User talk:Pbrks/Archives/2009

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drum set.svg, 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 Not too fond of the thick labeling lines, but for the rest very nicely done. Lycaon 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cartesian Theater.svg, 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 Awesome and well done. J.smith 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

File:POTY_barnstar_1_2008.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

125.162.46.15 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[Skeleton]

hey, I made a skeleton of a Spinosuarus with Inkscape and something happened where you can't see it. I was hopping you can help me and fix it. Tell me if you can or have done it on my user page. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I didn't even notice that that it wasn't in that rectangle box, but the picture gets cut off when I put it there, see this image . And i was hoping i could make it look like this [1]

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Hi-hat should have a pedal. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, good call. I'll get on that. Pbroks13 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Pbroks13 (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you edited for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: French heraldic crowns.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
French heraldic crowns.

review

•  Info A first nomination under a similar scope was closed as undecided a while ago (previous reviews are available here with a lot of comments), because the set was incomplete and the designs were not satisfying. I've worked since then with Albertus teolog and Pbroks13 in order to find reliable sources and complete the set. --Eusebius (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK now. Nice job. Lycaon (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)~
•  Support Everything you wrote Eusebius includes everything which is the uniqueness of the collection. Very good graphics. Include all aspects of history. I congratulate you Eusebius. Albertus teolog (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Eusebius (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool logo!

I see that it is catching on. Very neat! -BlueCaper (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, File:User Pbroks13.svg! But before that, I created user logos for myself and the family members of mine that are Wikipedians. I am guessing by your confusion that you thought of the idea independently. -BlueCaper (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008

Well, I went ahead and set up the emergency voting system I had briefly discussed with JalalV. Something where, even if every other person flaked out, I'd still be able to run POTY myself.

Not quite completely set-up, but all that's left is pasting in some startup-code into the remaining pages linked in each gallery for voting.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008

No, that doesn't need done. This method replaces that, because I never actually heard another word about or from anyone able to run the automatic server thing. =/

What I do need is people willing to occasionally check the vote pages, remove any opposes or nasty comments (FPs are automatically included in this contest and the goal is not to rehash the FP debate, but to celebrate the great content of the last year), and just generally check for any problems. I'll e-mail you about a couple other issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

re: AccountEligibility script for POTY 2008

Hello. I was wondering if we could use your account eligibility tool for the annual Picture of the Year contest for voting eligibility. Please reply on Commons account. Thanks! Pbroks13 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're eligible. :) —Pathoschild 02:13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah, thanks a bunch! Pbroks13 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Pathoschild 02:17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tchoř is eligible for voting. Could you please remove your oppositions? BTW, nice shadowing on your phone ;-). Lycaon (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You can find extra info here. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phone.svg, 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. Detail critics,: maybe needs a little shadow on the handset left front bottom from the docking station? Lycaon 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but would you mind one small change?

Hello, I'd like to thank you for making File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg into an SVG. Voters at the Wikipedia Featured Pictures had a consensus that the title should be removed and cropped to the subject. The background can be changed to simple blue without gradient effects. Is this too much for you? Thanks and please reply here

VI review

Hi there, if you have some time, I think we could use your opinion on this VI review. Cheers, --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking POTY votes

Hi, Assuming that we can't get a bot to verify voters eligibility, you might find the code at User:Pruneau/monobook.js useful. if you add the part after "Add a link to check eligibility for POTY 2008" to User:Pbroks13/monobook.js, a link will appear in the left column on all user 9and user talk) pages, leading to Pathoschild's utility. For example, I can see a link in the left column of this page leading to [2]. I've found that it makes checking the votes much less cumbersome. Cheers, Pruneau^talk 12:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG validation

Hi.

Well, I'm not a SVG-pro, but I reduce the number of errors by:

• cleaning the defs
• saving as simple SVG
• adding manually the DOCTYPE declaration

For File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg only one error remains, and it has to do with Gaussian blur.

I'm working on it. --Coyau (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got it !
You just have to remove every occurrence of «inkscape:collect="always"» in the file. You'll have to do that in a text editor
The DOCTYPE declaration is simple: just add «<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">» at the beginning of the file, just between «» and «<svg». Always in a text editor.
I hope it will help. --Coyau (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Then try to validate "by file upload" to be sure, upload it here and add the template:ValidSVG. --Coyau (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I've got a valid version (the one I made trying to explain how to do it). If you want I can upload it. --Coyau (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with both the W3 validator and with inkscape. Inkscape leaves all of those inkscape namespaces and also sodipodi which is the app that was available to Linux before Inkscape a very long while ago by internet/computer time standards. Those inkscape and sodipodi namespaces might make the image easier to edit with inkscape (I have not seen any problem with editing images that had these namespaces removed though) but for browser display it is just a lot of text that needs to be ignored. The validator only likes namespaces that it approves of and that is my problem with that. The inkscape namespace is valid xml and therefore should be approved. I am kind of glad that it doesn't approve of that though because the validator makes it easy to find the "mostly useless for viewing" xml and removing it. However, the validator also doesn't like perfectly formed license xml and that is where my problem is with it. One of the nice things about svg is that it can contain the license, literally.

