User talk:Mattbuck/Archive8

Archives October 2007 - June 2008 June 2008 - August 2008 August 2008 - December 2008 December 2008 - April 2010 April 2010 - September 2010 September 2010 - May 2011 May 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - March 2012 April 2012 - July 2012 August 2012 - October 2012 November 2012 - January 2013 February 2013 - April 2013 May 2013 - July 2013 August 2013 - October 2013 November 2013 - December 2013 January 2014 - February 2014 March 2014 - April 2014 May 2014 - July 2014 August 2014 - September 2014 October 2014 - November 2014 December 2014 - February 2015 March 2014 - September 2015 October 2015 - December 2017 Current

File:Mr_Pilkington.JPG

I confirm that it is a copyviol from http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickwalker/3035766702/ (sorry, I didn't realize it when I uploaded derivative version). Thought I'd upload this version, which has a free license. It should be ok, isn't it? --RanZag (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That one would be fine. Thanks for your help, I've now deleted the copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Anyway I asked him if he agrees to a license change of the photo (because IMHO this one looks less appropriate for encyclopedia articles). I'll let you know the answer. --RanZag (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He just answered and changed license. Sorry you had to do an unnecessary work! Greetings. --RanZag (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Math Matt?

Matt - Have you ever considered using some of your knowledge of mathematics to do image processing that is not handled by the standard suite of programs that are available? I would like to find a buddy here with similar interests. If not you, then who? Also, do you see Mathematica around your department or an equivalent PD program (? SAGE ?)? Doug youvan (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I have thought about that, I honestly have no knowledge of image processing, nor mathematica. I'm a pure mathematician, if you need more than a pen and paper to do it it isn't right. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that style of math: It means you can work anywhere, anytime, and it is a talent that can be practiced outside of any administrative entity. Doug youvan (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment

Hello, I have proposed a lot of pictures for QI, some better, some worse, some have been promoted, some have not, but I have to say that it is the first time that somebody judges a photograph in the terms that you do here with the picture of the USS Missouri. I recommend you to read again the section "Above all, be polite" here. Thank you. Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my comment: by "shame" I meant "it is a shame" (because I like the view), not "shame on the uploader". But "first time somebody judges a photograph" as I do? What is so non-standard about commenting on grain, overexposure and chromatic aberration? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, then it was a misunderstanding, sorry for that. I had the impression that you were being too tough, CA, grain, tilt, color balance, exposure, etc. comments are more than welcome! Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Barbican tube station MMB 05.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, i like it :-) --Ralf Roletschek 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willesden Junction MMB 04 378228.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 18:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 22 43169 150243.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 22 43169 150243.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. --Aleks G 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 30 Adam Rickitt.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 I'm neither a Corrie nor Adam fan I keep finding my eye drawn back to this image. I've done quite a lot of stagework photography in the past and this is quite a good example. Lucky bugger though matt for it being a day festival, not as easy to get as indoor or night shows :) --Fred the Oyster 10:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish Warren MMB 17 South Devon Main Line.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. --Carschten 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for being consistently fair at deletion requests. Handcuffed (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cool, thanks. Didn't realise I was :) -mattbuck (Talk) 05:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 09 395001.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--Lmbuga 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 41 390004.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 this is different to other pictures with trains - and interesting. God Quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watford Junction railway station MMB 29 378210.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 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alexandra Palace railway station MMB 04 91109.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 picture. --Ralf Roletschek 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 13 170101.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 I like it.--ArildV 17:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hornsey railway station MMB 16 313035 313063.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. --Yann 15:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 23 Ruby White.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  Comment Camel-toe definitely under exposed in this shot. Did the wind not pick up at all? --Fred the Oyster 21:57, 13 January 2012 It wasn't a very windy day, the bits that are lifted up are due to movement. Mattbuck 22:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Good quality. --Yann 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

About the page you delete

Hello mattbuck, I'm writing on regard the page you delete couple of week ago, I wonder if you can restore that page, Entronque de Herradura. You delete that page because you said, that I was violating the copyright, and that you found copies of those photo on panoramio. On the following link I have proof that those picture are my. http://www.facebook.com/?m2w&refid=7&pos=1 This link is my page on facebook. http://www.youtube.com/?nomobile=1 this is link to youtube, were I upload 16 video from my hometown. And the follow link is my page on panoramio http://www.panoramio.com/user/3568715. You can see on those link, that those picture were taken by my, on one of my trip to my hometown Entronque de Herradura. Thank you --Portales (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The images I found on Panoramio were not licensed freely, so were deleted as copyvios. We have no way of knowing you are the person who uploaded those, so I deleted them under the precautionary principle. If you want to reupload, the easiest way is to licence them under CC-BY-SA or similar at Panoramio. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mattbuck, I'm new on wikimedia, and I didn't which license to use.--Portales (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 21 378227.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. --NorbertNagel 21:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 04 Carousel Cartel.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 concert picture. --Vassil 21:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cardiff Holiday Inn MMB 03.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  Comment Very nice reflection, but I don't understand the crop: the bottom is cutted and the upper part could be cropped--Lmbuga 21:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I don't understand what you're saying. Perhaps you could upload a derivative? Mattbuck 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, my English is bad. I wanted to say that I don't like the composition. The lower windows are out (cutted) --Lmbuga 13:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see what you mean. However, that lower window is about 3 storeys tall so getting it all in shot wasn't practical. Mattbuck 16:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC) Very nice reflection. QI to me--Lmbuga 09:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newport railway station MMB 30 43187.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 Nicely composed with the passenger bridge background. --Rwendland 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pwllheli MMB 01 Bay.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--Lmbuga 02:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alexandra Palace railway station MMB 10 313027 313031.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, nice view --Taxiarchos228 20:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newport railway station MMB 46.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. --Taxiarchos228 20:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford railway station MMB 03 222022.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 image composition, technical quality OK I think. --NorbertNagel 18:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! River Severn Bridgnorth MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Yann 09:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Having_Sex_Doggy_with_vagina_juice.jpg

