User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2012/Q4

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

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Casa Grande, Hearst Castle (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

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

Congratulations! CA-120 Oakdale 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 The sharpness is quite low especially on the left bottom corner (I suppose you have croped the original shot). A few dustposts to be corrected. --Sfu 15:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed King of Hearts 06:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I better like it with some ground below, but it's ok now. --Sfu 08:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?[edit]

Hi King of s. I was wondering if you've ever considered becoming an administrator? I ask this because your qualifications seem quite obvious to me (OTRS member, patroller, frequent participation in DRs, experience with duplicates, etc). If you do have an interest now, or in the future, I'd be happy to nominate you. INeverCry 22:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually contacted by someone over email two months ago offering to nominate me if I got my edit count and activity up. If/when I decide to run (probably in the next two months), it'll be great if you could co-nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think an RFA by you right now would be successful, but if you'd rather wait, I certainly wouldn't want to hurry you. I hope it's sooner rather than later though, as Fastily has left a big void around here when it comes to admin work of the DR variety. I'd be happy to either nominate you or vote support whenever you're ready. INeverCry 02:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
P versus NP problem.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for fixing these, [1] [2] I certainly don't mind. I guess I have typed too many "templates"... --whym (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Dijkstra's algorithm.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Napoleon's theorem.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Please revert deletion of other photo of RunnigTide[edit]

I have seen that you kept the photos of as for example this one of RunnigTide. Could you please also undo the delete of that one? Thanks.
PS Kees Jurgens has a publicly available email. See here and search for Jurgens. Wouter (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission without license[edit]

Please note this file: File:The Donner Party Kidz!.jpg. Permission is present, but the license is not specified. --Art-top (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to renominate for featured image?[edit]

Hi, can you please let me know the method of renominate for featured image. -- -- Nasir Khan Saikat (Talk|Contributions) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just create a new nomination for it. For example, if the old nomination was at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example.jpg, then create a new one at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example.jpg (2nd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear King of Hearts/Archive/2012,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
 Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 12:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA nomination[edit]

Per your acceptance of my offer via email, please see Commons:Administrators/Requests/King of Hearts. If you are still willing to go forward, indicate your acceptance at that page, bring the timer live, and transclude the page here. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Camarillo April 2010.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Camarillo April 2010.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Stefan4 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Niagara Falls July 2005.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Niagara Falls July 2005.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Stefan4 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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!
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 ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Featured Picture nomination comment[edit]

Thank you for your comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg. This is a first time process for me -- got any advice or input? Anything else I should do or say, or improve the image somehow? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this particular one, I wouldn't do anything about, and just let it run its course, the reason being that it's this particular photo that lead to the Streisand effect and changing it would be altering history. However, in general, e.g. for a photo that you or another Wikimedian took, it is common to upload alternative versions that attempt to fix the problems with the original image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, okay thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Stanford Memorial Church (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

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

Congratulations! Hearst Castle Neptune Pool September 2012 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 Just below the limit of overexposition at right -the statue, the relief on the wall- (IMO), but no details are lost, so, good for QI--Jebulon 10:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hearst Castle Casa del Sol September 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 Needs some perspective correcion on the building. - A.Savin 21:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done King of Hearts 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC) OK now - A.Savin 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hearst Castle Neptune Pool September 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 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hearst Castle September 2012 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Nice! --Iifar 08:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Zener cards.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review


Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

King of Hearts, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--99of9 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and you may find this page from Jim useful too. :) Good luck! Trijnsteltalk 11:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the team -- I see that once again Trijnstel has beaten me to suggesting that my crib sheet may be useful. Feel free to edit or add to it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you could do it. The only thing that went wrong is that you got more support votes in your RfA than I did in mine . Sven Manguard Wha? 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, but welcome to the team! And do not forget to keep on the good work you do in the non admin related topics of the projects. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thanks a lot for recovering File:Jadav Payeng.png & File:Jadav Payeng.jpg. Bishnu_Saikia (Talk) 13:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg[edit]

Thanks for your help with this UnDR. I spent a long time with him on my talk page trying to get him to say exactly how he used the base map and I was uncomfortable simply restoring it myself. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hearst Castle Neptune Pool September 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 OK now. --Kadellar 12:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fennec.JPG[edit]

I can't quarrel with your closing this, because I would like to see it closed as a keep. I was hoping, though, to give our new colleague time to withdraw the DR, rather than his feeling that we had somehow done him in.

