Necessito de uma ferramenta para criar categorias, similar ao que ocorre quando criamos uma nova categoria e clicamos em salvar. Só que neste caso esta ferramenta criaria toda a árvore de categorias a partir de uma categoria básica. veja este diagrama que fiz. [[1]]. A ferramenta que proponho é a seguinte: se informaria o nome da cidade, do estado e do pais e o restante seria criado automaticamente, neste caso partindo da categoria Catholic churches. Como visito muitas cidades do Rio Grande do Sul, na hora de upar da um trabalho enorme criar tudo isso no braço. Tenho conhecimentos de programação e posso contribuir mas para isso necessito falar com alguém que tenha acesso e permissão para isso.--Paulo RS Menezes (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
★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: Tian Tan Buddha side face. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Copyright status of government images in Portugal[edit]
Hi Beria, I'm wondering if you can help me with a question about Portugal. I'd like to upload some images to Commons that were taken by the Policia Judiciaria during their inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. The whole police file was released to the public on DVD by the Ministério Público in 2008, and it included these images that the police took of the apartment she went missing from. Do you know what the copyright status of these images would be, or do you know someone who might know? I asked on Commons:Village pump/Copyright and was told this is Portugal's copyright law, but I can't see whether government files are mentioned in it. Any advice would be really helpful. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problems regards to CommonsDelinker not renaming, but links have been changed thus breaking articles[edit]
Hi, I just noticed w:Twelve Olympians pop up in Articles with missing files and saw the problem was caused by CommonsDelinker with the change comment " (Replacing Eros_Farnese_MAN_Napoli_6353.jpg with File:_File-Eros_-_Pompeiian_statue_-_Naples_Archeological_Museum.jpg (by Beria because: File renamed: to restore rightfull uploader)" however the file was not renamed? I've seen a few more of these yesterday with other files as well. I'm not sure if its a problem with CommonsDelinker or what, but the effect has been that the original goal of the file rename has failed and a load of articles have being broken! As it was your name on this change i.e. File:Eros Farnese MAN Napoli 6353.jpg I thought I'd point this out before possible more problems are caused. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was probably done to merge some file histories but Beria forgot to remove the instructions for Commons Delinker so the Bot replaced all the files. A small hint for Beria: do not use move&replace for these operations, open move&replace in a new tab/window for the old move function without replacement. --Denniss (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please be aware that pngs do not resize nicely. The version I created was intended for specific icon use on wiki project pages and using as thumbnail of a larger image results in blurry outcomes. This icon is just a handy crop from an original full size photograph that I took at the time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese man wearing Hanfu in Wikimania 2013.jpg[edit]
Sorry for the distrubing. My friend is a Chinese, not a Japanese. He's living in HongKong actually, and what he is wearing is a kind of traditional clothing of China, called "en:Hanfu", not the Kimono. It's normal to think it is kind of Kimono, because the Japanese learned Kimono from Tang about 1000 years ago, and most Chinese don't wear Hanfu any more. We hope you may correct the name. Sorry for my poor English.--燃玉 (Ranyv) (讨论-talk) 02:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Beria. He is not a Japanese - as well as I am a Japanese ;)
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.
Dear Beria,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.
Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.
You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).
If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.
To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.
It seems the difference it EXIF data is misleading. Although we can understand that you shared your camera, not every re-user may not aware of it. The irrevocable CC0 may be an issue for you too. So consider editing or removing them. JKadavoorJee05:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents you from using your own attribution and licensing choice; but a conflicting info in EXIF prevents you from suing any if they neglect your choice and follow what provided in EXIF, I afraid. So better remove/edit them. I don't know whether it is possible to mass edit them without uploading a fresh copy over it. Hope Bawolff can help you. Anyway try to remove such info prior to future uploads. Cheers, JKadavoorJee02:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any mass tools for changing exif info (If you download them all, you can use exiftool to change the info all in one go, but re-uploaded them all will still be a pain). At the moment, I'm not even aware of any online tool for manipulating the metadata without requiring the photo to be down-and-reuploaded (Which is really something that should be addressed, even if its just something crappy on toollabs). So sorry, I don't really have any useful help. Bawolff (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato(talk)13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gostaria de chamar à sua atenção este (repetido) pedido de recuperação de uma imagem. Esta mostrava parte da platéia numa convenção partidária do P.M.D.B., e era a única da respetiva categoria a mostrar apoiantes anónimos, ao invés de manda-chuva. Apesar de eu ter argumentado com esse ponto, a foto foi apagada, tida por irrelevante e sem interesse enciclopédico (contrastando com o modo como fotos semelhantes de outros países são consideradas), e a sua recuperação subsequentemente pedida foi recusada, por «falta de apoio». Estou, pois, agora alertando utilizadores brasileiros do Commons para que manifestem a sua opinião. -- Tuválkin✉02:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!
