Phalbertt

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Phalbertt!

First steps tutorial Our 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 help More 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 Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Stop

Stop being disruptive. This file was originally uploaded for intended use in the English wikipedia, where these are the colours used and have been for many years. If you wish to upload a different file for use in the Spanish wiki under these colours, then fine, upload a different fine, no one forbids you from doing it. Instead, you are repeteadly trying to overwrite existing files (not just this one, as you have been doing it for several others in the past) intended for use in other wikis with your own desired versions (note that you are the only user trying to impose these colours), and have been doing so unilaterally and without consensus. As per COM:OVERWRITE, existing files should not be overwritten with substantially different content, with colour changes being a substantial change. Does this seems like "a reason" for you? Paraphrasing you, That is not the first time you make this and, please, respect the editors' contributions, especially if they are to improve the article and to correct mistakes. Apply this you yourself, since you are not respecting editors from en.wiki and keep reverting/overwriting them every time.

No one forbids you from uploading that version of the image, but for some reason you think you should overwrite already existing files, and that is very wrong. Make the upload under a different name if you want this specific version of you to be used in the Spanish wiki, instead of causing disruption to other wikis by replacing images that were not originally using the colours you seek to use. So please stop this behaviour. I'm reverting your edits now. Impru20 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Concha Andreu 2019 (cropped).jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Concha Andreu 2019 (cropped).jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

--Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PSOE logo

About If you want to make this "change so massive", seek consensus and If you revert again and without anyone's support (...). So, I think you are willing at this point to show where YOUR consensus and support for YOUR changes comes from, right? No one but you has ever pressed for such a stark red shade on this logo, and this has existed for over eight years. You should be aware that, at Wikimedia Commons, COM:OVERWRITE applies (which you keep violating repeteadly), and yours is a starking enough change to justify seeking a consensus rather than overwriting a previously existing file which has only been slightly changed over the years. I already noted you about this policy in a previous comment and you seemingly still care little at all about it. The solution for this would be for you to upload this under a different name if you wanted to use this specific color shade so badly, as per COM:UPLOADWAR, but you simply don't care despite the warnings about overwriting files. Specifically, note this: If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). So congratulations: you are the one violating Commons' policy repeteadly. :) You can mention 3RR of course, but I should mention you that my reverts are actually quite time scattered (6 Oct, 14 Oct and 17 Oct) whereas yours would be more concentrated in time if you keep with the revertion (one in 14 Oct and two today, in such an event), plus the already mentioned violation of OVERWRITE, so it's your call.

PSOE uses a wide variety of red shades, and the current one is actually the one used in their own main, official website. If you keep on your behaviour I'll be forced to seek a report on you for disruptive editing, seeing how you care very little about consensus or even actually understand anything about policies and guidelines not only in the English Wikipedia, but in Wikimedia Commons as well. Note: Plus, you could also come and explain why a 2,500x2,500 image is needed. It was only introduced in April by one user and I just spotted it as a result of your edit warring. Indeed, all party logos and pics (even those uploaded by yourself) are not so large-scaled so I can only understand your edit in the sense of reverting me just for the sake of it, just as you keep doing with users at a cross-wiki scale just because they do not agree with your impositions. Impru20 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Mira, @Impru20: , te lo he explicado tropecientas veces. Lo primero, es que lo del cambio masivo era una ironía pero vaya... Color marcado o no, en el archivo se han ido haciendo cambios de color (incluso por ti) y de tamaño y nadie lo ha revertido. Nadie. ¿Buscaste tú consenso para cambiar el color "raro" al que tú elegiste? ¿Fuiste a la discusión a ver por qué el usuario anterior había subido el tamaño a 2500 px? ¿Por qué no lo revertiste? ¿Por qué tiene que prevalecer tu icono reducido sobre otro? Haciendo referencia al ente abstracto de tu consenso (véase esto), ¿qué consenso puede haber si, única y exclusivamente, eres el que habla, revierte y discute? En el tablón de 3RR de los bibliotecarios, más de una vez se ha repetido que cuando se hace un cambio, la gente sigue editando y viéndolo y nadie lo cambia, se asume que es un consenso tácito, pero es imposible conocer el resto de opiniones si sólo tú vas revirtiendo. Que, por cierto, veo que "curiosamente" lo haces en mis ediciones y quizá estaría bien ver si es constitutivo de WP:HOUND. Precisamente en base a la política de Commons, considero que tu aportación no es una mejora ni un cambio menor y que encima, revierte a dos usuarios, o sea que, ¿también podría revertirlo, no? Consejos vendo...

