User talk:Raderich
 First steps tutorialOur first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.  Getting helpMore information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
 Goodies, tips, and tricks
 Made a mistake?
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 |
File:Pedro Llosas Badia.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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
--Krdbot 05:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
|
File:Cartel Electoral de TYRE.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. |
Strakhov (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Archivos subidos[edit]
Hola, se agradece mucho que subas tantos archivos interesantes. Pero por lo menos intenta categorizarlos. No tardarás nada en buscar las categorías(que estáne en inglés) y así organizar toda la información. Gracias. --Parair (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Manuel Maria de Sivatte.jpg[edit]
Hola Raderich, la foto no es de autor desconocido. En la fuente aparece claramente A Merletti, por lo que aún no está en dominio público ya que murió en 1943. Un saludo. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
|
|
File:Tomás Domínguez Arévalo.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. |
Asqueladd (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Manuel Marco Rodrigo.jpg[edit]
|
| This media was probably deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Manuel Marco Rodrigo.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
[[:File:Manuel Marco Rodrigo.jpg]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
Discasto talk 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Re: Expulsión injusta de usuario[edit]
Hola Raderich, por razones obvias, estoy en contra de las expulsiones, salvo en casos muy justificados y muy tasados.
Sin embargo, tu exposición de hechos está, en mi opinión, totalmente alejada de la realidad. Te explico.
entiendo que el usuario simplemente pretendía aplicar el mismo criterio por el que le fueron nominadas para borrado (por ti, si no me equivoco) las fotografías que puso del archivo polaco Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe, por temas de derechos de autor, a otras fotografías tomadas del mismo sitio
No, en absoluto, el criterio que argumenté es bastante claro y diáfano. No argumenté el borrado de las fotografías por tratarse de fotos del Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe, sino porque, si lo que se argumenta es lo expuesto en {{PD-Poland}}, de lo que se trata es de argumentar por qué se cumplen estas condiciones. En el caso que nos ocupa, al no tratarse de fotos de tema polaco, es dudoso que se tratase de fotos realizadas por polacos o publicadas por primera vez en Polonia. Por lo tanto es falso que se trate del mismo criterio. Si Dd1495 hubiese estado mínimamente interesado en el criterio, podría haberlo discutido en la página de nominación, algo que no hizo en ningún momento. En su lugar, nominó más de 200 fotografías que sí respondían a temas polacos y en las que, por tanto, no existe la duda de que no cumpliesen {{PD-Poland}}
Entiendo que si el resultado de la nominación de las que él denunció hubiera sido "mantener", debería aplicarse el mismo criterio a las que él mismo subió y ese fue el motivo por el que lo hizo.
Entiendes mal. Lo que procedía, en un entorno colaborativo, es que (a) hubiese argumentado por qué las fotos nominadas por mí sí cumplían los criterios de commons (una nominación no equivale, ni por asomo, a un borrado); y (b) hubiese esperado a la resolución de la nominación. Como ya te he dicho, el criterio de ambos grupos de fotos no es el mismo y, por tanto, es falaz hablar del "mismo criterio". Nunca hubo tal "mismo criterio".
Por otra parte, nominar cientos de imágenes sin ningún criterio (porque, te repito, el criterio no era provenir del Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe) crea una cantidad de trabajo enorme, algo que, por lo que tengo visto aquí, no es bien recibido. El trabajo en commons es voluntario, pero hacer trabajar en balde a otros usuarios por una simple rabieta infantil no es algo que guste.
¿Quién tiene derecho a nominar y quién no? En cualquier caso, me parece exagerado expulsarle por esto. Si ha obrado mal, se le podría haber explicado y dado un simple aviso, ¿no? No sé qué te parece el asunto.
