User talk:IagoQnsi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, IagoQnsi!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

Hi IagoQnsi, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:IagoQnsi/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 11 character 4: Expected ']' to match '[' from line 2 and instead saw '{'. - Evidence: {
ISSUE: line 11 character 5: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: {
ISSUE: line 12 character 14: Label 'label' on Fair use statement. - Evidence: label: 'Fair use',
ISSUE: line 13 character 10: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{fairuse|source=%PARAMETER%}}',
ISSUE: line 13 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{fairuse|source=%PARAMETER%}}',

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

Hi IagoQnsi, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:IagoQnsi/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 11 column 4: Unexpected token {

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Valid SVG

Please do not overwrite valid SVGs with invalid versions, cf. Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/invalid. There's no need to save space in a valid SVG, it's typically rendered as PNG for display. –Be..anyone 💩 16:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: The version I uploaded was entirely valid; I ran it through the W3 parser and got no errors. It might not be entirely critical to save space, but there's also no reason to have excessively verbose SVG files. -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Check again, please, but anyway, Rillke's quote was in a long discussion about not "optimizing for size" (and I'm certainly no fan of proprietary Sodipodi or other Inkscape diseases). –Be..anyone 💩 16:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: Oops, I forgot the <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> bit -- it was valid besides that (I did a manual copy-paste check which is why I didn't get an error I guess). -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, if you are very sure that you need to violate a SHOULD NOT overwrite again. –Be..anyone 💩 16:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Gordon Freeman cosplay, PAX East 2014.jpg

File:Gordon Freeman cosplay, PAX East 2014.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

czar 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Titanfall at SXSW 2014 (13223187855).jpg

Yours sincerely, czar 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

4 Hoaxilla-Logos

Hallo, du hast mich auf den fehlenden Nachweis für die Lizenz der vier Bilder hingewiesen. Wird in Kürze nachgereicht, bitte nicht schnelllöschen. Müssen wir aber erstmal bei Hoaxilla auf der Webseite so hinterlegen.

Gruß --Jmb1982 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ist eingefügt und erledigt. --Jmb1982 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:PAX logo.jpg

File:PAX logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:LetsPlay

LetsPlay has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Laber□^T 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. ~riley (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The image of DKC 2

Before going to the talk page of the image of "DKC 2 gameplay.jpg". I would like to ask if you insert the image with restricted content (fair use). The way I've added I thought there would be no problem, but I don't have 500 edits to insert image "fair use", my edits have large text sizes but few numbers of edits.--Leandrus7 (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Leandrus7: The issue is that that image is clearly copyrighted by Rareware. On Wikipedia, fair use images are sometimes acceptable, but here on Wikimedia Commons, fair use images are never allowed. You can upload a fair use image on Wikipedia here: en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: But i can add the image to another wikipedia ? the Portuguese case. And I'm only Auto-confirmed in Portuguese wikipedia. --Leandrus7 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Leandrus7: I'm not particularly familiar with Portuguese Wikipedia, but I believe you should be able to upload fair use images if you're auto-confirmed: pt:Especial:Upload. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Carl Lindner Jr (6555491775) (2).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Carl Lindner Jr (6555491775) (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

File:No Agenda cover 844.png

File:No Agenda cover 844.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Smooth O (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19058092423).jpg

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19058092423).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Clodion (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19683527341).jpg

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19683527341).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Clodion (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo & Chris Hardwick (19652842556).jpg

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo & Chris Hardwick (19652842556).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Clodion (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:SDCC 2015 - J. J. Abrams & Bobbajo (19679019785).jpg

File:SDCC 2015 - J. J. Abrams & Bobbajo (19679019785).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Clodion (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Super Hexagon EP.jpg

File:Super Hexagon EP.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Izno (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Hayden Schiff

Just a heads up, I added {{flickr user|65581273@N05}} and Category:Photographers on Flickr to your category Category:Photographs by Hayden Schiff, since you do have a Flickr account (makes it easier for others to find your category from your Flickr images. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Cool, thanks! -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

File:PAX South 2016 - Samus cosplay (24628848411).jpg

File:PAX South 2016 - Samus cosplay (24628848411).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Sw0 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Stekkies2

