User talk:Flickerd

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Flickerd!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos[edit]

Thanks mate for all the work re-categorising all the footy players! Cheers --SuperJew (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Archie Smith.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 Very good -- Spurzem 07:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurie Nash signature.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quinn Colyer 1934 SANFL Grand Final cartoons.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:KLB Club.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Fryar.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!

Yotwen (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit long-winded, but constructive criticism. If you are uploading Flickr image you should really use the Flickr2commons tool found at http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ because it transfers all the appropriate information, license, etc, as well as giving the image a good review, so avoiding human editors having to do it. If you upload directly from your computer, which is not as desirable as the flickr2commons tool, I suggest you wait until the flickrreview bot gives it a good review and then upload your cropped version. Either way, for the future I suggest you use the CropTool that can be activated in your commons Preferences, under Gadgets. The CropTool will then appears in the left side of your screen. It saves everyone a lot of time because, just like the flickr2commons tool, it transfers all the correct and appropriate information into the cropped image, such as source, license, author, etc. It even leaves a backlink to the original and visa versa so long as the original has been positively reviewed. That way all the proper information is there and does not need to be manually reviewed again. If you are just cropping a small bit of the image like a frame you can decide to overwrite the original image but for more major crops you should really upload the cropped version as a separate new image, but you have a choice. I hope you can see how everyone can save time and effort by using both Flickr2commons and CropTool. CropTool will not work until an image has received a good review, so have a little patience. Thanks for your uploads and good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ww2censor, I don't upload Flickr photos very regularly but have done a few in the past, so I must say for this one it was just an honest mistake of forgetting to do the Flickr review tag straight away. I did use Croptool for the cropping of this image and then realised my mistake of forgetting to use the review tag. So 99% of the time I would have waited for the good review before cropping but in this case it was just an honest mistake after a long day at work and being a bit tired and forgetful. Thanks for the advice on http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ though. Flickerd (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. No real harm done. I just wanted to give you some advise you might find useful, even if you don't use it too often. Ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2017 (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, Elisfkc (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding iw links here on Commons[edit]

Dear Flickerd,

Thanks for creating many new categories here on Commons as you did recently for Category:Alec Mutch. It would be great if you could as well add the interwiki-link to the corresponding page on en-wikipedia by clicking here on commons in the sidebar menu under 'In Wikipedia' on 'Add links' and then putting in the appearing pop-up box the link to the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. This will add a link to commons to all language versions of the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. Moreover this will avoid the corresponding article to be included in the maintenance category en:Category:Commons category template with no category set.

Many thanks if you could consider to do so, indeed this would reduce my efforts on adding these iw links later through patrolling the pages listed on the pre-mentioned category on en-wikipedia. I would like to thank you for all the great work you are realizing on en-wikipedia and here on commons.

If you have any further questions on this do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards and already now my very best wishes for you for the New Year. Robby (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: Thanks for letting me know about that, I wasn't aware of it. I'll definitely do that from now on (and will try and add to existing categories which I've made). Thanks and have a Happy New Year too :) Flickerd (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Cyclone Marcus in Darwin – Fallen power lines and pole 02.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cyclone Marcus in Darwin – Fallen power lines and pole 02.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Accidentally removed licence in this edit, licence has now been restored. Flickerd (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2017 AFL Grand Final parade – Erin Phillips.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. --Peulle 08:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ebony Marinoff 2018.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 OK. --Peulle 07:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stacey Barr kicking.1.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 enough. --Peulle 07:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect image on page of Matthew Nicks[edit]

Hi there, please bear with me as I am not tech savvy at all, but just want to bring your attention to an image I believe you have uploaded on Matthew Nicks' Wikipedia page. The image is in fact of a guy named Matthew Loken, a colleague of Matthew Nicks while he was coaching at Port Adelaide. Any chance you could remove this incorrect image? I would, but have no idea how to! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjc78 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tjc78: , I've removed the photo and replaced with who I believe is Nicks, they look very similar so please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing[edit]

Hi Flickerd,

I'm interested in licensing your image at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/2018_AFL_Grand_Final_panorama.jpg

for use without attribution for a client's socials. Would you be open to this please?

If so please send me an email michaelhollis@emotive.com.au

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelHollisEmotive (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sam Weideman 2019.4.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!

Adamwyszynsky (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sam Weideman 2019.4.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!

Adamwyszynsky (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFL match photography[edit]

Hey mate,

I'm keen to get more involved taking photos at AFL matches this seasons and wanted to suss out your process in years gone by. You photos are at such a low angle I'm never quite if you've taken them from boundaryside seats or gone so far as to get on field accreditation. Is it simply a matter of buying good seats or have you managed to score accreditation. If the latter, could you give me any pointers on how to achieve the same? DustyNail (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DustyNail, the lower quality photos (i.e. photos taken with the 300mm lens) have been taken from the crowd, the higher quality ones (600mm) have been through accreditation and that's from my photography work/connections. I can't really give much helpful advice on the latter except to just keep building your profile if photography is something you're looking to pursue and keep trying to make connections. To be honest though, Melbourne is very hard to break into, but keep working on it, that's all the advise I can give unfortunately, it's a bit of a tricky one. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no worries. The insight alone is really helpful. I won't pursue accreditation I don't think but might see If I can get some good seats for a game or two this year. I may have said it before but I love seeing your work here, Flickerd. Hope you get down to Melbourne for another couple games this year! DustyNail (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Not sure how I'll go this year with coming to Melbourne, but we'll see :) Flickerd (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo use[edit]

Hi there, I was just enquiring to see whether this image can be removed/taken down from google images. Thank you Mnankivell99 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image[edit]

Hi there, I was just wondering if this image of myself is able to be deleted from the internet. Thank you, Maisie Mnankivell99 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing AFL photos[edit]

Hi, I'm a documentary film maker based in Sydney and would like to license this image: Archie Smith of the Brisbane Lions winning a ruck contest against NT Thunder ruckman, Jonathon Miles, during a North East Australian Football League (NEAFL) match on 4 July 2015 at TIO Stadium in Darwin, Northern Territory. Please could you email me at eva@in-films.com Thanks! eva Evachuiloiterton (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Ron Barassi 1953.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.)


  • This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Getty Images, not in the public domain in the US as required by COM:PD
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  +/−

Hekerui (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ron Barassi 1953.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!

Hekerui (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]