Did you keep this image for real? It is clearly out of scope and should be deleted as garbage. Artem Karimov (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Our scope is images which are potentially educational and are freely licensed, plus a few exceptions for WMF images. Sex is within scope, humans having sex is in scope. It's decent quality (not good, but not awful), and it's freely licensed. Please explain why you feel this is outside our scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, would you be against a name change for this file? I'm not sure that this is an obvious example of 'doggy-style' or that 'vagina juice' is meaningful either. With a more accurate file name it might seem a teensy bit less inflammatory. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How about Vaginal intercourse, lubricated? I'm not used to thinking about how to express such things in plain English. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Something like that yes. The term lubricated is a bit of a misnomer here, because from the current image name I think the implication is that any lubricant is simply vaginal juices, but it will suffice. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bishops Lydeard railway station MMB 03.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 interier shot --Jagro 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)  Comment It's actually a BR Mark 1, not a GWR carriage. -- Geof Sheppard 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leytonstone High Road railway station MMB 01 150129.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  Comment Imo a bit darkish, can you add some exposure? --Iifar 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)  Done Mattbuck 19:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Better now, QI to me. --Iifar 06:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Severn Beach railway station MMB 17.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 picture --Jagro 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Teen boy's Nipple.jpg

Hi, you recently closed this DR as kept (which is fine), but you didn't delete the second revision of the image, which has no source. Also, the DR has be reopened for the exact same reason a week later; I think it could be speedy closed. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 35 G2L.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 yes, nice shot! --Ralf Roletschek 11:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB C6 Melton Hall.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  Comment The foreground is darkish. --Aleks G 23:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid that doesn't seem fixable - if I try to up the brightness of the low levels, either I decrease the contrast or the sky gets too bright. Mattbuck 00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)  Comment I think so it will be better ;) (The file is updated) --Aleks G 22:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC) You're right, that is better. Mattbuck 18:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)  Support Yes, the lighting is balanced well now. --99of9 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Oxford 2003 central special.png

A Thames Trains DMU at Banbury Station in mid 2000.

Nuneaton station in mid 2001.

"How did you manage to clean this up? You weren't the original uploaded, yet you produced a much better quality image which actually was a wider angle... -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)"

Because I was both the owner of the original and also the original uploaded under a different name since I thought someone had hacked my Wikipedia account and had got my password (I have had no security trouble since renaming). I have the picture on a CD and as a photo. Truprint produced such photo-CDs in the early 2000s. I have several more from London, Oxfordshire, Birmingham and Berkshire if you want them.Wipsenade (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Righto. You might want to post a message at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard asking for an usurpation of the old account or having it blocked or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

O.K., I will to be on the safe side in the future.Wipsenade (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload changes I’ve noticed since 2009

It's less complex and my firewall did not say I was being given a cookey or cut me off. It is more strait forward, so I don't need to upload on Wikipedia any more.Wipsenade (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 03 395017.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. --Ianare 23:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Banbury railway station MMB 05 165012 168005 165003.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 quality to me. --Iifar 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Radcliffe railway station MMB 03 158774.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 blue picture but the blue is authentic, correct white parts. --Ralf Roletschek 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Talsarnau railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments yes! very nice. With the "fog" --Ralf Roletschek 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish Warren MMB 09 South Devon Main Line 220019.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 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «10 Millennium Square.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. --ANGELUS 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dunster railway station MMB 03.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 Mattbuckian. QI.--Jebulon 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Birmingham International railway station MMB 02 390035.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 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Severn Beach railway station MMB 10 143621.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 I would rather like it with less central composition, but good quality. --Sfu 21:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hopton Heath railway station MMB 05.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 image --FlügelRad 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Redcar East railway station MMB 03 142066.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 IMO.--ArildV 16:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minehead railway station MMB 07.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 20:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Katia Elizarova image deletion - revived topic

Not sure of the best way to revive a topic - so here goes. Have copied the thread from your archive below for your review: Essentially, when you go to the Facebook page of the subject, you can now see in the comments a release to use for Wiki as you noted would allow the image to be made available in commons.

Here's the Facebook page for your reference - see comments for the release : https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=205279846205968&set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3&theater

This is the image as uploaded to commons to be released : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katia_Elizarova_opens_Swarovski_Runway_Rocks_in_London.jpg

Thanks - Is that all you need?