El PSOE usa una amplia variedad de rojos, vale, muy bien, pero no te lo vuelvo a repetir más veces. El color oficial es el que es (#FF0000) y aparece bien claro en el Manual de Estilo que te pasé, tanto el del PSOE Europa como el del PSOE Avilés, donde ponen que esos manuales son derivados del PSOE original, que el color corporativo del PSOE es el rojo que explicitan y que se aplica a todos los ámbitos, es decir, no son distintos. Si quieres te lo vuelvo a poner y me enseñas los iconos que tú quieras pero yo presento WP:FF WP:VER como un manual oficial y lo tuyo un argumento subjetivo que sacas de la web. Yo puedo aportar esas fuentes de los Manuales que están en la propia web, con el sello del partido, donde ponen que son la norma a seguir y donde no hay otro manual que lo invalide. ¿Puedes hacer tú lo mismo? Sería deseable. Como te digo, no te lo voy a volver a repetir y es un comentario y, para nada, una amenaza: Si vuelves a revertir mi edición por el color sin más argumento que "no era el que ha habido durante años", lo reportaré inmediatamente al 3RR, al GDE y donde haga falta. No voy a seguir dándote bola ni a seguir discutiendo. A ver si los admins consideran tus argumentos ad hominem y el único argumento de los loguitos al nivel de documentos y fuentes oficiales verificables. Ah, siempre puedes añadirle eso del "se ha hecho así durante años", tus "reversiones masivas" de impacto mundial e inamovible o tus llamadas a ese "consenso" que solo tiene tu participación.

Respecto al tamaño, veo estupendo que lo reduzcas. El hecho de revertirte fue porque iba el color implícito, no te revertí una edición de tamaño sino una edición de color, como bien puse en los motivos, que otra vez manipulas para hacerte el objetivo. Vuelvo a comentarte lo del consenso tácito. Si tú y sólo tú reviertes, eso no es falta de consenso, eso es tener que hacer lo que tú digas (véase esto), sobre todo, porque ni has tenido la intención de abrirlo en discusión para hablar sobre TU mantenimiento de ese color y sobre TU tamaño, y donde no hay ni un solo comentario posterior al aumento de tamaño o cambio de color quejándose. Hay que ver la gente como es de impositiva, ¿eh? (IRONÍA). Phalbertt (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, if we were previously addressing ourselves in English and I addressed you in English, keep using English. Using a different language under a very ironic tone, aside of being impolite, only shows that you are unable to properly express yourself in the main language of the foreign Wikipedia which (also ironically) you seek to massively alter.

This said: You have a very serious problem here when you are unable to comprehend yourself some of the most basic policies of the en.wiki and the Commons. One thing are small adjustments in the color shade used, which is allowed under COM:OVERWRITE (which is what has been done over the latest years) and another one is changing to a radically and visibly different color change (which is contrary to OVERWRITE), and doing so just because of a personal obsession with colors, which at this point has been made very self-evident. For example, you speak about PSOE Europa and PSOE Avilés, but seemingly skip other groupings such as PSOE Ingenio which uses a different red color shade in their own corporate identity logo, or others which also use different red color shades. This is your problem: you are unable to understand that things must get consensus, and that you are not being right at this point (because it is being repeteadly shown that PSOE uses a very wide range of color shades in their official imagery), rather resorting to some sort of color fanatism, intending to conduct massive changes all throughout Wikipedia just to fulfill your own desires to use "the same colors" for all Wikipedias (something which is not required or even desired by policy from any of those projects). It is you who keep reverting and imposing your changes over others through the English wikipedia, the Spanish wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, so please do not speak about "consensus": yours was not a tacit consensus because it was reverted within a very short timeframe (otherwise, you would find yourself violating such a "tacit consensus" yourself since you reverted my reverts a few days after they were done, so your own argument here goes against yourself). And you even go as far as to acknowledge reverting a valid edit (i.e. the size reduction of the logo) just because you didn't like the color shade of that version; this is, you deliberately made a disruptive edit just to illustrate your point. It is clear you do not know what CONSENSUS and 3RR work (and please, this is the Commons. Do not try to link to the actual Wikipedia policies because those will be red-linked, and do not randomly mix up different policies and guidelines from different wikiprojects, because these are not of general application to all of them but just to their own project; i.e. Spanish wikipedia policies pertain to the Spanish wikipedia, English wikipedia policies to the English wikipedia, and so on).

