User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2021/Q4
Hello blocking admin[edit]
Hello blocking admin. I saw that you've been using the block button. I just came to let you know that I am a Roman Catholic who reads the newspapers. I pay bills.-Newspaper reader pays bills (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I apologize[edit]
I misunderstood the purpose of {{Udelh}}. Are we good? --Trade (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have time to respond to all the (almost identical) DR's Qwerty Azerty Piano placed on my talk page. Any advice? --Trade (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have removed all of their nominations due to the sockpuppetry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have time to respond to all the (almost identical) DR's Qwerty Azerty Piano placed on my talk page. Any advice? --Trade (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Queen Mary’s doll house[edit]
Please undelete:
- File:Parian ware model of Queen Mary’s doll house.jpg
- File:Parian ware model of Queen Mary’s doll house (back).jpg
- File:Parian ware model of Queen Mary’s doll house (stamp).jpg
- File:Parian ware model of Queen Mary’s doll house (retouched).jpg
the files are not copyright violations, and were uploaded by the Etsy seller after I sent a request to do so via their Etsy store. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing:
Done and tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. As the images have been previously published on an external website, we need one of the following: 1) the Etsy website updated to show the CC license; 2) the Etsy seller sends an email to COM:VRT confirming that Scarlett3561 belongs to them; or 3) the Etsy seller sends an email containing a CC release. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 001.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.
|
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 005.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Com:VPC#File:2020 Bols Blue.jpg[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Com:VPC#File:2020 Bols Blue.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi King of Hearts. Would you mind taking a peek at this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Common May 2018 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Common May 2018 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Common May 2018 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Common May 2018 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 006.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 007.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 008.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 009.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 010.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 003.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As you took part in the previous discussion surrounding this template, I would like to invite you to the current discussion about the template "PD-South VietnamGov" as editors over at the Vietnamese-language Wikisource have been debating its validity and seek help from users who have more experience in dealing with these kinds of copyright © disputes. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lithia Park Ashland November 2019 004.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 006.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 008.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 009.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 010.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 011.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newbury Street Boston May 2018.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boston Public Garden May 2018 007.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States 2021[edit]
Hello! Last year you contributed to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in the United States. Thanks to people like you, it was a great success with over 1,000 people contributing almost 6,000 photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the country. Hundreds of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, improving our open knowledge about United States history, culture, and heritage. If you haven't seen the winners yet, be sure to check them out here.
I'm pleased to say that we're back this year with Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in the United States through the month of October, and I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our updated event page for more information.
Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and we hope to see you again in this year's event! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Ticket:2019102210000851[edit]
Hi! Can you please take a look at Ticket:2019102210000851? There are 2 PDF in ja- and I've got doubts about the validity of the statement. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- The statement is not valid because 1) it is of limited duration; and 2) it is restricted to websites. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 007.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 009.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 012.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 006.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 008.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, May you explain me why you deleted the picture of a Simiot's 9key clariney without explanation?
This picture is coming from Europeana base with CC licence: As required by Europeana site, I joined their proposed comments:
« Clarinette en si b par Simiot - Musée du Palais Lascaris (Nice), Europe - CC BY-NC-SA.
https://www.europeana.eu/fr/item/09102/_CM_0840349 »
What is wrong ? I propose that you restore this picture in commons wikimedia for the community.
BR, Clarioio (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- CC BY-NC-SA is not accepted on Commons, see Commons:Licensing/Justifications for why. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I did a mistake.