--Carpefemme (talk) 00:43, 03 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. As I explained earlier, what we need is an explicit statement of licence. Saying "yes you can upload it to Wikipedia" is not good enough. All images on Commons must be freely licensed - this means anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial applications and creating derivative works. What is needed is an explicit statement of this, and understanding that such a release is irrevocable, and the easiest way to do this is with stating "I release this under the Creative Commons Atrribution ShareAlike License version 3.0" or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and get an answer like that - carpefemme (Talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally - there is an explicit statement - added here in the comments where the original image is downloadable from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=205279846205968&set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3&theater

Is it possible to release this now for use as prescribed? carpefemme (Talk) 17:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering whether you were able to action the above? carpefemme (Talk) 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi There,

You closed the conversation on the undeletion request for an image a little too quick for me to respond to I wanted to let you know here that I have found the link you requested - A copy of the conversation with th eappended link is below. Can you now make the image available once more in Commons?

Thanks for your help.

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit] File:Katia Elizarova opens Swarovski Runway Rocks in London.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katia_Elizarova_opens_Swarovski_Runway_Rocks_in_London.jpg

Image is shared for public use by the model on her owned Facebook page and has been distributed for rights free promo use in 2009 following the event itself.

--Carpefemme (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Facebook page where permission for this photo is recorded, so we can verify that. Powers (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 

---

Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link to where the image is on Facebook - Image use is not restricted and available for download also: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=205279846205968&set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3&theater

--Carpefemme (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did give it over a week... As for the page you linked, simply being available is not evidence of permission. I can put up a picture on my website without necessarily releasing it under a Commons-compatible licence. No licence is listed at the page you linked, therefore we do not have permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So if there were a note on that image that explicitly said it could be considered License free, or permissible for upload to commons that would satisfy? --Carpefemme (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. An explicit statement of licence would work. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avonmouth railway station MMB 13 143620.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 (even if close to the size threshold) --PierreSelim 07:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 20 Ruby White.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 --PierreSelim 22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gospel Oak railway station MMB 05 378004.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. --Mbdortmund 04:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Guildford railway station MMB 14 455863.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 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename needed

Hi. Can you rename/move this: File:Lonsomehurst1911.png? I left out an 'e' between the n and s. thanks. I'm just trying to close a loop, not cause any trouble. PumpkinSky talk 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grantham railway station MMB 35.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! --Ralf Roletschek 12:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 99 Peter Tatchell.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 a crop left and right since sept. 2010 IMO. A portrait framing should have been better, I think.--Jebulon 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I've uploaded a new version at [1], but with my current connection I can't upload to Commons - can someone do that for me? Mattbuck 12:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)  Done and QI for me now. PierreSelim 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bingham railway station MMB 04.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 well done. --T137 01:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Talsarnau railway station MMB 03.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 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 04 Lisa Scott-Lee.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 One could argue, that either the image title is wrong (should be pink ballon) or the focus is on the wrong subject. However, I like the image composition and if we assume the given DoF to be a deliberately chosen design element, it's QI. --NorbertNagel 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Radcliffe railway station MMB 19.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. --PierreSelim 07:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford railway station MMB 07 222022.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 -- MJJR 10:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Longbeck railway station MMB 02 142021.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. --Taxiarchos228 13:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bingham railway station MMB 07 158774.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. --Taxiarchos228 13:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 04 508303.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-Gauravjuvekar 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yatton MMB 16 Bristol to Exeter Line 150121.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. Thats fine. --Ralf Roletschek 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kentish Town railway station MMB 07.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}}}

m:Meetup/Coventry/1

Hi Matt. You wanted a reminder for the Cov meetup next Sunday, so here it is! Hope to see you there. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate, no idea if I'll be coming or not. I have a busy day Saturday, but will see how I feel. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Redcar East railway station MMB 02 142066.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, good composition.--ArildV 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing deletion reason

Hallo Mattbuck, ... at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caucasian penis size.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thumb does not update

Good morning Mattbuck, could you kindly check what is wrong with this file File:Statue 1 GM Morlaiter Chiesa dei Gesuati Venice.jpg. It does not use the thumb format of the last uploaded image... Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No idea, try at COM:HELP. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hornsey TMD MMB 06 313122.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 What is the motif? I see a half bridge, a half wagon and a half vehicle hall. --NorbertNagel 18:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC) It's a train poking out of the shed... I don't understand your question. Mattbuck 19:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I still don't see what you're complaining about. Mattbuck 14:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I just didn't immediately understand the image composition, thanks for clarifying. --NorbertNagel 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I see you suggested a crop, please, feel free to upload it, I can't upload on this connection without a complete faff. Mattbuck 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)  Support Could be QI. --NorbertNagel 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newport railway station MMB 37 66161.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. --FlügelRad 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:H-ugp-6360.jpg

As soon as I have to improve the photo, I need to understand you words precisely. You say, «Too bright, perspective curve distracting». What do the words «perspective curve» mean? What place is too bright?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally the image is too bright - the curve is too far to the high levels, bring it down a bit to make it more pleasing to the eye.