About your half-surreptitious accusation of HOUND, this is very disgusting: I'm reverting you only because I am spotting your edits are affecting English wikipedia articles by the changes done in charts, images and color templates, which can be seen merely by visiting one of the thousands of articles using one of these. I don't care if it's you or other who does it, as I'd have done it likewise if another editor came and unilaterally sought to impose their own particular wishes at such a large scale without any consensus (tacit or explicit) and in a clear breach of the projects' main policies and guidelines. You being so obsessed with this issue and conducting massive changes having a great impact would obviously mean that others would end up reverting you; that does not constitute hounding. Hounding is a very different and serious thing, and hinting it unfoundedly only to make an undercover attack on myself is a breach of the policy's spirit and could be seen a personal attack by itself (and, at the very least, a clear breach of COM:AGF).

Finally, being bold in editing does not mean being reckless in editing, nor does it mean that just because you were bold your edits have to be accepted automatically by everyone else. Both in the English and Spanish wikipedia versions of the proper policy about bold editing you have sections about "Be careful" and "Valiente... pero no temerario", which define themselves very clearly.

As the rest of your comment is just written in ironic tone out of some sneering intention, it can be considered to be addressed with the rest of this reply of mine. Impru20 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Lo primero de todo @Impru20: , tengo el español como lengua nativa, al igual que tú y encima estás en mi página de discusión, por lo que, pudiendo hacerlo, permíteme que me exprese como quiera. Estoy más cómodo haciéndolo así y más cuando lo entiendes perfectamente, así que no te pongas en esa actitud ad hominem de nuevo, que ya has visto que he podido entablar conversación en inglés contigo perfectamente. Sencillamente, es que paso de esforzarme en una conversación estéril. Lo peor es que sigues o sin leer o sin molestarte en razonar. ¿En serio estás diciendo que el color del logo de una agrupación local está por encima de un manual de estilo corporativo oficial de obligado cumplimiento por todo el partido? ¿En serio? Si esa es la solidez de tu argumento, perfecto, pero me parece que si una agrupación pusiera su logo en naranja eso no justificaría que tú mantuvieses el naranja por tu única obsesión en no cambiar las cosas. Una cosa es que un partido use distintos tonos o colores (es decir, colores secundarios) y otra que intentes colar uno de ellos como principal e inamovible porque se ha estado usando muchos años). A ver si los admins consideran eso una buena fuente verificable por encima de un documento oficial. Repito: o sigues sin leer o no te molestas en razonar. Lo segundo es que me resulta muy curioso tu concepto de "cambio radical". ¿Cómo calificarías entonces si alguien pusiera el logo en color verde? ¿Alerta mundial? ¿Cambio climático? De verdad, es demencial, y más cuando tu justificación para hacer una reversión, sin dar tiempo a que nadie lo vea, es que la has hecho "en muy poco tiempo" y que, por tanto, no se considera (según tú, claro) un mal uso de la reversión. Si te parece bien, revertimos tus ediciones ipso facto y así no puedes justificar que no está razonado, ¿vale? Por otro lado, me vienes a decir tú lo que es el 3RR, cuando reviertes sin siquiera abrir discusión, y de consenso, cuando no hay ni un solo comentario tuyo donde expongas tu postura y tenga algún apoyo/alguien en contra. El hecho que yo haya podido actuar mal (recuerda, suponer buena fe) no implica que tus acciones estén bien. Que tú reviertas sin discutir, sin nadie más y que conviertas esto en un monólogo, también da ideas de tu sentido del consenso. Por cierto, échale un ojo a tu discusión en la Wikipedia en español, que hay un usuario que te dejó un aviso por algo de unas ediciones muy buen fundamentadas y para nada arbitrarias.

