User talk:Elisardojm/Archive 3

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Busto Clara Campoamor, León.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. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Santo Estevo Goiáns3.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. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! San Breixo de Oza2.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. Comments  Support Good quality. --Code 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Igrexa Goiáns.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. Comments Good quality --Llez 18:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Santo Estevo Goiáns.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. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goiáns de Arriba.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. Comments  Support OK. --C messier 10:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Elisardojm,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Parroquias de Redondela.PNG

File:Parroquias de Redondela.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!

37.10.149.233 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! San Cibrao, Cervo, Lugo.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. Comments Tilted anticlockwise --A.Savin 01:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Comment Fixed tilt A.Savin, and thanks, --Elisardojm 18:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC) --A.Savin 01:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilaicente, As Nogais.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. Comments Leans to the left. --Tuxyso 19:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)  Done Thank you --Elisardojm 22:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) OK now. --Tuxyso 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Praia de Niñóns, Ponteceso 01.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. Comments QI imo.--ArildV 06:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Praia de Niñóns, Ponteceso 05.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. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alelí mariño, Matthiola sinuata, praia Balarés, Ponteceso, flor.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. Comments  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 03:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alelí mariño, Matthiola sinuata, praia Balarés, Ponteceso.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. Comments Good quality. W.carter 10:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Praia de Balarés, Ponteceso.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. Comments Good picture but needs better categories and preferably a description in English. W.carter 10:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC) W.carter, I added the english description, the Category:Beach of Balarés, the most descriptive category for this photo, and others. Thanks for review. Bye, --Elisardojm 01:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Looks ok. :) Good quality. W.carter 10:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Praia de Barra dende Monte Branco, Ponteceso 2.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. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RE:Praia de Barra dende Monte Branco, Ponteceso 2.jpg

Ola Elisardo. Desculpa non responder antes: Estiven no estranxeiro.

Intentei amañar os problemas, pero a imaxe quedou moito peor. Non pensei que fose ocorrer e non a revisei antes de subila.

As imaxes xúlganse no tamaño real (tamaño máximo). Acabo de comparar outra vez a túa versión e a miña, e paréceme moi superior a túa.

Se non fun quen de traballar ben a imaxe (se quedou peor) é, ademais de por facer algo mal, por partir dun arquivo jpg e non un arquivo RAW. Na imaxe traballada hai moitísima perda de información por causa da redución de ruído e mesmo artefactos jpg. Volverei intentalo hoxe ou mañá; máis ben mañá, porque acabo de chegar da viaxe.

Non sei se o usas, pero recoméndoche usar Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. É algo caro, pero para traballar imaxes RAW é excelente. Hai unha versión de proba que dura un mes. Eu traballo co 4.0 porque os posteriores non me corren no MAC (non recomendo xa a ninguén que compre un MAC, aos dous anos xa non me corría o programa PADRE da declaración da renda).

Se tiveses o arquivo RAW e a túa cámara tivese máis de dous anos, podería intentar traballala eu se ma envías ao correo (creo que o teño activo).

Apertas, e non desesperes se hai fotos que non son QI. Conta comigo para o que desexes, eu estou encantado de estar acompañado por ti en QIC.--Lmbuga (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Acabo de reparar en que a imaxe foi aceptada como QI. Noraboa, e que haxa moitas máis.--Lmbuga (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Penso que sendo xa QI é mellor que non a traballe . Boas e interesantes capturas as túas!--Lmbuga (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Igrexa Trado, Pontedeva.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. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cruceiro Igrexa do Pao, Gomesende.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. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 12:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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:
Threshing in Galicia (Spain) demonstration.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment scope too broad and it's not 'agriculture, it looks like a show of some sort. Charles (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 CommentCharles, it's the recreation of the use of an old threshing machine in Galicia. If the scope is too broad, could be it "Threshing in Galicia (Spain)" or "Threshing machine in Galicia (Spain)"? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Connected category to "Threshing in Galicia (Spain)". Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I think Threshing demonstration would be good scope linking to existing category. Charles (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Charles, do you mean to rename the category "Threshing in Galicia (Spain)" to "Threshing demonstration in Galicia (Spain)"? Sorry, sometimes my english is a little fuzzy :) Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support I have changed scope. Charles (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks Charles! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just fixed the typo in the scope . --Mathieu MD (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Categoría Castle of La Peroja