Dear Beria,
Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!
In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.
And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!
Hi Beria, I wanted to remind you that reverting edits that are not vandalism without an edit summary is unacceptable, as you did here. I'd also like to point out that this is remarkably ugly. While I don't oppose changes to the header, it'scleartheyneed to be discussed before you make them. Cheers, —Mono16:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations; and I hope such relations will help to strengthen the bond between two neighboring countries too. Jee02:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beria would you be interested in being the person who coordinates the online portion of the camera grants if WMF funds the program? I think it would be good for a Commons administrator to have that role. --Pine✉06:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be straightforward. Notify the community when a camera grant is available and set up a way for users to set up nominations for camera grants, then coordinate a vote to decide which nominated user will get a camera grant. I will ask Siko talk with you about how to get this set up. --Pine✉20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beria and Pine, I think it would take someone who wants to have responsibility for organizing the pilot project from start to finish (including setup on Commons and measuring outcomes, to see if it had any impact), and it makes sense for that person to be a Commons admin. It would probably be doable for WMF grantmaking staff to help facilitate the granting of cameras, if we were given a list of community-selected awardees, and I'd be happy to advise in other places, but we'd want whoever thinks this idea is worth trying to take the lead on the project. I'm still not sure that awarding equipment is going to improve quality or participation on Commons, but I'd be willing to look into an experiment with you. If you're interested, Beria, you might have a look at Pine's original idea and discussion and add your thoughts there? Cheers, Siko (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.
The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:
We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).
In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)
We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:
We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.
Thanks, the Picture of the Year committee
You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.
About your edit on my files for Wikiviajes Venezuela 2014 contest[edit]
Hi Beria, how are you!? I noticed you removed my tags "Category:Wikiviajes por Venezuela 2014", from some of my files, e.g. the file "File:Venezuelan Troupial - Icterus icterus.jpg".
The tag was added by me to enter the contest "wikiviajes de venezuela 2014" (http://viajes.wikimedia.org.ve/). Then I read in the rules that only the files uploaded from april 1st 2014 to may 31st 2014 can compete. I guess you removed the tag for that reason? Then I couldn't help but notice other users are using previously uploaded files (out of the allowed time period), but uploading different versions (slightly changed image crop, contrast, etc) of the same picture. See this page: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikiviajes_por_Venezuela_2014&filefrom=Atardecer+Llanero.JPG#mw-category-media), and check this two files, the first was uploaded on december 2013, then another file was uploaded on April 14th, to be inside the allowed contest period:
You can see they both have the tag "category: Wikiviajes por Venezuela 2014".
