User talk:PumpkinSky/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, PumpkinSky!

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.

-- 14:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Test of newsig

test one PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token d03ef65871b200825af379271a4e375d

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Category:Travelers_Rest_Montana

Travelers Rest Montana 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yogos

Nice shot. Is it yours? (nope, not a robbery here... ;) Hurricanefan25 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I took the photo in sunlight out on my deck with my camera and I own the Yogo. How did you come across this image? PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The talk page for the Yogo sapphire article, of course :) Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:JakeHoover1894.png

File:JakeHoover1894.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!

Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Watch my edits

Hey again. Since I'm a bit wet around the ears here at commons, it would be great if you could check my edits from time to time. I've primarily been taking place in deletion discussions and would like to make sure my comments are in accordance with policy. Right now my contribs page is filled with some AWB edits, but you can see some of my comments starting here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS?

I'm a little curious and mystified about something... you added the OTRS permission to my upload of the Pete Morawski images. For example - here. Thank you for that... but I'm seeing a tag of "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" besides your edit in my watchlist. From what I can tell you are a member of OTRS, so why is that tag present?? Tabercil (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Renewed_OTRS_access and Commons:User_access_levels#OTRS_members, which I just updated. PumpkinSky talk 10:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I now have the OTRS flag. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi Pumpkinsky. You reviewed File:1812Longboats-Wiki.JPG under Ticket#:2012092810000168, but you didn't give any explanation or feedback. The ticket still open. What happened? Regards.+PrinceWilly 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to close it. Closed now. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi PumpkinSky

I am wondering, is it easy to split a file history for, say, Akhal Teke Stallion ? I can just re-upload, however I think someone did something called a 'split' on Whambo.jpg or one of that series, I can't recall. Is there a doc page for splitting ?

If it is easy straightforward and proper, who does it, and would you mind ? I wanted to spruce up the guide for watermarked images with some before and after shots so that people don't get so worked up about the issue. With new free software, it becomes more trivial by the day. Penyulap ☏ 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't done a history merge in years and I have not ever done a split. I'll ask around for instructions. PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, well I'll be sure to watch. Not sure if it needs tools but I guess it would. Penyulap ☏ 11:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:History merging and splitting but in this case I think deleting the original upload will work just as well. Please list the files names of ones needed here. PumpkinSky talk 12:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

wow, looking at that, it looks like I was directed to it before, for the whambo image. I totally forgot about that, and it looks like I was rude and didn't watch the page and answer the question if it looked ok, not good. Whambo is deleted at the moment, no DR though, and I saw the meme of Putin riding the meteor again today on youtube 2 and a half minutes through this. Was trying to sketch a Russian satellite that just got smashed up about 1 or 2 days ago. Whoa, raving.

Well, it is just one example of each kind needed really, for the watermark page, there are so many kinds of watermarks, and different things to do in each case, that page is all text and no images at the moment. No idea if a visual guide would be accepted, though it is a fast and obvious way to explain watermarks to people. I envision a table with Vincent Van Gogh's signature and 'don't delete' at the top and an orange flouro datestamp at the bottom saying 'always remove' and various kinds in between, and the existing but updated guide to removal, and a two line description of the gFX lab.

Akhal Teke Stallion
File:'73 Volkswagen Beetle Hatchback (Hudson).JPG
File:BB 17000 à Paris-Nord.jpg
File:Akhal Teke Stallion - Gaman (2849815708).jpg
Penyulap ☏ 13:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Did the first four. Since there is no reason to keep the original ones, I deleted them and left the good copies under the original name.PumpkinSky talk 14:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

argh! (PANIC) actually, I was hoping for before and after shots, for the watermarks page. So that there is 'here's the watermark' and 'presto it's gone' sort of thing comic strip informative visual guide thingy. Penyulap ☏ 14:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a rest now, I'll try to explain later on. Penyulap ☏ 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just restored the deleted versions. I'll have to get to the splitting later, hopefully today. PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

History split done. The versions with watermarks have "+w" at the end of the file name.PumpkinSky talk 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant !!! I could have done better myself....(mumble) well, if I had the tools, and know-how, and time and talent actually, come to think of it, I'm basically goofy so I couldn't, GLAD that you did though. Thank you. Penyulap ☏ 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. PumpkinSky talk 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pumpkinsky, would you please exterminate the three broken images with 'Temple of Vesta - Hearth' in the name ? I uploaded them myself in response to a GFX lab request, they are apparently too large to flow across this Internet connection properly at present. I'll do them when they frustrate me less later on, and when I find a solution. Penyulap ☏ 05:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

done PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks ! Penyulap ☏ 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi PumpkinSky, there is a new user who has done a really good job writing a biography on their relative, she wrote it using her userpage as a sandbox at User:Шуйская and would like an extra set of eyes to look over it for ideas on what to do next I think, if you have a few moments to spare, the editor seems quite nice, smart and dedicated. Penyulap ☏ 16:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It's got potential, but there are several issues: it's on commons which is not for articles, format is all wrong--such as one line paragraphs and all caps, some paragraphs are just lists, needs more refs, etc. For a first shot it's good. PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you PumpkinSky, I'll pass it on, and I agree, they are quite surprising for a newbie :) she worked out a problem with getting the references to work which had me and INC stumped, all by herself. Penyulap ☏ 03:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hi. Many thanks for your comment here. I think you may have mis-stated, slightly, what you meant to say in your last sentence, however, and may wish to glance at it to see if you want to re-word it for clarity. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• FYI Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Discussion_on_signs Evrik (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