Buenas Elisardojm,

¡Mil disculpas! Desde Wikimedia España estamos intentando limpiar las categorías de "Cultural heritage monuments in..." relacionadas con España ―aquí puedes ver la lista― para Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 y a veces son tantas ya que hay nombres con los que uno se lía y no categoriza de forma adecuada. En cuanto haya terminado con todas las categorías de todos los documentos volveré a revisar aquellas cuyas comunidades tengan idioma propio, para asegurarme de que están con el nombre correcto.

Por supuesto, siéntete libre de realizar los cambios los traslados que creas necesarios, que con la opción de "Trasladar" y "cat-a-lot" se hace bastante bien. Si no, descuida que prometo que volveré a revisarlo.

Muchas gracias por el aviso. Si te percatas de alguna otra equivocación agradecería que también me la reportases. ¡Seguimos en contacto!

Saludos, Ivanhercaz | Discusión 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Esta tarde-noche me volveré a poner con ello, y con suerte habremos terminado este fin de semana. Revisaré estando atento a lo que comentas, que ya puede que existan con el nombre en el idioma oficial de la comunidad. Nuevamente, disculpa las molestias causadas. Saludos, Ivanhercaz | Discusión 10:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Igrexa, O Val, Gomesende.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. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 01:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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:
Matthiola sinuata (Sea Stock), Flower..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english vernacular name in parenthesis. Must reduce the scope to Flower --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Archaeodontosaurus, I think that I have fixed the scope... Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Better, but you also need a caption in English and it will be perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I have added the description in English Archaeodontosaurus, thanks for your help! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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:
Matthiola sinuata (Sea Stock), Plant..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vista castelo, A Peroxa 2.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. Comments  Support Good quality, but categories could be improved. --XRay 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment XRay, I added Category:Landscapes of Galicia (Spain) and Category:Blue sky in Spain, I don't know what other categories add. Thanks for yours reviews! :) Cheers, --Elisardojm 20:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xacemento arqueolóxico de Area, Viveiro.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. Comments The sky is pretty glary, but the focus on the subject is sufficiently clear to be acceptable for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 10:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Escultura Igrexa Santalla de Pena, Begonte.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. Comments  Support Good Quality. Sería bueno averiguar de quién se trata esta escultura. --The Photographer 10:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Es Santa Eulalia, en gallego Santalla, añadido a la descripción :). Saludos, --Elisardojm 13:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Detalle cruceiro, Varille, Partovia, O Carballiño.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. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Igrexa Vilaboa, A Pontenova.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. Comments Good overall quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilaboa, Vilaboa, A Pontenova.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. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 20:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Casas Vilaboa, Vilaboa, A Pontenova.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. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 20:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

about Panoramio upload bot

thx for attention. the Upload API often unstable, so long time. You can download jl file from [1](white background lines). Jl file include all cc-by and cc-by-sa photo metadata. If you upload photo to Commons via jl file, plese tell me--shizhao (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

File:A cámara branca (03)- Dolores Vilavedra.webm

Hola Elisardo, parece que la licencia es la estándar de YouTube (y no válida :-( ). Lo siento --Discasto _talk 16:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Había truco :-P

He actualizado la fuente porque, si no, no tiene mucho sentido que se refiera uno a YouTube, donde el video tiene una licencia incorrecta. Un abrazo --Discasto _talk 23:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Imaxes mal categorizadas

Ti que tes vara alta en Commons, a ver como arranxas isto. Hai, polo menos, dúas imaxes categorizadas no Grove que non son do Grove (con seguridade):

