User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2022/Q1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 15:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 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.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Aristeas 14:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Jersey City September 2020 HDR.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. --Steindy 15:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City September 2020 panorama.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City September 2020 panorama.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle from Space Needle June 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.
Comments Good quality. --Imehling 10:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted file[edit]

Some time ago you have undeleted Gothic letters, and they were kept. But you didn’t undelete one single file: File:Gothic letter Ahsa.svg. Would you do this, please? — Person or Persons Unknown (talk)
(contrib.) 17:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — Person or Persons Unknown (talk)
(contrib.) 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your most memorable shot of 2021[edit]

Happy New Year! As always at the beginning of the new year, I'm inviting you to share your most memorable shot of the past year. Which of your photos stood out in 2021? Which image created special memories that you'd like to share with others? On behalf of the Commons Photographers User Group I wish you, your family, and your friends all the best for 2022. Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture promotion by re-evaluation[edit]

Congratulations for this photo!

Dear King of Hearts,

as you may already know recently the user Commonists has been identified as a sock puppet of the blocked user Livioandronico2013. You can read more about this on the FP talk page. In the discussion on the same talk page it has been decided to remove all of his votes on Featured Picture nominations. This means that all these nominations must be re-evaluated after removing that vote. This applies also to your photo. The result of the re-evaluation is that your photo is now a Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons. Congratulations!

Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations as well. I'm glad to see your excellent photo recognized after the de-sock puppetization of the vote talley. Ooligan (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dancejapan BBG New York April 2019.jpg[edit]

File:Dancejapan BBG New York April 2019.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

 Mysterymanblue  09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJ Sashimi BBG New York April 2019.jpg[edit]

File:DJ Sashimi BBG New York April 2019.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

 Mysterymanblue  09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:C-SPAN Bus Philadelphia July 2016.jpg[edit]

File:C-SPAN Bus Philadelphia July 2016.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

 Mysterymanblue  09:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wings-over-jordan.png, etc.[edit]

There is a copyright notice on page 3 of the source publication, and I don't see how any of the three photos I tagged could be considered advertisements (i.e., "... inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work."). What's the issue here? Levdr1lp / talk 00:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anything uploaded under a good-faith claim of PD-US-1978, it's best to go through a DR to discuss the details and give the uploader a chance to defend why they believe it is PD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Apologies if this caused more work for you. Levdr1lp / talk 00:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set Promoted to FP[edit]
★ This set has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The set Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another set, please do so !

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photo challenge/2021 - December - Cities at dusk and dawn/Winners[edit]

Photo Challenge – Second Place
Congratulations!

Your picture Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 HDR panorama.jpg won the 2nd place in the Photo Challenge Cities at dusk and dawn, in December 2021. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Nixon presidential portrait (retouched).jpg[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. Would you mind taking a look at File:Richard Nixon presidential portrait (retouched).jpg? It appears to be nothing more than a retouched photo based upon what was posted at en:Talk:Richard Nixon#Richard Nixon's presidential portrait, Remastered. FWIW, I can see whether this is a much improved version of File:Richard Nixon presidential portrait (1).jpg (the file currently being used in the infobox of en:Richard Nixon), but that could just be me. Perhaps the only thing that needs to be done here is for the file to be relicensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scratches have been removed, which is great, but unfortunately some detail has also been lost due to noise reduction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this. Perhaps you could try and explain this to the uploader. I've tried interacting with them over another one of their file uploads (see en:WP:MCQ#New editor, image licensing and the VW Phaeton. and en:User talk:Chaheel Riens#Volkswagen Phaeton main photo) and seem to not be doing too well at the moment. I can't really tell the difference between the two Nixon photos, but someone who can might be better at explaining the differences between the two. Does the one which ends up not being used become eligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F8? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is only for if a file is exactly identical or a downsampled version of another, which is not the case here. It is pretty common to host different edits of the same photo side by side. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've got no preference for either photo, though I'm not sure it would be wise to add use a version that's not as good. Would it be OK to boldly relicense the "proposed" one so that it's licensing is the same at the version currently being used (tweaking the {{Retouched photo}} template accordingly) or would it be better off to leave it as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine. You can use {{Modifications-ineligible}} as an additional tag. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assistance. Would you mind checking what I did when you've got a spare moment to make sure I didn't do something incorrectly? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about File:50 bmg 12.7x99.svg and File:12.7 x 99mm NATO dimensions converted to millimeters.png. This png was alsoe uploaded by the same person as who uploaded the retouched Nixon photo discussed above. Would changing the units from inches to millimeters be enough to create a COM:DW and thus establish a new copyright or would such a thing be considered a minor modification? I wondering whether the png and svg version should somehow be linked to together, perhaps by {{PD-retouched-user}} or some other template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a minor change. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Arzhantsev.png[edit]

