User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2023/Q3

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

Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS

[edit]

Dear interface administrator,

This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.

There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.

As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.

Have a great day!

Samuel (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Security team 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation notification: Commons:Deletion policy

[edit]

Hello King of Hearts,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish and Chinese on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Deletion policy is available for translation. You can translate it here:

The priority of this page is high.


This is an important policy page, please assist to translate it into your language.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 14:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Input requested

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. What's your take on File:Carol Sklenicka signing her book - Raymond Carver-.jpg and File:Carol Sklenicka autographing her book -Raymond Carver-.jpg? There's a good chance that the uploader is the photographer who took the photos, and the photos don't seem to be being used anywhere else; however, the copyright claim in each file's EXIF data doesn't really seem to be inline with COM:L and the CC-by-sa-4.0 licenses the uploader has chosen. Do you think these should be VRT verified? In addition, since you're also an admin on English Wikipedia, I'm wondering whether you could take a look at the way the "autographing her book" photo is being attributed in en:Carol Sklenicka. It seems that the attribution on the file's page should be sufficient and it's not really necessary to dp so again in-article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really pay too much attention to copyright claims in the EXIF metadata, unless they imply that the uploader is likely not the photographer. For a photo credibly claimed to be own work, we don't ask for VRT unless it has been previously published. You're correct that we don't do inline attribution on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello King of Hearts. I have come across a number of photographs uploaded by Publiccorrectionsmdah on July 11 that appear to be copyright content from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History website or other copyright sources. In fact, the Metadata on some suspect photos show "All Rights Reserved" and "Copyright Tom Beck". Seems like an Administrator should look into this before more photos are uploaded to Commons. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their username, they are clearly claiming to be a representative of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. I would ask them to verify their identity via VRT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joan Elkin's Painting, Jarvis Thurston and His Circle.jpg

[edit]

Hi KOA. Would you mind taking a look at File:Joan Elkin's Painting, Jarvis Thurston and His Circle.jpg? This seems to be a case of COM:2D copying unless the original painting has also been released under a CC license. The uploader appears to have gotten the artist’s consent. Do you think VRT verification is needed for this? — Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same uploader also uploaded File:Beers, Lorna Img001.jpg, File:Beers, Lorna Img002.jpg, File:Beers, Lorna Img004.jpg and File:Beers, Lorna Img003.jpg, which too appear to be a case of “2D copying”. The files state they have OTRS permission, but there are no ticket numbers and nothing else that indicates that an OTRS member reviewed the files. Finally, there are also File:Susan Stang in Italy in 2012. (Photo by Sam Stang.).jpg and File:Dr. Richard Stang in 1994..jpg which might need VRT verification, but I’m not sure. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, VRT is required whenever the uploader is not the author of 100% of the copyrightable content in the work and there is no public evidence of a free license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at these. Do you think tagging them with {{Npd}} is sifficient? Would it be better to bring that all to DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Npd is easier, but for groups of related images it can be worth the few seconds to open a batch DR to ensure consistent handling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a DR about them at Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by JayDivine. Feel free to cleanup any syntax errors I might've made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started the DR and the uploader joined the discussion. I tried to explain what I thought needed to be done and the uploader seemed to be in agreement and stated they were moving towards a resolution. I mistakenly assumed that meant, least in the case of File:Susan Stang in Italy in 2012. (Photo by Sam Stang.).jpg and File:Dr. Richard Stang in 1994..jpg, the person or persons who took the photos was going to email VRT. What it turned out to be was File:Susan Hacker Stang self-portrait.jpg and File:Richard Stang, 1994.jpg uploaded by Farefoto, an account that hadn't edited in more that 10 years who seems to claiming they're Susan Hacker Stang. If these are OK, then cool. If not, then maybe someone else needs to try and explain what needs to be done because I didn't seem to do a very good job.