• File:O grove - panoramio.jpg
• File:O Grove-Pantalla pétrea (8145676745).jpg

Non sei de onde poden ser pero do Grove, seguro que non. Saúdos, Pedro --Lameiro (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Recategoricei algunhas da ermida da Lanzada e do promontorio onde está a ermida, que pertence a Sanxenxo, como esta: File:O Grove-A Lanzada07 (4591675142).jpg. As dúas seguintes (O Grove-A Lanzada08 (4553436957).jpg e O Grove-A Lanzada09 (4595890025).jpg), por lóxica, deben estar feitas no mesmo punto pero xa non o podo asegurar: tódalas peñas son iguais. Saúdos, Pedro --Lameiro (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tamén estas dúas estaban mal categorizadas:

• File:O Grove-A Lanzada06 (4584537300).jpg
• File:O Grove-Capilla de A Lanzada (11363585625).jpg

Sería bo que as renomeases como File:Sanxenxo- A Lanzada, etc. Saúdos, Pedro --Lameiro (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Respecto a unhas fotos antigas de Vigo e o tema dos direitos

As fotos para que te fagas a idea son tipo cliches negativos do ano 1900.

O autor, Thoman, evidentemente está morto, e as fotos agora están na miña propiedade, por iso, están escaneadas a tanta resolución, posto que posuo os orixinais.

Exixir máis datos de licenzas a fotos de máis de 80... 90 anos.... evidentemente dada a antiguedade non hai faturas nin nada, repito, as fotos agora son da miña propiedade posto que, o que posee o negativo é o propietario, de toda a vida, non é un medio dixital... ou mercabas unha copia ou o orixinal, neste caso as fotos son nosas pero queda claro o recoñecemento do autor, que era un tal "Thoman".

Repito, a licenza está ben... penso vamos.. saudos!

--Seoane Prado (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Elisardojm,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Alcaldesas e alcaldes do BNG.jpg

Boas Elisardo. Pois que mágoa... coa de artigos que deu para ilustrar. Se che parece, antes de borralo voulles mandar un correo electrónico aos de Praza para preguntarlles sobre a licenza. A ver que teñen que dicir. Un saúdo. --Chairego apc (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ola de novo. Xa me contestaron dende Praza. Puxéronme o seguinte: "Efectivamente, a orixe das imaxes é a web do BNG, que en todo o material remitido á prensa utiliza por defecto a licenza CC BY-NC-SA. Coido que por erro ao facermos a montaxe indicamos a licenza que, por defecto, utilizamos para todos os contidos de Praza, pero vimos de mudalo, xa que o máis correcto é manter a CC BY-NC-SA". Foron moi rápidos en contestar e de feito xa mudaron a licenza no seu artigo pola CC BY-NC-SA. --Chairego apc (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fotos de http://xurdemoran.blogspot.com.es

Hola Elisardo, no consigo encontrar las fuentes de estas fotos. He probado con las tres primeras que hay en Category:License review needed y no hay manera. ¿Puedes poner las fuentes correctas? Gracias --Discasto _talk 18:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

borrado inmediato

Hola, Ayer a las 23:14 me dejaste un aviso de "posible infracción de licéncia" i la foto ya ha sido borrada. No han pasado ni 6 horas (nocturnas, por cierto) y no puedo ni ver cual era y como la cargué. He subido miles de fotos a commons y acostumbro a ser muy cuidadoso con el tema licéncias, però siempre hay algunas en que hay que deducir, no sin riesgo, si está libre o no. Como es que no me has dado tiempo para defenderla ?. Gràcias.--amador (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2017 (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:Captura Minecraft Galipedia.jpg

Yours sincerely, Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ignore this, I've stricken it out from the deletion request. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2017 (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:Mazinger Z Mas del Plata anys '80.jpg

Yours sincerely, G I Chandor (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Ola. Só quería agradecer o inmenso traballo de incorporar todas esas imaxes en Commons. Eu, que "traballo" sobre todo no Wiktionary en Inglés incorporando a nosa lingua, sempre atopo imaxes de grande valor entre as que subes!!! Froaringus (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mande?

como dis que ten que ser o escudo do rápido de bouzas? Precisamente o que había era así (como ti dis) e foi borrado --Nemigo galiza 19:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

nin te molestes, están en modo terminator e borran sen xeito algún. Hai centos de logos e marcas similares dende vai anos e non din nin fan nada. --Nemigo galiza 13:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