Haces reversiones de mis ediciones que afectan a la Wikipedia en inglés pero vuelvo a decirte lo mismo de la otra vez: tú no eres el guardián ni el administrador de la Wikipedia en inglés para valorar y determinar si son "cambios masivos y disruptivos" o si son pertinentes y fundamentados. Al menos, deja tiempo a que más gente, a parte de ti, lo vea, opine, valore y comente y podamos ver si siguen construyendo ediciones a partir de ese cambio o si no. Y si no, al menos abre una página de discusión para que los lectores y editores vean que eres el único que lo hace. Por cierto, fíjate si he tenido tantos problemas en las Wikis que, en la inglesa sólo ha sido contigo; en la española con todos he llegado a consenso, incluido el último usuario con el que tuve discusión, y me han agradecido las contribuciones y en Commons, cuando alguien ha revertido gráfico tras mi edición, puedes comprobar como he cesado de corregir el archivo o bien, para llegar a consenso, hemos llegado a un punto medio. La verdad es que no entiendo como es posible que, siendo tan "disruptivo" y haciendo "tantísimos cambios masivos" que hay que revertir, se usen gráficos míos y con "mis" colores (que no son "los que se llevan usando durante años") en páginas de la Wiki en inglés, como en las Cortes de Castilla y León, el Parlamento de La Rioja, el Parlamento de Galicia y la Asamblea de Extremadura, o gráficos que incluyen modificaciones mías como el del Parlamento de Cataluña y la Asamblea de Madrid. Hay que ver lo tolerantes que son los wikipedistas con este "terrorismo enciclopédico" (nótese la ironía).

Como apunte estaría bien decirte que, la reversión (masiva y disruptiva, por supuesto) que te hice no era "por el hecho de ser tuya", sino por el tema del color, como justifiqué en la página del archivo y como te he dicho dos veces. Si hubieras modificado el tamaño exclusivamente, no te habría revertido. Si quieres te lo repito. Por el color, no por el tamaño.

Por último, ni te he faltado al respeto ni he dicho en ningún momento que hagas wikihounding, sino que "quizá estaría bien ver si es constitutivo de wikihounding". Así que no manipules lo que está escrito para hacerte el atacado y así intentar desacreditar a los que no pasamos por tu aro. Y, por cierto, si tan seguro estás de ello y consideras que es un ataque personal "masivo y disruptivo" intolerable, ya sabes donde ponerlo y donde tienes que poner textualmente mis palabras, no las que tú quieras entender. No te lo voy a repetir más veces: en el caso de este logo, tengo las guías oficiales de imagen corporativa donde está todo explicitado, donde pone que las directrices son las mismas que en el PSOE nacional, donde pone que son derivadas de ahí y donde explica perfectamente lo que es oficial y lo que no lo es. Por tanto, puedo justificarlo y acreditarlo. Si lo aceptas, perfecto y si no, pon en los tablones de bibliotecarios a comparar tu icono del PSOE Ingenio con las directrices nacionales oficiales, a ver si alguien te explica la jerarquía de las fuentes. Un saludo. Phalbertt (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I addressed you in English on an issue where we both ourselves had addressed each other in English up until now, in relation to your edits' impact in the English wikipedia; in addition, English is the main language used in Wikimedia Commons. As a result, I'll keep using English, both if you mind or if you don't. If you choose to use Spanish, feel free to do so, but do not try to attack me on it because it was you who unilaterally chose to resort to Spanish in a quite unpolite and disrespectful way. That's your call, not mine.