I don't think there's a chance in the world that the zoo will come after him, but I'd rather lose one image than lose a newbie who can take great pix. Despite my gushing comments, we do have other images of Fennecs. Could you consider reopening it? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Hare[edit]

In looking at this undel req, I noticed you basically temp restored these files to look at them. You then say "if another admin agrees with this" they should close it. I was surprised to see that you didn't give an actual opinion on whether the images are ok to be hosted on Commons, which would give me or another admin something to agree with. They look ok to me, but if I were to close it, I'd be doing it on my own without an opinion from you. INeverCry 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, though Philospher's comment is worth looking into. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not only would I have been on my own, I would've most likely been 2/3 wrong. ;) The only reason I mentioned this to you is that I'm used to seeing detailed keep/delete rationales from you regarding questionable images. INeverCry 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to just to perform a technical restoration to enable discussion, not to give an opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the right way to go about it. Any of us can restore files, so just restoring them and not dealing with them doesn't make much sense. INeverCry 23:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change file name[edit]

Gracias por cambiar el nombre del archivo: 'Brea en flor'. Desconocía el comando rename ... Nuevamente, gracias. Arianza1 (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests[edit]

Hi!

About the deletion requests: George Romanov Pausini, Ana Carmella Matarazzo Pausini and Ângelo Cangueiro Matarazzo Pausini. The user who uploaded these files is a notorious vandal in the Portuguese Wikipedia (his sock puppets are Iagosp3 (talk · contribs) and Juliosp3 (talk · contribs)), creator of fake biographies (including George Romanov Pausini, Ana Carmella Matarazzo Pausini and Ângelo Cangueiro Matarazzo Pausini). He invented these false files to try to legitimize the false biographies in pt-wiki. Biólogo 32 What? 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Next time, please provide context when filing a DR like this, as "file name doesn't describe subject" is not a valid reason to delete in and of itself (in such cases we rename). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks. Biólogo 32 What? 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfonz Šarh.jpg[edit]

Hi, the bot doesn't actually support the transfer to the sl yet. I'll transfer the image there manually. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done (sl:Alfonz Šarh). --Eleassar (t/p) 10:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hoover Tower Stanford November 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 Very nice. - A.Savin 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoover Tower Stanford November 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. --JDP90 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fresh Hare[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. I recently closed Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Fresh_Hare as not done, with no clear consensus to restore or evidence suggesting that the files are indeed freely licensed. That said, I'd appreciate it if you could re-delete the files. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 01:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already re-deleted these after seeing the closed UDR. INeverCry 01:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, as long as the view-deleted bug is in effect, you don't need to ask. Feel free to re-delete anything I undelete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also re-delete File:Ljubljana2_087.JPG? I resigned my admin bit some time ago and can no longer perform deletions -FASTILY (TALK) 10:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Stanford University Main Quad 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 Good. --Selbymay 07:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ICR[edit]

Hi!