File:AMTEGA Primeiro obradoiro da consulta previa Teleasistencia Avanzada.jpg

Hola Elisardo, feliz año. Me han pedido que revise esta foto y no creo que puedas aplicarle la licencia. El aviso legal aplica a los contenidos de la web, pero no al sitio de Flickr. Si encuentras la misma foto en la web de la Xunta, no hay problema, pero la licencia en Flickr es terminante. Prueba evidente de la fatuidad e incompetencia de los responsables, pero es lo que hay :-( Un saludo --Discasto _talk 12:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hola, entiendo. ¿Puedes poner la direccion de la foto en la web de la Xunta en la descripción de la imagen? Si no, no puedo validar la fuente. De todas formas, voy a preguntar... Por otro lado, posiblemente habrá que crear una licencia del tipo {{Attribution-La Moncloa}} o {{Attribution-gencat}}. Saludos --Discasto _talk 15:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ya lo he encontrado. Sin embargo, te voy a pedir que no subas más hasta que haya creado una plantilla de licencia. En cuanto la tenga, te lo digo. También necesitaré que incluyas la traducción en gallego. De todas formas, voy a preguntar sobre el asunto de Flickr. Un saludo --Discasto _talk 15:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Está. Necesito que crees Template:Attribution-Xunta de Galicia/gl. Puedes basarte en Template:Attribution-Xunta de Galicia/es y en el texto del propio aviso legal. Podría hacerlo con un traductor automático, pero casi mejor que lo haga un hablante nativo. ¿Te parece? A partir de entonces, utiliza la plantilla {{Attribution-Xunta de Galicia}}. ¿Hay más imágenes de dicha procedencia? Un cordial saludo --Discasto _talk 20:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC) PS: en cambio, los de RAGL no tienen licencia válida. Lo siento

Perdón, es la Real Academia Galega de Ciencias (lo digo de memoria). --Discasto _talk 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Fotos con problemas

Ola Elisardojm! A foto de Pilar Pérez Solano está feita coa súa cámara ou móvil (non me lembro) nese caso, pódese explicar dalgún xeito para que non se retire? Precisamente dixo que tiña moitas feitas por fotógrafos pero que esas non podían ser polos dereitos... De tódolos xeitos terá que enviar o mail, non sí? Coa Federación de mulleres progresistas volverei falar con elas, máis xa comprobei que hai algúnha da edición dos premios 2017, o mesmo é mellor cambiala mentres non envíen o permiso dos premios. Agradezo os teus consellos, por favor dime qué é o mellor? Saudos --Moniquiña (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Premio Xoán Manuel Pintos ao compromiso coa lingua.svg

File:Premio Xoán Manuel Pintos ao compromiso coa lingua.svg 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!

Nemigo galiza 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Conferencia, 2012, Montevideo

Ola Elisardojm.

Déixoche aquí ligazón a unha conferencia, que igual che interesa: File:Conferencia de Angeles Soletic.webm. --. HombreDHojalata.^talk 21:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bandeira da Guarda

A bandeira da Guarda non ten o escudo do concello. NON é o escudo da Guarda. A bandeira e o escudo están deseñados dende cero, en formato SVG (pódelo ampliar para velo) é unha versión feita para liberar en commons. --Nemigo galiza 12:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Pois así é como están TÓDOLOS escudos e bandeiras en wikipedia. --Nemigo galiza 22:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Non entendín o que dis da bandeira de Ferrol. A bandeira da Guarda tamén é derivada. Eu tamén teño o deseño do escudo da Guarda feito por min. Podo liberalo (xa o está) en commons. O escudo que hai na bandeira de Ferrol está baseado no empregado polo concello de Ferrol. --Nemigo galiza 02:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hai que indicar de onde saiu o escudo de Ferrol para indicar que NON é libre e que o borren... e indicar de onde saiu a bandeira da Guarda para que NON a borren? Non é ao revés? De tódolos xeitos é moi sinxelo responder: a bandeira da Guarda saiu do mesmo sitio que a bandeira de Ferrol, ca diferenza que a bandeira da Guarda é oficial e a de Ferrol non. Por certo, o escudo da bandeira de Ferrol NON é o que está na páxina de Ferrol, a versión libre do mesmo. Saúdos --Nemigo galiza 23:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A idea do deseño sae de aqui -> http://www.depontevedra.es/?1,6784 a idea, porque o deseño é 100% orixinal (na páxina está en jpg e o deseño en commons en svg) --Nemigo galiza 11:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

