User talk:Flamurai

I'm more likely to respond to comments left at w:User talk:Flamurai

Image Tagging Image:NYCS-line-trans-Bway.svg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NYCS-line-trans-Bway.svg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 04:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response

i've responded to your message at Commons talk:Project Nuvola 2.0+. --Ysangkok 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've asked

Hi, Flamurai. You said a low quality images cannot be sold. Please take a look here. Could you imagine what opposes I would have got, if I to nominate the image that I was paid $1300 for? Well, I just nominated it at FP. It's going to be a pure fun.--Mbz1 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mwamongu water source.jpg

I have changed the scope on this one and you may want to have a look at it again. Cheers, -- Slaunger 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Thanks for doing the effort. -- Slaunger 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... it's amazing how hard it was to find the address. I found it in a PDF of ice rinks in Italy. – flamurai 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-evaluation of Image:Moving coil instrument principle.png

Hi Flamurai,

thank you for your valuable hints. I fixed the wrong nomination and added a (hopefully) more suitable scope definition. So it is ready for re-evaluation: Commons:Valued image candidates/Moving coil instrument principle.png. Thanks! -- Dr. Schorsch 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued image promotion

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

review

Comment I considered geocoding this image, however due to the age of the photograph an exact location is not available, so I didn't want to misrepresent the location. The town names are given, so approximate coordinates could be determined if geocoding is necessary. – flamurai 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have geocoded to the best of my ability based on the location given on the photo and research on the battle. – flamurai 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Images that are "upgraded" with guesstimated geocoding should indicate so. --Foroa 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the geocoding. The scope is very broad, and attracts competition from at least Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg and Image:Trench construction diagram 1914.png. Would you consider narrowing to "an aerial view of World War I trench systems"? --MichaelMaggs 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to change the scope, however I chose "trench systems" specifically to avoid competition with those photos, which I would scope as "trenches", since this photo shows systems of multiple trenches, while those show one specific trench. If others think this would be more clear with a more specific scope, I'd be willing to change it. – flamurai 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did wonder if you had chosen 'systems' very carefully. I still think, though, that at the very least Image:Trench construction diagram 1914.png could be so described. I would support if you did restrict to 'aerial view'. --MichaelMaggs 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope changed from World War I trench systems to World War I trench systems, aerial view {{{3}}}

Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

– flamurai 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MichaelMaggs 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For illustrating articles of e.g. trenches of World War I, this is a very illustrative image. As this one is an aerial view of a system of trenches it is even better. Might be superseded by a photo from present day done with modern technology, but as trenches are hopelessly outdated today and trenches from World War I just are more interesting for the same reason, I support this image. --EPO 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 06:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratz on your first succesful VI nomination! (Did you see my reply regarding the scope page?) -- Slaunger 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Oppose Beautiful picture, but a portrait should capture the soul (=eyes) of the person. --Foroa 10:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that is a bit harsh. This illustrates the subject well, and is the best in its class. Hence, it should pass. This is not FP. --MichaelMaggs 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a lovely, characteristic, and very natural image of the subject. PKM 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Support Meets criteria 1 to 4 and 6. Does not use information template but all the required information appears to be there. No Geocoding, but that is understandable. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I refactored the info into the template. Geocoding is not possible since the location of the carrier when the photo was taken is unknown. – flamurai 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say a modern photo in colors would be much better, but as we do not have such one, I will support this candidate. --|EPO| ^da: 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Comment There are a number of competitors, however I chose this image because it clearly shows all aspects of the landing: the lunar module, rover, and astronaut. I considered the more general scope "a moon landing", but I felt the US flag in the photo limits the scope a bit. – flamurai 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Only one vote per reviewer. I assume it is the latter vote which should count. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) This picture is well categorized (6). It has a full description in English unfortunately not using the Information template, but there is no information missing, while more translated text is needed for the other languages (4). It is an excellent illustration of a moon landing (3), and the scope is well chosen (2). Last but not least it seems to be to me the most valuable picture of a moon landing (1). If the description is updated I will support the image! -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can help with a german translation of the full description if somebody else provides the information template. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria do not require multiple translations of the description. All #4 says is, "Multi-lingual descriptions should use the appropriate language templates". That doesn't mean multi-lingual descriptions are required. – flamurai 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I retract my neutral vote and changed it to support (see below). -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have added an {{Information}} template on the image page. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the information template. Now I see also criterium (4) as fulfilled and give this image my support! -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Danish translation added. --|EPO| ^da: 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (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:
a glockenspiel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Comment Unfortunate name as the German De:Glockenspiel word has several other meanings, while metalophon is too generic. --Foroa 09:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope could be changed to orchestral glockenspiel to clarify, but this seems needlessly limiting since if you go down the IWs for glockenspiel, en, es, eu, fr, fl, it, all use "glockenspiel", and no and sw use similar words. Obviously this is only for Latin languages. I would say, since Commons has a worldwide scope, this is the accepted worldwide meaning for the word. AFIAK it's accepted in the German-speaking music world, too: Mahler uses "Glocke/n" to refer to larger bells. – flamurai 12:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As far as I know "Glockenspiel" is the accepeted standard name for this particular type of metalophon, not only in German -- Alvesgaspar 10:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Danish word would be "klokkespil", which means the same thing. So I see no problems in this name. --|EPO| ^da: 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted user promotion