This is similar to my interactions with the uploader about non-free content use and reliable sources at en:User talk:JayDivine#Book cover files in Carol Sklenicka. In that case, I tried to explain that business email correspondence between publishing house employees and the author of a book and internal emails between employees most likely wouldn't be considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and probably should be being cited as such, or at would be primary sources at best with limited use. When I asked whether such "rudimentary personal correspondence" (their description of the sources, not mine) were published and accessible is some way for verification purposes, I got links to publishing house profiles instead saying that the individuals involved were "accessible". The end result was the adding additional citations to similar sources to the article to justify the book covers non-free uses. Since you're an admin on both English Wikipedia and Commons, maybe you could take a look at what was discussed in the DR and also on English Wikipedia. If everything is in order, then great and I'll just let things be. If not, then maybe another voice trying to explain what needs to be done will help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons photographers: next virtual meeting on August 5

[edit]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I'm inviting you to our next virtual meeting on Saturday, August 5th. We'll have two speakers: Poco a poco will provide us with an update on his underwater photography and George Oates from the Flickr Foundation will talk about the Flickr-to-Commons bridge (“Flickypedia”) that is currently in the works. If you're interested in attending, please sign up on this page: Virtual Meeting on August 5, 2023.

I hope you're having a great time taking photos and I'm looking forward to seeing you on August 5th.

All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted these edits

[edit]
ResolvedSemi-resolved. File:Logo of Stanford University.png still up. --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this revision and this revision, becuase "Probably old enough" is not a copyright expiration. their website says the seal was designed in 2002 (not expired) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also that deletion request is over 10 years old, that's quite outdated. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Jcb, he made that decision on the deletion request over a decade ago, let's see if he still stands by it. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuickQuokka: Any file previously kept at DR is never eligible for speedy deletion, period. If you disagree with the decision, you should start a new DR. I've done so here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Stanford University.png. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: Genuine question: Can you please link to that policy/guideline? Not trying to be passive aggressive I just genuinely had no idea.
But again, in my opinion, the first DR was invalid, but I'll add a comment on the new DR. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:CSD: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." As long as the previous DR discussed copyright issues, I don't think it would ever qualify as "newly discovered" even if new evidence is presented. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request block for Haryplg

[edit]

Sir @King of Hearts, I requesting block for @Haryplg because he repeatedly upload many radio and television networks, channels and stations in Indonesia logos using any non-free files which potentially violating copyrights and intellectual property rights, just like this:

Thanks..... 36.69.22.249 15:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

King of Hearts, Hello, Please delete my file past version as my per request. Kind regards → คⅴīгค๓ ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 04:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kings of Hearts, Thanks :) → คⅴīгค๓ ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 04:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File

[edit]

King of Hearts, Hello, I would like to ask you if you could restore this 19th century photograph to me, it is part of a private collection Please?? Ladrrionesius (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder: Commons Photographers meeting this Saturday

[edit]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

This is a quick reminder that our next meeting will happen on Saturday, August 5th. If you haven't registered yet and you're interested in learning more about underwater photography and “Flickypedia”, please sign up on this page. Also, I invite you to fill out this survey created by the people who are working on the Flickr-to-Wikimedia Commons software. Your input will make a difference.

We haven't had a virtual meeting in a while and I'm so looking forward to this weekend!

All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAAF Cheetah E Logo.jpg

[edit]

I don't know much about the ToO in South Africa but the cheetah looks like it was taken from a photograph and looks complex. Should I nominate it for deletion? Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio file deletion request

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts, please delete these files he is copyvio, sorry i dont known, I hate copyvio.thank you → คⅴīгค๓ ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 06:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolf Moving Amination.gif File:Ram Darbar Ayodhya.jpeg File:Shri Bageshwar Dham Balaji (Hanumanji) Chatarpur, MP. jpeg.jpg File:Shri Krishna With Radharaniji.jpeg File:Lord Rama With Hanumanji Maharaj.jpeg 

File:Wolf Moving Amination.gif

File:Жжук.png

[edit]

Hi. The company is Ukrainian https://opendatabot.ua/c/37741113 and since there is no COM:TOO info on Ukraine, I don't think the logo can be PD. Thoughts? -- DaxServer (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: This logo is completely just text in a normal font, which is not copyrightable in any country in the world, so we don't need country-specific TOO info. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see, didn't know the first two characters are alphabets. Thanks for the clarification ;) -- DaxServer (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2012042310010184

[edit]

We've got Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giants of Serbian Literature Stamps. It hinges on ticket:2012042310010184 mentioned in the discussed images. Could you please 1) confirm that the ticket justifies uploading those files on Commons, and 2) clarify what does that email concern: those particular postal stamps, all Serbian stamps, etc.? Thanks a lot. Materialscientist (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is written in Serbian. I can confirm that it contains a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, but you'll need to get a Serbian-speaking agent to understand the details. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate should work well with Serbian. Can you try? (I understand that some subtleties can be lost in translation, but I need to get a rough idea about that ticket). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with accessing Commons from mobile Wikipedia

