User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2022/Q2

File:Corte de unha toddy.jpg Eu exijo a restauração.

Por favor, traduza essa mensagem para o seu idioma. A imagem que você excluiu, pensando que eu peguei no site acima, na verdade É MINHA!!!!!!!! Tem o meu nome gravado na imagem!!!!!!!!!. Na verdade, são eles que pegaram a minha foto aqui do Wikipédia e colocaram no anúncio deles. Não o contrário!!!! Eu exijo o restauro do arquivo File:Corte de unha toddy.jpg imediatamente. --Valderifs (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Restored, sorry about that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Muito obrigado!

Bom trabalho!!! Valderifs (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 001.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 001.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

File:台北郵局2021年.jpg

Hi KoH, would you like to have a look at this image since you declined the speedy deletion in the past, Thanks. Stang^★ 17:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mass revert

Explain how the benin files are not copyvios. Dronebogus (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I was just about to post on your talk page. Please see COM:CSD#F3: "This does not apply to photographs taken in a public place." Any COM:FOP-related deletion rationales must go through COM:DR, and are ineligible for speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Then could you please nominate the files for deletion? Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I usually convert ineligible FOP speedies to DR myself with the "Challenge speedy deletion" button if there are just a couple, but this time there were too many for that to be feasible. I recommend that you nominate the images in batches by subject (i.e. group all images showing the same work of art together); you can install VisualFileChange in Preferences -> Gadgets to make it easier. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Already done Dronebogus (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mass revert

Good day, why do you mass rv my edit is clearly there is no source and not own work can you explain to me. thank you. HurricaneEdgar 05:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

{{Copyvio}} requires that there be proof of a copyvio, such as a link to the file appearing on an external website with no free license. In the case of mere suspicion (i.e. "I don't believe that it's own work" or "I don't believe that the file's provenance as described is correct"), the correct template to use is {{No permission since}} or {{No source since}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Possibly free logos

Thanks for handling those, it didn't even occur to me - will bear it in mind in future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

VRT permission request for User:BelozerskMuseum

Hi! About this edit. This template was placed there because this account should be verified for further uploading photos taken by museum's stuff. Related permission was sent to the VRT.--BelozerskMuseum (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@BelozerskMuseum: That template is for use on images only, to indicate that a VRT permission is incoming and therefore admins should not delete the image. Your userpage is in no danger of deletion, so the template is unnecessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The permission for CPC delcarations

You said some time ago that I could still seek permission for individual works made by spokesperson for Coalition of Patriots for Change. Could you then confirm this permission for declarations made by Serge Bozanga, who sent this permission for OTRS? Here's a declaration written by him that I uploaded: File:CPCdeclaration.png. Borysk5 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

POTD Notification

⭐ The file you uploaded, is on the main page! ⭐ The file File:General Grant National Memorial New York November 2016 003.jpg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

PD-US-no notice related question.

Hi King of Hearts. Would you mind taking a look at COM:VPC#Copyright status assessment of IMS Vintage Image photo? While this file is likely still protected in the UK and, thus, unacceptable for Commons, I'm wondering if there's a way to upload it locally to English Wikipedia. For example, English Wikipedia does allow some types of content to be uploading locally as PD under licenses such as en:Template:FoP-USonly, en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly and en:Template:PD-USonly and I'm wondering whether there some way for the same to be done in a case like this. If not, that's OK; I'm just curious. It doesn't seem that either en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad or en:Template:PD-1996 would be applicable, but I'm curious if there might be another way. I've got no idea who took the photo, where it was taken or when it was taken. Assuming it was first published on August 1, 1977, in the UK and taken by an unknown person, then I guess that means that it won't be PD in the UK until at least 2047-48. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: If it wan't published in the US without 30 days of the UK publication, then COM:URAA applies and the work is still copyrighted in the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

騷擾如何判定？應該怎麼做才能避免騷擾用戶？

管理員，我想請你幫我看看這個問題。--Kai3952 (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

