User talk:Cmadler
|
If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will temporarily add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected.
|
TUSC token 16668f731bb60930c1b60d13fefd66a4
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ypsilanti sesquicentennial time capsule.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Ypsilanti Water Tower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
Mergus octosetaceus.png
[edit]Dear Cmadler, thank you for assistance on the page that I created to run the Image of Value! My translation from English is terrible and did not understand how to create the page properly. Peace and Health! Conrado (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]I replied to your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Henry Watt House.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Oldies !
[edit]Hello dear friend ! Where is YOUR limit for "ancient" 
? Thib Phil (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- OOps - Napoleonic neither ? Thib Phil (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The idea was to collect "off-duty military reenactment" : camp, bivouac, food .. just for a "vivid" match of ancient (sic) images ( paintings, sculptures, etc ) Thib Phil (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, I see ( and agree )! In fact, I was using the term "ancient" as contrario to "contemporary" in the title of that cat. Not with a very "sharp" historical/temporal reference. Thib Phil (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess we are not focussing on the same point : you have a very precise temporal classification of reenactments in mind/ I am collecting documents picturing the life of the soldiers through ages ( I am just working on an entry on that topic for FR-WIKIPEDIA ( not French : french-speaking Belgian rather
)) Thib Phil (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just re-categorised the pics as per your suggestions. Is it all right now ? Thib Phil (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess we are not focussing on the same point : you have a very precise temporal classification of reenactments in mind/ I am collecting documents picturing the life of the soldiers through ages ( I am just working on an entry on that topic for FR-WIKIPEDIA ( not French : french-speaking Belgian rather
- Oh, yes, I see ( and agree )! In fact, I was using the term "ancient" as contrario to "contemporary" in the title of that cat. Not with a very "sharp" historical/temporal reference. Thib Phil (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The idea was to collect "off-duty military reenactment" : camp, bivouac, food .. just for a "vivid" match of ancient (sic) images ( paintings, sculptures, etc ) Thib Phil (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Cmadler ! 'hope you're well ! I started a page : The soldiers life through ages. So, it should be possible to introduce reenactments/reconstitutions in a dedicated section ( I already used a reenactment's pic for the Romans ) Thib Phil (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Won't be complicated ! I don't know if you are a specialist with "reenactments pics classification" but, during my searches, I guess I found some pics of the kind that where not classified as such - rather as local fairs/commemorative events. Thib Phil (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I will check for the future and add the generic "reenactments meta-cat label" () if I do find one - up to you to dispatch to the appropriate subcat if needed ! Cheers Thib Phil (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- smaller reenactments are often part of or attached to fairs, festivals, and the like .. just as military modellers conventions ( and I am a MM ! ). There is a regular modelling/RPG convention here in Belgium, in the city of Mons, during which reenactors ( Romans, Napoleonic, WWII) and even military vehicles owners ( another form of reenactment ) "show the flag" Thib Phil (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I will check for the future and add the generic "reenactments meta-cat label" (
A few more reenactments
[edit]Hi dear friend ! I just found out some " albums ", I categorized " reenactments ", that might interest you ( Swiss 17th-century reenactments in Geneva ) - Cheers ! Thib Phil (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Ypsilanti Automotive Heritage Museum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Starkweather Hall.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
This VI image nomination scope is changed. -- 00:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Le Râteau.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Morgan_Pressel_-_Flickr_-_Keith_Allison_(26).jpg scope changed for your review
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
Scope changed from Morgan Pressel tee shot to Morgan Pressel --Yjenith (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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".
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Morgan Pressel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
.jpg){kind=link}
You recently categorized File:Waterloo 666.jpg as Thamnophis sirtalis. Do you agree with my guess that it is Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis? I did not categorize it myself because it was just a guess, and I have no special knowledge of snakes, but if you think it is indeed the "Eastern Garter Snake" I will also update the description. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi! Indeed, I think you're right when you write Thamnophis sirtalis. Nevertheless I don't know all the subspecies characteristics so I can't say if it's T. s. sirtalis or another one. Congrat's for the picture by the way ;-). Goodshort (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Martin's Station fort (reconstruction), Wilderness Road State Park, Virginia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Roosevelt Hall, Eastern Michigan University (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Malcolm MacVicar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Scope changed for File:Stumpers Mike Farrell Allen Ludden Jamie Farr 1976.jpg
[edit]
I have changed the scope to a broader category, as this is the only image of Stumpers!; even headshots don't count as independent. Commons:Valued image candidates/Stumpers Mike Farrell Allen Ludden Jamie Farr 1976.jpg --George Ho (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Created Category:Stumpers!. --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have splitted two cast photos. You can vote now. --George Ho (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- One question at discussion. --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
The Hiker, by Theo Alice Ruggles Kitson.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Huron River, Michigan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
I have changed descriptions and captions. I hope all are fixed. --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Civil War Unknowns Monument.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
I have changed the scope, but it's minor. I was told this: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards..." Can you reconfirm your vote? --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Neil Patrick Harris
[edit]In file:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg, Geocoding is added, so go to nomination page. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Geocoding for another photo is added, as well. Commons:Valued image candidates/5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
File:Kappa Kappa Psi leaders.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. |
GrapedApe (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was a little too quick on the trigger finger with this one. I withdrew the DR. Sorry about that. --GrapedApe (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. cmadler (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