BrandonBigheart

2013-06-12T17:30:28 PumpkinSky (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:BrandonBigheart from (none) to rollbacker, confirmed user and file mover (per request, trusted user)

This is suprising, especially considering this user's contributions to Commons to date, and the fact that they haven't requested these rights at Commons:Requests for rights. Would you mind explaining what were the reasons for you granting them? Thanks, odder (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's over on en wiki on RHM22's page. BBH won't be problem. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What or who is an RHM22? russavia (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And why are people requesting additional user rights for their Commons accounts on the English Wikipedia? odder (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm sorry, I'm not an English Wikipedia regular, so I'd really like to see some links first. odder (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you guys want my head on a platter for this, take it. PumpkinSky talk 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. odder (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you'd restore them. The link to the discussion is:here. I don't want to lose him. He is a good guy and he has uploaded some fabulous coins. He obviously knows his way around a camera and the software and is able to figure out what he doesn't know. I think it's appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Odder removed all of BBH's rights BEFORE he ever posted here "22:08 . . Odder (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:BrandonBigheart from file mover and rollbacker to (none) ‎(NO WAI)" PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Still, I ask this: DId he use them inappropriately?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, BBH has never done anything inappropriate. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a procedure for requesting additional user rights on Commons—please follow it. odder (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And you're supposed to inquire then shoot, not shoot then ask, please follow it. PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And you're supposed to follow the policy, not ignore it and only read it afterwards, so please do follow it. odder (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You also failed to notify the user. You have no room to talk. PumpkinSky talk 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're not seeing what you did wrong here, then I'm not going to tell you that. odder (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I do, but you don't see what you did wrong, twice, so until you come down off your sanctimonious holier-than-thou mansion, stifle and stop trying to deflect this away from you. PumpkinSky talk 00:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And let this be the end of our discussion. odder (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need to be so strict when granting BrandonBigheart these rights doesn't hurt anyone or harm Commons? enwiki has principles such as "Ignore all rules", "Be bold", and "Common sense". Commons and Odder should loosen up. Granting BrandonBigheart these rights hasn't and probably won't cause damage. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Odder isn't a stranger to "shooting first; ask questions later". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No one alerted BrandonBigheart to this dispute or to the removal of his or her additional rights, so I alerted him or her myself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wake up to find the sky is all purple and there are people running everywhere, if it weren't for my destruction you know I wouldn't even care..

Giving PumpkinSky the opportunity to reverse the mistake would have been a proper thing to do. If you're going to go fix something yourself then you don't get to create such a big fuss, and there is no right to be rude everyone !!

now can we all get back to doing something close to nothing. Penyulap ☏ 03:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of huff here. Odder, if you'd like my full curriculum vita I can send it your way. I am a professional medical researcher, with more than 50 peer reviewed publications. I happen to have a professional numismatic photography business on the side, and I thought it might be nice to improve some of the images for numismatic articles as I have time. Yes, it is true, I am not here 8 hours a day making edits and poking around in the Wiki-space. I found that the mover rights improved my ability to rename files, and move things around linking to numismatic articles on both en.wiki and others (efficiency is a plus). If you look carefully through all of my edits/contributions, they are detail oriented, and have never been "caustic" or destructive. I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but it's not like you are granting me keys to your new Mercedes to take for a spin. Whatever the "community" decides is fine with me, but my goodness I didn't know the politics and bureaucracy bled into this realm. I always thought of wiki as a Utopia shielded from such drama... --BrandonBigheart (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what you do, who you are, and how much time you spend on Commons (why would I? what users do in their real lives isn't really anything that should influence our decisions here). The Commons community adopted a policy on granting additional user rights to users, which was not followed in your case. I don't know you, so I can't have anything against you. As far as I see, your contributions to Commons are just fine, you uploaded a couple of valuable pictures here. But this doesn't change the fact that the policy has been adopted for a reason.