Hi, I've promoted you to a trusted user. Please read the instructions for reviewers. And remember: If ever we're faced with a Flickr user who has changed his license and wants us to remove it from here, we will be willing to stand our ground, if needs be, on your credibility alone. I and Kanonkas think you've earned that trust; be flattered, and also be very vigilant.

If ever you have any questions, you know where I am. Also, sorry to ugly up your nice simple userpage with the ugly {{Trusted user}} userbox; I'm sure you can find some nicer way of doing this. Cheers, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image Image:Image-Disney Concert Hall by Carol Highsmith edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Image-Disney Concert Hall by Carol Highsmith edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights

As far as I know, we add {{Personality rights}} only as a courtesy. I can somewhat see the use in adding it to portraits like these, but to add it to an image like this, then I consider them to be quite pointless. Every person in every image is protected by laws in almost every country. It seems a bit over the top to start adding personality rights tags to every image with a human in it. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but I'm definitely not doing it, and I think there are better things to do on Commons :D TheDJ (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a little carried away. Don't know what I was thinking. – flamurai 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuvola apps edu mathematics-p.svg

Hi, File:Nuvola apps edu mathematics-p.svg should probably be licensed under LGPL. If not for legal reasons, you should do it to help the combining of different Nuvola icons such as this: File: PrirodneNauke.png, because LGPL and GPL are not compliant. --Beao 09:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe dual-licensing is better, if it works... --Beao 10:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--TLK in 3 (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (en:User:Tinlinkin on Wikipedia)[reply]

Inactive Image-reviewers

Hello Flamurai, there is a discussion about a request regarding your image-reviewer userright, which have never been used or not used recently. You can participate discussion in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Inactive_Image-reviewers. This is just a notification of discussion you may be involved. Best regards, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Flamurai

Contents

Image Tagging Image:NYCS-line-trans-Bway.svg

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

response

Because you've asked

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mwamongu water source.jpg

Nice work

Re-evaluation of Image:Moving coil instrument principle.png

Valued image promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Trusted user promotion

FP promotion

FP promotion

Personality rights

File:Nuvola apps edu mathematics-p.svg

Notification about possible deletion

Inactive Image-reviewers

Navigation menu

User talk:Flamurai

Image Tagging Image:NYCS-line-trans-Bway.svg

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

response

Because you've asked

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mwamongu water source.jpg

Nice work

Re-evaluation of Image:Moving coil instrument principle.png

Valued image promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Trusted user promotion

FP promotion

FP promotion

Personality rights

File:Nuvola apps edu mathematics-p.svg

Notification about possible deletion

Inactive Image-reviewers

Navigation menu

Search