To me this seems not appropriate. These files shouldn't compete. They are the same file as the original with slight changes (the rules are the rules: only newly added to commons pictures should compete, so wikipedia gets lots of new pictures of tourism from the contenders, that's the whole point of the contest isn't it?)... but if it is allowed to upload "new" versions of old pictures, (the contest rules don't say anything about that specific matter), then I would like to use my older files as well, and re-upload them with modifications, so it is fair for everyone. Since you removed some of my pictures from the contest, I figured I could turn to you: maybe you know better the rules and can help me clarify this misunderstood. Thank you and have a good afternoon. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jee, for the quick response and clarifyin. I made an obvious mistake, I was away for a long while, so I lost practice. Since the dates were different on those files in the description (now they've been fixed), I got all mixed up. Thanks and best regards. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, all the photos I uploaded are photographs taken during the time of the competition too. In some cases, I had the wrong date on the camera and forgot to change it later. This can be verified in the RAW file, the shooter counter. However, this has nothing to do with the competition because it is not as punishable. I believe that it is a matter of carefully read the contest rules without attempting to do tricks in bad faith as the modification of previously uploaded versions. I hope to see new pictures of Paolo and that this will encourage healthy competition, a hug --The Photographer (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hola a todos. Voy a responder en español porque este es un concurso ideado para una audiencia de habla hispana y de hecho, para personas residentes en Venezuela. Debo aclarar que el concurso no ha culminado. Cierra el último de mayo 2014. Hasta ese momento todos tienen oportunidad de subir sus fotos y ponerlas bajo la categoría Wikiviajes por Venezuela 2014 para entrar a concurso. Entre tanto, la comunidad de Commons es autónoma en su proyecto. Cualquier borrado, cambio de categoría o acción similar, compete en principio a la comunidad. Pedimos que no se hagan borrados salvo que sean obvios. Como un copyvio archivos repetidos. Esto no tiene nada que ver con las decisiones del concurso. Es la acción de la comunidad de commons. Aún cuando un usuario pudiera subir imágenes ya existente antiguamente para concursar, se encontrará con doble problema innecesario. Por un lado, tendrá que lidiar con la comunidad que seguramente le pondrá el ojo a esos archivos. Segundo, el equipo de Wikimedia Venezuela hace seguimiento de los archivos y pudiera retirar fotografías de la categoría a su único criterio, que es el que establecen las bases, las cuales al final declaran que: "Todo lo no establecido en estas bases queda a criterio único de Wikimedia Venezuela y no existen condiciones u obligaciones, verbales o escritas, expresas o tácitas distintas a esta." Luego en junio, cuando comience el proceso de evaluación, estas personas que llegasen a subir imágenes con una clara intención de atentar contra la integridad e intención del concurso, podrían aumentar sus probabilidades de que sus imágenes sean rápidamente descalificadas. Miles de imágenes serán descalificadas porque al final, solo 3 resultarán ganadoras. Difícilmente sea alguna que contraríe las bases del concurso, una que contraríe a las normas de la comunidad y por supuesto, alguna que el jurado no considere que merezca el mérito ganador. Lo bueno de esto es generar contenido libre, animar a los venezolanos y residentes en el país a generar este tipo de contenidos, tener mayor material libre de Venezuela para Wikiviajes y otros proyectos, y enraizar más nuestra cultura libre. Nadie sabe como terminará esto. Tal vez el ganador sea quien haya subido una sola foto, o quizás el que subió 300. El secreto está en la calidad de la imagen, el apego a las bases y a las normas de la comunidad. Y claro, subir más imágenes aumentará la posibilidad de que alguna suya sea la elegida, pero traten que sean fotos que de verdad pudieran tener chance y no solo por rellenar, porque así no valdrá de mucho. Si subes 100 muy malas o conflictivas, seguro terminarán sin oportunidad. Si subes 100 en las que crees tener potencial, seguro muchas de ellas te sean elegidas y con mucho chance de ganar. Si tienen mayores inquietudes, pueden escribir a info@wikimedia.org.ve Saludos --Fhaidel (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-edition of the Photowikimeetup in Wikimania 2014[edit]
Hello Beria! in the case that you are also visiting this year's Wikimania in London, you may be interested in attending the new edition of the photowikimeetup that took place in Hong Kong last year, and where you listed up. As the preparation is not yet settled, you are more than welcomed to take part in the discussion here. All the best, Poco217:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tutto bon.. you have edited by wikipedia of roberto de villacis and took out all my photos. i do have authorisation from all the photographers and they were credited on the jpgs.. unfortuanlty i am not the one who uploaded it and i have no idea what to do now.. this is all my work and i would appreciate your help// obrigado roberto GHOST OF HALSTON (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a long period away from WP and Commons, I am very astonished to discover that I was blocked in my absence. Of course it did not affect me since I was not there, but still, I don't understand why you did this: was my absence dangerous for Commons?
I find it quite disturbing and frustrating to have been blocked regarding all the work I have done here, specially with apparently no discussion. Bref... I would like to know what had justify such decision.
Hello Bibi Saint-Pol, you where blocked because - as I explained in you block log - you were falsifing the ownership of featured images by abusing your filemover right (which I also removed btw). It took me almost 150 edits to correct your mistakes - and I'm not even done yet. So don't cry about your block, if anything I was too sweet by only giving you 2 weeks. Béria L. Rodríguezmsg22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand. What do you mean by "falsifing the ownership" of pictures? What exactly did I do? Do you claim I tried to appropriate someoneelse's work on purpose?