我覺得我說很詳細，而且原因有說是某位用戶說我騷擾，我不明白為什麼拿照片上編輯或分類的問題去問，就被人說騷擾。我通常是看到描述的時間與EXIF顯示不相符，或者拍攝的地點與他添加某某地點的類別是不相符，因此我才會去問，不是那種沒事就找人騷擾，所以我不清楚「我的行為」是怎麼樣給人覺得是騷擾，這需要管理員你幫我解惑，謝謝。--Kai3952 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Nourhane 1922 to 2022.jpg

Hi King of Hearts. Since you're also an admin on Wikipedia. I thought you'd be a good person to ask about File:Nourhane 1922 to 2022.jpg? The file is most likely related to what's being discussed at en:WP:THQ#uploaded a photograph but it doesn't appear. I'm not sure how a photo like this or the other photos the user wants to upload (if they're essentially the same type) can be treated as anything other than anonymous works with unknown dates of publication or even treated as never published given what little the uploader seems to know about them. Since you can also see the photos uploaded by this user which have already been deleted from both English Wikipedia and Commons so far, perhaps there's something about one of them which might help figure out the copyright status of the rest. FWIW, if these are as described at Teahouse, it could be hard to use them as non-free content per en:WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion among other things. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"It wasn't published. these were photographs Nourhane had commissioned a photographer in the region (cairo, beirut, damascus) to take and was used as a 'carte de visite' so she had a stack and would autograph them to give out to fans." I believe this counts as published, as long as she was handing them out in the US. If the uploader has an original copy, then we'd also be able to see if it had a copyright notice. @Clindberg: Is there anything you might be able to add here? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. Do you know whether any of three countries (Egypt, Lebanon and Syria) mentioned by the OP might also follow COM:PUB in the same way that the US does? Are we back to "never published" if they don't and the photographs weren't given out to fans in the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say cartes de visite count as published. Technically, you would follow the law in each individual country where you want to use a work, and it's always possible the legal history and definitions differ a bit by country. The U.S. is a bit tortured, but if she was giving them out to fans, I don't think there is much argument against them being published. The ownership of copyright... is harder. In many countries at the time, the commissioning party would own the copyright. For example, the UK Copyright Act 1911 (which would have been valid in the British Mandate areas) said: where, in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright. Copyright laws these days usually don't do that; copyright stays with the photographer. If you use Syrian law, photos got a very short term of protection in their 2001 law (I think it was 50 years from publication in the 1924 law, which covered the French Mandate areas), so the photo would be PD there, and not subject to the URAA. Lebanon I think pretty much kept the old mandate terms, so a 1950s photograph would have been restored by the URAA for U.S. status. If published in Egypt, then {{PD-Egypt}} would be the one in question. I think she was living in Syria during the 1950s, but I'm not sure. If so, that would be the most likely country of origin for that type of photo, in which case the photo has expired and doesn't need to be licensed, so ownership is moot. But, if licensed, might be best to keep that license around, as well as applying {{PD-Syria}}. The magazine covers also upload are of course not owned by the uploader, so they can't be licensed. If they fall under {{PD-Syria}} then fine, otherwise they are likely still under copyright at least in the U.S. due to the URAA, even if now expired (50 years from publication) in their home countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

CC-GOBCL

Hi there. I added these tags for speedy deletion since Fotografía patrimonial.cl is not covered by the license for an obvious fact: these images were not generated by the Government of Chile (except some attributed to the Presidency and the Zig Zag archive, which actually belong to the State) and they sell these reproductions. These works not covered by the template scope are so because they are mostly donations by private individuals and are under copyright. --with (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Often the status is not clear, as we can see from the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raúl Sáez Sáez.jpg. There is no rush to delete these images, so why not spend the time to make sure we get it right? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Official_anthem_of_Atlético_Bembibre.ogg

King of ♥, with summary: "No VRTS permission since 12 March 2022", you have deleted the reference file. It's certainly surprising that since that date, despite the [Ticket#202202020810010796], in which the author of lyrics and music of this hymn communicated its public availability, through Wikimedia commons, the VRTS has not been resolved. More surprising to me is that the solution is to simply delete the file.

