This issue of your misinterpretation of our guideline will continue to cause trouble as long as you keep making statements that are simply not try, and keep blocking/attacking those who are correctly interpreting the guideline. Stability is important but not paramount. The guideline lists some scenarios where stability can be overruled in order to improve some other quality, and a rename can generally be performed without great community discussion. The guideline also has an incomplete list of scenarios where the case to overrule stability is so weak that these should generally never be performed (though there may be the odd exception). For other cases, like the one at Village Pump, it is not obvious. A community discussion is appropriate. You seem to think the first list is in fact the only circumstances when renaming is ever justified. That's simply not true, and is a misreading of the guideline. Saying "do not rename files" is a "hard-and-fast rule" is absolutely wrong. Perhaps there's a language problem and you should consult a dictionary before commenting. Because "hard-and-fast" is a rule with no exceptions and that can never be changed. But there are exceptions. Stability is merely a very important quality. No more than that. If you can't understand that, then I suggest you find a good friend with a better grasp of language to help interpret the guideline for you. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- (Nothing to add about the subject matter: Looks like we agree to disagree about COM:FR, me taking a maximalist view of it, for the sake of stability and to avoid a slippery slope of improvement-renaming.)
- That my “grasp” of English might not be sufficent for a unsupervised participation in the curation work here, were that true, would be an alarming cue that the use of English as Commons’ lingua franca is unsuitable, by shutting off all but the most skilled non-natives. However, and considering the whole of your interaction with me, the apparently reasonable piece above notwithstanding, I go for a simple and more sensible conclusion: That you are trying to shut me off from the discussion, and making use of whatever excuses you can: Me being a non-native English speaker with slightly above average command and supposedly someone conscious of language use praxis and ethics issues in an international setting (no shit, Sherlock!) offered you the necessary ammo.
- Alas, I’m unbudged: I’ll go on expressing my opinion whenever and wherever I feel like, as clearly as my skills allow. You can take it at face value, or you can ignore me — that would be probably the best, as your bad faith is transparent, even when you mask it under smarmy, fake sympathy.
- Speaking louder than any re-framed language issue you may raise publicly to cast doubt about my Commons experience and trustworth, there is my work record here (I just added in my sig a link to my contribution history). Hesitant third parties will know exactly what is going on when you repeatedly demean and insult me.
- (Messages from you in my talk page are unpleasant. Please make sure you do not come here more than the stricly necessary minimum.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed you view my attempt at trying to resolve our differences as "unpleasant". I am genuinely trying to understand why someone with your apparent intelligence (I'm not being sarcastic) has so much difficulty with word-use that is clearly not what those words mean. Far from trying to shut you off, if you would express your opinion on the village pump and elsewhere as mere opinion ("In my opinion we should not rename this file / should rarely rename any files / whatever") then I would have no problem with it. But instead you repeat falsehoods as fact. I fail to see how your contribution history makes any difference if what you actually write is wrong. What you believe is your own concern. It is this (and your very unpleasant attack of another editor when they renamed in a way you disapproved of, and which was ultimately caused by your extremely sub-optimal choice of filename in the first place) that I react to. I'm not sure where you think the "bad faith" comes from, and you need to stop thinking of me as an enemy if there is any chance we can work together. And there's no reason we can't. My concern is merely your hostile and fundamentalist approach to file renaming. Outside of that I have no issue with you that I can recall. Since we appear to have reached a stalemate about what FR guideline actually says/means then I do genuinely suggest you find a third-party to help advise. I myself am open to hear what others may think on what the guideline says and doesn't say. There is a third possibility -- that the guideline does not in fact represent community practice or views on this matter -- and if that is the case then I recommend you propose changes to improve its wording. -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
a photo of Ligardes
thanks for having uploaded the photo 184.108.40.206 06:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Publicação de fotos de outro autor
Saudações. Visitei recentemente um blog e o autor do blog e das respectivas fotos deu-me autorização para eu as publicar na wikipédia nos artigos que eu achasse necessário.
O website do blog é este, onde um pouco abaixo da foto, poderá ver a conversa que eu tive com o autor das fotografias:
Será que é possível eu fazer upload e identificar a autoria da foto escrevendo este link e o nome do respectivo autor?
Cumprimentos, Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Olá! A resposta curta é — não: A licença para «publicar na Wikipédia, sem que haja qualquer alteração ou modificação» é muito mais restritiva do que o mínimo que se exige para o Wikimedia Commmons, que pede que
- o uso seja irrestrito, inclusivamente para fins comerciais (e não uso autorizado apenas para a Wikipédia);
- a reutilização da obra seja também irrestrita, incluindo a sua modificação.
- (Creio que já tínhamos falado disto?) É possível carregar ficheiros para uso “local” em cada projeto (neste caso, carregar na Wikipédia em Português para uso apenas naquele saite), mas suponho que a política interna da Wikipédia em Português é de não utilizar imagens para as quais existe alternativa no Commons (penso que é assim, mas é melhor verificar!). Ora no Commons existe a Category:Boeing B-52H, com mais de 300 fotos. Mesmo que nenhuma destas seja nas Lajes, duvido que se considere a localização da foto vantagem suficiente para a aceitar na Wikipédia em Português ao abrigo da doutrina de fair use.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Compreendo. Mais uma vez, muito obrigado amigo. Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 22:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:UNstamp3015066-FotW(02998.jpeg
|This media may be deleted.|
|Thanks for uploading File:UNstamp3015066-FotW(02998.jpeg. 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (email@example.com). This also applies if you are the author yourself.
Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
|File:PendienteChe.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.