Why did you flag Body stress release as possible copyrighted issue. I am member 432 of BSR association with full rights to postmour official logo and content. Pls revert all info back to how it was found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stekkies2 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(note: I'm moving your comment from the top of my talk page to its own section at the bottom). @Stekkies2: In general, we assume that logos are copyrighted and unavailable under a free license unless we have specific proof to the contrary. It looks like this logo comes from bodystressrelease.com, so we'd need you to prove that you are the owner of that site (or have permission from the owner of the site). You can find info about how to do that here: Commons:OTRS. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stekkies2: Update: I've changed the "speedy deletion" tag to a "no permission" tag, which means your file will not be up for deletion until 7 days from now. That should give you plenty of time to take care of proving your ownership. (If you send the OTRS team an email, it may take them longer than 7 days to validate it, but as long as you properly start the OTRS process within 7 days, you'll be in the clear). Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: Just realized this isn't linked — this discussion is about the file File:Body Stress Release.jpg, which I had tagged as a copyright violation. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights violations patrooling

I think will be good idea to look onto other contributions of problematic users. There are quite a lot of cases when image in question is uploaded multiple times. Or user may just upload other copyrights violations. MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js gadget is very helpful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Wow, VisualFileChange is soooo helpful; how did I go so long without this? Thanks! -IagoQnsi (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Mc Sar & the Real Mccoy space invaders album.jpg

File:Mc Sar & the Real Mccoy space invaders album.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Hansa Records, or the graphic artist(s)." If you don't know who the copyright holder is and don't have their permission, it's a copyright violation.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

IagoQnsi (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello i need help. i'm trying to add this image to wikimedia commons. the file is a cd cover for a music band called Real McCoy.

there are already CD covers for this same band in wikimedia commons already. here are examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Another_Night_Real_McCoy_1993_German_edition.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Automatic_Lover_(Call_for_Love)_Real_McCoy.jpeg

what must i do to add the images into wikimedia commons? these other images are the property of Hansa records too and yet they exist in wikimedia commons

-- Eurodanceguy (talk)

@Eurodanceguy: The images you linked are on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia allows fair use images in some cases, while Wikimedia Commons is strictly for free images. If you just want the photo for a Wikipedia article, you should upload it to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale -- you can do that here. -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Licensing logo: question

Hi IagoQnsi, I have been reading the guidelines for uploading organizational logos to Wikipedia but seem to be misunderstanding something. You flagged a couple I did simply as test cases--Ttp logo and Cool Company logo. My business partner had been using the former for many years but now has a new logo and said I could experiment with the old one to see if I could properly register it. I took it to my Flickr account and followed the instructions for choosing a license. I selected Attribution ShareAlike. Then returned to Commons to register it. She created the logo--do I need something more from her to be able to free license it? The other logo was just a photo that I took and own that I edited a bit, again to test the process. Any help sorting this out would be greatly appreciated!DanDavidCook (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@DanDavidCook: I'm afraid I don't remember what Ttp logo was, but since File:Cool company logo.jpg is still up, I can comment on it. I tagged that logo for deletion not because of copyright issues, but because it isn't a useful image. Commons' project scope states that we only host images that are realistically useful for an educational purpose—a logo for a company that doesn't exist yet is not realistically useful.

You might have noticed that that image also has a "Flickr review" tag with a big red X. That's because, when you entered the "source" for the image, you didn't include the URL of your Flickr upload, so the Flickr review bot wasn't able to find your Flickr image. That could have resulted in deletion, but in this case, this image didn't look to me like something you would have copied, so I actually ignored the review issue. My deletion tag was focused solely on the "out of scope" issue instead. Hope this helps clarify things; let me know if you have any more questions. --IagoQnsi (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't mind the deletion--as I said, I just did it for the practice. As for the other, again, deletion is fine, although it is a great logo that we would like to have in the public domain should anyone want to use it. This is the Flickr upload link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/75094606@N04/38886590720/in/dateposted-public/ Do you mind if I register it again with the Commons? I do want to master this process.DanDavidCook (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

undelete the photos

Hi, I note that you recently deleted a whole bunch of screenshots that I've uploaded on JotterPad. Please undelete them. Thanks.