McKenny Union, Eastern Michigan University.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
[edit].jpg)
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:
.jpg){kind=link}
Old Gymnasium, Eastern Michigan University.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
DR and undelete cats
[edit]Please do not add undelete cats to Deletion requests via HotCat as it has to be placed inside noinclude tags. Otherwise it would transclude main DR or DR archive pages into this cat. Thank you.--Denniss (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I noticed this, and yesterday I started using HotCat's multi-change mode so as to also add the noinclude tags. I've checked all DRs in which I've participated over the last two months, and any categories are now in noinclude tags. Sorry for the trouble. cmadler (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I don't come to Commons or Wikipedia often any more, but I noticed you recently deleted an image that I contributed, based on the assumption that South Africa has no freedom of panorama. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a South African, and I have never come across this interpretation in South Africa - the only place I have seen it is on Commons. Please reconsider. Zaian (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at the South African copyright law myself to verify that what we have at Commons:Freedom of panorama#South Africa is correct. The current law appears to be the Copyright Act of 1978, as amended through 2002. In Section 1 (definitions), it says "'artistic work' means, irrespective of the artistic quality thereof ... works of architecture, being either buildings or models of buildings..." Section 2 states that artistic works (including works of architecture) are eligible for copyright if they are "original". Section 3 gives the copyright duration as "the life of the author and fifty years from the end of the year in which the author dies" (50 years pma). Section 7 makes clear that only the copyright owner of an artistic work has the right to authorize reproductions, publications, and derivative works (which, according to the definitions, includes "a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form" -- photographs of buildings). Section 27 makes clear that this is a criminal offense and sets out penalties ("in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or to both such fine and such imprisonment, for each article to which the offence relates; in any other case, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment, for each article to which the offence relates."). There are some exceptions which might apply to personal non-commercial use (Section 13: "In addition to reproductions permitted in terms of this Act reproduction of a work shall also be permitted as prescribed by regulation, but in such a manner that the reproduction is not in conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and is not unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright.") as well as to inclusion in movies and television broadcasts (Section 15: "if such inclusion is merely by way of background, or incidental, to the principal matters represented in the film, broadcast or transmission" or "if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place"). There seems to be no exception suitable for Commons' purposes, which must allow commercial work. Sorry, cmadler (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the response. I still find it strange that I have never heard this enforced in South Africa, and I'm wondering if there isn't something missing in the Commons interpretation, but I do accept and appreciate your response. Regards, Zaian (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I see several possibilities. I'm reasonably confident in the above reading of the law, but it is certainly possible that I (and other Commons editors) have missed or misinterpreted it. Another possibility is that the we have correctly interpreted the law as written, but that South African case law has established a more lenient precedent. If you or someone else can find any evidence that either of those are the case, we can change the practice here, and files can be undeleted. The third possibility is that South Africans simply tend not to be litigious in this regard, or that this is not an issue that many South African copyright owners are aware of or interested in. Unfortunately in that case, our precautionary principle dicates that we need to follow the law as written/enforced, even if we could probably get away with keeping infringing images. cmadler (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the response. I still find it strange that I have never heard this enforced in South Africa, and I'm wondering if there isn't something missing in the Commons interpretation, but I do accept and appreciate your response. Regards, Zaian (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Village pump/Copyright discussion
[edit]Thanks for the message. Looks someone is trying to troll me.—JeremyA (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and question
[edit]Cmadler, thanks very much for your input at Commons:Valued image candidates/Free-speech-flag.svg and at Commons:Valued image candidates/Streisand Estate.jpg, much appreciated. :) Just a quick question, do you have any idea how long this process normally takes, and when it will be closed? Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Soon, have patience... :-) See Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. The flag just became eligible to close a few minutes ago (48 hours after my support vote), and it will probably get done later today. The house is a more recent nomination and has to wait until 11/11 (4 days after nomination because it is unopposed). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, thank you ! -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
|
|
Template:PD-art-1923-3d 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 template, 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. |
Rillke(q?) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Valued image, Sonali Kulkarni
[edit]Hi!
Per the discussions at the OTRS noticeboard for the image File:Sonali 19 t.jpg, do you wanna reconsider your oppose for the Valued image nomination? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- You will need to renominate it (instructions). I will not oppose a renomination. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok! Thanks for the link. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Holiday greetings
[edit]
|
Wishing you the happiest of holidays — Vera (talk), December 2012
and the best new year!
|
|
I have reverted your upload of a cropped version of the picture, which has been already promoted to VI. Please use a different file name. Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The portion I cropped out appears to be a modern (still-copyrighted) building. If you will not allow it to be cropped out, and can not provide evidence that it is out of copyright, as I requested during the VI discussion, you will leave me no choice but to nominate the entire file for deletion. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Picture of the Year voting round 1 open
[edit]Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:
- Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
- This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
- Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.
To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year
Appropriately Licensed
[edit]You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 |
File:Berenice Marlohe crop.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.
|
Rodrigolopes (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever. I'm pretty sure that was a crop from another photo someone else had already uploaded to Commons. I certainly try to avoid copyvio but you can only dig so deep. Cheers. cmadler (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)