Please refer to this Ticket and, if there are any problems, form or otherwise, let the author know via e-mail and this way, so that I can help him to solve the problems. Thanks, --Galopax (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Galopax: I've searched the VRTS database, and that ticket number does not appear to exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @King of Hearts: , but the e-mail is in Spanish:

De: Permissions [permissions-es@wikimedia.org] - en español

Enviado: martes, 8 de febrero de 2022 17:56

Para: Manuel Ramón García Ferrero [nonoferr@gmail.com]

Asunto: [Ticket#2022020810010796] Confirmación de recepción (Re: HIMNO OFICIAL DEL AT [...])

Estimado Manuel Ramón García Ferrero,

Gracias por su correo electrónico. Esta es una respuesta generada automáticamente para informarle que su mensaje ha sido recibido. Debido a que todos los correos electrónicos son manejados por voluntarios, puede tomar un tiempo para que respondamos. Le pedimos amablemente su paciencia y comprensión mientras hacemos nuestro mejor esfuerzo para responder lo más rápido posible. Si su artículo o archivo ha sido eliminado mientras tanto, no se preocupe. Cualquier administrador puede restaurarlos más tarde.

Si desea enviar más correos electrónicos sobre el mismo tema, agregue lo siguiente a la barra de asunto del correo electrónico: [Ticket#: 2022020810010796].

Cordialmente,

El Equipo de Respuesta Voluntaria

I don't know what might have happened. Maybe he forwarded the mail? Is't requested from permissions-es@wikimedia.org? Thank you in any case. --Galopax (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Galopax: Restored, and replied to the email. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @King of Hearts: , and a question: what's the mind of "the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published"? --Galopax (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

His email address is not listed on his Youtube account, so I have no way of verifying whether it is actually him sending the permission or an imposter. He must list his email on his Youtube account in order for it to be considered verified. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Rosario Irlandés.jpg

Hello King of Hearts,

as it turns out this file was manually "transferred" from en.wp, where it was originally uploaded as en:File:Penal rosary.jpg. I've tried to correct as much of the description as I could, but I'm not sure about the license tag. You're an admin there, could you please check for the original tag and correct the current Commons tag if necessary? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It was uploaded by User:Irendraca on August 15, 2009 as own work, but never had a valid license while on enwiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So that means we have to delete it on that grounds? --Rosenzweig τ 20:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at R Católico's other uploads, I see no other images taken with a Nikon D200, so this is probably not "own work" by R Católico. It may be own work by Irendraca, but since they never issued a valid license we would have to delete the image unless we can get them to come back and add a license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's a work of Irendraca, compare his 2014 Commons upload File:Róisín Dubh (Black Rose).jpg, same camera. That user's last contribution was in 2014 though, so I wouldn't expect him to come back. I don't see an e-mail option for either of his users (here and at en.wp), so we probably can't send him an e-mail either. --Rosenzweig τ 09:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've nominated the file for deletion and notified Irendraca on both his talk pages. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you know how to get the Drivers License date-- associated with the alleged shooters photo? (Robb Elementary School)

There is no Drivers license date with the recently uploaded photo. Do you know how to find it?

It's https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salvador-Ramos.jpg (Salvador Ramos) and is now on Wikipedia:Robb Elementary School shooting.