On PSOE color, you are using local groupings corporate manuals yourself. It's incoherent to criticize me pointing you a different grouping using a different color when it was you who, up until now, had intended for translating local grouping manuals as if those were the main ones for the whole party. This said, I'll have to repeat you for the umpteenth time that you have been clearly shown that PSOE uses a very wide range of red shades, of which yours is not the most widely used. You have not given a single argument against this nor have you even attempted to disprove this (obviously, because you can't), which clearly shows your own obsession with the specific shades you randomly chose to cherry-pick. What you paraphrase in italics is a comment full of ad hominem fallacious arguments which clearly show your absolute ignorance of both Wikipedia and Commons policies:

• A ver si los admins consideran eso una buena fuente verificable por encima de un documento oficial. No, this is not an "official document" for the whole party as you have been show. And no, "admins" have nothing to do with this (you mentioning this only suggest you try to make an implicit threat here). You should learn more about what the Commons is and what it isn't. And on the issue of colors in Wikipedia, you are very wrong: you do not even have to use "the" official color in party templates, as long as you use one which is justified and is an easily recognizable one (I thought you had acknowledged this when even you had been forced to cherry-pick on your own some random colors for several parties in order for these to do not get confused with others. Yeah, Wikipedia has been doing this for ages because this is not a problem you have discovered on your own in 2019.
• Lo segundo es que me resulta muy curioso tu concepto de "cambio radical". ¿Cómo calificarías entonces si alguien pusiera el logo en color verde? ¿Alerta mundial? ¿Cambio climático? A radical change likewise.
• De verdad, es demencial, y más cuando tu justificación para hacer una reversión, sin dar tiempo a que nadie lo vea, es que la has hecho "en muy poco tiempo" y que, por tanto, no se considera (según tú, claro) un mal uso de la reversión. Using the word "demential" won't give you any more arguments in this discussion. Just because an editor is bold does not give that editor a right for their edits to be preserved. Indeed, your initial change was there for several days so it is false there wasn't "time" for anyone to see it. Your change was reverted, and thus, it had no implicit consensus. Easy and simple to understand for you, given your previous reference to the concept of implicit consensus.
• Si te parece bien, revertimos tus ediciones ipso facto y así no puedes justificar que no está razonado, ¿vale? Sorry, but this seems like a very childish reaction from you, and one which would account for reverting for the sake of it.
• Por otro lado, me vienes a decir tú lo que es el 3RR, cuando reviertes sin siquiera abrir discusión, y de consenso, cuando no hay ni un solo comentario tuyo donde expongas tu postura y tenga algún apoyo/alguien en contra. Excuse me, but I'd say that this is exactly applied to you: you come trying to impose your changes without opening a discussion nor seeking any consensus, those changes are reverted, then you keep reverting in order to keep imposing them without even attempting to justify your own position beyond your own obsession with the colors and against COM:OVERWRITE. If you had actually read what consensus is, you would see that it is people being bold who must seek consensus if their edits are reverted. It is you who must seek support for your changes (which you haven't, as of currently). It is very incoherent for you to now come accusing me of not having any support for my edits when it was you who overwrote the image without any support for it in the first place.
• El hecho que yo haya podido actuar mal (recuerda, suponer buena fe) no implica que tus acciones estén bien.
• Haces reversiones de mis ediciones que afectan a la Wikipedia en inglés pero vuelvo a decirte lo mismo de la otra vez: tú no eres el guardián ni el administrador de la Wikipedia en inglés para valorar y determinar si son "cambios masivos y disruptivos" o si son pertinentes y fundamentados. I'd actually say you are no one to seek to impose a massive string of changes against well-established versions of images and color templates (changes being "massive" when they affect a vast number of articles; I think you would be able to understand this because I suppose you are able to do maths on your own). And keeping doing so as you did several times is disruptive. I'm no Wikipedia warden nor an admin, nor I have never suggested so (also, you seem to have a flawed opinion on what admins actually are). Just as you feel bold to impose your edits to everyone in a cross-wiki scope, others can be bold and revert you. This applies to my reverts on you or others' reverts on you. I'm concerned as to how you are criticizing on me about some behaviour which, actually, is appliable of you: I've been merely preserving the previous consensus versions, without you being able to seek new consensus for those yet trying to impose your edits anyway, then somehow trying to justify you were righting some great wrong you allegedly perceived because of different Wikipedias using different colors. Well, welcome to real life: different Wikipedia projects operate differently and independently.