You only have about 50 edits here on Commons and additional 150 or so on the English Wikipedia. File mover rights on Commons are granted to users who have proven themselves to be knowledgeable about our policies, not those from other projects. I would suggest that you gather a little bit more experience here, and request those rights at Commons:Requests for rights if you feel like doing so. odder (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't need thousands of edits or years of experience to understand Commons:File_renaming. The tables are easy to understand. We're talking about passing out the "move" button, not the "delete" button. Do we really create to create such a big deal over this? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And you are aware, Michael, are you not, that users with the file mover right can directly influence dozens of projects at the same time, in the same way that Commons administrators can do? As I said above, there exists a policy on granting this right to users, and it should be followed—especially in case of users who are new to this project. odder (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess sarcasm doesn't convey over written media. I am aware of your "policy". If you were to follow the true trail of messages that were what prompted Pumpkin's initial user rights change, you would maybe better understand. Efficiency and logic (in my world) trump bureaucracy. But, if you are hell-bent on deeming yourself the "enforcer", so be it. I will continue to function as I have with my small contributions. The listed requirements of 1000 to 1500 posts to receive file mover rights is completely silly in my opinion. But, whatever. Now back to your regularly scheduled program. --BrandonBigheart (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the policy, you are free to propose its change—everyone is able to do that. odder (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize we are all volunteers, and there are different things we are into, but gee whiz, to go through those given what are very limited rights and check to see if they are "qualified" does not seem to me to be a productive use of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You also seem to have called me an idiot, so I'm not really that concerned about what you think. odder (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I referred to idiots, here. So unless you're aware of a second candidate to join you, it was a generalized expression of frustration, and should be taken as such. In any event, I've stricken it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've only been around here for a couple years, but Odder you are the first person I have encountered on the wiki that is a complete jerk. I'm not sure how you became an admin, but you're not winning any fans or helping the "project" in my opinion. If you are the "face" of what it means to be an administrator then that is quite scary. Seems your MO is to irk other people and put up bureaucratic road blocks. I guess it takes all kinds to make the world go round. Cheers. --BrandonBigheart (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests_and_votes/Odder – Did you know that Odder only had 202 edits under his or her belt when he nominated him- or herself for sysop rights? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)x3 (cause I am so slow) looking at the page, it doesn't look complex. The idea Brandon doesn't already understand that moving files here effects other projects is absurd if people took the time to check what they are talking about by just having a look. I would speculate Brandon has put some of his earnings into a coin hobby/investment which is cool to escape the coming economic implosion, and has a lovely collection. What I can see is the expansion and repairs he's doing on another project has so impressed a few people they want to assist and encourage more of this good quality contribution. The filemover consensus was on the wrong project, but it's there along with the clear understanding of what the filenames should be, and how filenames here effect the other projects. The actual process of working out who should or shouldn't be able to move files seems more complex than simply a number of edits, if it were assigned after a set number of edits automatically that may be problematic with all things considered. It comes down to a judgement call. That's all that's been made here. exact same thing that is done on the request for rights page.

The only real omission is guessing that people would make such a huge fuss about it. Saying it's given on a number of contribs is not correct, possibly that weighs in more heavily as a factor on the request for rights page because it's a queue of strangers. The only part 'set in stone' is not the number of edits, but that it is a judgement call. Penyulap ☏ 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is gotten blown all out of proportion. I've created Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_rights_of_User:BrandonBigheart to settle this. PumpkinSky talk 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you :PumpkinSky for bringing some common sense to this ridiculous place. I shall not be forgetting Commons; from now on, I shall be doing everything in my power to convince others from permitting images to be uploaded here. A place where deceitful admins create their own blocking rules, openly lie about warnings and promote a culture of bullying needs to be stamped on and closed down. I am very much afraid that the wrong person has been picked on this time; they will find that I am no push over. The desysop of JCB would be a good starting point to restore some confidence in the disreputable place, but even that will not deflect me. This will be my last edit on Commons, all future discussion on this disgraceful episode will take place loudly on Wikipedia, in order to prevent others being treated in this fashion. Giano (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could help out. I agree the situation you were in was ridiculous. PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anyone whose capable of oversighting this page [1]? Giano (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a list of people on Commons with OS rights here. I'll ask one of them if you want or if you prefer you can ask them. PumpkinSky talk 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly but it has already been attended to. I am beginning to think that perhaps my esteemed aunt needs to come and reside here and instill some law and order into the place. It seems to be lacking a certain je ne sais quoi. Giano (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think your esteemed aunt could do a lot of good on all wikis. EN WIKI has gotten so bad....don't even get me started on that one.PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I for one would welcome her presence on this project with open arms. You ought to know, that she is not to be trifled with. Her character has ever been celebrated for its sincerity and frankness, and in a cause of such moment as this, she shall certainly not depart from it. Kurtis (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you check a couple of files for me?

I don't know the trick of checking Google images, but File:Moussaieff Red Diamond on Display 2014-02-26 14-07.jpg is present in various places on the internet and so are other gem images with captions in the same lettering, so it seems dubious to me that it was taken today by the uploader - or that the other gem image uploaded by the same user today, which I also find elsewhere online, was taken today. Maybe the file names are just misleading but I smell a copyvio rat. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's all over and I'm guessing it came from birthstonesonline dot com red-diamonds. Gems are VERY hard to photograph and that looks like a professional photography job. It's the only upload that user ever made. I'm deleting it. PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss the other one, File:Heart of Eternity Diamond on Display 2014-02-26 14-09.jpg? Or is that one ok? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reflections in both uploads matche preexisting online photos. Yep missed this one but got it now. PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

en.W

Hello.