Clarioio (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Review a VRT ticket[edit]
Hello @King of Hearts
Hope you're having a good day today
Actually there is a discussion going on Commons:UDR on the file of File:Statue of Gurjar Samraat Mihir Bhoj Mahaan in Bharat Upvan ofAkshardham Mandir New Delhi.jpg. Can you please help us on providing the information of this ticket like in which license it was accepted and so on, so it will be more clearer. Many thanks, Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 014.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 015.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 002.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 010.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 011.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 013.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 016.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 017.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 018.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 006.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 007.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 019.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 020.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 021.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lake Willoughby October 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lake Willoughby October 2021 002.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 022.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 023.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 024.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Battle Monument October 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Battle Monument October 2021 002.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Camden Maine October 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Camden Maine October 2021 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Camden Maine October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lake Willoughby October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pemaquid Point Light October 2021.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 008.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marshfield Pond October 2021 009.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Battle Monument October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Battle Monument October 2021 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Portland Head Light October 2021.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Commons Photographers meeting on October 30th[edit]
Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,
I'm happy to invite you to our next virtual meeting next Saturday, October 30. This time, our colleagues User:Dey.sandip from India and User:Ermell from Germany will talk about their work.
If you're interested in joining this meeting, please sign up on the page below:
I'm very much looking forward to this event and I hope you'll be able to join.
All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Vermont October 2021 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Curtis Island Camden October 2021 001.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Vermont October 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Vermont October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bennington Vermont October 2021 004.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Uploads by Ljam75607560[edit]
Regarding your reverts of File:4505a.jpg, File:Central view.jpg andFile:Um wu yee sun library17.jpg, I've revised the exterior link for 4505a.jpg, and applied no permission for the rest of the two, as by TinEye search results, they do exist on University of Macau's official website for several years (4505a.jpg first appears in 2013, Um wu yee sun library17.jpg exists since 2016, and the middle one exists since 2018 per TinEye information). If you think my edits are improper, please reply as this also helps with my copyright inspection work, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. I just don't like speedy deleting images that can't be obtained on the Internet (the uploaded versions are higher-res than publicly available) without giving them a chance to explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice!廣九直通車 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 |
⭐ The file you uploaded, is on the main page! ⭐
The file File:Wahkeena Falls October 2019.jpg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project. |
|
//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Can yo look if there a copivio and help how to uploud logo right[edit]
I uplouded a logo of Serbia/Kosovo nonprofit organization [1] but not sure it is not a copyvio. I just copied the logo and changed format from jpg to png and diminished size. Maybe I have to draw the logo by miself? I took as an example Human Rights watch [2], but the HRW logo has an US template, while the logo from organization in Serbia/Kosovo. PoetVeches (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hlc_logo_from_Institut_des_Hautes_Etudes_sur_la_Justice_website.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_d%27Human_Rights_Watch.svg){kind=link}
- The address of organization website [3]. There is a little bit other logo. I can easy draw this in Microsoft Paint if needed, just gray and brown X and simple standard text Humanitarian Law Center, it's Verdana or like that (Looks the same as a Microsoft JhengHei in Microsoft Paint, in all, very simple style of writing letters). PoetVeches (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. PoetVeches (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I lost my mind[edit]
Recently, I tagged some logos for deletion. Actually, I did that out of Anger. I am angry because I was blocked from editing wikipedia 2 days ago. I needed to release that anger on something. Thank you for reverting those edits. And please don't block me. Contributer1234 (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, I was blocked because I edited wikipedia irresponsibly. Contributer1234 (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Request[edit]
I understand my mistake. It is wrong and an evil deed to mess up with talk pages of others, performing unconstructive editing, uploading copyrighted images, creating sock accounts, etc. I won't do the above mentioned evil deeds anymore. I will edit responsibly. I will give respect to decision of others, their choices, their beliefs, etc. Instead of editing directly i will ask my mentor or file an issue in the talk page. I will not edit articles without discussing about the impact of that edit. In a nutshell, I will collaborate with others while respecting them. So, can I get unblocked? Contributer1234 (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Contributer1234: You are not blocked. I cannot find any entry on your block log. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I am blocked on wikipedia. Thankfully, I am not blocked here. I will try my best to not infringe any copyright. Contributer1234 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Commons Photographers User Group: first board election[edit]
Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,
In preparation of the first board election of our group, I invite you to take a look at the following page:
and provide feedback. I've listed a number of positions for our first board and I've also outlined a possible timeline for the elections. The current plan is to open the self-nomination process up on November 15 and then have the election start on December 1.