As for perspective curve, I meant the standard perspective distortion where the middle of a building looks bigger than the edges, making the horizontal lines seem curved. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean, I have to make it less pale, to add contrast? Do I understand you in a right way? But the details in shadows will become less visible then. This was a bright sunny day.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I will check the perspective; the lens usually don't make this distortion, and I stood quite far from the building.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, make it darker generally. I understand it was a sunny day, but this sort of thing is why we wear sunglasses. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gospel Oak railway station MMB 08 172005.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. --Coyau 18:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abererch railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice.--ArildV 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Upminster station MMB 15 357046.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--Lmbuga 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado on the West Somerset Railway near Washford station 2 June 2009 pic 2.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 green :-) --Ralf Roletschek 15:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alexandra Palace railway station MMB 11 365502 313027.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. --ArildV 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB 78 Melton Hall.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.--ArildV 11:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leytonstone High Road railway station MMB 08.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.--ArildV 15:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Guildford railway station MMB 11 455863.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 a little de-noising, IMO.--Jebulon 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comment New version denoised. --T137 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC).  Support Looks ok to me. --Iifar 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abererch railway station MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Bingham railway station MMB 01.jpg

Hey, I downloaded the image from your website, but the image seemed to have perspective distortion (maybe overcorrected, It was leaning the wrong way). I uploaded a new version, but I had to crop the image. Best regards, --ArildV (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Llangynwyd railway station MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. The flowers at the bottom and right are not sharp, but since they're not the primary subject, I'm in favour. --99of9 05:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish Warren railway station MMB 03.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. --Coyau 17:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Severn Tunnel Junction railway station MMB 05 150249.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 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 43 221117 390043.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 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Shop and cafe

I would like to discuss your review for this photo. By "bright" you obviously mean the wall with invisible bricks. I see the purpling on wires and will remvoe it. But where are the "mild haloes"? And, by the way, how must I prepare the photo to express the bright summer say? Thank you for the explaining.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

By bright, I meant more that the sky is cyan rather than blue, indicating overexposure in one or more channels - the building itself seems about right to me. There are mild haloes around the sky/roof boundary. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will check.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Nsfw deletion notice

Why are templates below the images? Why not above? Second of all, we could use some means of allowing parents to block images that they don't want their children to see. Rickyrab (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Because that's the way templates work. As to your "allowing parents..." argument, I suggest content filtering software. To paraphrase our disclaimer: we host stuff people find offensive, deal with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Parkway railway station MMB 17 221137.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 yes, very good! additional with the train in background. --Ralf Roletschek 15:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Weston-super-Mare MMB 02.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weston-super-Mare MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent. --Vassil 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford railway station MMB 04 222022.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 14:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grantham railway station MMB 26 158774.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 -- MJJR 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Weston-super-Mare MMB 04.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weston-super-Mare MMB 04.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}}}

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Sreejithk2000

You spoke positively about this possibility on my talk page a month ago, so I thought you might like to see that it has begun.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:D-kupanskoe-pzd-7436.jpg

Why do you think this is overexposed? IMHO the gondolas are not so bright...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because to my eye, the sky looks like it's at #FFFFFF. I like the composition though. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

All the sky, or some part of it? I need to know where to adjust. Also, maybe your monitor is too contrast...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just part of it - around the right hand tower, and a bit above the central platform gantry. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Checked again. I'm afraid this cannot be saved. That was my fault in 2007, five years ago I couldn't shoot better...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB 73 Djanogly LRC.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 13:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bingham railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tilted? --ArildV 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I clearly picked the wrong pair of lights to use as a horizontal. I've uploaded a levelled version to my website, but it's not possible for me to upload to Commons. Could you do that please? Mattbuck 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I have uploaded a new version, but I guess i cant review it now.--ArildV 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Support QI to me. --Iifar 20:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bingham railway station MMB 03.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 --PierreSelim 07:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Curious Eyes

It's just Heterochromia iridum. Not so seldom in manga and anime as in real life. ;-) [2] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Other categorization methods

I've taken your advice on board, and categorized by other metrics aside from just year. Please see

1. Category:Videos of ejaculation by format
2. Category:Black and white videos of ejaculation

These are definitely more useful categorization methods. Thanks for the suggestion, -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Update:  Done, now you don't have to go moving anything, I've changed it from "year" to "decade" categorization, which is definitely useful, as technology most certainly changes enough from decade to decade to significantly impact quality. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting ejaculation by decade either, though I'm happy with the colour/bw. I honestly don't see a need for date-categorisation of something which really does not change over time. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about the colour/bw categorization! As far as decades, actually, the quality of the files does change by decade, if not by year. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stogumber railway station MMB 03.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 OK to me. --Iifar 07:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB H0 Melton Hall and Business School North.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kentish Town railway station MMB 02 319364.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.--Vassil 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BenPhelps.JPG

Please read before slapping on deletion templates. The source site clearly says "You may use any of our material free of charge for any reason.". Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Guanaco. // Liftarn (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons talk:Licensing

Re Commons talk:Licensing - those questions should go to COM:VPC. See the note at the top of the page. Rd232 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Rd232 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford railway station MMB 20 319365.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. --Mbdortmund 15:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alexandra Palace railway station MMB 03.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 good to me. --Iifar 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish railway station MMB 07 43303.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  Comment Looks nice, but image has notable perspective distortion (look at the buildings on right). --Iifar 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I tend to dislike perspective correction, I always feel it looks a bit unnatural. That and I am pretty awful at correcting it - had a quick go in photoshop, but it made it look worse to my eye. Mattbuck 23:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC).  Done Please compare, imo new version looks definitely better. --Iifar 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)  Support FWIW, the correction was a considerable improvement. Saffron Blaze 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Category for districts of Lancashire