First, and of course, that was never my intention. Second, I can't figure out any single case where I tried to credit myself for someoneelse's picture (that's insane).
As you may know (or not), I am a very long-time user of both WP and Commons, and I consider myself a (very) skillful editor. But here, I don't understand what went wrong and moreover, I don't understand your agressive tone (what about the "assume good faith")? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith is when someone comits one mistake for lack of understanding of the rules. When someone gets a picture - like that for example: File:DNA_replication_en.svg - and knowing what they are doing (because you had a filemover right) - reupload it as File:DNA replication.svg therefore keeping this file in his "uploaded pictures", and then requesting the orignial picture to be deleted because is a "duplicate". And after that go about doing that with more than 100 featured pictures, assuming good faith isnt valid anymore. Again be happy the only think I did was block you. Béria L. Rodríguezmsg10:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
ISSUE: line 16 character 92: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');
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!
A page 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 gallery, 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!
Olá! Como eu solicito a eliminação de uma categoria? Estou reorganizando as categorias do Rio Grande do Sul, tirando a categoria Historic buildings e, quando for o caso, criando a categoria Cultural heritage monuments. veja este exemplo Category:Usina do Gasômetro. Estou seguindo esta discussão [[3]].Desde já, grato pela atenção.--Paulo RS Menezes (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beria, I added the Ukrainian (uk) translation of POTY Banner on the talk page, also putting it here: Допоможіть вибрати найкраще зображення року. Перегляньте зображення-кандидати та проголосуйте за найгарніше. Використано фотографію-переможець 2007. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today your Lucia Bot changed a lot of licenses from CC-Zero to CC-BY-SA-3.0. This change is invalid and has to be reverted. The original license has to stay, the other license may be added as secondary license. BTW please update the user page of your bot stating it as running from Labs or whereever it runs from.--Denniss (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make a comment, I don't consider the change as invalid, from what I understand, the files changes are from one user who requested the change for its files. Even with the change, the cc0 licence is still valid, even if it is only visible in the history part. The files can still be used on Commons as the new licence is compatible with Commons, and nothing forces Commons to advertise the old licence.Esby (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is stupid Jkadvoor, no matter know much you think others are. I wont change a thing, because I agree with esby, and therefore you are free to revert all the edits, but keep in mind all the licenses will be changed or all the files deleted, whatever happens first ;) Béria L. Rodríguezmsg13:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why you think I'm trying to stop you from getting them deleted. I'm only following the prevailing policies here. Now your words are more like a legal threat not against me; but against this system. Jee13:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So technically, The_Photographer made an error in uploading a raw file to commonsarchive yesterday under the wrong licence and used cc0, someone else (Alchemist-hp) unrawed the file and published it under cc0 here. After that, today, "The Protographer" noticed the wrong licence and changed it back on commonsarchive. And asked back the deletion here? Which was refused since free licence cannot be canceled in theory?.
The change of licence on someone else work is indeed not valid, there is no virality, and either solved or deleted, as only the last author can change it. Now it looks to my eyes it's about who's being the meanest here...
Why was the initial licence changed? To get credit ? Is it an error or something else?
Could the situation be solved by asking Alchemist-hp to change the licence to one compatible with the new one on commonsarchive while crediting The Photographer as the initial author?
Was some kind of dialog with Alchemist-hp initiated?
Then, it's way more a mess that I could think of ... I fear you won't be able to claim deletion for Alchemist-hp derivative, nor you would be, according to cc0, claim attribution... Still depending the country you live on, you might not be able to legaly release the initial file under public domain legally speaking, for example, here's in France, attribution is mandatory for all cases, even with Public Domain Works, since it's a moral rights... Esby (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Esby: I hate to comment any further as I'm a target now. But you can see there is nobody asked User:Alchemist-hp to change the attribution. I personally don't like people make adapted work and post at at the original nominator's nom. Here, when I see the speedy by The_Photographer, I myself fixed the attribution and checked the source file. I'm sure it was CC0 then. Moreover, The_Photographer's original file was also CC0.