• Al menos, deja tiempo a que más gente, a parte de ti, lo vea, opine, valore y comente y podamos ver si siguen construyendo ediciones a partir de ese cambio o si no. I'm somewhat disgusted on this you keep repeating over and over again. I am some people. That you somehow seek to exclude my own opinion because you do not agree with it does not preclude the fact that you have not gathered any consensus nor support for your changes. Everyone can see articles, templates and images histories whenever they wish, so the no-consensus version does not have to be maintained. You do not have any right to prevent any user from undoing your edits because of a somehow twisted thinking that you have some right for other people to check your edits.
• Por cierto, fíjate si he tenido tantos problemas en las Wikis que, en la inglesa sólo ha sido contigo; en la española con todos he llegado a consenso, incluido el último usuario con el que tuve discusión, y me han agradecido las contribuciones y en Commons, cuando alguien ha revertido gráfico tras mi edición, puedes comprobar como he cesado de corregir el archivo o bien, para llegar a consenso, hemos llegado a un punto medio. La verdad es que no entiendo como es posible que, siendo tan "disruptivo" y haciendo "tantísimos cambios masivos" que hay que revertir, se usen gráficos míos y con "mis" colores (que no son "los que se llevan usando durante años") en páginas de la Wiki en inglés, como en las Cortes de Castilla y León, el Parlamento de La Rioja, el Parlamento de Galicia y la Asamblea de Extremadura, o gráficos que incluyen modificaciones mías como el del Parlamento de Cataluña y la Asamblea de Madrid. Hay que ver lo tolerantes que son los wikipedistas con este "terrorismo enciclopédico" (nótese la ironía). Huh, what? Have I challenged any of this? Another of your problems is that you seek to depict this as some sort of general hounding case of me against yourself. You can freely upload any images to the Commons, and they can be freely used by everyone who wishes to use them in any Wikipedia, just as this is done with images I upload myself. The difference is that I am not engaging in a general cross-wiki crusade over colors just because my images are used in, let's say, the German wikipedia, and the party color templates used there do not mirror 100% those used in my images, which is what you did (I should remind you that you started off overwriting others' image charts with your own versions of them; the attempt to overwrite logos and actually existing color templates came after that). Rather, it is typically the other way around: charts and images are created based on the color templates. However, no one can forbid anyone from using a specific image in a specific article. It is good that you have managed to get some of your images used in some English wikipedia articles, but this does not preclude that many of your actions have been disruptive and entirely indifferent to policies and guidelines of the various wikiprojects. Also, your continuous ironic and sneering tone full of foundless accusations and ad hominem attacks on myself speaks by itself on your behaviour.
• Como apunte estaría bien decirte que, la reversión (masiva y disruptiva, por supuesto) que te hice no era "por el hecho de ser tuya", sino por el tema del color, como justifiqué en la página del archivo y como te he dicho dos veces. Si hubieras modificado el tamaño exclusivamente, no te habría revertido. Si quieres te lo repito. Por el color, no por el tamaño. If what you say was genuinely true, you would have rather uploaded a scaled-down version of the logo under your own preferred color. You did not and instead reverted me just for the sake of it. Make no excuses, your action here was obvious.
• Por último, ni te he faltado al respeto ni he dicho en ningún momento que hagas wikihounding, sino que "quizá estaría bien ver si es constitutivo de wikihounding". Don't play fool with people: suggesting another user's actions could be wikihounding equals to accusing that user of wikihounding. That's why I dubbed it a "half-surreptitious accusation". This, aside from the fact that you did not even seemed to understand what wikihounding actually constitutes. You literally said that Que, por cierto, veo que "curiosamente" lo haces en mis ediciones y quizá estaría bien ver si es constitutivo de WP:HOUND. Not being enough with this, you then say that Y, por cierto, si tan seguro estás de ello y consideras que es un ataque personal "masivo y disruptivo" intolerable, ya sabes donde ponerlo y donde tienes que poner textualmente mis palabras, no las que tú quieras entender. This is funny: if you think my reverts on you should be checked in order to see if they amount to HOUND, report it. Do not hint on it, only for then to taunt me to report you when I point you about your accusation. I imagine you launched the accusation yet did not report it yourself because, had you filled a false flag report, it could have boomeranged on you. Am I right?