Nope, so far I have created only for inconclusive result and some for image issues ( perspective distortion, {{Blur}}, compression artifacts, color banding). Do you think we need also one for positive and for negative result? Regards, --Ivar (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Template:QICresult --Ivar (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After adding template QICresult please change discuss to promotion, decline or nomination (inconclusive). Regards, --Ivar (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Stanford University Main Quad 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 Good quality but dustspots in the sky to remove before promotion. --Selbymay 09:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done King of Hearts 10:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Stanford Oval May 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 Good quality and nice. --Moonik 07:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the QICresult thing about?[edit]

Hello King of Hearts, I noticed you left me a message and deleted it again. What was that all about. I did not see any discussion about a QICresult template anywhere. Is this template still being considered? By whom? What is wrong with the current process? It would just be more convenient for me if I was kept in the loop, so that I have time to prepare any bot changes. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see the new template and I see that the bot archived the nomination without any necessary changes. Good. The bot just looks at the Container-Template for each CR-Nom and processes only Decline or Promote templates (and archives stale nominations.. ..I think). Just keep me updated about changes on QIC in case they affect the bot operation. --Dschwen (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Van Nuys July 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 Although the empty and useless space on the left, quality is ok. --Selbymay 10:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hammer Museum Westwood June 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 - A.Savin 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red ensigns: a mid-way summation of the process[edit]

Hallo, You've left an administrative comment on my talkpage, which is found here, where you posted the terms of the temporary movebot limitation and encouraged me to work out the Red Ensigns rename issue with the user who was trying to oppose the move "and when you have reached a consensus, let me know on my talk page". I'm now on your talk page actually with very little to announce, first of all I would like to inform you that your comment has attracted a considerable thread on my wall, and second, which is why I can't let you know of a desirable progress regarding the category, is that the user on which you've imposed fairly and equally the assignment of coming in discussion with me is refusing to do so, as far as they're able to express themselves (i.e writing oddities about "delinkers" instead of responding to the topical argumentations). This recent phenomenon of undiscussing came about this morning and you can see that they haven't commented anything further on that designated thread. On this ground, unhappily, I'd like to ask you to consider abolishing the limitation uopn my critical usage of the Movebot since it was very right as long as we believed that the user could discuss or agree with co-editors and now, sadly this is a waste of time when my plentiful move commands can't take effect with the bot. I'm an editor highly dedicated to category management and wnat to ask you to grant me with the permission to handle the bot basing on my history as a catmaster who is sensitive to very most aspects after 2 years of renaming and carrying out many helpful corrections. Thankz, Orrlingtalk 14:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do when you get reverted at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is to open a CfD. After all, a discussion is going to take place anyways, so it might as well take place at the correct venue. I'll lift the restriction if you open a CfD (or otherwise settle or drop the matter). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. I'm afaraid not.. As a very basic thing, ever since I've learned how to harness the Bot and my other tools to the required moves, when an edit of mine is arbitrarily reasonlessly declined/reverted by the user they are reverted to simply the point where they will reason themselves. If I desire to use the movecat bot page it has so far been only a half-effect as feeding the commands into the 'actual' bot is nowadays limited for many productive editors. (those commands that are thwarted by the user are carried out manually, but the bot isn't being paid to sit unemployed): I propose therefore that I be handed the activation rights, to put the bread into the oven, so we all can enjoy a more efficiant and objective catmove process, as much as we've all understood in the past 2 days that the existing situation - where any stray user can delete commands without following basic conventions - was unwelcome. As a "categorist" I let anyone know that if they disagree on a command all they need is to add an argumentary comment below the relevant request (or, remove the request and address the requester about it) and then the parties might proceed to discuss at the category's talk page. I've initiated many Village Pump calls to the various rename talks and it proves good :) . I think what we want now, after you've reviewed the situation caused by the person undiscussing this morning, is that the fluent and coherent circle of maintenace here basically be restored, with a safe clear prospect of long-term freedom from those disruptions. In the small scale, it is wise that until I get the access, one of the Admins put Category:Red ensigns>Category:Red Ensigns into the movebot. Orrlingtalk 21:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who's right. The fact that he removed the request means that it is controversial by definition, and needs a CfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are contested: Deleting an editor's movecommand requires an argumentay comment in either requester's page (per that very page's guidelines) or insertion of "disagreed for the reason of..." below the command (as is quite commony done, which then allows editor to take their movecommand to a separate discusspage). As you very well can see the discussion I srarted about category:Red ensighs hasn't borne any response since I last texted you, no need to pretend like we no longer have well-established do's-and-don't-dso's here & like you have'nt read all the project threads dedicated to the problematic user & the paragraph I posted as reply to you on my talkpage. Orrlingtalk 12:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

INeverCry 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for rights[edit]

Hi, King of Hearts. According to Commons:License review/requests, the minimum waiting time of the request would not be two days? Érico Wouters msg 02:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that, I did not know at the time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, no problems.Érico Wouters msg 03:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Eastman Kodak HQ 1900.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastman Kodak HQ 1900.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Hammer Museum (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Deletion requests/FoP Italy[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. After this request of deletion I decided to occupy my time to list the files with the same problem. I drew up a list of many files to delete. The problem is "no FoP in Italy". Could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, except:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I update the page. Now I'm rereading several times your statements to refine the detection. :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nørre Vorupør Coast 2012-11-18.jpg[edit]

Hi King of Hearts,

Thank you for taking your time to review this FPC. Since your vote, an alternative has been proposed. Another reviewer (Jkadavoor) has requested that early reviewers also review the alternative. Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I prefer the original. Sometimes it's difficult to balance between obeying the rule of thirds and getting all the colors and compositional elements you want in an image, but in this case, I feel that the crop takes away too much of the sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, thanks. Thanks. I also think the 1/3 sky crop takes a bit too much away. I actualy have a another (not uploaded) crop, where the horizon is exactly in the middle, cropping just a little of the sky. Probably my own personal favorite. Maybe I should have started out with that, but I do not want to throw that into the game now, it would be too confusing. I could upload it though and link to it from the image page as an "other version".--Slaunger (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

請幫忙恢復（陸軍軍官學校）遭機器人誤刪圖像[edit]

Sorry I still understand the use of this discussion page. I mean I Chuan image of a military academy in September ten (1. Military diploma on the back. Jpg 2. Medals. Jpg, 3. Army officer school gates. Jpg, 4. Specifically refers to the Ministry of the door. Jpg, military diploma positive jpg, 6. Whampoa Lake jpg, the 7 Engineering Building. jpg, 8. specialist diploma. commemorative stamps 2.jpg jpg9 10. the commemorative stamps 1.jpg.) then to administrators to discuss seen, there is no copyright issues, I also authorize Wiki use, administrator only do the image position adjustment, image reserved to now almost three months. But the day before the robot mistakenly deleted the message of the ten images are listed .... Thank you for uploading (File: Whampoa designed five jpg) file is missing the copyright message ..... Check due to (File: Whampoa designed five jpg,) is no longer significantly robot interpretation of the link error, so please correct to do image restoration. Another original stamp two images, other administrators said temporary may retain, but also, and in conjunction with recovery.Chinuan12623 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please...[edit]

take a look into this. It's very urgent. Thank you in advance!--FAEP (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 days block seems a bit long, especially for FAEP that has no blocking history and does a wunderful job here; very efficient but no time for big discussions. Italian drama versus German Grundlichheit and efficiency. --Foroa (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made it that based on how egregious the history logs looked, as well as this being the minimum time I feel necessary for both to recognize that edit warring is bad and why they should not resume it upon expiry of the block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move vandalism[edit]

Could you protect my user page against being moved? I don't know why I've been targeted twice for this recently; I'm not even that active on Commons these days. The logs are only showing me that these users moved only my user page--is that correct? Postdlf (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Postdlf (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Cruise Line ship categories[edit]

Hi, KoH. I saw you closed Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/04/Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998) as "move", but it appears someone has moved them back (the actual operation was done by a bot, so it's hard to tell who told it to). Can you look into it? Powers (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting User talk:Stunteltje. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter 104[edit]