La cuestión con Dd1495 es que no es la primera vez que ha hecho lo mismo. Ya lo hizo en el pasado (tratar de borrar imágenes como venganza por el borrado de imágenes propias) y, por lo visto, no quiso entenderlo. En esas condiciones, estando, como ya te he dicho, en contra de las expulsiones, entiendo también que Dd1495 ha mostrado que no está dispuesto más que a jugar con sus reglas, sean estas compatibles con el espíritu colaborativo de commons o no. No sé si he respondido a tus inquietudes. Un cordial saludo --Discasto talk 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
¿Es Fal Conde?[edit]
Hola, puedes confirmarme si es Fal Conde el que está de perfil. Gracias --Parair (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Gracias. Si te digo la verdad, más que fotos de requetés estoy tras la pista de retratos de Juan III que los hay muy buenos y he encontrado los archivos. También tras una postal de Vázque de Mella de mucha calidad que esta en la Biblioteca Nacional y por último clasificar lo que ha subido el usuario Dd1495. Que por cierto, está haciendo una labor increíble en la wikipedia inglesa: biografías de Gambra, Elías de Tejada, un artículo completito sobre el tradicionalismo.... te recomiendo que te pases por allí. --Parair (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Dominio público en Documentos y Archivos de Aragón[edit]
Hola Raderich, he visto este comentario tuyo y el enlace a la licencia no funciona. ¿Puedes darme más pistas de cómo encontrarlos? Gracias --Discasto talk 12:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
|
File:Blas Piñar1.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Strakhov (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, eso no quiere decir que es multilicensing, sino que la licencia te indica que para que utilizar la imagen tienes que cumplir esas tres condiciones. Multilicensing sería si tuviera varias licencias, en este caso solo tiene una, una licencia
CC BY-NC-ND. Para Commons, de las licencias Creative Commons, valenCC0,CC BYyCC BY-SA, en sus múltiples variantes (2.0, 3.0, 4.0,...). La licencia más exigente que se puede albergar en Commons (CC BY-SA) es la misma que la de Wikipedia... (CC BY-SA). No es muy complicado si uno lee la licencia y analiza lo que esta permite (debe permitir la modificación del material, exactamente igual que en Wikipedia, incluso con fines comerciales, exactamente igual que en Wikipedia, las únicas obligaciones permisibles son las de atribuir al autor original del material y que las subsiguientes obras derivadas sean publicadas con la misma licencia, exactamente igual que en Wikipedia). En cuanto al motivo de borrado... es que da un poco igual, pero es una infracción de copyright porque la imagen ha sido publicada con una licencia que no concuerda con la original... En definitiva, era de borrado rápido. Strakhov (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, la nueva en principio también es para borrado, aunque no "rápido", sino una request for deletion (los avisos de color naranja), pues al menos en Europeana tiene una Public Domain mark (?), sin embargo tratándose aparentemente de una obra de la década de 1970... no parece estar muy claro por qué sería PD. Y en BVPB, la fuente original, no encuentro ninguna mención a esto, ni digo que no la haya cuidao. Y obviamente la plantilla que has colocado no "funciona" porque su autor malamente puede llevar 70 años muerto... En definitiva, hay que acostumbrarse a que es muy difícil ilustrar artículos de los últimos 80 años y... convivir con ello... con naturalidad. Un saludo.Strakhov (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nos fiamos... hasta cierto punto. Para empezar Europeana no es una fuente en sí misma, sino un agregador/recolector de contenido de otras bases de datos. En segundo lugar, lo que hay allí puesto no es una licencia en sí misma (como sí lo sería, por ejemplo, una CC-0), sino una marca de dominio público. Es decir, que, sin tener ellos algún derecho sobre la imagen, han opinado que supuestamente estaría en dominio público. Acorde a la legislación en España y en Estados Unidos... parece un tanto... "implausible", que dirían los ingleses, el claim of public domain. Strakhov (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
|
File:Blas Piñar1.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
. HombreDHojalata.talk 10:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Blas Piñar1.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. |
Strakhov (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Raderich. Si haces clic en el link de Europeana te sale esa imagen en la Biblioteca Virtual del Patrimonio Bibliográfico (BVPB), no la "Biblioteca de Asturias BVPB" [sic]. Y en la BVPB no he encontrado ninguna marca de dominio público para esa foto (que, insisto, seguiría sin ser una licencia, sino un aviso sobre una foto sobre la que la institución no tiene derechos, pero que piensa, por alguna razón, que estos habrían prescrito). En cualquier caso, cualquier comentario al respecto que quieras hacer es mejor que lo formules en la página de nominación respectiva, pues será lo que lea el administrador que decida. Strakhov (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Te explico.
