User talk:Trlkly

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Trlkly!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Български | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Latina | Lëtzebuergesch | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | ‪中文(台灣)‬ | +/−

Contents

[edit] Monozygotic

The caption in File:Identical-fraternal-sperm-egg.svg is wrong, it should say "monozygotic" where it currently says "monoxygotic". Gabbe (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't know how I missed that. Trlkly (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File renaming

I've moved File:KB Hungary.svg as you requested however I'd just thought I'd let you know a bot (CommonsDelinker) processes the renaming of files across all wikis. At the moment there is quite a backlog of images for it to go through so if you want to do it yourself, go right ahead. Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would, but I didn't realize that the wick list wouldn't be saved. Is there another way to check which projects used the old filename? Trlkly (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This should be what you are looking for. Basically because all of the other wikis link to the old filename the usage list remains attached to it and therefore does not move to the new filename. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Your statement

Your statement here is inappropriate. The two people arguing for the image have no background in copyright and have misstated things about the cases. Furthermore, the only case law they have used regards a smooth, blue bottle with simple gold font, and the case made it clear that they did not declare if Skyy had the right to copyright the look but only that a person who took a later image could not prevent Skyy from licensing others from taking pictures of the bottle. The case was also not infront of the Supreme Court so does not have the ability to determine precise Constitutional precedence, especially when a later case declared that minor alterations to common items can be copyrightable. At no time can the picture of the man be said to be copyrightable, which Dcoetzee points out. Dcoetzee is a long term admin with a strong background in copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've opened Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Ottava_Rima as a partial response to this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as proof that you will go to no ends to further this disruption and false claims about the law. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not respond to me on my talk page because you do not like what I said in the deletion request. Discuss it there, where the interested parties can still argue with you.
As far as I am concerned, my argument is sound. Expertise is irrelevant on Wikimedia. All that matters is whether or not you have a valid source backing your argument. From my reading up to that point, you did not. And if you are so sure I'm wrong, you can prove it there, rather than trying to get me to recant. I will not recant unless you provide a citation to the relevant case law by which you make your arguments. Trlkly (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Which aspect do I not have a source for? I already pointed out that Satava v Lowry made it clear even "natural" objects, if they have some unique feature, can be copyrightable. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | தமிழ் | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−


Hello, Trlkly!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Participate
Toolbox