a bandeira do Concello da Guarda aparece en máis sitios que a páxina da deputación de Pontevedra. Aquí pódela mercar por 16 euros -> https://www.comprarbanderas.es/bandera-a-guarda-id5193.html Tamén se pode ver aquí -> http://www.galiciasuroeste.info/varios/escudo.htm e ler a súa definición: Bandeira en campo de gules, cruz llana blanca, co escudo ó centro. Expediente de aprobación en trámite na Comisión de Heráldica. Non adaptada tampouco ó Decreto 258/1992, do 10 de setembro, e ó Decreto 369/1998. A tal bandeira non foi baixada de ningures polo que non é necesario que a súa fonte sexa libre. Xa que é un deseño baseado nun empregado polo concello da Guarda. Esto faise no concello de Ferrol con varios deseños de escudos e bandeira ningún dos cales ten base oficial algunha. --Nemigo galiza 20:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Máis bandeira de Ferrol

Boas tardes: Segundo vexo na descrición, o blasón é totalmente correcto; o que non fala é de adornos externos, mais en este caso é así como se ven utilizando de maneira oficial na bandeira dende hai bastantes anos: con corona de marqués e rodeado por unha coroa de roble (pódese ver ben neste artigo). Un cordial saúdo. --Echando una mano (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2018 (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:Carteis PPdG Feijoo Culleredo Xunta 2016.jpg

And also:

• File:Cartel PPdG Feijoo A Coruña Xunta 2016.jpg

Yours sincerely, Discasto _talk 15:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fernando Afonso.jpg

A partir das investigacións publicadas por Serafín Moralejo no ano 1990 ( https://serafinmoralejoalvarez.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/raimundodeborgoc3b1a1107ofernandoalfonso1214unepisodioolvidadoenlahistoriadelpantec3b3nrealcompostelano.pdf ) a maioria dos especialistas na historia da arte recoñecen que esta estatua pertence a Fernando Afonso, fillo de Afonso VIII. Pódese comprobar en calquer obra posterior a ese ano, por exemplo:

Ramon Yzquierdo Perrín (catedrático de historia da arte en compostela) no libro -> A catedral de Santiago de Compostela. Xuntanza Editorial, 1993. Identifica tamén a estatua como de Fernando Afonso.

Julio I. González Montañes tamén-> http://somnus.parvuluspuer.com/galicia.htm#modal2

Se é necesario podo procurar mais bibliografía. --Cossue (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Elisardojm,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

{{Attribution-La Moncloa}}

Hola, Elisardo, ¿te animarías a echarme una mano y traducir esta plantilla? Se trataría de crear Template:Attribution-La Moncloa/gl a partir de Template:Attribution-La Moncloa/es]. Como habitualmente, sin compromiso. Muchas gracias por anticipado --Discasto _talk 22:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nunha homenaxe a Marcelo Macías en 1917

Nunha homenaxe a Marcelo Macías en 1917, de pé (de esq. a der.): Losada Diéguez, José Osorio Martínez, Julio A. Cuevillas, Emilio Vázquez Pardo e Jesús Soria. Sentados: Manuel Cambón Fraga, Antonio Gaite Lloves, Benito Fernández e Emilio Amor.

Ola Eli.

Poderías retirarlle a marca de auga de "Ourense no tempo"^[2] a esta fotografía?

É un documento interesante.

