User talk:Diego pmc

English: Welcome to the Commons, Diego pmc!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

permission-template

please stop moving the permission-template into the information-template for no reason at all. Right now the preferred way to use the Information-template is to use text only and put additional templates below (as you can clearly see when you upload a new image). Changing that for no reason at all doesn't make sense and leads to inconsistent layout. If it's decided to use the information template in a different way these changes could be made by a bot. Thank you. -- Gorgo 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:The Tales of Beedle the Bard Front Cover.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:The Tales of Beedle the Bard Front Cover.PNG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by User:Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 08:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Normal Beedle The Bard5.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Normal Beedle The Bard5.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by User:Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 08:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

HDR

I condemn you for your attempt to show off your edited version of Image:New York City at night HDR.jpg by replacing the original image. Do not repeat this frivolous action. Jan Hofmann 11:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:New York City at night HDR.jpg Jan Hofmann 06:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Movie

Hello. Unfortunately, we have a hard upload limit of 20MB, and full movies would surely be over that limit. (This is a software limit, nothing we can do about it.) You could always upload clips of it to, say, illustrate a Wikipedia article. If you still wish to upload the movie in full, you may consider other options such as the Internet Archive. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that will be useful for Wikimedia projects, go for it. Rocket000 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Punch

Wow, thanks =) I'll have to check, I'm afraid, but I'll have the exact details in a couple hours. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I checked, but they don't actually appear to have issue numbers, at least, not that they consistently printed. The Volume number and date is the only thing listed on the page itself. Maybe it's listed on the issue covers - but I, unable to afford the originals, instead work from high-quality photocopies. That said, I did finfd the author: It was Clement Scott [1]

I wouldn't trust it to be issue 14, though, there's a certain amount of drift after 30 years. Tell you what. I just bought that ebay item, so I'll let you know in two weeks, and, hell, I'll even scan the entire issue for you. Deal? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Garstang

By the way, if you wanted something for now, I have a short, but rare book by Walter Garstang, Songs of the Birds. It's not long - just over 100 small pages with big type, and then at least a quarter of the remaining space is illustration, or the musical notation of the bird calls. It's a collection of verse about bird song by a major naturalist, and mixes meticulous documentation of bird song with fairly good poetry.

This isn't generally considered Garstang's best verse - that would be Larval forms, which are poems about... well, whatever you'd call what we'd now call evo-devo back in the very early 1900s - but it's a nice little rare book, and if you'll help, we can do it =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember having a full photocopy of the first issue of Fun somewhere, but I may have lent it to another researcher. By the way, on Goody Two-Shoes, you really should ask en:User:Awadewit for help with that - she's doing a PhD on 18th-century children's literature. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I got the Punch volume and discovered that... Punch doesn't number its issues, at least not in the bound versions. Go with the date. It's what everyone uses but Wikisource =) I'll start scanning tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wow!_signal.ogg

Image deletion warning

Image:Wow!_signal.ogg 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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Madman2001 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

FPC

Please have a look at our Image Guidelines before reviewing/nominating on FPC. Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

VI closure

Hi Diego,

I see you are very enthusiastic about tagging images for VI, adding to lists, etc. Actually all this is automatically being taken care of by VICbot once a day (as I recall around 12am (UTC)). See also Commons:Valued image closure. I would therefore like to ask you to undo the taggings, as I am afraid the bot will be confused by your edits. After that, just wait a few hours and enjoy the VI bot ride;-) Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chindia Tower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Caracter picture --Foroa (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I would be nice with a heading on the geocode: Is it SE (looks so on Google maps)? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Actually it's more like NE if you ask me. I think this is the direction in which the image was taken, based on the corner of the pyramid at the base, and the angle of the ruined wall in the background, which looks quite a lot like the wall in the right side of the tower in that image I linked.
  Anyway, this heading parameter is only for Camera location, and I don't think we can accurately say where the camera was located.diego_pmc (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with your analysis regarding the heading. In that case the geolocation is not entirely correct as the heading looks more like SE based on the indicated camera position. Hmm... I think I will ask the creator. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• As you've noticed I already asked him. BTW, when I drew the arrow, I didn't think of the possible location of the camera. I would rather say that this is where the author might have stood. For details see CristianChirita's talk page. diego_pmc (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  I think you are right in your analysis and I simply suggest you correct the geocode to that position. In any case it is far more accurate than the current position. Thank you for addressing this so thoroughly;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I just added the camera coordinates, and the heading (BTW did I add it right; it doesn't seem to do anything). Also the Commons logo still appears in the wrong location. will it update itself? diego_pmc (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  The heading wasn't added entirely correctly. I think I have corrected that. The location usually adjust to a new heading after some time. Strange that the position has not moved though. Have not tried moving position before, so I do not have any experience with that. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• The location fixed itself, as it seems. BTW, the author responded me on my English talk page. Take a look at the location. :D diego_pmc (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  ..which shows you are a real geo-detective! Nice analysis! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Satisfies all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Neacșu's letter.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info This is the oldest available document written in Romanian language (at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was used in Romanian). Unfortunately there are only two versions of this document, and both of them are available at Commons. I think this is the better one. diego_pmc (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Should this image be geocoded?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's a document, why should it be geocoded? diego_pmc (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose The stated author (in the image page) is the one of the document, not the photographer. Idem regarding the copyright. This should be fixed; currently we have no information whatsoever on the copyright status of the photograph. If the geographic location of the letter is known (museum?), then I think it should be geocoded and stated in the description. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on faithful photographic reproductions of public domain works is that they too "are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". And this is pretty much a faithful photographic reproduction.