Xwonderlust (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

These files cannot be undeleted unless you have proof that you have permission from JotterPad's designated copyright holder or you need to prove its distributed under a free software license. 04:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~riley (talk • contribs)

Touron cartoon.jpg

The image File:Touron cartoon.jpg was deleted but I could not locate the log. I wanted to find out why the cartoon was deleted as it is my own original work. It's even signed and I still own the original. It was never published professionally and the donation to Wikimedia was it's first internet upload aside from Facebook.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: If I'm recalling the correct image, the description of the image said something like "a cartoon originally published in the 80s", and the signature on the image I couldn't read but it didn't seem to at all match the name listed as the author. Sorry for the mistake; you can get it restored by posting a request at COM:UNDEL. -IagoQnsi (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Flickr Review

Thanks for adding a Flickr review template to files from Flickr. Just a heads up, the correct template for Flickr review is {{Flickr review}}. The one you used, {{flickr review needed}}, is not read by the Flickr Review bot, meaning that the file just stays in Category:Flickr review needed. Elisfkc (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Ah, thanks for the heads up! I'll remember that for the future. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Aeropuerto Dubai.jpg

File:Aeropuerto Dubai.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

File:The mash 01 A4 300dpi.jpg

Hi IagoQnsi,
Thank you for your interest.
About this picture, it's a personal work and I thought I chose an appropriate license.
Can you explain exactly how this image violates copyright?
By the way, I published it on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcwathieu/3061794059/ with a "public domain" license.
Maybe I should change the license on Wikimedia? But I can't find the reference document that would explain how to do it.
Can you please help me?
Thanx? --Marc Wathieu (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marcwathieu: Hi there Marc; no need to worry, there's actually no issue here. I was patrolling for copyright violations, and I didn't initially find the free license for your photo. 99 out of 100 times, when someone uploads a promotional photo of a band to Commons, they just ripped it from the band's website without permission. I failed to realize that your image was that other 1 time out of 100. Sorry for the trouble! :) –IagoQnsi (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/UpdateNewUploads-ajax.js

Hi IagoQnsi, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:IagoQnsi/UpdateNewUploads-ajax.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{speedydelete|user request in own userspace}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'speedydelete'. - Evidence: {{speedydelete|user request in own userspace}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 15: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{speedydelete|user request in own userspace}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 15: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{speedydelete|user request in own userspace}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 16: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'user'. - Evidence: {{speedydelete|user request in own userspace}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC).

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/UpdateNewUploads-ajax.js

Hi IagoQnsi, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:IagoQnsi/UpdateNewUploads-ajax.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 21: Unexpected identifier

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC).

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT

WHY DO YOU DO IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvn 21 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I explained the issues with the image in the message on my deletion request, which can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sofia Fanart.jpg. Just because the license was free on Flickr does not mean there isn't a copyright issue--people can upload images they don't really own to Flickr and put a free license on them. If you would like to further dispute my copyright violation claim, I recommend you do so at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sofia Fanart.jpg, so that it can be seen by others (such as the admin who will decide whether or not to actually delete your image in a week). --IagoQnsi (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - Matt Bahner after win (40301613165) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - Julie Stewart-Binks (39394289360) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CINvPGH 2018-04-21 - Neco Brett (41144395674) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality (please keep in mind that only one of the files can be a QI; this means the original file now cannot.) --Peulle 20:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2018 (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:
Matt Bahner – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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

review

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

review

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

review

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

review

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

review

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

review

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:
Mark-Anthony Kaye – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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

review

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

review

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

review

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:
portrait of Pat McMahon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
Pitch invasions by an individual.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
portrait of Daniel Haber.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
portraits of Jeff Berding.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
portraits of Chris Nanco.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
group photographs of FC Cincinnati, 2017 season.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
group photographs of FC Cincinnati, 2016 season.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
portraits of Neco Brett.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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

review

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

review

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

review

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:
flip throws.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
portraits of Jonathan Campbell.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
Portraits of Jimmy McLaughlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CINvPGH 2018-04-21 - Jimmy McLaughlin (26993710727) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK but I still think you should have a link to your Commons profile in the author section. Any time somebody doesn't remember who you are, you may get declines ... --Peulle 17:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2018 (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:
portraits of Garrett Halfhill.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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:
portraits of Yudai Imura.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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

review

Image check at OTRS

Hi, in reference to OTRS ticket#2018031110000449 the copyright holder has sent the email. Would you be willing to confirm now? BTW, I was told it was acceptable to forward an email from the copyright holder if they confirm the information within the template at Commons:OTRS is acceptable... Thanks, Corky 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:

Done. I believe OTRS requires that the permission come directly from the copyright holder instead of being forwarded because there's no way to verify the authenticity of a forwarded message. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not saying I don't disagree with that, I was just doing what I was told I could do as a "Plan B" because I have had some people give permission but they don't want to take two seconds to send the email... which is frustrating! Corky 23:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

File:CGPGrey.png

File:CGPGrey.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gunnar Guðvarðarson (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Behin Batean Loiolan.pdf

Hello IagoQnsi: I write in reference to the file File:Behin Batean Loiolan.pdf. This book was edited by the Department of Culture and the City Hall of Donostia - San Sebastian, where I work. The writer, Felix Elejalde, died some years ago and that's why I got in contact with his only son who lives in Pamplona in order to release this book in a free licence. I show him how it had to be done, using OTRS permission email layaout. Sadly now I see that that's not enough because the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. I can't understand that. The content was published in Donostia - San Sebastian and the copyright owner has gmail account and lives in Pamplona, whis is 85 kilometres from Donostia. Please, could you review this? I know that this is not an argument but this book is about the social history of a neighbourhood (Loiola) and we are looking forward to work on it with the local library this autumn. Thank you for your attention.--Xabier Cañas (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ClubAtleticoPolicialescudo-Catamarca.svg

I did the file again, can you see it again. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 01:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ezarate: Hey sorry, I've been busy the last few days and didn't have a chance to get to this, and now it looks like it's already been declined. If you resubmitted it, I'd be happy to support your new nomination. --IagoQnsi (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Done renominated Ezarateesteban 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! And Commons:Valued image candidates/Juventud Unida de Santa Rosa (Catamarca).svg? I nominated it days ago and nobody review it, tell me if it is fine if you can. Don't vote in VIC, I like to know if it is well vectorized. Regards!!!Ezarateesteban 21:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ezarate: A lot of the letters in this one are rather shaky. In the original, most of the strokes of the letter are straight lines, but in your vector file, they're all curves. Additionally, the insides of letters like D and A are filled in with white instead of being transparent. Instead of using Inkscape's "trace bitmap" tool, a better approach for vectorizing text might be to re-create it yourself; e.g. figure out exactly what font they used, retype the text in that font, and wrap it around the circle. --IagoQnsi (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you I'll redo it during the week!!! Ezarateesteban 21:51, 15 October 2018 (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:
portraits of Mélé Temguia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

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

review

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

review

File:Font Awesome 5 solid venus-mars.svg

I'm not 100% sure what that image is intended to mean, but it's not at all any customary or usual form of a heterosexuality symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: These are the astrological symbols of Venus and Mars, which are often used to symbolize the female and male genders respectively. Putting a male icon and a female icon together makes a symbol for heterosexuality. Font Awesome 5 also has a mars-double icon for male homosexuality and a venus-double icon for female homosexuality. More info here: en:Gender symbol. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'm fully aware that they are individually a male symbol and a female symbol. However they are combined together in a peculiar and idiosyncratic way which does not make the whole thing equivalent to any form of heterosexuality symbol that I've ever seen. I've been uploading versions of heterosexuality symbols which people actually make use of to Commons for over ten years now (see File:HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg etc.), so I don't need an extended lecture from somebody who has uploaded a rather odd version which people don't generally use... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I'm not trying to lecture you; I was simply trying to give a helpful answer -- I wouldn't have explained all that if I knew your history. I don't see any substantive difference between the image you linked and this icon that would make me think this icon does not represent heterosexuality. The symbols are overlapping rather than interlinked, but I think this difference is just an aesthetic one to make the icon fit in with the rest of the Font Awesome icon set. As for "symbols which people actually make use of"... Font Awesome is used on tens of millions of websites (their homepage claims "over 100 million", whereas this third-party site says "at least 22 million"... either way it's a lot) and is the most popular web icon font in existence. --IagoQnsi (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