Graciñas de todas todas. --. HombreDHojalata.^talk 11:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rebordechau, Vilar de Barrio BN.jpg

Copyright status: File:Rebordechau, Vilar de Barrio BN.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rebordechau, Vilar de Barrio BN.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:A Cela,Lobios,Ourense (4).jpg

Copyright status: File:A Cela,Lobios,Ourense (4).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:A Cela,Lobios,Ourense (4).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:A Cela,Lobios,Ourense (3).jpg

Copyright status: File:A Cela,Lobios,Ourense (3).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:A Cela,Lobios,Ourense (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:A Cela, Lobios.jpg

Copyright status: File:A Cela, Lobios.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:A Cela, Lobios.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paternidade Ramón Conde 04.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. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Escudo Ribadumia falso

Hola Elisardo, hay creada una polémica por la inclusión de un escudo falso en la página de Wikipedia de ese ayuntamiento, que incluso ha salido en periódicos, https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/arousa/ribadumia/2019/02/15/ribadumia-pelea-contra-escudo-municipal-falso-internet/0003_201902A15C4991.htm . Intenté avisar para que borrasen la imagen o la actualizasen, y parece que tu has revertido la propuesta, podrías decirme por qué? no se le hace mucho favor a la wikipedia manteniendo información falsa o incorrecta, un saludo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMelio (talk • contribs) 17 de febreiro de 2019 ás 09:51‎ (UTC)

Boas JMelio, desfixen a edición porque o escudo axústase de forma correcta á definición oficial actual que hai no DOG, que está ligada no propio ficheiro e que é a referencia que se está a usar. Penso que a referencia é a máis alta posible que se pode usar.... Se hai algún erro, o problema está nesa definición, e o que ten que facer o concello é solicitar a modificación oficial á Xunta de Galicia, que se publique no DOG, e á maior brevidade posible será actualizada aquí.

O que non se lle fai favor a ninguén é publicando cousas incorrectas no DOG que é unha publicación oficial, e tampouco votándolle as culpas dos problemas ós demais que non teñen parte no mesmo e tampouco poden facer nada para amañalo. Porque ten que saber que a Wikipedia non é fonte primaria, ese é un dos piares do proxecto, e a información que contén ten que basearse en fontes e referencias, pero se esas referencias non están feitas da forma axeitada entón aparecen estes problemas, que non son da Wikipedia, se non dos responsables de crear e manter esas fontes. Así que diríxase a eles e deixe a Wikipedia tranquila neste senso.

Se hai máis modificacións no ficheiro sen referencias oficiais, terei que solicitar a protección do mesmo e que se tomen medidas administrativas conta os responsables.

Se quere seguir buscando solucións sen prexudicar o traballo dos nosos voluntarios e o valor de Wikipedia, pode contactar comigo e estarei encantado de axudarlle no que poida. Saúdos, --Elisardojm (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

La descripción publicada en la Xunta no especifica el tipo de puente o el tipo de estrellas usadas, así como la forma de la corona o la formas de las olas, por tanto no se podría afirmar que la imagen sea la mas ajustada a la definición, ya que debiera usarse el emblema historico del municipio, y no una interpretación de libre albedrío de algún usuario. Cabe decir que no tengo nada que ver con el ayuntamiento o sus responsables, pero si como usuario, me parece bastante inoportuno que una imagen de un escudo o cualquier cosa que sea manifiestamente erróneo, no pueda ser corregido para el bien común.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMelio (talk • contribs) 17 de febreiro de 2019 ás 12:49‎ (UTC)

JMelio, xa o está a dicir vostede, a descrición da Xunta non especifica, fáltalle detalle, é incorrecta, polo tanto teñen que corrixila porque esa é a fonte do problema. A interpretación que hai feita no ficheiro é a axustada á definición heráldica proporcionada no DOG, entón o que teñen que facer é amañar o DOG. Nas definicións heráldicas non se adoitan definir os detalles que indica vostede das ondas e das estrelas, iso déixase ó gusto do artista, e todas esas interpretacións son válidas, correctas e oficiais, sempre e cando sigan a definición oficial do brasón, e este é o caso deste ficheiro.

E repito, o que di vostede de que esta imaxe é "manifiestamente errónea" é incorrecto, xusto todo o contrario, como estou intentando explicarlle.