Thanks in advance, Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You could try to find it online. But as this question isn't really Commons-specific, I wouldn't know any better than you? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Vermont State House Montpelier October 2021 HDR.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vermont State House Montpelier October 2021 HDR.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

About works of Josep Brangulí i Soler

Hello, King of Hearts. About this case Special:Diff/659115579 and Special:Diff/659141979, according to Copyright law of Spain, the works from authors who died before 1987 are protected in copyright law for 80 years after his death. Josep Brangulí died in 1945 and his works will be in public domain in 2025. So I reported these imatge as a copyright violation. In fact, all items in the Category:Photographs by Josep Brangulí have a wrong license. Thanks!--Docosong (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Docosong: Thanks, I didn't know that. I guess the main question is then whether they are considered "simple photographs" ("meras fotografías") for the purpose of {{PD-Spain-photo}}. Feel free to nominate them for DR if you do not consider them as such. However, I would say that Spanish photos from more than 25 years ago are never eligible for speedy deletion, because evaluating whether they are PD is inherently subjective and not clear-cut. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ezarate 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Rodolfo Hernández.jpg

Hi King of Hearts, about the File:Rodolfo Hernández.jpg I understand the good faith principle but the user that uploaded the photo is constantly violating copyright so I'm pretty sure this person doesn't have permission to use this photo. - Regards, -Chien (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, their uploads are not all copyvios. So I think it's worth it to give them a chance to explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy restorations

I am not aware of a basis in policy for unilateral 1) determination that a speedy deletion is invalid and 2) restoration on that basis, especially over comments in opposition. Could you please point me to it? Эlcobbola _talk 21:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are only for uncontroversial cases. If any admin does not believe the speedy deletion is valid, then the case by definition is controversial, and must go through DR. Think of it as a post-hoc challenge (i.e. clicking "Challenge speedy deletion" on a live request) rather than a unilateral overturn of the deletion decision. We don't want the COM:UNDEL page to pile up with lengthy discussions. Once it is clear that a substantial debate is required, there is no point holding it on the UNDEL page if it has not previously undergone DR. To spend extra time discussing it on UNDEL is a waste of time and effort if it's going to go to DR anyways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, please point me to the policy. Admins are to follow policy as it is, not as they wish it. I understand the appeal processes to be described at Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions and Commons:Undeletion_requests#Appealing_a_deletion, and find no basis for your actions. Эlcobbola _talk 23:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Per COM:CSD#G4: "Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus". Since the speedy deletion was not carried out in accordance with community consensus, recreation of the content is not subject to speedy deletion. Therefore you can think of my undeletion as simply recreation of the content, which was then immediately retagged for speedy deletion, which I then challenged by converting to a DR. No explicit policy is required to allow for recreation; rather, one particular policy permits speedy deletion of the recreation in limited circumstances which do not apply here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You are not the sole arbiter of whether CSD was correctly applied. If you believe a file presented to UDR was improperly deleted, you may add your opinion like everyone else. You are abusing your tools to super !vote. Эlcobbola _talk 23:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I don't even need to decide whether CSD was correctly applied. Anyone could have reuploaded the image (which is functionally equivalent to undeleting it) and it would not be subject to G4 speedy deletion. It can then go to DR where it belongs. Instead of going on about process, why not present your opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kathleen R. LaNatra.jpg to argue why you believe {{PD-MAGov}} does not apply?

By the way, I think there might have been an understanding. When I said "the speedy deletion was not carried out in accordance with community consensus", I was not giving my opinion; I was stating a fact. Speedy deletions, by definition, are not carried out in accordance with community consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 08:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 03:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chinese Cultural Garden San Jose May 2022 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Japanese Friendship Garden San Jose May 2022 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 03:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chinese Cultural Garden San Jose May 2022 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chinese Cultural Garden San Jose May 2022 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chinese Cultural Garden San Jose May 2022 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chinese Cultural Garden San Jose May 2022 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments too hard dark area at left --Ezarate 22:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Lightened. --King of Hearts 23:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ezarate 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seattle Japanese Garden June 2018 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Japanese Friendship Garden San Jose May 2022 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 01:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

--Pi bot (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Japanese Friendship Garden San Jose May 2022 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Charles River Esplanade Boston May 2018 panorama.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles River Esplanade Boston May 2018 panorama.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Save the date: Commons Photographers meeting next week

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

Please save the date: on Saturday, June 19th, our next virtual Zoom meeting is going to take place. As you know, one goal of these meetings is to share knowledge about different types of photography. This time, we've lined up the following presentations:

• Photography in Nigeria
• Photographing vehicles
• I started printing my images – here’s what I've learned so far…

If you'd like to participate in this event, please consider signing up on this page. Also, if you'd like to present at one of the next meetings, please send me a quick note. Sharing your experiences and learnings with others can make a huge difference!