But the matter skipped from our hand when the bot start changing the license. All fps are in my watch list; so I noticed it. I've no other way than ask the admins to stop the bot. A.Savin also closed many fps; so those changed may pop uped in his watchlist too.
Here two technical issues. 1. We the experienced users will not act on emotions. A change from CC0 to a stricter CC BY or CC BY-SA is not allowed. 2. User:Alchemist-hp is legally right. For adaptations, there is a compatibility chart. So adapter can choose any license if source is CC0/PD. Only Copyleft licenses (CC BY-SA/GFDL/FAL) demands adapted work also need to be published with same/compatible license. For CC0/PD works attributing to original author is not a must.
Well, it's not a simple licence change, it's an attribution issue. The best solution would be to credit both authors. But technically, it's at Alchemist-hp discretion here. Don't also forget that attribution is a moral right and cannot be retracted in some country. In theory, you have to mention all the authors of a work. Esby (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Esby: Un autre problème est que cette photo a été prise dans un régime dictatorial où le droit d'auteur est le moins important, car il est perdu, la règle según loi supérieure. D'autre part, je pense que cela se applique davantage dans le pays où la photo a été prise, plutôt que le pays où je vis. Merci pour votre reponse --The_Photographer (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(answering in english)To me, to make it short, it matters where the photograph was published, not where it was really taken. Esby (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Esby: I'm curious what we're talking about here: is it one single image unrawed by Alchemist, or are that more than 400 images by Wilfredor/ThePhotographer illegally changed to a more restrictive license by LuciaBot today? I think we have to discuss what should happen with that batch now, as it is hopefully clear that the license swap went against Commons policy and it is an imposition for any of us to fix them all back (thanks to Jee for prompt reporting, otherwise we possibly had to do with thousands of edits). Beria is the owner of LuciaBot, I know we all can make mistakes from time to time, but she obviously will not admit anything, and refuses to revert her bot. Is it an acceptable behaviour for an admin? --A.Savin18:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clarify, there are two distinct cases:
changes of licence by a given author of his/her files (or by someone else at the request of the author.) (1)
changes of licence by a given author of files from another author, not on their request. (2).
For (2), it is just not allowed and not possible as you cannot decide for the author. This is the case of the file unrawed by Alchemist-hp, only the author can change the licence.
For (1), as long the new licence is acceptable on Commons, it brings no harms: people who used the files under the previous licences can continue to use it.
New people will use the new licence. If they go in history, they'll notice they can use the previous one.
Now, Commons don't have to advertise the licence change.
You'll also have to understand that most people who do that do it most of the time to get a proprer credit.
I see no reason to alienate them because they made bad choice or errors and want to fix that.
Besides I would not use 'illegally' changed. They are still licenced under the previous licence, but it's only available in the history. Would it be illegal, Flickr would not allow to modify the licence of a file once it has been set to a free licence. I am also not sure it is also an actual and written policy of Commons. To me, it's a custom enforced more than anything else.
Really not sure if we can compare ourselves to Flickr by any means. Maybe they allow changes to a stricter license, maybe any user there can delete own uploads at any time. But Commons is a project to collect free knowledge and not to degrade it, so any restriction of existing license is like a deletion of content, i.e. it should not be practiced without proper reasoning. (Theoretically a re-user can proof on the file history that there was another license, but most of re-users are not familiar with Commons or other wikis, and will not be aware of this option.) Besides, if you want to discuss this rule, you should switch to COM:VPP. --A.Savin20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first: "my honest respect for the User: The Photographer"! Jkadavoor wrote it right: we are not enemies.
The main problem: is the RAW-NEF file under CC-0 or not. I believe The_Photographer if he say: not, it was a mistake. So please correct this mistake and we can begin the discussion again.
If it wasn't a mistake, so all the things that I did were correct from me. The CC0 license says: I can do with an image whatever I'd like. I can also liecense it under FAL and I can say: it was an image from me. I know it isn't morally OK, but allowed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok first, lets finish this VP talk in my talk page ok? I would apreciate! My remarks:
1. I was doing a request from a user, who made the request by mail. I subscribe to esby opinion and sincerely didnt saw that would turn in that big of a circus. That is why I will not revert or apologize because I dont think I did something wrong. There are 2 ways of looking at this and both were extensivly discussed here.