Por certo, se non entende galego, desculpe, e traducireille os meus comentarios sen problema, asumín que o entendería porque estamos a falar dun concello de Galicia e esta é a lingua que eu uso habitualmente, pero ó mellor asumín de máis... Saúdos, Elisardojm (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hola Elisardo, no entiendo como disponiendo de una imagen que se usa de modo oficial y es aceptada por un ayuntamiento, tenga que usarse una interpretación de aproximación en Wikipedia, porque si nos ceñimos a eso, el autor podría haber usado el puente de Rande de Vigo o el de San Francisco, porque sigue siendo un puente, las olas podrían incluir flotando una barcaza vikinga o un trasatlantico y las estrellas ser las del portal de belén con su estela y todo, porque seguirían siendo estrellas, y la corona pues la inglesa, porque a fin de cuentas, en el Doga no se especifica nada acerca que corona usar.

Creo que hay que ser serios y filedignos, si existe una forma oficial usada o histórica anterior a la publicación, incluso en el Doga, debiera adoptarse esa forma y no una interpretación, por afortunada que pudiera serlo, que no es el caso. Cambiar el puente medieval del ayuntamiento por otro sacado de a saber donde o de una galería estandard de autocad no me parece de recibo.

Al final acabaremos del todo con la credibilidad de la propia Wikipedia. Me gustaría la verdad que se contemplase el uso de un escudo oficial cuando existe como tal (y no solo en este caso) y está disponible en la red, sin necesidad de interpretaciones o facsimils por parte de nadie.

Un saludo— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMelio (talk • contribs) 17 de febreiro de 2019 ás 13:57‎ (UTC)

JMelio, xa entendo, o problema é que vostede non sabe como funciona a licenza de Wikipedia. A Wikipedia é unha enciclopedia libre que todo o mundo pode editar e consultar, e é libre porque ten unha licenza que o di así, ten unha licenza CC-BY-SA, que quere dicir, basicamente, que os seus contidos poden reutilizarse, incluso con fins comerciais, que hai que indicar os autores dos seus contidos, e que, de reutilizar os seus contidos, deberá manterse esa mesma licenza. Entón, por que non podemos usar o escudo que ten o concello, por exemplo, na súa web, por moi oficial que sexa? Pois porque ese escudo ten dereitos de autor, e por esa razón non se pode copiar en Commons, por que se non estariamos a infrinxir a súa licenza, e esa é outra parte importante do traballo dos voluntarios das Wikipedias que moita xente descoñece, velar para que os contidos protexidos non se inclúan no proxecto e non infrinxir as súas licenzas.

Por outra banda, o que comenta vostede de que no escudo se puidesen usar esas outras pontes, ten razón que si sería posible, pero sería mellorable e podería modificarse no escudo, o de poñer barcos nas ondas ou estrelas de nadal, xa non porque iso non está indicado no brasón, e non se poden engadir elementos que non estean especificados na definición.

E repito, os que non teñen credibilidade son os que crean un brasón oficial sen os detalles precisos, teño visto bastantes brasóns de concellos galegos e os que teñen elementos diferenciadores especifícanos de forma ben clara na súa definición, cousa que non se fixo neste caso. Saúdos, Elisardojm (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hola Elisardo, entiendo el sistema de licencias libres, desconozco si el ayuntamiento en cuestión intentó ceder los derechos del escudo de forma gratuita o no, pero en todo caso, como interpretación, debiera modificarse entonces el texto a: Interpretación libre del escudo de la ciudad o mencionar que puede no corresponder al escudo aceptado por ese pueblo. Si fuese advertido como tal, no creo que hubiese problema alguno, el problema viene que se trata de dar credibilidad a la wikipedia, y muchos usuarios posiblemente descargaron el archivo para algun fin creyendo en que es original u oficial, o como queramos llamarlo porque saldría indexado en los primeros resultados de un buscador como google, incluso como imagen aparece de primera.

