User talk:Wilfredor/Archive 24

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


FP

[1]. FP for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Eu vou subir elas, mas você va lembrar, esos caras falaram que o céu muito normal, os cores do palacio pouco nitido, e outras besteiras. --The Photographer (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Public transport share taxi in Maracaibo city, Zulia, Venezuela.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. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 15:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality! --Ermell 12:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 7 days. The reason for the block is Abuse of the F2C-tool after it has been widely discussed in the past. You yet again uploaded a large amount of files when the previous mess you have created isn't even cleaned up. This time there is no overcat problem but a problem with com:IDENT and com:SCOPE. You should have know better. I will also nuke your uploads (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Natuur12 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: I would like to express a view on the uploaded files and see if any might be in-scope. Can you provide some links please in support of the block notice and create a deletion request rather than 'nuking' such a large number of files out of process? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Fæ, please also consider Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg, maybe another valid reason for the block. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of it, however that was not a reason given for this block. If The Photographer wishes to appeal the block, they have to stick to the block rationale given by the Administrator, not start second guessing what might be in their head or be concerned about matters that are irrelevant to COM:BP. In my opinion the threat to "nuke" all the uploads should not have been made in the block rationale, as it runs counter to the normal principles that apply on Commons. We should act on content of contributions, not opinions about the contributor. The majority of the files that I have seen in the mass upload are clearly within scope and of high quality, so if they went to a deletion request they would be kept. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Fæ, honestly, I saw the first pictures of this flickr user and I thought all were very good (there is perhaps a subjective factor as these images are from my country and I also must admit that some are not very good), so I left up these photos while I was sleeping and I had thought categorizing the next day without any problem. If you look at the last discussion, criticism and warnings were directed to don't let auto-categorization checkbox activated (which is activated by defalut on F2C tool). For me it is difficult to distinguish which are outside the scope images, for example, this picture will be featured in a short time, this one is already featured, however, someone could also say that these images are Commons:IDENT and Commons:SCOPE. The same could be said of this category, the images had been uploaded by me years ago. --The Photographer (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure. In the ideal mellow world, Natuur12 would come to you and say, "Look, I see a lot of out of scope images, e.g. 1, 2, 3. How about we nuke these as a batch and you can look at them again?" Then you would say, "Yes, please nuke this lot, thanks very much. I'll take a careful look at how to select decent selections within this stream."
Unfortunately, instead we have a block with no attempt at discussion, and the unthinking deletion of 10,000 files before any attempt to find out if there are any other options, even though the images are perfectly good in terms of copyright, not spam and there is no conceivable harm in keeping them on-wiki for a week or longer before mass deletion all or some of them. Not a happy situation for any of the parties involved, nor does it bode well for the future of Commons as a long term repository of free images that takes calm and careful curation. --Fæ (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I get this block as a call to rethink my stay in this project :) --The Photographer (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is the deletion described as "unthinking" when the whole problem is that the upload was "unthinking"? The Photographer, leave tools like this for folk without the talent to create their own works, and without the charm to recruit the image creator to Commons. Speaking of which, why didn't you consider asking if that photographer would like to join Commons and upload those images they felt were educational? The word "curation" is mentioned by Fae, yet this is a human skill that a bot is completely unable to perform. If Commons is to have any value, it shouldn't be a hoover to vacuum up any social-media image with a free licence. Stick to being "the photographer", and hopefully you will inspire other photographers to Commons. That is how Commons should grown, in my opinion, not by the use of bots. -- Colin (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Camaleón (4801450505).jpg

File:Camaleón (4801450505).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 ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:"elefante tomate 2" (4801353291).jpg

File:"elefante tomate 2" (4801353291).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 ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Nochmal ich (4754135810).jpg

File:Nochmal ich (4754135810).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 ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Caracas building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Grandma's room.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grandma's room.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

FP

[2]? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Welding Work in Isla Margarita.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. --Moroder 09:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notice

I have nominated your File:Vagina collage 12.jpg for speedy deletion. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This user is, of their own volition, no longer very active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.

Nominating a diagram for FP?

Hello The Photographer. I message you to know your opinion about nominating this picture for Featured Pictures in Commons. Since you are one of the best illustrators (and also a photographer) in Wikimedia projects, I like to know, in your opinion, does this picture qualify to be a featured picture in commons and will it be a good idea that I nominate this picture? Illustrating this file took me some hours and I really like to nominate it so I would be thankful if you give me some feedback and advice around it if it is still not good for becoming a nominee. Thank you Ali Zifan 01:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ali Zifan, thanks for your positive comments, to write here and take my opinion into account. Regarding your picture, I've been watching is excellent from design the point of view and It would be nice to talk to a biologist to verify this information, really is very good. My only criticism is add some more text size, delimit the phase change somehow maybe different background color. Titles located on top, which are framed in a red rectangle are too strong and bold which subtracts prominence to the main design. --The Photographer (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Ali Zifan 20:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome, please, let me know if you need help with your diagrams. o/ --The Photographer (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fabrique de la paroisse Saints-Anges-de-Montmorency.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. Partially a bit soft (I wonder why, maybe the lens has some field curvature at 70mm), but given the resolution still good, and the delicate reduced colours are excellent. --Aristeas 09:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Promenade Saint-Charles 09.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. --Moroder 03:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! House in Quebec city.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Charles Cemetery and Saint-Charles river.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. --Moroder 04:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

File:FVA Logo.gif

File:FVA Logo.gif 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 ∙ +/−

Glorious 93 (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fleur de Lys centre commercial 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 18:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Panorama of Boulevard Champlain from Parc du Bois-de-Coulonge.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 QI --Lmbuga 18:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Terrasse Dufferin 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support I Think that it's QI--Lmbuga 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilfredor/Archive_24&oldid=696280612"