Jump to content

User talk:Darkwarriorblake

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Latest comment: 2 months ago by 2A00:23C7:9091:2201:BC84:59FC:4805:A1A8 in topic Is Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Screen Daily infallible sources?


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Darkwarriorblake!

-- 11:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  हिन्दी  magyar  Bahasa Indonesia  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−


Hello, Darkwarriorblake!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

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

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

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Frank Darabont San Diego Comic Con 2011.jpg

[edit]

Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  français  hrvatski  italiano  日本語  മലയാളം  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  +/−


A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Frank Darabont San Diego Comic Con 2011.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), 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 BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (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.

Ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:DougCockle41.jpg

[edit]
File:DougCockle41.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Ww2censor (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
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:


Yours sincerely, QTHCCAN (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

What is the banned account? Surely the answer is to replace the offending image rather than delete the whole thing. How is deletion the first action being taken? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Screen Daily infallible sources?

[edit]

Because of what you said about the AFI being fallible I now rely on sources such as Variety and Screen Daily to find if a film’s distributor co-produced a film or not they claim that Paramount Pictures co-produced Blue Story and also WrushMedia co-produced the film though they are not credited and mentioned in the web page explaining Paramount’s acquisition of the film. 2A00:23C7:9091:2201:B043:E3E9:C920:45AD 15:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are better contacting me on the main Wikipedia, I do not come here often. Those sources can be better, but you'll also find they sometimes will contradict each other. I don't know why the information is so complex to get right, but if you can find two sources saying the same thing that is usually best. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK thank you. I added 20th Century Fox as a production company for Fantastic Mr Fox referencing a page that says “though a 20th Century Fox production” in a sentence also unlike other Regency films distributed by Fox, Fox has a presenter and copyright credit on the film, for ones they didn’t distribute it only would say “Regency Enterprises presents” for A Few Good Men I thought of adding Columbia as a production company because of the credits since they have a presenter credit unlike with other Castle Rock films distributed by Columbia at the time. I found a LA times page that says they financed the film should financing studios be included as production company? 2A00:23C7:9091:2201:BC84:59FC:4805:A1A8 16:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply