User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2012/Q3

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:
Concurrency (road).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Let me say. It's not enough explaining, 'cause destinations or roads (and you may also understand philosophically) differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arantz (talk • contribs) 2012-07-19T02:53:45‎ (UTC)
•  Support, without philosophical consideration. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hetch Hetchy May 2011 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 Good quality. --Cayambe 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bert Hubbard -- OTRS Ticket #2012081710000896

The images are (in the OTRS e-mail order):

1. File:Hubbard Bert - Hubbard right - Lee Embrey left - 1949.jpg
2. File:Hubbard Bert - Hubbard left - Joan Hinderstein middle - Richard Proctor right - in Othello 1960.jpg
3. File:Hubbard Bert - The Prince - Machiavelli - 1962.jpg
4. File:Hubbard Bert - Glitz - 1987.jpg

I was the deleting Admin and have discussed them on my talk page with the uploader at User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Deletion_requests_for_fotos_of_Bert_Hubbard.

I am not inclined to restore any of them. In each case, while Hubbard may own or have control over photographs and negatives, he does not mention a written transfer of copyright, so he does not own the copyright or have the right to license it.

1. Unknown photographer, first published in the USA in 2002 -- copyright runs until 2097 -- publication date plus 95 years.
2. Copyright belongs to the friend -- no written transfer, therefore no permission
3. Copyright belongs to the photographer, John Karalis and runs until at least 1/1/2048.
4. Copyright belongs to Wally Wengel and there is no written transfer.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Yeah, it appears that none of them are PD currently. Also, do you know how copyright expiry works for things that are improperly published? As in, they were published with the permission of Bert Hubbard, but not the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. You're correct that my dates above are probably not correct. Carl Lindberg would my go to person to answer the question, but I'll say for #1 it's one of:

• 120 years after the 1949 creation (most likely)
• 95 years after the 2002 publication (not likely, as you say, the 2002 publication was without permission)

In the other cases, where the photographer is known, it will be the later of 70 PMA or 1/1/2048.

So, even granting that we take a very long view of things, the earliest undelete on any of them would be 1/1/2048. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token b60f3501c133737dcefc3fc419e432bb

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stanford Memorial Church May 2011 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 Nice and appealing !--Jebulon 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Chris Rogers0055.jpg

Hi. Regarding Deletion requests/File:Chris Rogers0055.jpg, I didn't think of OTRS but will do in future. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! GE Building New York August 2012 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! GE Building New York August 2012 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marble Hill - 225th Street subway August 2012.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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fußballländerspiel Österreich-Ukraine (01.06.2012) 43.jpg

Hi King of Hearts,

thank you for reviewing the picture. I have retouched the disturbing arm at the foreground. Maybe you like the picture now. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

I moved here in the Commons but one image in category stands alone ??????????????? Do you know what's the problem? Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. What image or category are you talking about? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This picture. I moved here but I intend to transferring files here. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to add the picture to a category? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I try but I do not know what category to put the picture. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot tell what it is based on looking at it, and I also cannot understand Bolnice u Narodnooslobodilačkom ratu even with Google Translate. You should probably ask someone at Category:User sr to help you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-Turkey-COA

Template:PD-Turkey-COA 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 template, 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. 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!

Takabeg (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Noyabaad_Mosque_(5).jpg

Hi, I applied for this image, and today i got a reply that the image is not featured. As you have confirmed the decision, i would like to request the reason. Because i believe this will help me to improve my future submission quality. Thanks -- -- Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, confirming the decision does not involve doing anything substantial, it's simply a step to check that the bot counted the votes correctly. But anyways, the reason your image did not pass is because it did not get 7 support votes in 9 days. The requirements for passing are a support-to-oppose ratio of at least 2:1, and 7 support votes. I've had this happen to me as well; I think in general it's because people are indifferent to your nomination but don't want to oppose, or simply bad luck. You can nominate it after a few months if you want. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. in future i will be careful about these points. i have an another question that, is there any fixed rule to renominate a image? -- -- Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No. But it is generally seen as poor taste if you renominate it too soon. In the case that the failure is due to a low support-to-oppose ratio (rather than too few supports as this one), you should also fix the problems mentioned by the opposers before renominating. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Stanford Memorial Church May 2011 HDR.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stanford Memorial Church May 2011 HDR.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2012 (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:
Solow building.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope IMO. --JLPC (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Off-center

Thanks for your review and comment on composition. You suggested very off-center as an alternative. Is this a good "off-center" composition? Regards--ArildV (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is sufficiently off-center for me. However, I think the framing is unbalanced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fremont Central Park April 2011 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 05:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fremont Central Park April 2011 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 05:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quarry Lakes April 2011 panorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Really nice quality picture.--Danesman1 19:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yacht against Jersey City skyline August 2012.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. --Cayambe 12:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Geese

Great! Thank you.

You are not only the king of hearts, but the king of noble behaviour too.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Blank lines: No need for a tool, IMO, we just have to take care by ourselves, as stated in the guidelines. Moreover, Dschwenn does a great job indeed, but he is not the "Grand-Master" of QIC page...--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Elymnias_hypermnestra_female_2_by_kadavoor_edit.jpg was promoted. Thanks, again. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Central Park New York August 2012 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 QI for me. --JLPC 20:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gunn High School May 2011.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. --JDP90 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 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 QI to me --Jarekt 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 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 Small, but good--Jebulon 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Otospermophilus beecheyi Stanford April 2011 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 QI to me. --Iifar 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nycticorax nycticorax Newark April 2011.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 Fine with me. --Iifar 18:33, 12 September 2012 (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:
BART Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City line.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belmont May 2011 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 Would be better with a crop on the lower side IMO. --JLPC 21:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)  Done --King of Hearts 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) QI to me now. --JLPC 07:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seal Slough May 2011 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 00:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Central Park New York August 2012 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FIFA Fan Fest Paris June 2010.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 Ok with me. --Iifar 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! I-880 Hayward May 2011 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 Uninspiring view, but ok quality. Biopics 23:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seal Slough May 2011 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 Good, but there are dust spots Poco a poco 11:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Fixed --King of Hearts 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Good now Poco a poco 20:33, 18 September 2012 (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:
McWay Falls.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment McWay Falls 04-17-2009.jpgseems to me better because it shows better the environment. Even if it is not geocoded.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  If you really wanted it to show a lot of the environment, look no further than the scope McWay Cove. I feel mine shows the falls themselves better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope (for the falls itself), meets all criteria. cmadler (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mission San Jose April 2011 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 Disturbing car, minimal perspective distortion -- Lothar Spurzem 01:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Fixed King of Hearts 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) But a little bit of the car I see still. -- Lothar Spurzem 23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seal Slough May 2011 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seal Slough May 2011 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 Several dust spots. --Mattbuck 10:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Fixed King of Hearts 17:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Preventing the bot from picking this up. Please check back for changes more often. --King of Hearts 00:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Bot removed as idle after about 8 days, so you were fine. Mattbuck 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)