano e che vengono applicate in quanto tu invii le foto dall'Italia? Senza dilungarmi in ulteriori problemi che la cosa comporta, ho sempre pensato che la scelta della data di creazione sia una scelta di comodo per cercare di mantenere il maggior numero di foto possibili a scapito del principio di precauzionalita' e della sicurezza che quelle foto siano veramente utilizzabili per qualunque scopo, non solo quello di Wikipedia (per carita', tutti vogliamo piu' foto possibili ma io voglio che siano veramente libere dal copyright, e non libere perche' "va beh ma e' quasi impossibile che qualcuno ti denunci"), senza contare il campanilismo che porta alcuni a pensare che se una legge italiana stabilisce qualcosa allora non puo' essere che applicata alla lettera, oltre al fatto che "certamente gli stranieri non possono insegnarci come applicare le nostre leggi", figlio del "padroni a casa nostra". Ti lascio un ultimo esempio di quanto la data di creazione sia problematica nell'applicazione.--Trixt (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Li' viene riportato l'esatto termine di legge, che e' appunto 20 anni dalla creazione.--Trixt (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, e' che viene riportato l'esatto termine di legge, ma la data e il luogo di prima pubblicazione e' un dato fondamentale per vedere se si applica quella legge italiana.--Trixt (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

E' implicito. Il template e' per fotografie "pubblicate per la prima volta in Italia": vuol dire che se lo applichi devi avere "in mano" il luogo e la data di prima pubblicazione. E successivamente e' ovvio che una fotografia non puo' essere creata dopo che e' stata pubblicata, quindi deve essere stata pubblicata (e quindi creata) piu' di 20 anni fa.--Trixt (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Beh in quel caso entra in gioco un altro articolo di legge che garantisce 25 anni di copyright a chi pubblica per la prima volta una fotografia. Nel template pero' non e' menzionato perche' sono casi meno frequenti.--Trixt (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

La legge garantisce 25 anni di copyright a chi pubblica per la prima volta una fotografia, quindi, oltre a essere stata scattata piu' di 20 anni fa, deve anche essere stata pubblicata piu' di 25 anni fa. Se si applica la semplice regola "20 anni dalla data di pubblicazione" si coprono anche questi casi meno frequenti (c'e' un gap di 5 anni ma penso si possa transcurare per la maggior parte dei casi).--Trixt (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Banner portale storia d'Italia.png

File deletion warning

File:Banner portale storia d'Italia.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 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!

  Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Undoing edits

When you revert someone's edits, can you please make sure you give a reason? That being said, may I know why you reverted my edits here --Sreejith K (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And when you make a change can you please make sure you give a reason? There is no reason to turn the links provided as a source, in a gallery. Greetings. --Angelus^(talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a gallery gives a much better understanding of the images involved. If you want users to click the 15 links and check each image, you are asking for a bit too much. Anyone would prefer to see all the images together, won't they? --Sreejith K (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First, two images (with free license) were taken from it.Wikipedia and therefore are not visible in the gallery. And then, frankly, this is also a matter of point of view, because I could say that a gallery is too cumbersome, so please, I ask you to leave things as they are. Thanks, cheers. Angelus^(talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cambio nome immagine

Ciao! Adesso vengo a rompere anche qui su Commons... Tu sai come cambiare il nome di questo file File:Collage Aeolie Islands.jpg in File:Sicily Islands.jpg? -- Yiyi (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ihihih! sai che non l'ho ancora capito? Mi era uscito che serviva quando volevo trasferire un file da Wikipedia a Commons, ma non so a cosa serva :) -- Yiyi (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)