Where can I find some people disappointed in English Wikipedia? Note that I don’t refer neither to guys proven to be incapable to work there, nor to those who opposed Wikipedia from its onset. Only actual contributors with years of experience and thousands of useful edits shall be counted.

By the way, I’m occasionally active here and would willingly help you with Russian language or other problems within my expertise. Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent question. There are thousands of them. The problem is knowing how to contact them after they've left en wiki. PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Some still have user pages up, sometimes with an email link. Sometimes the email link still goes to a valid email. On en.wiki, there is a list at WP:QAI. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User with problem re: image permissions

Hi - me again .... I'd like to alert you to User:Prathamprakash29 and ask you to keep an eye on his uploads. He uploads pictures for use at en:New R. S. J. Public School, claiming them as his own work, but they tend to lack EXIF data and one at least has definitely been a copyvio: en:File:Taekwondo classes at NRSJPS.jpg, deleted at least 3 times on en.wikipedia (twice by me) as copyvio of this shot in the picture gallery for a different school. He's uploaded that again now, this time on Commons, as File:Taekwondo classes at New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.JPG. He's also had File:Top view of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.jpg deleted on both Commons and en.wikipedia previously as lacking permission, but it's on Commons again now, as File:Top view of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.JPG, this time with EXIF data. Of the other pictures currently in the article, File:Library of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.JPG has previously been deleted on en.wikipedia at least twice for lack of permission, as en:File:Library of NRSJPS.jpg, but this too now has EXIF data. The yoga picture - en:File:Yoga classes at NRSJPS.jpg - is hosted at en.wikipedia and has EXIF data, and I've never found it online elsewhere. The playground picture - File:Play ground of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.JPG - is new and has EXIF data; it's on Commons. The "top view" pic appears on one of the school's two websites and on its Facebook page (to which the user is a big contributor), and I have been wondering whether he in fact is one of the team producing one or both of those school websites, in which case they may well actually be photos he took. But in the past he has just not produced evidence that he owns the photos, and OTRS tickets have been closed after no satisfactory permission was received ... and the taekwando pic is problematic. So while I'm hoping he is in fact the photographer of the rest, I'd like a Commons admin to have a look at his uploads, including any others that may have been deleted on Commons without there being a notice on his talk page to alert me. Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted 'Taekwondo classes at New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.JPG'. If he does work for the school and took them for the school, the copyright would belong to the school. If he took them for himself, then he'd own the copyright. I've asked him to respond here. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Will anyone please tell me, what i should do to prove that these photos are taken by me.

Not uploading obvious copyviolations would be a good start. If you take photos for this place you don't own the copyright. If you take photos and they're put up on a website without giving you credit and/or stating the website owns them, then you upload them here, that's a problem. PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Moin ... Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

See his talk page. PumpkinSky talk 19:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I took the photos, and uploaded it with exif data. But i don'y know who uploded the pic on http://www.dooninternational.com/dehradun/hpanel/gallery/1395-_0131598857.jpg

I think they might have got the pic from wikipedia. I have contacted them via email mentioned in their website, but i have received no response. What can i do now?--Prathamprakash29 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If the people from the other website won't respond, it's difficult to resolve. PumpkinSky talk 13:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please contact the website with the phone and tell them to remove the photos...

No way I'm going to call a website in another country. Nor my own for that matter. It's your problem to deal with. PumpkinSky talk 19:02, 24 June 2014 (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:
Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian Pear) blossom.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the English vernacular name in parenthesis.. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment scope fixed. Thanks.
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Another user who may not understand copyright

I've left a note at User talk:Nvelho after seeing their recent uploads. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sapphire

Good day PumpkinSky, I was pointed here by Gerda Arendt, as I have a query (a harmless one, I hope). I see that you took the picture of and own a Yogo sapphire. I'm just interested to know how much does it cost, pray tell? :) Starship.paint (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Like any gem, quality, rarity, size, and cut are big factors. As the article on en wiki says, Yogos cost more than similar gems due to their rarity. Yogos over 1 carat are rather rare. A Yogo the size of the one you're talking about that is not mounted in a setting will cost several hundred US dollars. I deal with Montana Gem over the phone. These people are totally reliable and trustworthy. Thanks for the interest. PumpkinSky talk 10:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Navigatrix-desktop.png

Hi, are confirmed OTRS permission for this file. But there is still no valid license template in it. Could you pls have a second look. Thx. --JuTa 17:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Sorry about that. The ticket specified a dual GFDL/CC3 license. I've added it to the image. PumpkinSky talk 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. 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!

--Evrik (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear PumpkinSky, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2015 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've signed and will get some actions done. PumpkinSky talk 11:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you !!