No te lo voy a repetir más veces: en el caso de este logo, tengo las guías oficiales de imagen corporativa donde está todo explicitado, donde pone que las directrices son las mismas que en el PSOE nacional, donde pone que son derivadas de ahí y donde explica perfectamente lo que es oficial y lo que no lo es. Por tanto, puedo justificarlo y acreditarlo. Si lo aceptas, perfecto y si no, pon en los tablones de bibliotecarios a comparar tu icono del PSOE Ingenio con las directrices nacionales oficiales, a ver si alguien te explica la jerarquía de las fuentes. Un saludo. So, basically, you base your whole reasoning in me unilaterally reverting you without any support, yet you end your reply by mocking me and announcing you will be acting unilaterally and without any support on your own anyway, based on a twisted interpretation of sources (which, btw, Wikimedia Commons does not have to follow, so you are actually acting on your own whimp here without any actual policy or guideline backing you). No. If you want to upload a different version of the logo, you are free to upload it under a different filename: your continuous attempts at refusing to do so only self-evidences your obsession with this issue and your will to impose your own version of it disregarding any consensus. Understand what COM:NOT and COM:OVERWRITE are and respect it. Otherwise, you may very well get a report. Cheers. And be more respectful. Impru20 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Greens-EFA new logo.png

File:Greens-EFA new logo.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. 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Greens-EFA logo.png

File:Greens-EFA logo.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. 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

File:ECR LOGO HORIZONTAL GRAD.png

File:ECR LOGO HORIZONTAL GRAD.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. 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Logotipo del Partido Laborista.png

And also:

• File:Símbolo del Partido Laborista.png

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

RE

Hola, fíjate que estaba pensando justo en eso por el simple hecho de que los partidos no me salían ordenados (Navarra Suma, En Común, Coalición Canaria). No la revertí para ver cuál era tu opinión sobre la imagen. Eres bienvenido de hacer cualquier corrección. Disculpa por las molestias causadas. Saludos.--LuisZ9 (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo, @LuisZ9: ! No tienes nada de qué disculparte, de verdad. Yo quería consultarlo contigo porque es tu archivo y tu trabajo y prefiero que también estés a gusto con tu aportación. Si te parece bien, vuelvo a poner la anterior. Muchas gracias por dejarme colaborar contigo. Un saludo! Phalbertt (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Logo Coalición por Melilla.png

File:Logo Coalición por Melilla.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: too complex for PD Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yilku1 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Cristina Ayala 2019.png

File:Cristina Ayala 2019.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. 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!

Asqueladd (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Tomás Guitarte 2019.png

File:Tomás Guitarte 2019.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. 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!

Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Cristina Ayala 2019.png

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses

File:Cristina Ayala 2019.png has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

--Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Following your message and as already told you by @Asqueladd: yesterday these files are not from El Diaro so are not under a Creative Commons license. If you are not able to recognize which files are from El Diaro and which are not you should definitevely stop uploading from this website. Please note too you are fully responsible for the files you upload and you have already 60+ having been deleted. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Sergio Sayas 2019.png

File:Sergio Sayas 2019.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. 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!

Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File copyright status

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Antón Gómez-Reino 2019.png

File:Antón Gómez-Reino 2019.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. 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!