That Inkscape doesn't clean up after itself is to me a problem. It is very difficult to compare Inkscape to GIMP since they make completely different images, but Inkscape makes SVG that are mostly the equivalent of GIMPs xcf (the application leaves guides in its finished images, for instance) and it seems like an abuse of the rules that it manages to do that. When it is a mature application, it seems like a user should just be able to touch a button or select a menu option and have all of that inkscape and sodipodi namespace cruft disappear and make an image which is much easier to view and nicer to share.

The WC3 is large enough and mature enough to acknowledge and validate Creative Commons licenses -- at the very least. This statement is very much political, btw.

So, there is everything I remember about validating SVG and problems with the way the developers play in the free world with their authoring of applications and their claims of validation. I would like to think that the people are better behaved than their applications and online approval systems are.

Not that my opinion has ever been asked about these things.... ;) -- carol (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc2%2FPharyngeal_jaws_of_moray_eels.svg&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

Done. --Coyau (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From 439 KB to 422 KB and the image remains unchanged. When I did this it was much more dramatic as the file size went from 983 KB to 288 KB (File:Camara_de_fotos.svg#filehistory). SVG presented a lot of new concepts for me also -- it is an interesting way to make pictures via computer display. -- carol (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing I ever did to reduce file size was vacuum the defs. I'm still not very good at reading XML, I'll have to work on that. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg, 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 You schould try to make this SVG valid. See http://validator.w3.org/ --Coyau 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)  Info I'm sorry, I have no clue how to do that. Pbroks13 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)  Info It should be no problem, since it is valid, but the w3c-validator does not know the namespace, and should ignore it. --Niabot 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC) So it seems to be OK for me --Mbdortmund 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Anyway, it is valid now. --Coyau 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cigarette diagram.svg, 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 Very good... *inhale*. --Siipikarja 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Info added used in. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Very informative and excellent work. Never knew an moray eel played the monster role in alien;-) Fascinating biomechanics of the pharyngeal jaws, and well illustrated. Great that it is in svg format in easy localizable form. Just what we need here. Concerning categorization, could a category be added which relates to jaws in some manner? --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I have thought a little about the scope. I think the scope should be widened up to just pharyngeal jaws. As I understand it moray eels are not the only animal, which have pharyngeal jaws, but it is probably the most notable and well-developed example. For me, the existing scope is a tad too narrow. --Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info the scope has been changed to Pharyngeal jaws. Pbroks13 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Clearly, this image is a derivative work of an image found in this article from the National Science Foundation, high res version. I note that the derivative work here is dual licensed under GFDL 1.2 or later and CC-BY 3.0. On the NSF web site the following is stated about reuse of graphics from their site: ...photos and illustrations found on the NSF web site should not be reused without permission.... I cannot find any information on the image page indicating that such a permission to reuse has been granted and I would like the nominator (which is also the creator of the derivative work) to comment on that. As I understand licensing, the original image should also be dual licensed or be in the public domain to dual license the derivative work?--Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I believe the original work would be under the public domain {{PD-USGov-NSF}}, or am I mistaken? Pbroks13 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not automatically as I understand. Please read the full link I provided above. IOt seems like permission for reuse are granted on a case by case basis, and that some are in the public domain. The is an email address where enquiries can be send to. I think you should get confirmation from there about the PD license you are assuming, and I do not know if you should do some OTRS stuff after that such that it explicitly is seen from the image page. I hope you are right that it is PD as it would be a mess if it isn't - being an FP on en and all that, and considering its value. --Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Conditional oppose until licensing issues is settled. --Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Based on the reply at Template talk:PD-USGov-NSF I realize the original is indeed PD. Thus, it is OK to dual license this derivative work af GFDL/CC-BY. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Sorry for the endless comments;-) First of all, you are indeed acting it good faith as the jpg version uploaded here is indeed marked with {{PD-USGov-NSF}} and it is stated in the original article that the creator of the jpg version is indeed an NSF employee. It then just puzzles me how one can say in the {{PD-USGov-NSF}} template that the works of NSF employees done at work are PD as it seems to be in contradiction to what NSF writes on their page about Copyright and Reuse of Text and Graphics. I must admit that this is not something I am terribly knowledgeable about, but I'll ask around, hold on and sorry for the confusion. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Licensing issue resolved, there was no issue, I was just not aware of the special conditions in the American Code. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support I like it more that all other files in scopeNillerdk (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Meets all criteria. Excellent high quality work of great educational value. Contains the right detail level for grasping the concept of a CD. --Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  I don't fully agree. I think a little "zoom" zone somewhere, showing what the pressed surface (the tracks) looks like, would add value to the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  That is actually a good point. So it can be made even better, although it is still best in class. --Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Field hockey ball

Hey, Pbroks, i saw your creation about field hockey ball, i am the one who request for improve the existing images. Your image is not bad. All i need is the view under in 13px, but you just make FG ball only, can you make the rest of two? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. --Aleenf1 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture Promotion

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

--Karel (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Edmonton-flag.svg

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

--Svgalbertian (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurin Quina vectorization