		Boooo !!!! We miss you!! We wish you were more active, please log in soon and help us with the backlog!!
		I hope everything is going well with you! If you have some time, we are still shoveling out from backlogs all over! I hope you have a very happy Halloween and safe "time-change week". Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

PD files from en-Wiki to Commons

Hello PumpkinSky, I wonder if you would take a look at a couple of contested PD images I uploaded long ago to en-Wiki but never got around to transferring to Coammons: en:File:Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church.jpg and en:File:Walter Balderson with Emmy Award.gif, and their related discussions.

Knowing of your expertise in reviewing PD licensed images for Commons, your review and comments would be most appreciated! JGHowes ^talk - 03:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

For you and on Commons, sure. Hope you are well On the church on it should be "Template:PD-US-unpublished" because the author is unknown. I think the source is fine. On the guy with the award, since he's 5 minutes away, save yourself the hassle of wiki BS and just go take your own with him holding the award and let them delete the current one. This sort of BS is why I do NO en wiki work now and minimal Commons stuff, but you feel free anytime. PumpkinSky talk 04:25, 2 December 2015

Danke vielmals‎, R.

Weihnachten steht vor der Tür: Wir wünschen Ihnen für die anstehenden Feiertage alles Gute und anschließend einen guten Start ins neue Jahr 2016.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen aus Florida!‎ JGHowes ^talk - 17:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

‎

Commons:Deletion requests/File:303-bg.jpg

Hi, could you indicate who the photographer of this 3D work is? If not, please revert your closure. Although a source is still missing to show that the emblem itself is a US government work, also there is no information on the copyright situation of the picture. Jcb (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Whomever produce this patch did it on behalf of the US Gov, making it PD. The person who closed this the first time obviously agrees. PumpkinSky talk 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Who took the PICTURE of this 3D object? Jcb (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please answer my question or revert your closure. Jcb (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Your renaming of my uploads

The left and right arrow characters were part of the numbering scheme. Please restore them. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why were they marked for rename? That seems to be the only change marked. PumpkinSky talk 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like someone already did it. Now I'm all confused. PumpkinSky talk 15:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

US PD

Can you help me to what was called US PD tag for File:Nunc dimittis (Gregorian).png and File:Mit Fried und Freud Babstsches Gesangbuch 1545.jpg, please? Or tell me what I'd have to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. For US copyright, if there's proof of being published before 1923, it's easy. PumpkinSky talk 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, made my day! Can you make me understand the difference between the two? - Forgot to sign ... - Next q: could this go to the commons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright rules are complicated and there's no short answer. The links at the top of my talk page should help. As for the new picture, yes, since it appears to be medievel in publish date. PumpkinSky talk 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The new one was printed in 1611, Missodia Sionia title page. Could you do it for me? Or tell me how? - Again different: File:Dusseldorf Neanderkirche Orgel1.JPG should be Düsseldorf. Was on DYK. Talking about DYK: I recently had my first with more than 10k hits, Oskar Gottlieb Blarr, nothing special but perfect image for the hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think one doesn't need anything. It's a photo of a musicccla instrument, not art or anything like that. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

... only it should be Düsseldorf, not Dusseldorf. "Wärst du Dusel doch im Dorf geblieben." - A Dusel is someone who can't think well, - no compliment ;) - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

renamed. PumpkinSky talk 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and changed, and look what I got! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy ...

... Valentine's day ;) - I am writing on love (Luther hymn, GA to be), and wanted to use this image, which - when I inserted it and clicked - shows as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucas_Cranach_d.%C3%84._-_Portr%C3%A4t_des_Martin_Luther,_1525_(Bristol).jpg - with no connection to the commons. Something seems to have gone wrong after it appeared on DYK. Can you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

They do that for pics on the main page. No worries. It'll get undone. PumpkinSky talk 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sad

Explain after the concern: name of this file and several others same day is not good: File:5 mei-concert 04.jpeg.

Sad that Hillbillyholiday retired, harassed RL after the Daily Mail thing. Look for the name in my 2013 archive, ibox consolation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You're talking like a young millenial. I need a translation.  ;-) PumpkinSky talk 17:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

First concern: can these files get better names?

Second: [2] - reminded me of BarkingMoon, sadly. If you look at the page before you see that we just started a nice collaboration (after he had been absent for years). 2013: [3] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