I'm super excited to get this going and I'm very much looking forward to hearing from you. Please use this talk page for your thoughts.
I hope you're safe and well, and I wish you all the best! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Shelburne Falls October 2021 008.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Red Mill Clinton October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount McCoy Simi Valley June 2021 007.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount McCoy Simi Valley June 2021 009.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount McCoy Simi Valley June 2021 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount McCoy Simi Valley June 2021 006.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
CTS YOUTUBE频道视频授权问题[edit]
此前阁下驳回本人在华视主播陈子见.jpeg提請的CV，但你能否证明他是CC-BY 3.0？ CreeperDigital 00:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- 在网页上明写着："License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Shelburne Falls October 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Shelburne Falls October 2021 005.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at QIC talk page[edit]
A discussion is being held here, over the reviewing process at QIC and the possibility of improving our Image Guidelines. As a regular contributor to the project, your opinion would be most welcome and valued. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Commons Photographers elections: self-nomination phase is open[edit]
Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,
The self-nomination phase for the first board election of our group is open as of today. If you'd like to take on a more active role and take our user group to the next level, please consider running for one of the open positions. Please check out the Board Election 2021 page for more details.
I hope you, your family, and your friends are doing well. All the best! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Vandal[edit]
Hi, I see you are active, could you please block on this one: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Нікк_лузер,_шавка,_шваль? Thanks — NickK (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Journal Square Jersey City November 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Journal Square Jersey City November 2021 002.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Journal Square Jersey City November 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Journal Square Jersey City November 2021 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 002.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Journal Square Jersey City November 2021 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 003.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 004.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Downtown Jersey City November 2021 004.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 005.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 006.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Downtown Jersey City November 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Downtown Jersey City November 2021 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Downtown Jersey City November 2021 003.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Newport Jersey City November 2021 007.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Paterson Plank Road Jersey City November 2021.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hoboken Terminal November 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hoboken Terminal November 2021 002.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Riverview-Fisk Park Jersey City November 2021 001.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Riverview-Fisk Park Jersey City November 2021 002.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Board election: voting is open![edit]
Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,
The voting phase for our group's board election starts today. Please consider casting your vote. Voting ends on December 17.
I wish you all the best for the rest of the year 2021. Stay safe and healthy! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Riverview-Fisk Park Jersey City November 2021 003.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Edward Dillinger uploads[edit]
Hi,
Can you provide some assistance with uploads from Edward Dillinger as you were the deleting admin for a couple of uploads tagged as copyright violations? All the photos are of Jamie Costa and this editor has been repeatedly trying to change the photo on the English Wikipedia article for Jamie Costa. You deleted the photos with a note that this was license laundering. Was that because the source given was this flickr stream? That is the source given for File:Jamie Costa Headshot 2.jpg which I have tagged for speedy deletion as the IMDB copy explicitly states "Photo by Josh Norris - © Josh Norris Photography". I reverted that image addition on the English Wikipedia article for Jamie Costa. This editor then uploaded File:Jamie Costa.jpg with the claim that he is the photographer. See this explanation on my English Wikipedia talk page. The same photo is on the flickr stream. That story doesn't smell right to me given the use of a copyrighted photo from a professional photographer (Josh Norris) when he had a perfectly good photo himself. Your thoughts? -- Whpq (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I checked and there are indeed no other copies of File:Jamie Costa.jpg available on the Internet. Normally, a clear claim by the uploader that they took a previously unpublished high-res photo with EXIF is sufficient, even if it appears to be of professional quality. Because he has imported bad Flickr images before, I will probe deeper to get a feel of the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Riverview-Fisk Park Jersey City November 2021 001.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Riverview-Fisk Park Jersey City November 2021 001.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Hi agian, This paingting take from here and also this website is not ower of this art work or not related to us public domain
unfortunately all upodals of this user is copyright violation (All are paintings)
[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
this pictures (paintings) are pages of this book
https://www.vazirifamily.org/Mirza%20mehdi%20khan/astarabadi.html
[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Please see COM:PD-Art. In other words, it is the official position of WMF lawyers that US law regarding reproduction of paintings applies globally, and thus a photograph of a painting does not generate new copyright. You can nominate the painting for DR if you believe that the painting was created relatively recently and not around 1729. However, the fact that a reproduction of the painting shows up on another website or a book is not a valid reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
'Ugly media redlink' residue left on article[edit]
I have no problem with your deletion of this image. However, since your deletion, there remains on cywiki a broken red link, 'an ugly media redlink' on the article on Le Corbusier, here. Can you tell me the correct procedures in deleting these on global articles where a bot is not used. Secondly, are there any other broken red links on cywiki caused by Commons deletions by you? Last, is there a tool to find these, and correct them? Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- CommonsDelinker is supposed to identify such broken links and remove them automatically. You may wish to speak to the maintainers of the bot to find out why it hasn't run on cywiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Until this is sorted, can you reinstate all these images pls.