They may know a lot about some things, and have devised a font which is useful in many ways, but when it comes to combining two gender symbols they invented their own personal artistic conventions, which have produced a rather odd and eccentric result. It is simply not what people who are concerned with such symbols have been commonly or customarily using, and therefore may not convey the apparently-intended meaning at all. Your "overlap" comments are not helpful, because the two symbols do not really "overlap" in the usual way, but rather, one obliterates the other with a wide whitespace margin (a peculiar artistic convention which is the root of the problem). If in File:Font Awesome 5 solid venus-mars.svg the "awesome" dudes intended to express that females dominate males, then they've done a good job. If they were trying to express "heterosexuality", then the idiosyncratic artistic convention giving an asymmetric result unfortunately obscures their intended meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Font Awesome is an web icon font, which means the icons are often used at very small resolutions. The icons need to be identifiable and look good even when they're tiny. If you're making an icon with multiple symbols overlapping, you often can't just put the symbols on top of each other without any adjustment -- it will have too much weight and will probably be harder to understand/identify. Removing part of one symbol to illustrate that another symbol is overlapping it is a common convention throughout many icon fonts. A few examples of other Font Awesome icons using this technique: cloud-sun, bow-arrow, battery-bolt, folders, swords. Other icon fonts using this same technique include Google's Material Design (e.g. vpn_lock, how_to_vote/reg, phonelink, etc), GitHub's Octicons (e.g. clippy, repo-clone), and many others. --IagoQnsi (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the problem in general (see File:3x3 typeface.svg), but the awesome dudes seemed to be more preoccupied with their awesome graphic design techniques than what would actually be a correct form of the intended symbol, and so they produced something which may be visually awesome, but unfortunately has a rather divergent symbolism (if it means anything at all). AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: The way I see it, the Mars symbol doesn't really have a section removed, per se. Instead, the Venus symbol has a white outline around it, and the Mars symbol is getting partially covered by that outline. You can tell this is what the designers intended as well: Normally, all strokes in FA icons end with rounded corners (e.g. look at the bottom of the Venus symbol). However, where the Mars symbol is obscured by the Venus symbol, the Mars symbol has hard corners at the end of its strokes. This tells you that the strokes haven't really ended; they're just covered by the Venus symbol. --IagoQnsi (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It's asymmetrical -- one is in front of and obscuring the other. That's just not how the symbol is commonly shown: either the two are on the same level with neither obscuring the other (real true overlapping), or the two are symmetrically interlinked (neither one is overall in front of or behind the other one) Here's a quickie I uploaded just now to show how it could have been done -- sorry if it's not "awesome", but at least it's not dumb... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:HeteroSym-monochrome interlaced with thick strokes.svg (This framed image is really big, so I changed it to a link. --IagoQnsi (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC))

@AnonMoos: Your design works as well, but that's just not what the Font Awesome designers happened to pick. Presumably they wanted this icon to match venus-double and mars-double, and I think it'd be harder to cleanly implement your linking design in those icons. Regardless, we are clearly not going to come to an agreement on whether or not this is a good icon. But it's definitely worth keeping (it's inherently in scope by being part of a notable icon set), and it definitely portrays a Venus symbol and a Mars symbol overlapping (even though it is atypical for one of them to be in front of the other, they're still overlapping), which means it matches the description of the category "Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols (one link)". Can we agree to leave it as is? --IagoQnsi (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I can understand that problem as well -- I never uploaded a gay male counterpart to File:Heterosexual-hearts-symbol-3D.svg and File:Lesbian-hearts-symbol-3D.svg because a simple joining of two of the symbols on the right of File:Heterosexual-hearts-symbol-3D.svg wouldn't work too well, and I didn't give much priority to thinking up a more complex visual solution for that particular case. However, to avoid that type of problem, the "awesome" dudes unfortunately ended up adopting a form of the symbol which is basically unprecedented and incorrect. It's true that occasionally you'll see a solid-colored Mars symbol superimposed on a Venus-symbol of a different color (or vice versa), though this is probably not the best or prototypical version of the symbol (see the upload history of File:Combotrans.png for example). The version of the symbol with one symbol placed on top of the other AND a wide margin that eats away at the lower symbol is something that I've never seen before (and I'm a kind of symbol connoisseur), and which is both ugly and presumptively incorrect.
In any case, regardless of all of the above, File:Font Awesome 5 solid venus-mars.svg CANNOT be included inside any category which has the words "interlaced", "interlocked", or "interlinked" in its name, since those words apply to things which are linked like the links on a chain, and that is simply objectively not the case with the two circles in this image. For the formal mathematical description, see Hopf link.
I never had any intention of asking that the "awesome" image files be deleted (if that had been the case, I would have already nominated them for deletion some days ago), but nevertheless it's clear that the form of the symbol in the image is incorrect by the usual symbolic conventions which are commonly involved. AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: The category is called "Interlinking Venus and Mars symbols", not "Venus and Mars symbols connected by a Hopf link". If you look up "interlink" or "interlinking" in any dictionary, it simply means "linked/joined/connected together". I don't know of any Commons precedent that says the word "interlinking" only refers to the mathematical/technical defintion of the word, so I don't see an issue with using the non-technical definition. If you have an idea for a different word that would be more descriptive, I welcome it, but if you're just going to keep bashing the word I picked, that doesn't get us anywhere.