Hi KoH. See here my reply to your question - sort of - in the abuse filter itself. Perhaps you can help me with finetuning the filter? Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Is this true? Time ago a website (panzar.com) released they work, but I closed it because no file was uploaded.+PrinceWilly 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He says he agrees to CC-BY-SA 3.0 for "Photo Archive of ACROFAN." Also, let's communicate either by e-mail or on-OTRS to avoid inadvertently leaking any confidential info. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the "fix" in the set gallery[edit]

Why? Because now the images and videos are show at a tenth of other images size, and that is quite unfair to the set since people wont see the images there. Even because we had bigger and similar size sets who weren't reduced. So why this one? Béria Lima msg 04:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same thing was done to the two you have linked with the includeonly/noinclude trick, and nobody complained. Basically the idea is to make the images smaller on the main FPC page and larger on the actual nomination page. Have you considered that it may be unfair to the nominations below, especially the one directly below? Because people who aren't interested in this particular nom may just keep scrolling and miss the one directly below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Berkovich[edit]

Hi KoH. When you have time, can you take another look at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Gary Berkovich, and the question that's been raised there? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAEP does it again[edit]

now I do not put more to correct his behavior, I am writing to you as you think and behave, but instead of helping acts edit war, as always. look here: [3] The block was useless, the user does not change his way of behaving towards me, does not change how to use the tools given, does not cooperate but instead of contributing to commons, its purpose seems to bother me. It happens to everyone to forget him and instead of improving a file, damages it. Of en.wiki he just discredited and no longer intervened to change the action that he did. And on at commons has other image [4] underneath again made a change for which had been blocked (edit that I neglected to avoid edit-war, but he did not learn anything). I entrust myself to your authority and your intelligence. Please this is to make fun of others, you persecute a user. thank you. --Pava (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much, I hope to have a future of peace. But I'd like to alert you that i now have open discussions in the talk of the images in question, and wrote in his talk and I wrote to you :) so my behavior was far more diplomatic than that of the first block. --Pava (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and in en.wiki FAEP performs the same operations (edit war) which here took a block with other users.look here [5]. I told you so is irrecoverable, it is not interested in contributing right now, he says in his talk on commons that has other things to do, and the contribution has changed over time, perhaps it was a great user, but now his way to contribute is completely changed. Bah, I care for you now, (even en.wiki) I hold out, because I do not want to get in trouble just because I oppose or speak to someone with such behavior --Pava (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP[edit]

PLZ help me about this [6] that is not shown. someone has moved original pic and then everything tended to disorder!Alborzagros (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

small favor[edit]

Hello, can you do me a favor? categorize Category:European Shorthair this photo? File:" 12 - ITALY - Cat ( Kitten ) in Italy whit Fiat automobiles.JPG (if it is a correct categorization) thanks --Pava (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal the Monkey.jpg[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. I'm contacting you because you're one of the Commons admins I recognize. Would you take a look at File:Crystal the Monkey.jpg? The page says, "This is my own photo I took on the red carpet. Previously published: Website" I'm worried that it might be a copyright violation. Is there anything OTRS can do to confirm whether it's a copyright violation or whether Thevoicehelper (talk · contribs) really took the picture? Thank you! Cunard (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy-deleted it as a copyvio since it says © AFP/Getty Images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Carmel Highlands 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 Good Quality --Rjcastillo 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carmel Highlands 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. --A.Savin 09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carmel Highlands 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 Good Quality --Rjcastillo 02:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Carmel Highlands May 2011 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 Good quality. --NorbertNagel 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilno university.jpg[edit]

Why? This is a scale down duplicate of the same original image File:GreatCourtyard.jpg. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are different. File:Wilno university.jpg is yellower than File:GreatCourtyard.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same image, color difference was my job, I've reverted it. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very very happy new year. -- Joydeep Talk 18:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Carmel Highlands 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 Nice! --NorbertNagel 20:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little question[edit]

Why did you restored that blatant copyvio File:Functions_in_Excel.PNG (especially without any other admin backing your rationale) ? --PierreSelim (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on file talk. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2012/Q4&oldid=463842901"