2. I COULD NOT edit yesterday because when ASavin stopped my bot (which name is Lucia Bot - with a space) he also blocked my IP. I could circunvent this being a admin, but it would be unethical to do so, so I request a change in the block to other admin. Just to note, if my bot were on toollabs or toolserver (RIP) ASavin would had stopped ALL the bots. Congrats.
3. Is funny how everyone is fast to conden The Photographer and me, but no one said a peep about Alchemist-hp usurping the moral right of atribution to a work that is not his, just to troll a vote.
That is all I have to say about the subject and could we PLEASE go do something else? Copyvios abund, and there are a ton of B&W pictures for Alchemist to colorize. Béria L. Rodríguezmsg10:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's that decoration on the top of this page. It looks great, I really like it, but I found that while watching diffs of revisions of this page the decorated line covers interface so that's impossible to see info about authorship and so on of revisions which makes viewing and navigating harder. Could you please modify that like so that it doesn't interfere with interface? (See how it looks for me [4] I've made the screenshot while logged out but it's no better when I'm logged in). Thanks! --BaseSat (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uğurkent, I'm not sure I understad you. You want me to put something on the CentralNotice in meta about POTY2014, but I didnt understand what is that you want me to place there. Can you please tell me? Béria L. Rodríguezmsg23:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saudações administrador Beria da Wikipédia Commons. Criei esta conta em 2006, mas sou um usuário inexperiente em relação ao funcionamento da Commons. Estou querendo mudar meu nome de usuário de ANDRÉ EDUARDO CORRÊA para educorreabr. Podes me auxiliar nesta mudança?
Obrigado, --educorreabr (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope I am not bothering you. Like other users with advanced flags, I just want to inform you about a possibilty on meta (maybe you knew already). After the SUL finalization there is a search for additional m:Global_renamers. Even users with limited cross-wiki experience, limited language knowledge or no previous local experience as a bureaucrats have been recently selected.
At the moment in m:Global_renamers#Users_with_global_rename_access and m:Stewards#List_of_current_stewards, if I correctly remember, only one is pt-3 and three are pt-N. There are less pt>3 users than it>3 despite the fact that lusophones are much more in the world and the wikimedia activity of the two languages is similar. So a new pt-N global renamer could be useful. So if you feel you want to do something more when you are back full time (I see you haven't been very active recently)... please consider it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Olá Beria. Eu queria saber o que está acontecendo com os metadados aqui nestas imagens. Não dá para saber qual câmera foi usada para tirar as fotos, além de algumas informações estarem erradas. É problema na Wikimedia Commons ou no programa de edição do fotógrafo? Ver discussão na Esplanada. Obrigado e espero que isso seja resolvido. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Hi Beria. You blocked the above account (formerly User:Culo caca cacacaca) for a username violation. The user requested a rename, which I performed. As a result I unblocked the account. This is a courtesy notification. Best, Tiptoetytalk01:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
olá Béria...
tive muitos arquivos carregados deletados, muitos com autorização pelos autores, alguns com confirmação do pessoal do Commons desde 2009...
abaixo alguns dos arquivo com confirmação que foram deletados...
ao que parece meus carregamentos está sobre suspeita, como se eu tivesse desde 2007 carregando imagens com perfis falsos, não teria esse trabalho, bastaria dizer que eram minhas essas imagens e estaria tudo OK...
a grande maioria dos carregamentos que fiz foram de imagens de amigos ferreofãs, deve conhecer o Brasil e sabe do tamanho do Pais e da dificuldade em se viajar. Participo de inumeros grupo de discussão sobre ferrovia e tenho muitos amigos que sempre colaborar com fotos...
seria possível me ajudar e interceder para a recuperação das fotos?
Meloaraujo (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of removal of global bot status from one or various accounts of yours[edit]
Hello PAGENAME}}. You are being contacted as owner of one or more accounts flagged with global bot status. This is to inform you that pursuant §1.1.4 of the global bot policy as amended by this RFC one or various of the global bots which you operate are inactive in the terms laid out by the global bot policy. As such, global bot status from those account(s) have been removed. This message is being left on Meta-Wiki and on your homewiki. We thank you for your work as global bot operator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can raise them at the Stewards' Noticeboard on Meta-Wiki. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio ~~~ — This message has been automatically delivered by on behalf of MarcoAurelio.