- Public Domain mark, esto no es una licencia, sino una señal que pone una institución sobre un material sobre el que no tiene derechos de autor pero que "piensa que ya no tiene derechos de autor". Tiene algo de valor para material antiguo (normalmente se usará con archivos que en caso de ser anónimos habrían entrado en dominio público por antigüedad) y sirve... como indicio de que la foto es razonablemente anónima. Su valor es relativo, pues no es una "licencia" de contenido como tal y no tiene valor vinculante, sino que se trata de una especie de observación el estatus de coyright de una foto.
- CC0. Esto es una "licencia", como lo son la CC BY o la CC BY-SA, solo que en este caso quien libera el archivo... no se reserva ningún derecho (siquiera el de atribuir el origen). Es vinculante y, de tenerla en origen en la BVPB, yo no hubiera tocado el archivo. Para usarla la institución debe poseer los derechos de autor de la foto. O pensar que los tiene. Si la BVPB o la Biblioteca de Asturias ponen que "CC0" pues el marrón en caso de error le corresponde a ellos, ellos sabrán cómo los han adquirido.
En cualquier caso, como he dicho hasta la extenuación, en la BVPB, la fuente que enlaza Europeana y de la que ha tomado la foto, no he visto ni la una ni la otra. Strakhov (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lo de los archivos... es complicado. Hace unos meses hubo un caso complicado en que le pusieron pegas hasta a fotos de la segunda mitad del siglo XX del archivo de la Universidad de Navarra publicadas por ellos en flickr con una ¡licencia libre! (a mí aquello me pareció un poco excesivo, pero eh, son los estándares acá y habrá que seguirlos). ¿Por qué? Porque el que tengas una foto en un archivo no significa, necesariamente, que poseas sus derechos de autor. En este caso, que la Biblioteca de Asturias tenga en su archivo fotos del diario Región, desaparecido en 1983, no significa que posea sus derechos de autor, sino que posee... copias físicas de estas obras, en propiedad. En tal caso, las fotos, en lo relativo a "derechos de autor", probablemente habría que considerarlas obras huérfanas (con su copyright perteneciendo a un supuesto fotógrafo bajo cuyo nombre se publicaron o, más probablemente, a la difunta empresa editora del periódico), pero cuyos derechos se habrían quedado en el limbo hasta... ¿80 años? después de su publicación (si se publicaron anónimamente), cuando prescribirían, u ochenta años después de la muerte del fotógrafo (si el nombre de este se incluyó cuando fueron publicadas). Strakhov (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Warning[edit]
Do not reupload copyright violations. Jcb (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Respuesta[edit]
Hola Raderich, me pillas tremendamente liado. Necesito que me des unos días. No subas nada de nuevo. Especifícame, eso sí, si has subido varias imágenes distintas y cuándo subiste la que me has indicado (tu registro de subidas está en este enlace). Un cordial saludo
- Yo me encargo, no te preocupes. Pero dame un par de días. --Discasto talk 13:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lo he solicitado ya. Puedes intervenir, si quieres, no hay problema. --Discasto talk 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:El Siglo Futuro Martires.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Strakhov (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
resp.[edit]
La cosa va, más o menos, creo, como apunta el rationale de la petición de borrado
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status
Hace falta o bien el permiso del autor de la foto (no se tiene), permiso que se emite bien a través de una cuenta de Commons o a través de un permiso OTRS... o bien declarar la foto en dominio público por "otras razones", sin contar con el autor. En este segundo caso la opción más corriente es declararla en dominio público por haber prescrito sus derechos de autor, para lo cual, en España, la vía más corriente es haber transcurrido ochenta años desde la muerte de este u 80 años después de su publicación si se publicó anónimamente. Si uno quiere apostar fuerte le queda intentar jugar sus bazas y decir lo de los 25 años porque es una mera foto sin valor (hasta ahora en Commons no ha habido mucho consenso con eso, además que se podrían poner pegas por el qué significarse "haberse publicado" y todo eso). Bueno eso... u otra cosa que se te ocurra. A mí ahora mismo no se me ocurre ninguna... Pero a saber.