People leave. I totally understand. On 5 mei concert, can you get the Dutch translated for us Yanks? What name would you like? PumpkinSky talk 17:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Those to whom I feel close seem to leave more than others. - "Liza Ferschtman was een van de solisten. Op de achtergrond het Philharmonie Zuidnederland o.l.v. Arjan Tien." - I don't know about naming conventions, - it shows violinist en:Liza Ferschtman and conductor nl:Arjan Tien in concert (with a less notable orchestra) on 5 May 2004 (in an unmentioned and not visible place). I heard her, - phenomenal! - Could this image go to the commons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You still didn't tell me what it says in English. For alphabet one-yes. PumpkinSky talk 01:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought I summarized it under "less notable", but here you go. "Liza Ferschtman was one of the soloists. In the background the Philharmonie Zuidnederland u(nder) l(eadership) o(f) Arjan Tien." - The image: how? Can you do it? It's on the Main page right now, DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I like exact translations. I put the translation in the file page. Then renamed it. For the alphabet one, it's protected right now and I can't move it. Even when it's moved, you'll still need a en admin to delete the en version. The new tag should be PD-1996. PumpkinSky talk 14:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done PumpkinSky talk 01:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Using it, I noticed that it still has the wrong book, thus the wrong century, - I changed both, but don't know about the original source, and what to do on en. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Two more:

• File:TheLightThatFailed.jpg, - met at a DYK, not sure what "review" means.
• The Ave Maria has wrong information about the source, - we thought it was from that book, but then it was in a different one. Should it be changed to the correct one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Asian Pear Blossom gallery

• File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom4.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The VI scope would be Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian Pear) Raja cultivar blossom.PumpkinSky talk 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think photo 7 (4th one from left) is the best. PumpkinSky talk 20:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom4.jpg is too unsharp. File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom8.jpg seems to me to be the crispest photo of a single blossom without distracting elements to the background. For blossoms in a larger context, File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom7.jpg and File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom5.jpg seem best, but I like the first of those better, both for context and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So you like photo 8 for single blossom and 7 for multi blossom. Thank you very much for your input. PumpkinSky talk 03:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom7.jpg Is the best, The scope could be inflorescence . You are very limited by your hardware that opens to f / 2 but I do not think you can set this point in macro mode. I like the idea of making pictures with his phone I always on me a Nokia810, but for the intant it is better to keep our telephones to make scenery with good light. Thank you for your trust, you will find in VI always people to help you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo 7 is the winner.Thank you both. I've learned several things during this. It's true my smartphone does not have a macro mode. PumpkinSky talk 11:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• 

Cropped version of photo 7 above. PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 12 March 2017 (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:
Pyrus pyrifolia var.culta (Asian Pear) blossom.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - Please link Category:Pyrus pyrifolia in your scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Done. PumpkinSky talk 14:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Scientific names have strict rules regarding the modification in the scope and in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Question - Archaeodontosaurus, is there a problem with the current scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment No problem with the scope. I have not found any reliable references on this variety and I wish to remain neutral. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Archaeodontosaurus, There are peer-reviewed academic articles on this var, including: ONE-journal article, TWO-a google scholar listing, as well as theplantlist listing. PumpkinSky talk 11:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - Best in scope. It's not for me to question peer-reviewed botany articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Congrats, that is beautiful! Spring! - Yunshui is depressed over the image review in his FAC, - any help? - Bach's birthday, even if wrong calendar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks! I just nom'd that one. Photo 7 above just got VI too but the bot hasn't hit my page yet. Sorry, but I'm not going anywhere near Nikkimaria. PumpkinSky talk 18:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Image voting

Hi. I've had to vote no on a number of your submissions, but please accept there is nothing personal in my voting. I've commented on shutter speeds, as you need 1/1000 minimum to freeze motion. Also, on you blueberry blossom, with the set up you used, you would only get 1.3mm depth of field taking the picture 20cm away from the flower and 7mm 40cm away: not enough. The main problem is the 85mm. You need 50mm max for this type of shot. Sorry to be bossy, but I don't want to keep rejecting your images. Charles (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Charles OK. Then why are so many macro lenses in the 80-105mm range? For my Nikon D5300 I have 3 lenses: 18-55mm, 70-300mm, and the 85mm macro lens. I'd noticed closer is not always better and I'm not yet sure which lens to use when. I'm currently trying to get better at macro photos. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 19:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A good selection of lenses, but the macro is for close ups where you don't need DoF. Mine is 100mm and I use it for insects. Lots for you to read about online! See also this discussion Charles (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Charles Good to know. PumpkinSky talk 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi PumpkinSky, sorry for the late response, I'm pretty busy IRL right now. In repsonse to your question, it's difficult to give a simple answer here. As you may have noticed already, macro is one of the more tricky parts of photography. There are several factors involved that influence each other, and much of the process involves finding the right balance between those. For example, moving a bit further away from your subject may bring you better depth of field (DOF), but then you may not be able to fill the whole frame with your subject – so you crop/cut away some of the uninteresting parts at the borders and effectively pay for DOF by sacrificing megapixels. At the same subject distance, a shorter focal length will give you more DOF than a longer lens. But at the same time, with a longer focal length you can get the same magnification from further away, and being further away will give you more DOF as well. There is a lot of information about this out there (e.g. [4], [5], [6]). Some of this my be confusing, and sometimes information from different authors may seem to contradict each other (but usually that's just because they look at things from different angles). Nevertheless, it's a good idea to read a lot about this – but at some point you'll need to go out with your camera and get he real-life experience.