- Secondly, do you check that CommonsDelinker has actually deleted the red links?
- I take it that you don't check 'how many broken red links on cywiki caused by Commons deletions by you?', as it remains unanswered. As you created the red link, I think it's up to you to fix the problem and ensure that no such residue is left on other language wikis, as the cy community is looking at this as a form of vandalism. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the way it works. It is the responsibility of every Wikimedia wiki to ensure that the images they use are properly licensed at the time of insertion into the page. If it turns out that they were not properly licensed, then it is the responsibility of that community to clean it up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Totally agree with you; the problem is that it wasn't cleared up. And if there's one bad link, there's a thousand, with no working tool to clean up. Can you please send me a link to where you say that it's the "responsibility of that community to clean it up"? Thanks. Our other option is to bot all used images to cywiki, and not use Commons. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just standard practice for dependencies. If A chooses to depend on B, and B does not have an SLA promising availability to A (i.e. Commons does not warrant that its files will remain up indefinitely), then whenever something goes wrong with A as a result of changes to B it is A's responsibility to fix the problem. Again, nobody needs to do anything manually; you should follow up on CommonsDelinker to get it to run properly on cywiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Totally agree with you; the problem is that it wasn't cleared up. And if there's one bad link, there's a thousand, with no working tool to clean up. Can you please send me a link to where you say that it's the "responsibility of that community to clean it up"? Thanks. Our other option is to bot all used images to cywiki, and not use Commons. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the way it works. It is the responsibility of every Wikimedia wiki to ensure that the images they use are properly licensed at the time of insertion into the page. If it turns out that they were not properly licensed, then it is the responsibility of that community to clean it up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"No evidence provided"[edit]
If you're not going to bother investigating, please allow another admin to do it properly. Thank you. 1989 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @1989: That is not the patrolling admin's responsibility, but the tagger's responsibility. I notice that you have tagged several images as copyvio with only the reason COM:NETCOPYVIO. That is not sufficient per COM:CSD#F1, which requires "evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder" such as a link to an external website where the image appears 1) with no free license; 2) at equal or higher resolution than Commons; and 3) with an earlier publication date than Commons. Additionally, the image must not have a reasonable chance of being PD due to age or simplicity; cases where we're not sure go to regular DR. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- If it's tagged COM:NETCOPYVIO, then it should be pretty obvious what it means King of Hearts. Plenty of other admins were able to handle them with no issues except you. If you're not going to assume good faith, then please, don't review my tags. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Most other taggers will provide a proper link; why don't you? If you're not going to do it properly in compliance with CSD, then please, don't tag copyvios. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok then. I'll be sure to add "see [Google/Tineye]" after so you could at the very least put in some effort in investigating properly. EOD. 1989 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- That is a sub-optimal way of doing things, because results can sometimes change by the time the patrolling admin rolls around. A lot of the results are also Wikipedia mirrors or of smaller resolution than the Commons file, so the bulk of the work is not in doing a quick Google/Tineye search but in identifying a specific result which proves that the Commons file was taken from the Internet. And that is something the tagger should be doing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok then. I'll be sure to add "see [Google/Tineye]" after so you could at the very least put in some effort in investigating properly. EOD. 1989 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Most other taggers will provide a proper link; why don't you? If you're not going to do it properly in compliance with CSD, then please, don't tag copyvios. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- If it's tagged COM:NETCOPYVIO, then it should be pretty obvious what it means King of Hearts. Plenty of other admins were able to handle them with no issues except you. If you're not going to assume good faith, then please, don't review my tags. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/613154810, user disclosed that they didn't fit into any COI categories and are not affiliated with the subject of the image on my en-wiki talk. Should any action be taken or should we wait 7 days for a VRT email? Justiyaya (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Let's ask them how they were able to get a copy of these high-resolution photos, as they don't appear to be available on the internet at that resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I didn't notice that, great attention to detail :D