I wish you, your family, and your friends all the best! Hope to see you on the 19th.

Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Paterson Plank Road Jersey City November 2021.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paterson Plank Road Jersey City November 2021.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This Sunday!

Hi, this is just a quick reminder: the next virtual meeting of our user group is scheduled for Sunday, June 19, 16:00 UTC. Topics are: “Photography in Nigeria”, “Photographing Vehicles”, “Wildlife photography and citizen science”, and “I started printing my images – here’s what I've learned so far…”. I'm thrilled about this great agenda and I'm looking forward to connecting with you again. Stay safe and all the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please Stop...

Permission has been sent to Commons, see User:Ruthven.

Ji-Elle (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ji-Elle: Can you please provide the ID numbers of the relevant VRTS tickets? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I've restored the files (ref. ticket:2022061410003089). They are part of a larger project, for which I've created a custom license template {{FIG Saint-Dié}}. Have a nice day! Ruthven (msg) 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Thanks for clarifying! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

sorry for the mix-up

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:20200815-DJI 0178-Edit.jpg - this morning I went ahead and added the link to the file on the Abandoned online website, which marks their files with a c and states everything on their site is copyrighted. Sorry for not including the link to the Copyvio notice when I created it last night. You converted it to DR because; I imagine you didn't see the file on their very full site. Again, sorry for the mix-up. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Disc page archiving.

Hello, good morning, how do I archive my talk page has a lot of content and I want to be able to learn how to empty the page and do a general cleaning. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: Please see COM:ARCHIVE for instructions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Incendio-Mesa-Redonda-Daniel-Silva-ganador-courret-2002.jpg‎

Hi, this file is from El Comercio's historical photo archive. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

RED Air HI1064 Permission

I was given permission to upload the file by the photographer. An email was sent from Y. Z. to me that stated "Sure just please site with the Jetphotos’ link and my name Y_____ Z___

The original photo is attached below." GDFilbert (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@GDFilbert: Permission to use is not sufficient. We will need the photographer to issue a Creative Commons license, such as by emailing us using the form at COM:RELGEN. I have provisionally restored the file File:RED Air HI1064.jpg, but note that a proper license statement must be received within a month by COM:VRT or the file is at risk of re-deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Lora, 23 octombrie 2020.jpg

If there is no evidence of the image being taken online, what is this supposed to be? Looks like a clear copyviol to me. France3c0 (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@France3c0: You have to give the link as evidence within the copyvio tagging. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:West Yorkshire Society of Architects, Heritage Architecture by DM Jones

Re: all files in the above category. thank you for uploading the alert message on all those files. I had sent a message to Crispin Jones (via his colleague Paula Jackman in the West Yorkshire Society of Architects), asking him to email you with permissions, and setting out clearly all the elements required in that email, as follows:

---

Re the Denis Mason Jones painting. Yes, we can get the picture onto Wikimedia Commons using a permission email to the Volunteer Response Team - permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - from DMJ's estate (Crispin), giving

• the name of the painting (19 numbered images with filename "West Yorkshire Society of Architects, Heritage Architecture by DM Jones"),
• the url of the image category https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:West_Yorkshire_Society_of_Architects,_Heritage_Architecture_by_DM_Jones
• author (Denis Mason Jones) and
• copyright owner (Crispin Jones),
• plus the exact name of the copyright licence to be used.