My recommendation for that would be to do this like a controlled experiment. Start with the macro lens, pick a subject that doesn't move and has about the same size of your typical macro subject (pick something you can re-use later with the other lenses). If possible, put your camera on a tripod and then start varying one factor at a time: Choose one subject distance and take a series of pictures from F4 (or whatever your minimum F-number is) to F32 (or whatever the maximum is) – full stop increments should be enough, though, I wouldn't bother with half or third stops. Do the same with different camera-subject distances. Possibly repeat with smaller/larger subjects. Observe how DOF will increase steadily with larger F-values, but over-all sharpness will be best at medium apertures, etc. Use this to get a rough idea on how the different factors interplay with each other, then shoot a bunch of real-life subjects to get some training. Examine your results closely (use software that will show you embedded metadata like aperture value of each image – lots of free software available, recommendations would depend on your OS). Once you've got a feeling for the whole system, you may want to try how your zoom lenses compare to that at different focal lengths, so repeat your experiments with them. Or take a totally different approach, but I really recommend a combination of strategic, laboratory style testing and real-life experience.

Why do I recommend to start with the macro lens? Well, for once, it has a fixed focal length. There are so many factors involved that it makes sense to at least not worry about focal length in the beginning. It's also very likely that, all things considered, the macro prime lens will give you the best over-all performance in most cases. They are also usually built for good manual focus operation, which can be very handy for macro photography.

As a final note: This is all very technical stuff, simply because in macro photography the chances of getting away with a quick snapshot are much slimmer than in other areas. Technique is important, but try to not obsess too much about the technical aspects and leave some room for fun and creativity as well ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. I will work at it. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 11:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence2.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. --Peulle 21:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another lovely one! - Another spelling error. File:John Roddam Spencer Stanhope - Why seek ye the living among the dread St Luke, Chapter XIV, verse 5 (1896).jpg, - I am sure it should be "dead" instead of "dread", and should possibly have a "?" - my Easter egg 2017, - fondly remembering 2012. I had another FA, but too late for the imagined date, - next year ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you. I have a new toy, a Nikon D5300, with three lenses and I like taking pictures. I'll fix the file. PumpkinSky talk 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thai Game chicken - rooster.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. --Ermell 06:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2017 (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:
Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian Pear) Cultivar Shinko - pollination.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Look at scope changes --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks good. PumpkinSky talk 07:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Archaeodontosaurus' remark that this photo deserves to be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Palauenc05 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

★ 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:
Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian Pear) Cultivar Shinko - inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support per Archaeodontosaurus' remark that this photo deserves to be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Palauenc05 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPG

Thank you for reviewing File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPG. I didn't even notice the insects. Please bear with me, my eyes aren't so good for such small items and I don't have a lot of image editing experience. But within the image note you made, I tried to remove the insects. I can no longer see the ones I spotted after you made your note. Please look at it again and advise. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 10:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC) The insects were not removed so I have removed them by using the Photoshop-brush. I hope you like my new version, --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Michielverbeek: Oh yes, it's very fine. Thank you very much. Let me know if there's anything else needed for promotion. PumpkinSky talk 11:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thai Game chicken - red 3.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 Quite a noisy background, but the bird appears okay. Enough4QI --A.Savin 00:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thai Game chicken - white head 4.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, nice work. Juliancolton 00:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wat Chang Rob 3a.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A little soft in the corners but otherwise very good. Juliancolton 00:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wat Chang Rob 6.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment tilted, bright parts are too bright. --Carschten 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC) @Carschten: I've tried to fix this. Please advise. PumpkinSky 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)  Support --Carschten 21:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.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 Quality is high enough for Q1, but please remove those insects --Michielverbeek 06:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC). Good catch. I've tried to fix this as best I could. See your talk page for more details. PumpkinSky 10:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)  Done by --Michielverbeek 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC) but I don't think I can review my own improvement. Please a third opinion --Michielverbeek 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Good quality. --W.carter 10:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goldenrain Tree flowers.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I can get this file to open, all I get is a message that the file is corrupted. Hmmm... Do you think you can upload a new version over the old one. --W.carter 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC) It opened for me fine in commons. But I went ahead and uploaded another copy anyway. Hope it helps. Very odd. PumpkinSky 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks, now I was at least able to open it in the flash player. Good quality. --W.carter 08:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thai Game chicken - red 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks OK. --Peulle 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2017 (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:
Railway bridge over the river Kwai Yai, Kanchanaburi, Thailand, N-NE exposure.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not geo-located. I will remove my opposition once a geo-location is added. Martinvl (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Martinvl: Geo data added, and it's dead on, just to the east of NorthEast side of the bridge, on the tourist plaza. PumpkinSky talk 18:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support I have checked the image against all six VI criteria and I am happy to support this nomination. Martinvl (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2017 (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:
Wat Chang Rop (Kamphaeng Phet Historical Park), elephants.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2017 (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:
Gallus gallus domesticus (Thai Game, White Black variety, cock).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question - Why not File:Thai Game chicken - red 3.JPG? I'm undecided between these two. Some others might come into play with different crops, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• * Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • • @Archaeodontosaurus: fixed. PumpkinSky talk 10:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: That one was my second choice. If the consensus is that's a better one, we can withdraw this nom and put up the other one. PumpkinSky talk 10:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Ok for me (Look at scope changes). The appearance between the two images is different. Warning to sex and there can be a juvenile form plumage nutptial it would be good to get an opinion on this difference. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See this site. There are over 40 varieties of Thai Game and they vary widely in appearance and color. PumpkinSky talk 10:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment For me the picture that you present is good, we must add in the scope that it is a cock. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: , added. As for the other photo, I'd like to know what @Ikan Kekek: thinks at this point. I'm torn between the two. Most people seem to prefer the one currently nom'd and that's why I put it up. Personally, I prefer the other photo "red 3" as there's something about that bird staring straight at the camera. He noticed me and starting walking right at me and that's when I snapped the photo. PumpkinSky talk 19:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - If those are two different varieties of cocks, they could be nominated in separate scopes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment @Ikan Kekek: and @Archaeodontosaurus: . AH HA. I should've thought of that. Thai Game chickens are like Appaloosa horses in that they come in wide and somewhat unpredictable range of color patterns a little more info. Black and partly black are quite common so they are often just called by what other color is dominant or second dominant. The other one, the one staring at the camera, is a Red Black variety. The one in this nomination is White Black variety. Some are all white and called White Thai Game. I've adjusted the scope again and in a few minutes will nominate the Red Thai Game photo. PumpkinSky talk 21:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support in new scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 4.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. --XRay 05:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2017 (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:
Gallus gallus domesticus (Thai Game, Red Black variety, cock).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - You mean it's the best Red Black one, and I agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Bronco the Beagle.JPG