[edit]

Hello King of Hearts. Since we had a discussion and you are an interface administrator I want to bring a technical issue to your attention, hope you won't mind. Often when I go to Commons from the mobile Wikipedia's images after clicking the photo and "Details" tab, the website fails to load. This issue doesn't always occure sometimes the site does load alternatively in mobile or desktop mode. It's been happening for a while and I didn't know where to complain about this. Hope you'll help, thank you! Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't experienced this issue, but maybe you can ask at COM:VPT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is really inactive, still I've asked there. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Бананан IMG 20200608 221000.jpg

[edit]

Hello, why reverted? I provided the source of the photo, the file is just a bad photo of the original image. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorianH76: Ah, I did not realize that the Commons file is a photo of a screen. But in general, we don't speedy-delete photos that are high-res and/or have EXIF if the external source does not have at least as much quality/metadata as the Commons image, because that means that the Commons image was not taken from the alleged source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enveloppe premier jour d'émission - Gorges d'El Kantara - 1977.jpg

[edit]

You mind if I ask why you converted into a normal DR instead of just letting the un-deletion request play out? There's been a bunch of DRs for Algerian stamps that resulted in delete and I don't really want to see one clearly meritless DR put them all in question if the image is kept. Plus like I said in the DR the image on the cover is copyrighted regardless. So it seems pretty obvious the image is copyrighted whatever the status of the stamps is. Although the idea that they are applied art is totally ridiculous on it's face to begin with. Just an FYI, I'm only asking in case you know something about this that I don't since I've been thinking about expending the stamp section of the copyright page for Algeria and it seems like there needs to be a wider discussion about if stamps are applied art or not outside of this anyway. So it would be cool if you know anything that could help with either one. I'm not even sure how I would find out more information about the law in Algeria at this point. Let alone how they might qualify something as applied art or not. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COM:CSD#F1 requires the file to be a clear copyright violation. The presence of this disagreement, which is not easily resolved regardless of whatever you claim, means that the original speedy deletion was incorrect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Regardless of my "claim" though I assume the administrator who deleted thought it was a clear copyright violation. Although I will say that I spend a lot of time working in the area of stamps and philately subjects more generally. So it's not something that I'm completely ignorant of. In fact, I'm correct a lot more then I'm not when I nominate an image of a stamp for deletion. There's also been other DRs for Algerian stamps involving multiple administrator that were deleted. So it's not like I just pulled the whole thing out of thin air for no reason. It should be reasonable to nominate an image for speedy deletion if there's already been multiple DRs for similar ones that resulted in delete. I don't think a previous consensus should be discarded that easily just because a user has an issue with their upload being nominated for deletion. Otherwise there'd be zero point in doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ho Man Tin view from a roof.jpg

[edit]

Hi, I think we should delete files from socks, as per en:Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Yann (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would require a change to COM:DP or COM:CSD. So far, community consensus is against treating sockpuppetry as a valid reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Сергей Николаевич Биец.jpg

[edit]

Why reverted? I didn't get the reason why you reverted it. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorianH76: The photo appears to have had a free license at http://marsky.ru/foto/cc-by-sa/. Unfortunately that link went down before undergoing formal LicenseReview, but we tend to be more lax with photos uploaded a lot time ago such as 2008. The uploader, Abiyoyo, is trustworthy and probably would be granted LicenseReviewer permissions if they asked for it, so I consider it effectively LicenseReviewed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader uploaded just several photos, the link is not valid, but you decided to keep photo? FlorianH76 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FlorianH76: The uploader has 916 contributions on Commons, a lot of which is maintenance work such as participating in DRs and translating Commons policies into Russian. Therefore I don't think they would lie about a CC license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahejakova.jpg

[edit]

Why reverted? THere is no evidence about license. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorianH76: Don't tag images already at DR as "no permission". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was done to get the permission in order to keep it from the deletion. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the wrong approach at user pages which are clearly inactive for a very long time. What you do is a push for deletion in 7 days, not a friendly reminder for the DR to co e up with a judgement. It is like a gag order to a dead person. Labrang (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barkashov.jpg

[edit]