Lo del DNI tiene poco que ver, porque supongo que serás consciente de que en la práctica ("ahí fuera") el respeto a los derechos de autor es escaso (además de que usar una foto en un currículum dista de parecerse a licenciarla con licencia libre y ningún fotógrafo te va a reclamar por usar una foto en un curriculum) pero aquí, en Commons, tu foto de carnet subida por ti no nos valdría (salvo que se alegue que no tiene derechos de autor porque te la hiciste tú mismo en un fotomatón (tendría los tuyos, que puedes donar), porque te la sacó un mono (no es un sujeto de derecho o algo así y no puede poseer derechos de autor, reservados a humanos),... a saber, excepciones hay varias, se lograron colar varios mugshots de terroristas islamistas franceses en su momento alegando bajísima originalidad, creo recordar, aunque el umbral de originalidad en Francia es mayor, creo, pero son casos excepcionales). Saludos. Strakhov (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, no se la están jugando porque es difícil que nadie reclame nada, puesto que se trata con frecuencia de obras huérfanas. No se actúa de oficio en materia de derecho de autor, sino porque alguien siente violados sus derechos de autor y presenta una demanda (normalmente alguien pedirá, primero, que retiren su imagen, en caso de que se haya impreso en papel pedirán supongo una compensación económica, etc) si no hay acuerdo y el demandante es muy cabezón... pues bueno, habrá que seguir hacia adelante... Pero la gente no se mete gratuitamente en demandas porque a veces salen a devolver, además de que lo más que pueden sacar es... unas perrillas, tampoco les va a solucionar la vida si "triunfan". Además, que no es tan fácil probar que "eres autor" de algo si nunca se publicó antes (quedando 'registrado')... En el contexto del tipo de licencia, si uno publica algo que no es suyo reservándose todos los derechos... pues al menos lo hace bajo una "licencia" que no permite que más personas se apropien de ello. En cambio, si publica algo no suyo bajo una licencia libre, los problemas generados por uso crecen exponencialmente, pues las licencias libres son víricas y muchas personas pueden usarla y usarla y usarla y que otros la usen y... No es solo que uno lo use sino que cualquier otro puede hacerlo (creyendo que lo hace legítimamente). El caso es que en Commons no admitimos obras huérfanas. Strakhov (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aquí un link interesante. La verdad es que esto es una laguna en materia de derechos de autor. Strakhov (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- ...diría que no. De siempre he mamado que en Commons no debemos albergar obras huérfanas. Pero si quieres preguntar a nuestros angloparlantes compañeros (por ejemplo a través de una petición de 'desborrado' de alguna imagen), ármate de valor, paciencia y estúdiate bien el tema y juega tus cartas... Funcionamos a base de tradiciones, consensos, aproximaciones y demases. Como puedes ver en esto del copyright no hay blancos y negros prácticamente nunca. Strakhov (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Enrique Barrau.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. |
Discasto talk 18:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
|
File:Sello Carlos VIII.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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Discasto talk 19:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
|
File:2014-SP-54.12.74-EUR.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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Discasto talk 19:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
|
File:González-Quevedo.png 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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Discasto talk 22:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ross[edit]
Hola, Raderich. ¿Cuán ves de posible que este tipo (File:P. Ros, de Escaler, La Semana Cómica, 13-09-1889 (119).jpg) sea Paciano Ross? (aquí tienes una vista completa de la página). ¿Te suena haber visto el "Ross" como "Ros" a secas alguna vez? Saludos. Strakhov (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sí se dan un aire. La puse en el artículo, con un pie de foto vago un poco «limitando responsabilidad». Saludos y gracias. Strakhov (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Cosa[edit]