This message is being left on your talk page at Meta-Wiki and those of your home wiki(s). Sorry for the duplicates.
Dear global bot operator: Some days ago you received a message in which you were informed that one or various accounts you hold lost a global bot flag because of inactivity. Due to a mistake, messages informing about this were not sent before removal took place as policy mandates. As such, if you think your bot will be active again on global bot duties, you can request the restoration of the global bot flag on the stewards' noticeboard at Meta-Wiki within the next two (2) weeks after this message has been posted. Please note that this removal was purely procedural based on inactivity. If you have any questions, you can reach me on my talk page at Meta-Wiki. Please accept my apologies in advance for this. Best regards. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of MarcoAurelio at 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beria, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2016 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
Obrigada por terem encontrado a inversão. Se você encontrar um outro me avisar que eu faria as alterações. Para você ter mal mal administrado neste ponto que você não controla. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The inverted images are unfortunately common. It's good to have seen. But you must notify the person responsible for inversion and not try to correct yourself. You put the panic and over an hour of work to instead of 5 minutes.
Des images interverties sont hélas fréquentes. C'est bien de l'avoir vu. Mais tu dois avertir le responsable de l'inversion et non essayer toi-même de corriger. Tu as mis la panique et plus d'une heure de travail à lieu de 5 minutes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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!
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!
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!
Gostaria de saber se me consegue ajudar com uma situação de uma página que criei ontem. Já entrou em consideração para "deletion", já segui todas as guidelines, já tentei falar com editores mas ainda não tenho uma resposta em concreto.
A empresa em questão tem fontes de confiança e uma grande presença no mercado onde atua. Sendo que os nossos competidores, possuem página na Wikipedia, gostaria de saber se a página em questão irá ser apagada.
Tenho feito melhorias constantes na página numa tentativa de veracidade, mas também refletindo a seriedade do nosso trabalho.
Existe mais de um Parque da Luz. Já existe categoria pro Parque da Luz de Florianópolis.
Sugiro:
1 Criar categoria Parque da Luz (São Paulo (SP), Brasil)
2 Transferir o conteúdo de Parque da Luz para a nova categoria.
3 Tranformar Parque da Luz em desmbiguação. Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Dear {{subst:PAGENAME}}. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year.
If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.
Hi Beria — in line with the above de-adminship warning, I'd like to let you know that the admin inactivity run for August-September 2017 has now finished. As you had failed to indicate willingness to retain your admin privileges or to perform the required number of admin actions, I submitted a request on Meta-Wiki to have your adminship revoked as required by our inactivity policy. A Wikimedia steward has already attended to this request, and you have since been added to the autopatrolled user group as you are a trusted and experienced member of the Commons community. I'd like to use this opportunity to thank you for the many years of your service to Commons; while it is disappointing that you're no longer as active as you used to be, I hope you will come back to us one day and will continue contributing to the project. Of course, please do feel free to re-apply for adminship when this happens :-) Lots of love, odder (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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!
Your bot has been listed at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag 5 as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure we'd like to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you wish for your bot to retain it's bot flag, please speak up on the deflag page. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can re-request the bot flag at Commons:Bots/Requests should you need it again. Regards, ~riley(talk)22:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Nouvelle liste de distribution pour Wikimédia Canada[edit]
Bonjour, ce message est pour vous informer que Wikimédia Canada a créé une nouvelle liste de distribution opérée par Mailman. Cette liste de diffusion est pour toutes les discussions en lien avec le mouvement Wikimédia au Canada, tant en français qu'en anglais. Les annonces de Wikimédia Canada seront toujours bilingues, mais vous êtes bienvenu(e) de discuter dans la langue de votre choix. L'ancien groupe google sera abandonné. Pour joindre cette liste de distribution, rendez-vous à [5]. Pour envoyez des messages à la liste, écrivez à general(at)discussions.wikimedia.ca. De plus, veuillez transmettre ce message à quiconque pourrait être intéressé(e). Merci et n'hésitez pas à me contacter si vous avez des questions, JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
.jpg)
.jpg)
_feeding_her_calf,_Margarita_Island.jpg)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CatholicChurches_Diag.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://i.imgur.com/pVdvl0M.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