  Also, about the geocoding. I believe it is irrelevant because the subject of the photograph is a piece of paper, and the coordinates would do nothing to help the user understand the subject of the picture. Also, there are other similar VIs, that have no geocoding, nor do they mention the author of the photograph. A few examples are Image:Psalms Scroll.jpg, Image:Vindication1b.jpg, Image:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg. Futhermore, the VI criteria states that "studio and other non-place-related shots" don't need geocoding. diego_pmc (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  You are right about the PD thing, but the tag used was not the right one. Fixed that. However, I still think that the photographer should be identified. Actually, I am pretty sure that the right of paternity cannot be renounced in some countries (such as mine), which means that even a PD photograph must be attributed. And I think it is just fair and logical, but maybe it is not a VI criterion. About geocoding: if the picture has been taken in the "usual" museum of the letter, why not state it in the description?? That kind of geographic information is relevant for a historical document. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with Eusebius: geocoding of usual place of document is useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why wasn't geocoding necessary for Image:Psalms Scroll.jpg then? diego_pmc (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  I would have asked for it as well. But I don't see where the problem is. If you know that the photograph was taken at the museum, just state it in the image page and put an approximate geotag. If you don't, or if it was taken elsewhere, then it is not so relevant and you can just say in which museum the letter can be found. Regarding the "author" field, if you know who the photographer is, just name her in the description. And if you don't... well, licensing is not a VI criterion. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I asked someone from that town to mark the location of the museum for me on Google Maps. About the author, unfortunatelly I can't find any info on that on the source website. diego_pmc (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  The address is "Str. Justitiei, nr. 7, Targoviste" but I cannot find a map of the town. The mention of the museum is enough to me, I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Justitiei St. is the horizontal street from the upper part of this image. I asked someone from that town to put a mark on the museum. diego_pmc (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK then, let's wait for the tag. --Eusebius (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I got it. I still have doubts about how useful this really is, or if it is necessary, since the others passed without it, but what the heck. Here it is. diego_pmc (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment A question has been raised about the earlier document type candidates without geodata, which have been promoted. I think I have supported several of those without requiring geodata. IMO not having the geodata on those VIs is OK. The reason being that I consider them as studio shots. The underlying reason for this view is that IMO there is no single location which is the obvious choice. Should it be where the document was prepared (if known, and the preparation may have been done at several different locations), the location where it was found, or the location, where it can be found at the moment? For these types of images I am more in favor of an accurate image page linking to relevant Wimedia project content pages concerning these different types of locations. The individual geodata for those locations should then ideally (and, in fact, they often are) be associated to the Wikimedia content pages referred to. I think it is to strain the geodata requirement a little too much to require the type of geodata here. It is OK to request for information of where it can be found on the image page, but it should be the Wikipedia article about the museum, which is geocoded for these types of photos not the photo itself. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK... Maybe I've been a bit psychorigid here! --Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  Psychorigid! Cool term;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Einstein explains E=mc2.ogg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Einstein explains E=mc2.ogg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palais Luxembourg Sunset Edit.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 Looks very ok to me (already a FP). I think the demotion of a QI and the promotion of another are independent. --Eusebius 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Elephas Maximus Eye Closeup cropped.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 Wouldn't that require a delisting process for QIs? Or did I miss that? I like my original version, too - I think the sky gives the picture some "breathing space" and I believe it to be QI-worthy --AlexanderKlink 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) No discussion necessary, only a promo/decline vote. QI's are not delistable/ replacable. Lycaon 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) * Excellent sharpnes. The tighter crop makes it more interesting in some respects, less so in others. In total still a QI. --Florian Prischl 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:LMFBR schematics2.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:LMFBR schematics2.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Diego pmc!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Risen Fan-Made miss.PNG is uncategorized since 5 June 2009.
• Image:Risen Fan-Made attack screen.PNG is uncategorized since 5 June 2009.
• Image:German Instrument of Surrender (May 7, 1945) - page 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:German Instrument of Surrender (May 7, 1945) - page 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:3colormixes.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:1McolorsRGB.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Possibly Unfree Image

{{subst:idw-pui|Wow signal.jpg}} The file Wow signal.jpg is not a free image as it is not a product of the US Federal Government, it is from Ohio State University.

File:King_Jigme_Khesar_Namgyel_Wangchuck_edit_2.jpg

File:King_Jigme_Khesar_Namgyel_Wangchuck_edit_2.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!

-- bydand•talk 01:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Format

Vezi aici. Poate dai o mana de ajutor, daca te pricepi. Merci. 89.136.135.231 07:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Dacia

Hi! I created the Commons:WikiProject Dacia as a sister project to WP:DACIA and WP:DACIA to better organize, categorize and improve the quality of media and galleries related to ancient Dacia. From your contributions, I think you might be interested and maybe you wish to join and support the project. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

... and happy holidays! --Codrin.B (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Tăriceanu Note.png

File:Tăriceanu Note.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. 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!

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Monument Decebal sword.jpg

And also:

• File:Monument sabia Decebal.JPG Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wow signal.jpg

File:Wow signal.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!

Dissident (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured video UserBox

Hi, Diego

If you wish you can use the new userbox for FV which shows

This user has uploaded featured media to Wikimedia Commons.

. -- Eatcha (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Cuore - front matter.jpg

File:Cuore - front matter.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!

Verbcatcher (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)