Hola, Raderich. Parece ser que las ilustraciones de, por ejemplo, Cilla ya están en dominio público, por si te interesara para subir alguna cabecera carlina. Si te sabes algún caso similar (fallecidos entre el 1 de enero de 1937 y el 18 de julio de 1937) pues adelante con ello. Un saludo! Strakhov (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pues si te puedes enterar genial. Me acordé de ti cuando subí la foto del banquete carlista, y quería habértelo dicho a ver si sacabas más gente del convite, pero se me pasó completamente. Vi que la encontraste, así que bien. Y Cilla, bueno, tiene una cantidad brutal de caricaturas desperdigadas por decenas de revistas. Saludos. Strakhov (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Executions and...[edit]
Es que si algunos no fueron "ejecutados" sino "asesinados" el actor "by the Spanish Second Republic" no encaja. Entiendo que si se puede decir que "una República" asesina [sic] a alguien a lo sumo se deberá limitar a las muertes "institucionales" llevadas a cabo por sus autoridades, fuerzas dirigidas por ellas, etc etc [las llamadas en castellano comúnmente como "ejecuciones" (no entro en cuán "justas" ni cuántas "garantías procesales" tenían ni cuán "ajustadas a ley" andaban), no a asesinatos cometidos por el populacho en la zona republicana. Si no te funciona, deberás hacer un "repurpose" de la categoría y cambiar el título a algo del estilo de "asesinados en la zona republicana durante la guerra civil" o cosas así. Saludos. Strakhov (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Tienes Category:People executed by the Second Spanish Republic y Category:People killed during the Spanish Civil War. Siéntete libre de mejorar las categorías, rellenarlas, supeditarlas a otras, crear otras más específicas e, incluso, mandarlas a borrado si encuentras un lugar mejor. Las circunstancias concretas de las muertes de Ceferino y Martina las desconozco, así que siéntete libre de moverlos al lugar más adecuado, si hubieran muerto por algo parecido a una "pena de muerte" emitida por una "autoridad gubernamental". Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
File tagging File:Marques de la Eliseda.png[edit]
|
|
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Marques de la Eliseda.png. 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Marques de la Eliseda.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Ronhjones (Talk) 23:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Urraca Pastor[edit]
He encontrado en el BOE unos indultos a la hermana de Urraca Pastor, Martina, que sufrió presidio en Barcelona de 1948 a 1951. ¿Sabe algo del asunto? --Emilio Luque (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
|
|
File:Lo Mestre Titas 141.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. |
Strakhov (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
|
|
File:Bandera republicana federal catalana.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Barnstar Don Carlos.svg[edit]
Copyright status: File:Barnstar Don Carlos.svg
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Barnstar Don Carlos.svg. 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. |
Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
|
File:Manuel Senante placa antigua.png 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.)
|
BevinKacon (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
|
File:Manuel Senante placa nueva.png 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.)
|
BevinKacon (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Calle Ramón Nocedal en Elda.png
- File:Calle de José María Benito Serra.png
- File:Calle del Siglo Futuro en Madrid.png
- File:Carrer de Joan Maria Roma.jpg
- File:Manuel Senante placa nueva.png
Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
|
File:Símbolo de la Comunión Tradicionalista.png 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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Yours sincerely, Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
|
|
File:General Mario Muslera, c.1920.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. |