- Done at en:Special:Diff/1059848788 Justiyaya (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
A set of user uploads has caught my eye[edit]
Would you mind taking a look at Special:ListFiles/Rubbyfem, please. There are a number of OTRS permissions that may be perfectly reasonable and valid, but there is sufficient about the uploads to make me want to ask a copyright grownup! If all is in order then all is in order, and I may just be being overcautious. Timtrent (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Looks legitimate to me. A majority of the VRT tickets have hard evidence, either in the form of an official email address or original file with EXIF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I understand that. My antennae started twitching further when I saw a watermarked work (studio watermark) claimed as Own Work, and a derivative cropped file also so claimed. However, your experience and expertise exceeds mine by a country mile. Timtrent (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
File:Centurio senex2.jpg[edit]
Noticed that you declined the speedy on File:Centurio senex2.jpg. On an iNaturalist observation page like [4], there are two licenses, one for the observation data itself (under the sidebar on the right) and one for each image (on the overlay). For this file, the observation data is CC-BY, but that does not include the image (which is ARR). You can confirm this by clicking on the (c) icon on the overlay or by looking at the photo page (in the top right corner). Category:iNaturalist images needing human review has some information about reviewing files from iNaturalist, please let me know if you have questions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't know that. Let's see here:
- File:Centurio senex2.jpg: Improperly "self-reviewed" by the uploader, does not appear to have been free
- File:Ectophylla alba.jpg: Improperly "self-reviewed" by the uploader, does not appear to have been free
- File:Coleura afra2.jpg: Reviewed by Ciell on 18 July 2021 - do you remember if you looked at the description or image license?
- File:Casinycteris ophiodon.jpg: Improperly "self-reviewed" by the uploader, does not appear to have been free
- File:Coleura afra 2.jpg: Reviewed by Ciell on 18 July 2021 - do you remember if you looked at the description or image license?
- @AntiCompositeNumber: Does this match what you are seeing? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, those all appear to be non-free. The two reviewed by Ciell were uploaded to iNat in 2014 and were archived on the Wayback Machine in 2016. Both show CC-BY-NC-4.0. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, yes I do remember reviewing those, because the review procedure was unclear to me and I reached out to ACN to get more detailed help specifically for the review of iNaturalist pictures. I am now certain I confused the license for the observation data with the license for the image, very sorry about that. I'll re-check my reviews from July and see what else I missed in the reviews I have done. Ciell (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming, I've deleted all of them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, yes I do remember reviewing those, because the review procedure was unclear to me and I reached out to ACN to get more detailed help specifically for the review of iNaturalist pictures. I am now certain I confused the license for the observation data with the license for the image, very sorry about that. I'll re-check my reviews from July and see what else I missed in the reviews I have done. Ciell (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, those all appear to be non-free. The two reviewed by Ciell were uploaded to iNat in 2014 and were archived on the Wayback Machine in 2016. Both show CC-BY-NC-4.0. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Lake Willoughby October 2021 003.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Willoughby October 2021 003.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Re: my recent deletion requests[edit]
Hi, you've decided to keep some images I nominated for deletion. I have some questions (and I apologize if this is not the right place for this):
1. On File:Ectophylla alba.jpg, did you not see that before my edit, the iNaturalistReview template was pointing to another image? Said image was released under a compatible license, but it is clearly not the same image that was uploaded to Commons. How do you know that File:Ectophylla alba.jpg was ever released released as CC BY? Same question for File:Casinycteris ophiodon.jpg. If you look at the history on both of these files, the uploader actually went and replaced the initial review template, which said the license was incompatible, with a different one that was approved! Seems fishy to me.