I started to create a new category for this, but I see that you deleted such a category in April last year. What was the issue with Category:Districts in Lancashire? It seems messy to me to have the districts scattered through the list of entries in Category:Lancashire, plus one can't tell what the significance of them is. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

	The Special Barnstar
	I, Cirt, hereby award The Special Barnstar to Mattbuck. With recognition for your stand against censorship and in support of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maesteg (Ewenny Road) railway station MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI.--ArildV 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish Warren MMB 16 South Devon Main Line 143612.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.--ArildV 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Qi review decline

Reviewed your train images in QIC for 26 and 27 FEB. Most of them have chromatic aberrations. Please see the notes that I added to the declined files. Most of the CAs are to vertical poles though a few horizontal are also there. Please place {{Tb}} on my talk page after commenting here.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the versions for you.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you increase the line spacing of the attention at the top of your user page, the two lines(wrapped) intersect and given the text size, the layout appears bad.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bishops Lydeard railway station MMB 14 4160.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 A bit noisy but nice mood. QI.--Jebulon 17:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 22 378227.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 15:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paddington railway station MMB 07.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. --Coyau 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Politely bringing this to your attention

Hi, you've commented on my block which has since been removed. I think that although you have not understood what was happening originally, you tried to be impartial, and thus i would like your input. Here is another attempt to block me. Please comment if you find it worth your time. Thanks in advance. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 84 Kenelis.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. --Vassil 00:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gospel Oak railway station MMB 04 172005.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--Gauravjuvekar 12:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 block

Hey Matt, I reinstated the 3 week block on User:Mbz1 (I hope I got the custom expiry time syntax correct...). Mila assured me via email, that she would only use an unblock for incidental corrections of her image attributions (there may still be some cases left which we haven't found die to the lag in search index updates). I'll leave it up to you to make the decision about an unblock. Sorry again for not notifying you earlier. --Dschwen (talk)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Montpelier railway station MMB 15 143621.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--Gauravjuvekar 06:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Birmingham_New_Street_railway_station_MMB_16_221133.jpg

Sorry, maybe I was rushing with the final decision. I was just following CR rule: after a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text. I think it will be ok, if you nominate that image again. --Iifar (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bridgnorth railway station MMB 06 D1062.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 framing maybe not the best, but QI to me though --Carschten 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment He's correct. I uploaded a cropped and levelled version. Revert if this is not satisfactory. Saffron Blaze 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grantham railway station MMB 24 158774.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 lighting is not optimal, but it is good; and the image has good quality IMO--Lmbuga 17:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB K8 Business School North, The Exchange and Djanogly LRC.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 --Carschten 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Deganwy railway station MMB 03.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 --Carschten 16:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For "Quoth the server, 404." :) Handcuffed (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB L0 The Exchange and Djanogly LRC.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB G8 Djanogly LRC.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 15:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB 44 The Atrium.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  Comment I downloaded this and cropped out all the extraneous stuff along the top then pushed the levels a bit and added some contrast. Looked pretty artsy to me yet was still recognisable. Saffron Blaze 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC) for me its qi. --Ralf Roletschek 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Filton Abbey Wood railway station MMB 26 158766.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Filton Abbey Wood railway station MMB 26 158766.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ebbsfleet International railway station MMB 07 395004.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! Jubilee Campus MMB 46 Melton Hall.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. --Saffron Blaze 18:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baker Street tube station MMB 17.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--Gauravjuvekar 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Banbury railway station MMB 08 168005.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--Gauravjuvekar 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 16 150266 150265 150246.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--Gauravjuvekar 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Telepizza karachi

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Telepizza_Karachi – Shouldn't you delete the other images as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I do love Special:Nuke. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baker Street tube station MMB 11.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 motif and OK for QI, I think. --NorbertNagel 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keynsham railway station MMB 04.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  CommentMinor CAs explained with image notes. Please remove notes. Need second opinion as they are not very visible and perhaps could be ignored.--Gauravjuvekar 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC) You can't even see them unless you zoom past 100pc. Mattbuck 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC) CommentYes, that's exactly why I called them minor. Fact is that they exist so we need to decide whether they matter much. BTW I can see a faint bluish tinge on the nearer pole even in the generated preview on the file_desc page. Question--What does pc mean?--Gauravjuvekar 10:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Percent. Mattbuck 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Good mattbuckian picture.--Jebulon 15:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «48 Feeder Canal.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  Comment File:Feeder Canal 1-CN.jpg --Carschten 16:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Not sure I agree with your tilt, but I think it's probably an improvement, so please feel free to upload it over my version. Mattbuck 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Good for QI--Jebulon 14:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Longbeck railway station MMB 04.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}}}