I recommend the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL" licence which is the one I use currently for my own photos. I have uploaded nearly 20,000 images to Wikimedia Commons over the years, and have had no trouble so far with that licence. You can see an example of that licence as it will appear on the page - here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Yorkshire_Society_of_Architects_gavel_(4).JPG

---

If there is anything wrong with the advice I sent, please let me know. If my advice was correct, then Crispin Jones has not followed the advice. I shall resend it to Paula Jackman, because I do not have the contact details of Crispin Jones. Please let me know if I can do anything else, besides sending them the code number that you emailed to me. Please ping me in your reply, to make sure I don't miss it - my watchlist is too long! Storye book (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book: Instead of a custom permission email, we recommend using the following standard template: COM:RELGEN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that, but I have found previously that they ignore it, and the file gets tagged with an inadequate-permissions notice, as has happened this time. So last time (with a previous author Damien Pudner) I used the above list, and it worked, here. That's why I sent this latest author (Crispin) the list. If I follow up with an alternative instruction as you have requested, they will get irritated or confused. So please let me know if there is anything wrong with my list which I have already sent to Crispin twice? Sorry to be a nuisance, but I am dealing with a busy person via another busy person, and I am doing my best. Storye book (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Royal Thai Flag

Hello! I created the princess flags by taking their monogram on Wikipedia Commons and pasting it on top of the colored flags. Other users have done it with the flags of princesses Chulabhorn, Sirindhorn, Ubolratana, Siribhachudabhorn, Sirivannavari Suthida, Srirasmi etc. I used a special app User:Sirogd1968 17:00 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've updated the file description to reflect that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg

I nominated that file to be deleted and you kept it and I’m here to clarify some points

the file File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg does not match “royal decree 1973” as it’s mentioned in the source in the description of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg and it’s been voted by the admin LaundryPizza03 as an incorrect calligraphy after it was reported to Wikipedia Administration Noticeboard https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#c-LaundryPizza03-2022-06-26T14%3A11%3A00.000Z-Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia

Not to mention that File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg’s source is from (Vexilla Mundi) which is not a government website. Also the file has became the spark of reverting war under pretext of “Duplicate” and therefore I’m requesting you to delete this file. Aziz bm (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: Please see our COM:SCOPE policy for when files are eligible for deletion for being "not realistically useful for an educational purpose". In particular, COM:INUSE states: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." Additionally, COM:NPOV states that the following are not valid reasons to delete a flag: "That is not the official version", "the colours are not officially-approved", "that design is used by a terrorist group". It goes on to state: "A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose and is not liable to deletion on the grounds that it is 'wrong' in some way." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m requesting for deletion because the file has became a central debate for reverting and it’s not necessary to be existed. The file is existed for only two years ago and it’s existence is more harmful than useful Aziz bm (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: Do you have a policy-based argument for deletion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My argument is that this file only existed two years ago and there is already an official version File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg that coordinates to the royal decree 1973 so no need for this file to be existed. Aziz bm (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: Those are not valid reasons for deletion according to any Commons policy. You must show what part of Commons policy dictates that the file should be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me the conditions of file being nominated for deletion ? So I can see Aziz bm (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: Here is the deletion policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Reasons : Redundant/bad quality & Duplicates

1- calligraphy on the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg does not match the official description of the flag File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg that can be seen at Royal Decree 1973 Page 10.

2- people are reverting on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg under the pretext of duplicate to File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg and the file has been at reverting war for nearly two weeks so the deletion of this file shall end all these disputes. Aziz bm (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: You are not interpreting the policy correctly. Not being "official" does not mean that the image is of bad quality; quality here refers to image quality, and it is an indisputable fact that the image is a high-quality, infinitely scalable SVG. It is not a duplicate, because there are clearly two disputed versions that belong at two different filenames. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information regarding Saudi Arabia's flag

Hello, I would like to state that I have written a detailed response to Aziz Bm's inaccurate and totally false statements, as put in section "Flag of Saudi Arabia Problems" in the Commons:Help desk. He is spreading dangerously misleading information about Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg that will create multiple issues. I would encourage you to read this response. Thank you. Xpërt3 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)