Hello! You recently solved my undeletion request for File:Иван_Владимирович_Аржанцев_(3).jpg. Later I learned of existence of File:Ivan_Arzhantsev.png and File:Иван_Владимирович_Аржанцев_(2).jpg with the same photo and the same fake authorship as that one had before edits. Might I ask you to resolve this collision so that in the end there is one correct file? Medvednikita (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. But these are different crops of the same original image so they can remain separate. For example, some may prefer to use the full version while others prefer the cropped version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AndresGularte[edit]

Hi! Can you please take a look on AndresGularte contributions? The user was blocked before for uploading non-free files but they keep doing the same. Thank You! --Miaow (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File description of image[edit]

Hello this is Peggy Ann Hall, and I am replying to a message that you sent yesterday concerning my personal picture of me and my sister Kelli Ann Hall, that we took over 20 years ago, I had my husband take the picture of me and my sister with my own personal camera, so this is my personal picture that I have, so what do I need to put down in the file description of the photo to make it be known that this is my personal picture and that it's done in the appropriate way according to protocol? 2600:1700:9575:D450:8D3B:B934:8B18:63AB 18:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I have added a link to it to the file description. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan ethno-lingustic map[edit]

Hi, the map i posted on afghanistan ethnics pages, is english version of Al-Jazeera report of Afghanistan ethno-lingustic map, what is the problem??? 5644Khorasani (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@5644Khorasani: In order to be valid, the image must specify which Creative Commons license it is available under. Although you've tagged it as CC-BY-SA-4.0, there is no evidence at the Al-Jazeera link that this is the actual license of the image. If you find evidence of the correct CC license, please post it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghanistan demoghraphics 3.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What???? No need for that, you can see the imapge and visit the web site then you figure they are same. 5644Khorasani (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@5644Khorasani: Are you sure it's the right website? I cannot find it all on [1]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,you can check the link,i dont get you what exactly do you mean, i think you are just searching for an excuse to delete this 5644Khorasani (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was able to find the original source for this map and fix the attribution: File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete an empty category?[edit]

Category:Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin did not have any file. What could I do about this category?--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmsth11126a02: I've deleted it. In the future, you can use {{SD|C2}} to flag it to the attention of administrators. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry Vermont 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry Vermont 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barton 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barton 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barton 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Londonderry Vermont 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.
Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barton Vermont 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 010.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 010.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 04:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 04:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barton 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.
Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 05:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments You are right. I admit I'm no expert in drone photos. It just looked that way. --Imehling 18:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments Good quality. --Imehling 18:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bass Harbor 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Penns Valley 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.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ГЕРБЫ[edit]

Hi! About [2]. But you can see the rest of the contribution by this user. This is a vandalism only account. User banned indefinitely on Wikipedia. Lesless (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set Promoted to FP[edit]
★ This set has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The set Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Union Street Gowanus New York October 2021, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Union Street Gowanus New York October 2021 has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another set, please do so !

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License review request[edit]

Sorry to bug you, but I was wondering if you could license review this file for me: File:Jumping spider vision David Hill.svg. It's a very useful SVG illustration and unfortunately the license review queue is hopelessly backed up :( Nosferattus (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tulip Olsen.png[edit]

Hi, In this edit, you closed the UDR as "Done", but the file is still deleted. Do you mean "Not done"? Yann (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it on English Wikipedia. The file never existed on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uplifting Service- The Proven Path to Delighting Your Customers, Colleagues, and Everyone Else You Meet.jpg[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. I'm new to Commons, despite my first edit here being nearly 2 years ago I haven't used it much and am just recently starting out. I noticed you deleted that file recently using my exact rationale, copied and pasted word for word. Not that there's anything wrong with this, I was just wondering if there's any particular reason why? Is it standard for archival of my message etc? Thanks for the information, I'm just starting out here and looking to help more. Naleksuh (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Naleksuh: When an admin processes speedy deletion tags, the reason you put down becomes the default reason pre-filled for the admin when deleting. The admin can of course change the reason if desired, but in most cases it is not necessary. I actually changed the reason slightly from COM:CSD#F1 to COM:CSD#F3 because they didn't steal the photo from the Internet (which would be F1), but rather took a photo of non-free content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pudong panorama[edit]

Good morning. Just a quick note to let you know I used your 2017 panorama photo of Shanghai on my blog today. https://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.com/2022/03/chinas-largest-city-locked-down-for.html. George Dance (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2022/Q1&oldid=646795196"