I was astounded when I saw Phone.svg, at first I thought it was a photograph, as I initially only saw a thumbnail of it. I've been wanting a good vectorization of the poster Maurin Quina by Leonetto Cappiello, as I'm completely mesmerized by it. I've tried myself, and a friend has as well, but we both failed to even come close to something worthy of a big print. So, as it happens, I'm hoping you will also fall in love with it and commence the vectorization right away. Here are the highest resolution images I could find: 1, 2. Thank you for listening (well, reading.) 83.254.195.21 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on it. In order for it to look really good, this may take me a while. Do you need it by a certain time? Pbroks13 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! No, take all the time you want, I'm so happy you're doing it! And if I may ask, what tools do you use and how long experience do you have? 83.254.195.21 08:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for vector images (which is basically only what I do) I use Inkscape. And my first thing I ever vectorized was this, so I suppose I've been doing it for a little less than a year. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you again. I'll look into it. :-) 83.254.195.21

I just thought you should know, I'm still working on it, and its really coming along. Should be done pretty soon! Pbroks13 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! File:Maurin Quina.svg Pbroks13 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WOW. I am most amazed, and most grateful. I expected you to do it well, but this is PERFECT. As soon as this comes up on my wall, I'll photograph it and put here! I adore you, man. Thank you. 83.254.195.125 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! I'll be looking forward to the photo. Pbroks13 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

You sir are a saint!

for doing this: File:Coat of Arms of Niger.svg. I can't tell you the number of hours I've wasted yelling at Illustrator trying to produce something a third as nicely done as that. Every time I work on Niger related article, I saw that poorly edited mess I produced: now we have a lovely and accurate image. As a note, the government websites have used the Commons image in the past (even with the wrong background color), and so you've done them a favor a well.

Thanks again! T L Miles (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spherical wedge

Hey there Pbroks,
I found this image to be well-made and well-suited to Wikipedia's article on the Spherical cap. I recently wrote Spherical wedge, and was wondering if you'd have the time to create an image in the likeness of http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalWedge.html – with an alpha instead of a theta. A similar color scheme to the spherical cap image would be great. If you're unable to do it, that's fine and I completely understand. If that's the case, though, I'd be very grateful if you could forward me to an application I can use to construct a sphere of my own, as I'm quite inexperienced in the world of vector images and such. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Raindrops sizes.svg

I see that this will now be promoted to QI, congratulations :-). One thing that I now realise, that still bothers me, is the size of the raindrop in (d) compared with (c) and (e). I know it is only diagrammatic and not to scale, but there should be a reasonable progression in size. If (c) is at least 2mm, then (d) should be no more than 2.5 times bigger in diameter/radius, it appears to be about 4 times larger. And to graphically show the progression of size (e) should look to be bigger than (d). The easiest thing is to make (d) smaller, perhaps 3/4 its current size? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that it should be to scale, and I'm pretty sure I correctly made them that way. If you look at File:Raindrop sizes proportion.png, you'll see that (d) is almost exactly 2.5x larger than (c). So we can say (b) is 1mm, (c) is 2mm, (d) is 5mm, and (e) is about 6mm, granted its not perfect, but it's pretty close. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. I didn't actually measure them, It was just my perception (some people claim perception is reality ;-). I was looking at how many would fit vertically if the 5mm one was a sphere, but then of course they are flattened. If you ever get around to editing for some other reason, perhaps make it nearer 4mm so that skewed eyeballs think there is a size graduation too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS There's a twist, I had an edit conflict with the bot giving you a medal :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Excellent - Clear without any word. Now it is used in de:Regen too. -- HBR (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Saugeais flag.svg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Saugeais flag.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Saugeais flag.svg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:DBWF Flag.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:DBWF Flag.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg, which was nominated by Svgalbertian at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

File talk:Doppler effect.svg

File talk:Doppler effect.svg might need your attention while being undersnowed by the many bot moves. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Public domain license of File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg

Hi, File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.JPG is rightly in the public domain because of age, but File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg is your derivative work and you can't license it with age because your work is not old. You should give it a Creative Commons license or self-release it in the public domain without the Art/old note. Awesome work, btw Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Coat_of_arms_of_Bosniaks_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro.SVG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat_of_arms_of_Bosniaks_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro.SVG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Coat_of_arms_of_Bosniaks_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro.SVG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Multichill (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Baseball current event.svg

Can you improve the realism of File:Baseball current event.svg, I recently uploaded some images you might find helpful File:Baseball.svg, File:Baseball2.svg --Svgalbertian (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File: North America.svg

Hello! In your edition of the file Iceland is part of the northern american continent. Thats FALSE! As you can read in the article Iceland, Iceland isnot part of North America. Please correct the file, thanks!84.112.187.22 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in using the following image:

File:Air conditioning unit-en.svg

Thus would be used in an English text book for university students.The aim of the book would be to teach writing skills for bar charts,flow charts,etc.

I would like permission to use this image without the need to print the whole licensing agreement.

If this is possible what acknowledgment would you require?

You can contact me on: 2010ielts@gmail.com

Many thanks,

Phil