Thanks

--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

For this blatant trolling on a sensitive topic, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Nobody is exempt from the requirement not to disrupt Commons. Rd232 (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling other pedophiles or enablers (supporters of pedophiles), which is a legal threat and accuse without evidence, seams to be no issue. Thank you! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Those comments are part of a serious discussion, and there is sufficient evidence available that blocking for it is not warranted. Nor is it a legal threat (and if it were, we don't have a policy against them... COM:NLT is a redlink). Rd232 (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocking Mattbuck on this seems weak and a serious mistake in comparison to some of the unacceptable behaviour and dramah we have seen on-wiki from an apparent traveling circus which has not (yet) resulted in blocks all round. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. Now does anyone want to actually defend Matt's post, or claim it wasn't trolling, or argue that it wouldn't cause disruptive drama? Rd232 (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That post expressed Mattbuck's opinion. Few people would have commented on it, I think. There would be less drama if you were not trying to "manage" so much. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Few people would have commented" - ROTFLMAO. Rd232 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If i consider the current drama caused by WR, and the people involved with it, that accuse users to be pedophiles or their supporters out of own conviction, then i think we should consider it as an serious attempt. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No amount of words will turn this into anything other than trolling. If you want to propose something serious in relation to WR or to offwiki activities generally, feel free. (Same to Mattbuck or anyone else, obviously). Rd232 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please try to justify that you don't block users for legal threats (calling other pedophiles and enablers) but for "satire". -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For the 3rd (?) time: those are not threats, and in any case we don't have a policy against legal threats. (If we did, and they were, somebody would have blocked those users already.) Rd232 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You need a policy for this? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I recall one was briefly discussed a while ago, and rejected, because so much of Commons' work involves legal issues, and we wouldn't want to end up rigidly blocking rights holders who make threats or statements construable as threats. Rd232 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What about violations of human rights? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are bad. (I'm a member of Amnesty.) What does that have to do with anything? Rd232 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not hear about a Right to a fair trial or Presumption of innocence? Calling someone a pedophile or enabler before providing any evidence is a violation of this rights. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Human rights apply to states, not to speech by private citizens. (There may be an issue of libel, but that's almost always a civil matter.) We should have principles of due process on Wikimedia, and mostly we do; it's just very difficult to apply in such cases. In this particular case, the evidence to support the claim has been growing, and and it's there to be found in the lengthy discussion if you want to look for it. Rd232 (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was an observation. I would have more to say about this block if Mattbuck were to take the initiative to request an unblock and put forward their case, if they are not bothered then theorizing here just creates more material for WR fueled drama and personal attacks that we are all sick of by now. --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "You know I've never had to fill out this template before, this is a learning experience! I'll state first off that I am not in any way sorry for what I posted, and I do frankly resent Rd232's removal of it from VP, but I wouldn't try and put it back. I stand by everything I said, the way Commons has acted this past week has been a complete disgrace. We have hounded off someone who was a decent contributor because we let a few people who are not good contributors here slander him repeatedly. That my "proposal", albeit completely sarcastic, would actually make Commons a much better place should shame us all. So, why should I be unblocked? Well, I could go with how other people have spent this past week trolling and slandering with nothing at all done about it, but instead I'll say this, how does my being blocked help Commons? My being blocked is not going to get us more useful contributions, or in any way significantly reduce the amount of trolling going on. I'm a sarcastic asshole, and stuff like this is how I vent. I am frankly stunned there has not been a similar reaction from every other admin to the way we have all been trolled this past week. While everyone else was doing nothing but answering those trolls, I was uploading pictures and categorising things, and generally trying to avoid being emotional about the Beta M issue. I blew my top because the shit forced away someone who has done nothing wrong here. You should all be feeling the same. To summarise, no point keeping me blocked, I'm not going to try and put it back and the issue's dead anyway since Beta M has quit. One final thought. Rd232, a week ago you were cool. What happened? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "Unblocked per agreement not to reinsert, though I'm not happy about the "this is how I vent" remark. This sort of posting is disruptive, and should not be done. Rd232 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

• I support a prompt unblock as requested. Mattbuck has made a commitment to not post the proposal back that Rd232 found disruptive. If Mattbuck stays blocked then we probably all agree there is a list of at least ten other accounts that should be immediately blocked on the basis of deliberately disrupting Commons consensus processes with much more inflammatory material, some of it reposting or linking to dubious material and far more inflammatory canvassing discussions off-wiki. BTW Rd232, honestly, please take a chill pill and take Commons:Staying mellow to heart. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• I also approve of the unblock - I not merely approve of the sarcastic proposal, but have actually thought very much the same thing. In this case, I decided that on consideration WR had a point after all, but that doesn't change the fact that their familiar tactics of confusing and confounding, trying to cobble together a case out of scanty evidence mixed with a lot of anti-porn attitude, made things so hard to see that in the end the evidence that convinced me was more stuff I'd found from scratch on web searching, plus some stuff that Michaeldsuarez brought up very late, than the stuff from the original complaint. So whichever side I end up on WR is still exasperating and I sympathize greatly with Mattbuck. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Frustrations about WR are really quite irrelevant to the validity of the VP post. I dare say if Matt made the point in a related discussion, or even in a userspace essay of some kind, plenty of people would approve of it. Rd232 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Dude, you are standing pretty alone. I'd take the hint and at the least drop it, better yet apologize. --Dschwen (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Tomahawk interface0.4.0.jpg

Hi,

I added a link to the license : https://github.com/tomahawk-player/tomahawk/blob/master/LICENSE.txt Is this enough that this picture would not deleted? Or is there anything else to do?