Creo que lo correcto sería al menos, mientras no se resuelvan otras cuestiones, advertir que se trata de una interpretación del escudo. Un saludo y gracias.JMelio (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

JMelio, pero que iso é sempre así con tódolos escudos por definición, interpretacións artísticas do brasón, non é necesario engadir iso, igual que non é necesario engadilo noutros escudos. A maiores repito, o problema seguiría existindo porque está na súa definición, mentres non se amañe a fonte o problema seguirá existindo. Saúdos, --Elisardojm (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Elisardo, esta claro que no veo vías ni tampoco intenciones claras de solucionar este problema, una descripción precisa de cualquier escudo de armas podría tener mas de 100 páginas e incluir una imagen definida si es necesario evitar la libre interpretación de un usuario que siempre tendría el resquicio de que si el color panthone no estaba definido, o que si la distancia entre una piedra a la otra no está definida o que el caudal del río o altura exacta no estaba definido... el hecho es que hay un escudo oficial y el que promulga Wikipedia no está manifiestamente reconocido como tal desde la entidad que lo ostenta y, en lugar de facilitar vías sencillas para solucionar un simple problema en beneficio de todos, leo argumentos defensivos que promulgan la burocratización, información parcial, la creatividad o la interpretación para que todo siga igual.

Desde Wikipedia debiera facilitarse a cualquier entidad que así lo desee, corregir o actualizar cualquier información o ilustración y no promover el libre albedrío como colaboracionismo, ya que no es una pagina que tenga como vocación de ser el reunir a un selecto grupo de amigos, si no que miles de personas acceden a ella, esperando un mínimo de rigor, y el rigor empieza por especificar cuando algo es una recreación artística o cuando representa al emblema utilizado.

Entiendo que hay miles de escudos afectados, creados por muchos usuarios que dedicaron su tiempo para recrear algo de lo que a lo mejor disponían de poca información o no tenían una imagen sobre la que partir, sin embargo, habría que dar paso a aquellos que si la tienen, donde la interpretación ya no es necesaria ni justificada y poner impedimentos basados en la burocracia para no cambiar nada.

Un saludoJMelio (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

JMelio, eu tampouco vexo intención por parte das institucións de facer as cousas ben, tan só vexo esixencias e incomprensión do proxecto, e o que é máis grave, cando son eles os responsables das fontes e do problema, e os que teñen todos os medios á súa disposición. Todo o mundo é benvido a colaborar, iso é o primeiro, pero ten que facelo dentro dos piares do proxecto, que se usen licenzas libres e que non se faga que a Wikipedia sexa fonte primaria, cousa que dende as institucións parece que non se entende, ou non se quere entender. Saúdos, Elisardojm (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Quizás el problema de ser considerada una fuente primaria o no, es mas la idea generada por parte de los usuarios que de otras personas o instituciones, que al buscar cualquier cosa, el SEO de Wikipedia la posicione en primer lugar en buscadores tipo Google hace que mucha gente la considere una fuente autoritativa y fiable, mas de lo que en realidad lo es.

El escudarnos en un problema de burocracia pidiendo mas burocracia para intentar solucionarlo es seguir en el juego tal cual está, muchas veces no merece la pena el esfuerzo como es este caso. De que serviría que alguien dedicase cierto número de horas al desarrollo de la descripción oficial del escudo aprobado en el pleno de un ayuntamiento con detalle nanométrico, para presentarlo ante la comisión de expertos de la Xunta y que se apruebe y publique en un Doga incluso con una imagen registrada que después ya no podría ni usarse aquí ya que no tendría permisos para utilizarla? No pidamos más a la burocracia de la que ya hay, porque después, si que podemos lamentarnos. SaludosJMelio (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

JMelio, se no DOG se publica a imaxe do escudo, si podería copiarse na Wikipedia porque os seu contidos son públicos, xa se fixo en moitos outros escudos. Outra alternativa, moito máis sinxela, sería que o concello indicase que o escudo que teñen publicado se libera cunha licenza libre, pero por razóns que descoñezo isto tampouco se fai.

Pero preguntaron o que podían/tiñan facer para amañar o problema e axudar? Eu non o vin, o único que vin foi esixencias, buscar problemas e non solucións, e botarlle as culpas nos xornais ós voluntarios da Wikipedia que traballan a pesares dos atrancos destas mesmas institucións. Saúdos, Elisardojm (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)