Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 17 February 2012 (→User:Il223334234: for the archiving bot...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File mover

(add request • view requests)
Shortcuts


User:Il223334234

I can move the file with simple name to more descriptive filenames, which it will be better. Il223334234 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done This user just performed a series of disruptive, non-consensus page moves, one of which was unanimously rejected when he/she proposed it (following a previous undiscussed attempt). He/she either doesn't understand the relevant policies or doesn't wish to follow them. —David Levy 16:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dipankan001

I work and close requested moves at WP:RM. I have nearly 50 edits to the file namespace. Some of my moves are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Some of my file moves are - 1, 2, 3. I have read the file mover guidelines. In commons, I have uploaded more than 60 files and also place rename tags which are successful, too. 1, 2, 3. I can also use same name of files, put in different pattern, as I done to this: Requested to rename File:Konak, izmir.jpg to File:Konak, Izmir.jpg. I think I will be trusted with this right. Dipankan In the woods? 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Per the latest section on your talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please consider my diff links...Is it bad? That was just an hesitation. I just request to re-review my request. Please? Anyone? Dipankan In the woods? 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that per WP:DABNAME, if there is not a primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at the ambiguous title. This move should not have been done, as there is no primary topic. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "The poster of Don 2... is unlicensed and is not copyrighted", why is there a non-free use rationale and copyright tag on File:Don2poster.jpeg? How are you sure that it is not copyrighted? →Στc. 08:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Shahrukh during the promo of Don 2. It is only assumed to be copyrighted. Dipankan In the woods? 11:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. It's most definitely copyrighted. Unless you can prove that it isn't copyrighted, you have to assume that it is. There's no indication that it was released under a free license, and it's far too new to have had it's copyright expire, so yes, it's definitely copyrighted. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That file's non-free use rationale is fairly incomplete and very flimsy. The current rationale for use is equivalent to saying the purpose of this file's use is to simply use it. The rationale needs to explain why this particular piece of non-free content has contextual significance in the article it is used in. It also needs to explain why an omission of the file would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. Lastly, you need to explain why the file is not replaceable. Before you upload anymore non-free content, please read the non-free content criteria. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YesY Issues solved out. Dipankan In the woods? 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Why is it only 'perhaps' copyrighted? Things are usually copyrighted by default unless explicitely stated otherwise by their owner. And the rationale of use is still flimsy, if only because of the ambiguity of "describe another view". Why is another view needed? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The another view is needed because this poster has much more popularity than the other one, and many videos on YouTube show this poster instead of the other one. Dipankan In the woods? 11:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if I misuse the tools, the rights can always be removed, if found necessary. Isn't it so? Dipankan In the woods? 09:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't think you're ready to have file mover, and repeatedly asking like this makes us less, not more, confident in you. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my file list at Commons. Dipankan In the woods? 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Not done and not likely to be done Good work on finding and creating a large number of public domain images. However, the aforementioned problems are too serious to give you 'filemover' at this time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When should I ask for it? Dipankan In the woods? 11:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't internalize when I said "repeatedly asking like this makes us less, not more, confident in you". Something tells me that if we give you a fixed date, we'll see you pretty much exactly on that date. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't get my question. How much of experience do I need? I am not asking an fixed date. Dipankan In the woods? 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of experience. You had this flag, it was removed because of specific issues, and multiple users clearly view those issues as still existing. If at some point in the future we can trust you to use this right competently, you'll get it back. And it wouldn't hurt to demonstrate that you're not still just trying to expand your flag collection. As Sven says, the fact that your response to this request being declined is essentially well then when can I get it? is not exactly confidence-inspiring. Right now you should be focusing on how and where you need to improve, not what you need to do to get this permission. Swarm X 01:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover&oldid=477297245"