Hello, I saw your nice image of dog in the QIC page, I uploaded an attempt of edition, revert it if you don't like it. :) Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Thanks! Glad you liked the photo and many thanks for working on it. Is there a way to get it reconsidered at QIC? I have two flower pictures at QIC waiting for a review too.PumpkinSky talk 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and post a request for a review. Not sure if it'll work though. PumpkinSky talk 19:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy if you like, the right way is to push the image in the CR section by writing Discuss instead of Decline, I just did it, we will see... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Very kind of you. PumpkinSky talk 19:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 8.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. --Uoaei1 17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bronco the Beagle.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) 05:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 15.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I think this is about as shrap as it can get without focus stacking. Good quality. --W.carter 21:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 12.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The petals are too bright, you may try to adjust some levels --Christian Ferrer 20:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)...Christian Ferrer, Done. Worked on clarity too. PumpkinSky 21:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC) The petals looks still too bright, and the whole image seems a bit overprocessed IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Christian Ferrer Check it now. I went way back in processing and started over. PumpkinSky 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) No sorry there is something wrong with your edition, though it may need a very few adjusments your first version is the best --Christian Ferrer 11:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)...Started over from the original with less processing. PumpkinSky 21:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)  Support I think it is ok now --Christian Ferrer 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 14-achenes.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 Ideally the whole brown middle with the fruits and the leaves should be sharp, but at f/16 this is probably as good as it gets without stacking. Good enough for QI. --W.carter 18:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Add an image note

I'm not sure what these are called: notes/tags/captions/annotations or whatever. Recall my photo File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPG? You added a yellow box with a note to remove the insects, which I had trouble doing and you did it for me? Just what are these yellow boxes called and how do I add one? Thank you. PS: When I was 11-12 years old we lived in Utrecht. PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You left a note by clicking on the link just left under the photo (in Nederlands: notitie toevoegen with as question mark). I don't know the name of the yellow box; I have a Dutch version and this might be the problem. --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

AH. @Michielverbeek: In English it's marked "add a note". When you click on the questionmark by it, you go to Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. Thanks!PumpkinSky talk 09:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Profile

May I suggest that you start using DelReqHandler (Preferences > Gadgets > Tools for authorized users)? You closed this without removing the {{Delete}} tag and without adding {{Kept}} to the talk page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Will check it out. For some reason, that del nom didn't have those options appearing, which I've never seen before. PumpkinSky talk 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Actually, I already have that turned on. Maybe something was wrong with the nomination. PumpkinSky talk 13:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) branch joint 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The joint is good and sharp, the branch going out from it can not be unless it is focus stacked. Good quality. --W.carter 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) tree bark 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A very pleasant bokeh and soft leaves around the bark. Good enough for QI. Thanks for not downsampling. --W.carter 17:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

German war cemetery

Hi. I think one soldier is unknown. Graves are for several people. This is normal in military cemeteries --Pudelek (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yoshino cherry tree bark 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good to me. --MarcoAurelio 13:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard) female swimming 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hosta two-tone 3.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. --Cayambe 06:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)