2. With File:Coleura afra 2.jpg and File:Coleura afra2.jpg, a similiar thing happened, except by another user, not the uploader. On File:Coleura afra2.jpg, the bot review failed twice due to the image being licensed under CC BY-NC, but it seems the user just overrode the template as if it was CC BY anyway. See here for the iNaturalist archives: Coelura afra2.jpg Coelura afra 2.jpg
Thank you for your time. --Boylarva99 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Boylarva99: Apologies for that; please see the "File:Centurio senex2.jpg" section above for more details. In the future, if you wish to nominate an iNaturalist image for deletion where the observation license is different from the image license (example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/49180497 says CC-BY in "Copyright Info" but ARR underneath the photo, which is extremely confusing), please be sure to give a more detailed reason than simply a link to the website or "CC BY-NC". I would estimate that very few admins are aware of this quirk in iNaturalist, so it is best to give a full explanation like "While the observation text is freely licensed, the image itself is non-free." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Noted. Boylarva99 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Copyright Watcher Barnstar |
| Your Information is Helpful Subashshamis (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
Happy Holidays![edit]
|
✴ Happy Holidays, King of Hearts ✴ | 
|
|
Happy holidays 2021/2022![edit]
|
* Happy Holidays 2021/2022, King of Hearts/Archive/2021! * | |
|
|
Happy Christmas and new year holidays[edit]
.jpg)
|
Merry Christmas and new year, King of Hearts/Archive/2021 |
|
Hi King of Hearts/Archive/2021, Have a sweet and |
Please explain...[edit]
... this.
If a photographer bothers to put their name and copyright info into the exif data, they want their rights protected. How much more obvious can a copyvio get? --217.239.4.223 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that they have put their name and copyright in the EXIF does not mean that it is not freely licensed; many of our contributors do this, e.g. File:21 05 19 Graz RalfR DJI 0998.jpg, as free content creators want their rights protected as well. It is possible the uploader has been in communication with the photographer to release the work on Wikimedia Commons; this is made especially likely by the fact that the image is at original resolution with EXIF (so clearly not stolen from the Internet). In these cases we give them a grace period of a week to send documentation to COM:VRT instead of deleting it immediately. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- All right. I can't say that this seems a likely case to me. To me, it seems much more probable that the customer bought the full resolution file from the photographer and now believes they can do what they will with it. The common misunderstanding of ownership vs. authorship that I have hit upon at least three more times among newbies just today.
- Anyway, the world won't stop turning if we leave this on here for another week, thus so be it. --217.239.4.223 21:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- If we're arguing about whether it's likely or unlikely to be a copyvio, then the case for speedy deletion has already been lost. Speedy deletion is only for situations where we are almost sure it is a copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- We're not arguing, we're disagreeing. I consider it neither almost sure nor likely or unlikely but a 100% sure. I happen to be a bit familiar with the way professional photographers work, and the one thing they do first to protect their photos is put their name and copyright info into the exif data. Which is exactly what this photographer did.
- Note that this is not "one of our contributors" who may have consciously chosen to publish their work under a CC license, this is a professional photographer who makes a living selling his work and whose work has been uploaded here by a totally different person.
- But never mind, it won't kill us to leave this on here for another week. --217.239.4.223 21:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- And that's where you're wrong. If it is truly 100% as you claim, then a single counterexample will be sufficient to disprove it: File:BrandonBell.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
|
File:Сборник стихотворений.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. |
Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 008.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 010.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Union Street Gowanus New York October 2021 panorama 1.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Union Street Gowanus New York October 2021 panorama 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Union Street Gowanus New York October 2021 HDR panorama.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Jersey City September 2020 HDR panorama.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 009.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 003.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.
|