--Biha (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to crop out the windows elements (title bar), but otherwise OK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Levisham railway station MMB 04 101680.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. --Saffron Blaze 00:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avonmouth railway station MMB 08.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 21:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Parkway railway station MMB 28 43093.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 21:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baker Street tube station MMB 06.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 in memoriam Sherlock Holmes... Good shot given the lighting circumstances.--Jebulon 15:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minehead MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments as thumb no interisting, in full resolution top photo. --Ralf Roletschek 07:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Millennium Square MMB 1.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 Too dark IMhO.--Jebulon 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC) New version here. Can someone upload it please? Mattbuck 04:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Done Good now.--Jebulon 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Blocked user

Hate to do it, but OK... Commons is not yer amateur pornsite and it is rather hard fo r me to see the scope of the project reflected in the files. Hard to extract meaningful purpose. Wpedzich (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Class 67

Sorry my mistake - didn't know it had been repainted - I only created the "67029" cat because I assumed it was unique - feel free to nuke the category if it offends. (But please keep Category:EWS Company train - hoping for more images fo that)>Oranjblud (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not going to nuke the company train. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that this is part of a category tree standard to all British trains (or at least modern ones). All trains are categorised in class by operator, livery and line, even when there is only one operator and livery, as with 171s, 378s, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Pz-elections-2012-pu6-6916.jpg

What do you mean by perspective correction? What place you feel to be a trouble? And where do you see the blur? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I say perspective correction on the basis that the wall isn't vertical but the image itself clearly is. On reflection I think the blur is just the woman moving her head. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This means the blur was unavoidable and has little sense. What wall do you mean? Maybe I will fix the part of that image to make a good impression.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The line of the corner of the wall should, in principle, be vertical. It isn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll mind this advice. And what do you mean by bad crop? What kind of crop will improve the photo? The idea was to show that people vote for Putin's Olympics idea.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I just don't like the crop on the right, how it cuts off mid-way through a table and basketball hoop. I accept it makes the main subject central, but it feels a bit messy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the price I paid to keep the boxes in center. I may clear the basketball hoop; will it be better then?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am checking the verticality and perspective thoroughly, and I see the ballot boxes are vertical, and the chair to the left is vertical, and the table to the right is vertical. This makes me think it's a crooked wall in the left corner. Maybe you'll give me some practical advice on improving the image? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be improved, I simply don't believe it's suitable for QI. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of motion blur of the woman behind the table?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's one of those times when something just feels wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 67 Kenelis.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. --Vassil 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford railway station MMB 06 222022.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 very nice --Taxiarchos228 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 45 220003.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 usefull --Taxiarchos228 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «D6 Bristol to Exeter Line 43191.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. --Taxiarchos228 14:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB K7 Business School North, The Exchange and Djanogly LRC.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 05:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 18 390017.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 Now it's good--Gauravjuvekar 15:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Severn Tunnel Junction railway station MMB 24.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 Gauravjuvekar 15:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Much Dewchurch field MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Katarighe 00:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 06 390048 390009.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 Gauravjuvekar 13:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reading railway station MMB 55 43193.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 Gauravjuvekar 13:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Swat Valley

Hello. You said about this picture (Swatvalley x 104.JPG) that it was to "exposed". I'm not sure to understand, you mean there is too light ? I trie to promote an image of the Pakistani Swat Valley at the moment. What do you thing of these others images ? Could they be promote ? (sorry for my poor english). Guillaume70 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The second, third, and fourth there have a chance, the first one doesn't. Overexposed means that there are areas of the image which are completely white - this usually affects the sky. Underexposure is the opposite - areas which are completely black. Unfortunately neither of those is fixable - it's a problem with the photo, no matter what you do to it. With the camera you have, it will be very difficult to get images promoted, as it lacks the options of a DSLR. Generally images for QI will need to be post-processed using Photoshop or something similar, to correct tilt, adjust contrast and colour balance, and things like that. File:Lake Swatvalley x103.JPG for instance needs the contrast to be increased, but without changing the white point, and needs to be rotated a few degrees clockwise. File:Swat River Pakistan.JPG needs tilt correction, and also a crop at the bottom to remove the bridge section at the bottom right.

Hope this helps. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 44 220003.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 Nicely captured. --Saffron Blaze 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reading railway station MMB 41 165132 43028 43187 458004 458020.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}}}

did russavia again asked for your opinion via email?

D= Don't you understand that I was defamed, that I lost my real name to wikipedia? I just want to leave this sick place, and to erase as much as possible of my presence here.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matt, is there any serious reason not to speedy User talk:Mbz1/archive1 per her wish? I mean, with other users we do this every day without much hesitation. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No further need for discussion here, as there is already User talk:Russavia#you are involved. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Avonmouth railway station MMB 10.jpg