Why reverted here? What does 2009 upload mean? Why it's obvious work? FlorianH76 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorianH76: Our standards for old uploads are more relaxed, because we never had our modern-day requirements back then and it is totally unfair to expect someone to return 10+ years later to defend their upload from 2009. Here we have a photo of someone taken with a point-and-shoot camera which is claimed to be "own work"; why do you believe they are lying? The username, Ddenniss, seems to match the named author, Dennis Petrov. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is not in its original size. Check the original photo here https://vk.com/ap_barkashov?z=photo247656085_324800302%2Fphotos247656085. It's definitely not own work. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FlorianH76: I don't have a VK account and can't access it without logging in. Could you provide some alternative way for me to view it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try this https://bigbookname.com/user/aleksandr-barkashov-247656085/photos#&gid=pswg-forced&pid=4 FlorianH76 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the same photo. Compare the position of his ears. In the Commons version, his face appears lower relative to the trees in the background. Also, while the BigBookName version is a wider crop, the Commons version has more detail, so neither photo can be derived from the other. A photographer is allowed to publish in multiple places; this doesn't mean that it's not their own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why to keep a photo from a user with one upload and doubtful authorship? There are many websites containing the exact photo. How do we know that the uploader just didn't take it from one of them? FlorianH76 (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To prove that A was (or could have been) taken from B, all of the following must hold true:
  1. A was published earlier than B (caveat: date on website could be faked);
  2. A contains an equal or larger portion of the image than B, in terms of cropping (caveat: AI/content-aware fill could extrapolate additional details);
  3. A is of equal or larger resolution than B, in terms of pixel-level detail (caveat: AI/upsampling could interpolate additional details);
  4. A contains at least as much EXIF metadata from the original camera as B (caveat: EXIF data could be faked).
I added some caveats just for completeness, but most of the time these are reliable indicators. If we treat the Commons image as B, could you present an external image which satisfies all of the requirements for A? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot Deck

[edit]

Hi King of ❤️♦️♣️♠️!

I would love to work with you to use your photos to design a tarot deck and/or deck of playing cards.

Would this be a project you’d consider? 2600:1017:B013:4B9:1DE:E28E:1211:9F96 13:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kesang Choden.jpg

[edit]

Hello, could you please check this file and make a conclusion in the deletion discussion there? FlorianH76 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied, but I'm not going to close it since there's not enough discussion to produce a consensus yet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dinmuhkamed Konayev.png

[edit]

Hello, could you please check this file and show your opinion in the discussion. FlorianH76 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions

[edit]

Hello, please check the following files. They all have the same license violation.

FlorianH76 (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Photographers User Group: Board Elections 2023

[edit]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

in preparation of the 2023 board election of our group, we invite you to take a look at the following page:

Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections 2023

and provide feedback.

The timeline for the 2023 election will be

  • September 15 – September 30: Applications for the election committee
  • October 1 – October 9: Vote for election committee (ideally comprised of three members)
  • October 10: Election committee starts work
  • October 20 – November 9: Nomination phase for candidacies
  • November 10 – December 10: Elections
  • December 15: Results announced

In the first step we ask you to be part of the election committe. Please add your name on the Election Page.

We are very much looking forward to hearing from you. Please use this talk page for your thoughts.

All the best

--Ailura (talk) for the CPUG board

File:Ritratto del Cardinal Neri Corsini.jpeg

[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to ask you if you could please restore this file for me which would be the work of Giovanni Battista Gaulli and used license Art|PD-old-100 therefore, regardless of who uploaded it, the File can be useful to the commons Project Miskin33 (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the nomination of the file.

[edit]

Dear Administrator 


        I sincerely says that i have no idea of how to delete the file:Logo of Cantonment Board Delhi, the one you have tagged.

Also the file was uploaded to my page so that i can use it in the article of Cantonment Board Delhi. It was my mistake that I had mentioned it to be my own work.

You can take further action if you think it violates the Commons policy.

Thank you 2409:4073:385:92D8:0:0:1750:90A1 04:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cannon Beach October 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cannon Beach October 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ecola Point October 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Rangan Datta Wiki 16:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Good quality. --Larryasou 18:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hug Point October 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.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 18:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neahkahnie Viewpoint October 2019.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. --1municipio 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cannon Beach October 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.
Comments Very good. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ecola Point October 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.
Comments Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hug Point October 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.
Comments Also really good. -- Ikan Kekek 08:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2023/Q3&oldid=811553477"