If you think that the symbol is an ugly and incorrect version of a heterosexuality symbol, that's perfectly fine, but an incorrect heterosexuality symbol is still a heterosexuality symbol. File:Waldseemuller map 2.jpg is a very incorrect map of the world, but we still have it in the category 16th-century maps of the world. --IagoQnsi (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If one thing is on top of the other, and you're free to slide them apart without anything interfering, then they're not "linked" together in any normal or useful meaning of the word. There's a reason that "links" of chain are given their name -- if you have a box of free (unlinked) links, then if you pick up one, the others don't come with it. Only if the links are actually linked to each other do you have a real chain.

The word "interlinked" is not commonly mathematically defined, but I'm afraid that it does in fact have a rather specific and precise meaning in terms of visual representations, which is why I advised you in the subsection below to look at various relevant Commons categories and Wikipedia articles, such as "Celtic knot", "Category:Knots in art and decoration", "Croatian interlace" etc. etc.

The reason why the Hopf link comes into it, is that if two circles are interlinked (in any normal or useful meaning of this word), then they must be linked together in the manner of a Hopf link. This doesn't apply to non-circular shapes, of course...

The map analogy is not too great, because Waldseemüller had a mathematically consistent map projection, and filled it with what data was available to him. By contrast the Awesome guys did not understand, or chose to disregard, certain visual conventions commonly applied to certain types of symbols. AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Shantae logo black.svg

File:Shantae logo black.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Netflix_television_program_logos

Netflix television program logos has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Astros4477 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

File:CGPGrey.png

File:CGPGrey.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

File:RIT yearbook 1981.pdf

File:RIT yearbook 1981.pdf 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

—RP88 (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

File:RIT NandE 1974 May10 Complete.pdf

Hi, why do you think this is in the PD and why did you tag it with a text-logo-template when it's magazine? --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Oops, embarassing, I meant to use {{PD-US-no notice}} for all of those issues (I have my default license in UploadWizard set to PD-textlogo, and I forgot to change it). I've now corrected all those licenses; mea culpa! –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Rock Paper Shotgun logo 2018.svg

File:Rock Paper Shotgun logo 2018.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Kirilloparma (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RIT journals

Hi, thanks for your message. As I understand it, the photo is a stock photo of Mr. Carter, working on his DTL Flamande typeface. There's no suggestion in the caption RIT took it; it's not said who took it or where at all. Here it is used by that font's publisher (I immediately recognised it when it was uploaded as I'd seen it before and was wondering what computer he was using. Given this, there's no reason to believe this photo was taken in October 1986 in New York state. That breaks the plain meaning of the category: it's for photos of October 1986 in New York state, not of photos published in a magazine published in October 1986 in New York state.

So I think the category should be removed. But let me know what you think. Blythwood (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User talk:IagoQnsi/Archive 1

Welcome

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

Valid SVG

Notification about possible deletion

4 Hoaxilla-Logos

Autopatrol given

The image of DKC 2

Copyright status: File:Carl Lindner Jr (6555491775) (2).jpg

Category:Photographs by Hayden Schiff

Comment from Stekkies2

Copyrights violations patrooling

Licensing logo: question

undelete the photos

Touron cartoon.jpg

Flickr Review

File:The mash 01 A4 300dpi.jpg

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/UpdateNewUploads-ajax.js

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/UpdateNewUploads-ajax.js

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Image check at OTRS

Valued Image Promotion

File:Font Awesome 5 solid venus-mars.svg

RIT journals

Navigation menu

Search