Underexposed. Strong CA on chimneys. Dark corners.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed -mattbuck (Talk) 17:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newport MMB 02 43175.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 --Carschten 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Weston-super-Mare MMB 05.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weston-super-Mare MMB 05.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. --Superbass 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rugby railway station MMB 01 321430.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 -- George Chernilevsky 19:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford railway station MMB 19 319365.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 work. QI to me. --NorbertNagel 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 79 43015.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. DimiTalen 08:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB 76 Djanogly LRC.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good qualityfor me. --Jkadavoor 05:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 69 Kenelis.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 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 80 43015.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 Gauravjuvekar 16:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 37 57303.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 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB C3 Auditorium.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 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB L4 The Exchange.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 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 71 221130.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 10:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB B0.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  Comment The cake is a lie! Kidding aside, what's going on with the hair on her right sholder? Saffron Blaze 18:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) OK, it might be a cheesecake which isn't really a cake, but... Anyway, I can only assume wind or movement. Mattbuck 19:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)  SupportYou missed the Portal reference but the pic is good. --Saffron Blaze 19:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC) This was a triumph? I did get it, just didn't comment on it. Mattbuck 22:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC) One on me, I wasn't aware it was put into the lyrics of the credits song! Saffron Blaze 22:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 70.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham railway station MMB 25.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}}}

Request reason for your deletion of file image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kinohimitsu_Drinks_Series.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Dear Mattbuck, the image is not violation. It is a published image on magazines. It has water marked Kinohimitsu at the background. Is there any way to do it properly? I am new to wiki

Positive69 (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That the image has been published in magazines does not mean it is free (as in the definition of free media - that anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial or derivative uses, without asking first). Unless you yourself created the image, or the source has an explicit statement of a free licence (eg this is published under the GFDL), it is a copyright violation to post it here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mattbuck: Can this picture be accepted if the creator or owner of the picture agrees for posting up in wikipedia? Do you need a company letter head , for example KINO BIOTECH and they agreeing to post it. Or do you accept an email from the Brand owner concerned? Who shall it attention to? I understand this is taking much of your precious time. Truly appreciate your effort. I am very new in wiki. My apology. Hope you can mentor me on this so that i will learn to do it properly in all near future contributions. Thanks Positive69 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I expect the marketing department or something would be acceptable. You'd need to get them to email our OTRS team, with an explicit statement of licence. Please be aware that this means that anyone will be able to use the image, for any purpose, including using it for commercial purposes or making derivative works. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mattbuck: i have uploaded a public photograph shot at a pharmacy store . It is a window display . And i have placed the {{Positive69}} on other information field in the upload wizard. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Window_Display_at_Retail_Pharmacy,_Malaysia_(2011).jpg

File:Window Display at Retail Pharmacy, Malaysia (2011).jpg

Add caption here

Is this ok for use? Thanks Positive69 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you yourself took the photo, probably, under freedom of panorama laws in Malaysia. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham railway station MMB 13.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. --Coyau 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB A7 Melton Hall and Business School North.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. --Martin Kraft 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin on the Ritz.jpg

"Puttin' on the Ritz" and "Ritz Crackers". :) — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And to show you with music -- http://putintheritzon. ytmnd. com ;) russavia (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dearie me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jubilee Campus MMB K6 The Exchange and Djanogly LRC.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good. --Ralf Roletschek 16:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

RCM_Official_photo_2009_HBS.jpg

Why have you deleted this file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorycsullivan (talk • contribs)

Because to me it looked like a copyright violation - you did not specify a licence, source and description was listed as the subject of the image. You can only upload images that you either took yourself, or for which we have an explicit statement of licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 50.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 -- George Chernilevsky 06:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster

I don't believe that Fred intends to use sockpupptets. I believe that he's simply quoting User:Abd: en:wikiversity:User_talk:Abd/Wikipedia/List_of_self-reverted_edits. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&diff=69076289&oldid=69075072 – Special:Contributions/Fred_The_Oyster – Oops, Fred The Oyster is an impostor, not a sock. I've asked Russavia to modify the block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newport railway station MMB 22 158837 DR77327.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 to me. --Iifar 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 18 406-585.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 "This was the first time such an ICE train had travelled to Britain. " - a good document, the grid disturbs me here no. --Ralf Roletschek 13:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah, unfortunately you can't get onto the international platforms unless you're a Eurostar passenger. Mattbuck 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum cocktails

WP:BITE rephrases to "you can be an asshole, or you can help a person out." Drmies (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And m:Meta:DICK rephrases to "don't be an asshole when someone asks a legitimate question". If you want to nominate something for deletion, tell people what you want deleted so that they have the complete list. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the category would also have worked. But a deletion request where you link to NOTHING? That's just stupid. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, admin. You're a real model to emulate. I took objection to your phrasing "what you're on about", which is a phrasing that you used on purpose to insult me probably because you're pissed that yet someone else from another project is coming to mess with your delicious frothy ass pictures. Sorry, I'm from the simple pedia, where such things are Twinkled. I only managed to nominate these fucking things in the first place by copying someone else's actions one step at a time, apparently skipping one of the steps. Now, if someone appears to be a dumbass on the simple pedia, and I happen upon it, I don't go and put them in their place: I trace their steps to see if I can help them. But please don't put yourself out. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I honestly have better things to do than invent cryptic ways to insult you. The phrasing "image(s) you're on about" is simply the way I speak. As for nominating things for deletion, there's a link in the toolbox on every single file/category page. I'm sorry you didn't find this, but if it is problematic, the deletion requests page explains step-by-step how to do it. I know nothing of Twinkle, I assume that's some script you have to enable. Now, please calm down. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avonmouth railway station MMB 10.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 Imo meets the criteria. --Iifar 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)