Asqueladd (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Mireia Vehí 2019.png

File:Mireia Vehí 2019.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: License laundering. This screenshot is part of the broadcast of a TV debate by the Catalan branch of TVE (the Spanish public Television channel). It is certainly not produced by the CUP. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Asqueladd (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Por favor... Phalbertt. No subas algo que evidentemente es un license laundering como un piano de cola. Usa la cabecita que tienes entre los hombros, porque, aparte de ganarte algún bloqueíto por reckless, lo más que puedes conseguir es que tiren todas las imágenes del canal, las que no están producidas por la CUP y también las que se supone que están producidas por la CUP («la avaricia rompe el saco» and so on).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Yolanda Díaz 2019.png

File:Yolanda Díaz 2019.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. 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!

Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 01:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Imanol Landa 2019.png

File:Imanol Landa 2019.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. 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!

Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 02:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of files

I see you are somewhat worried on the files' names, but I would advise you to avoid seeking the renaming of files every time you seek to upload your own (basically because it is a too much time consuming effort both for you and for whoever has to rename all the files). There is no requirement for official portraits to be named in a specific way, and you can always be creative when using names for files. For example, I have just uploaded File:Pedro Sánchez in 2020.jpg, which is a different way of naming such files. You could also use the "Pedro Sánchez 2020 (portrait)" format, or whatever else that you see fit. Keep in mind that crops (at least those that I upload) are designed to fit election infoboxes and the such, but portrait images are not so strict and could possibly avoid using the "(cropped)" word in the name. Also take File:Pedro Sánchez in 2018b.jpg, File:Mariano Rajoy in 2018.jpg, etc. Impru20 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Impru20 It is not that I am worried, but that it was due to the fact of positioning the official photos before the cropped, pixelated or of worse quality. I never rename other files to use them in my own files, but in this case, it has been for giving priority to official and good quality photos and the rest would be there but as secondary ones, I think. I understand how to use the photos in election infoboxes, but that could be solved by adjusting the size (when possible) or by uploading a copy of the photo but with smaller dimensions. In the name they carry "cropped" because they are not the original photos, but adjusted to the face. Phalbertt (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, but most people wouldn't even care about any "priority" at all; they would just go into the person's category and find a pic of their pleasure for use. We have situations of such cropped pics being named as File:EPP Summit, Brussels, 17 October 2019 (48913275197) (cropped).jpg or similar styles, for example. Yeah, the "cropped"-bit comes exactly because of that, but for example portrait pics wouldn't need to be named as "cropped" because they wouldn't be used for similar purposes, but more likely for the infoboxes of these people's articles. I think it is very chaotic at times, but I've given up any renaming because in the end it's really not worth the effort, considering the image name won't be of any significance in the article of destiny where it is going to be used. Impru20 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Isabel Franco 2019 (cropped).png

File:Isabel Franco 2019 (cropped).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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.eldiario.es/murcia/politica/periodista-isabel-franco-presentara-ciudadanos_1_1165428.html is under cc-by-nc Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ezarateesteban 16:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:EAJ-PNV.png

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:EAJ-PNV.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:EAJ-PNV.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Maxinvestigator (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Parlamentos

Hola. Puesto que eres el autor de imágenes en las que se representan la composición de parlamentos por partidos políticos, como es el caso del actual Parlamento de Cantabria, me gustaría sugerirte por favor la posibilidad de señalar de alguna forma la presencia de consejeros sin escaño. Al fin y al cabo, son asientos ocupados de forma estable por políticos que cuentan con voz aunque no con voto en el hemiciclo, y puede dar lugar a confusión el hecho de colorear sus posiciones como si fueran escaños vacíos. En el caso concreto que indico, los escaños de consejeros sin acta de diputado se corresponden con todos los círculos de la primera fila en los sectores izquierdo y central. Puedo ayudar en lo que sea necesario. Un saludo. --HermanHn (talk)

File:Íñigo Errejón 2019a.png

File:Íñigo Errejón 2019a.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. 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!

Gyrostat (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Adriana Lastra 2019.2 (cropped).png

File:Adriana Lastra 2019.2 (cropped).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. 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!

Gyrostat (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)