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


January - February 2018

Contents

What a holy sh...

Was it absolutely necessary to delete these maps, such these Map15century.png? That's too bad. The encyclopedia is losing a lot of information.--92.77.28.174 11:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed", the sources of those maps were not explicitly freely licensed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Having question

I don't understand that how can the image be not a free content. What is copied in that??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunak Chakraborty (talk • contribs)
  • Anyway such an image is out of scope. If this image of plant/garden, is indeed your own work, I mean a photo taken by you, then you should upload it here in full resolution, or at least in a reasonable size, with EXIFs, and without text/framing around the image. And with an adequate categorization regarding the place where the photo was taken. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppression d'articles sur Catherine Claude dans Wikimédia commons le 2/12/2017

Bonjour,

Je souhaitais mettre la copie des articles parus sur Catherine Claude comme sources pour mon projet d'article sur elle. Il s'agit de ma documentation personnel mais bien sûr je n'ai pas écrit les articles en question. Est-ce que vous les avez supprimés parce qu'il s'agit d'articles de journaux et que par conséquent ils ne sont pas libres de copyright? Si je n'ai pas le droit d'utiliser l'image de ces articles comme source, comment faire pour que les lecteurs de mon projet d'article puissent les lire?

Bien cordialement,

Victor Piermont


Bonjour, les articles de presses sont des oeuvres protégés par les droits d'auteurs, et ces droits sont détenus par les journaux qui ont publiés ces articles. Je vous invite à lire nos règles sur les licenses afin de comprendre quel type de contenu vous pouvez télécharger ici. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for de-admin proposal

I started this section before you pinged me on the proposal page. I would like to thanks you for you proposal which is great. Green Giant and myself just started to dig into these very same numbers yesterday (See bullet list, in the middle). Commons admins seems really stressed and occasionally reaching hostile levels. We really need fresh blood. (I'am not on the list of coming candidate tho!  ) But thanks you. Huge work, great, positive work for the community ! --Yug (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yug, to be honest, I think the requirement is too low since a long time, and it is indeed the discussion, that I had noticed, in Green Giant talk page that decided me to make this proposal. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I just came back on commons for a cleaning sprint on my pet project and tried a desastrous RfA (User:Kgr publishing my draft RfA 50mins afer I started writing, Canvassing accusation without providing me the definition, my disconnection with current Commons community's stress level and practices, etc), but it was very clear from various voters that the community needed this de-admin threshold upgrade. Happy my stoning helped XD  .
      Also, sorry for the inconvenience on the votes ! But fixed. Yug (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
      • ALSO ! if you agree, can you remove our talk on the proposal. It should not be there as it is not a discussion about the proposition's message. Yug (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I noticed both events, your Rfa pushed before it was finished, and the canvassing accusations. I'm sorry for both. The community has sometimes very strict codes, it is like that for all of us, I do not think you deserved to be treated as a "criminal". I assume good faith and I do not think you wanted to game the system. You did not expect that, I mean such a disapproval, did you? :)
    I don't understand what you ask for, remove what? where? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • RfA was unlucky and I was spooky ! And yes I didn't expected such disaproval. As for "canvassing (c) wikimedia 2017", my first RfA in 2005 was BASED on calling over other members to vote, it was normal, and if you do shit you don't have friend or get removed sooner or later. I here called over 2 relevant experts. Tone was wrong for 1st one tho. Nevermind. I also expected the users to see my confusion and mentor, not to press hard and leave me without definition to defend myself. The whole was very confusing. Past.
      Moving on, I think our initial talk about displaying «100 actions threshold would de-admin 138 of the current ~235 admins. (#97 to #234, see here).» is not relevant anymore and can be removed if we both agree about it here, on your talkpage. Yug (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is in the discussion section, this section is intended for this kind of thing, and though I am very happy that you have access to my request it is fully relative to an event of this proposal, there is nothing serious or disturbing IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just distracting. I'am excited by this reform, could and should bring fresh air viar fresh faces into the community of Admins. Yug (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is done, but discussions and questioning are welcome IMO. And this topic is interesting on several levels, firstly because we are a non-negligent number to want this reform. In the worst case people have the opportunity to say their opinion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems a bunch of wikipedians are voting agaisnt change. Interesting insiders want change. "Outsiders" want more of the same. But insight gathered will be helpful :) --Yug (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_increase_the_minimum_requirements_of_activity_for_the_administrators

Im deutschen Forum gab es einen Aufruf dagegen zu stimmen. Hystrix (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the information, although I am really in favor of this increase of the minimum requirements, in a way I am happy with the enthusiasm raised by this consultation. I think we should be happy that our German friends are mobilizing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
However I posted there a little comment. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Instructions for Life - Flickr - brewbooks.jpg

You say I could have speedy-deleted this myself. However, since the uploader was also an admin, I was afraid I might be the one in the wrong and there was something I was missing. As it happens, I've now nominated (on similar grounds) over 20 images he uploaded, he hasn't even offered a rationale for any of them, and all that have come to a conclusion have ended up deleted. I'm getting to where I will stop giving that particular benefit of the doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks you for being cautious when you saw that the upload came from an experienced user, I had not seen !! It happens from time to time that kind of thing, copyright violations, with batch uploads. And thank you for your commitment to Wikimedia Commons, even though I never said anything I've always been grateful for that. And if all the other administrators were half as involved as you, I would never have done the proposal that you know. Because the main problem that a sizeable part of us are seeing it's the lack of any involvement of some (many) administrators, you are not concerned by this and most of those who opposed either. I'm a little unhappy that it was not seen in my proposal, but I'm often very clumsy, impulsive and too brutal in my way of expressing myself.

But discussion is always a good thing, as first evidence without my proposal I will likely not have told you all this. Anyway there may be other tracks, the end of the ad vitam aeternam administrator mandates might be a serious one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Borrado de imágenes

Hola, Christian: Hace un par de meses, propusiste para borrar las imágenes que subí y que son mías,cómo me indicaste mandé los derechos de utilización de las imágenes al correo de Commons Wikimedia, pero no he recibido respuestas y como sabes las imágenes han sido borradas. ¿Que hago?

Gracias--Fco markés (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hola, hay una cola para el permiso y un retraso muy largo, aunque mi solicitud de borrado comenzó debido al problema del permiso, las imágenes fueron borradas por otro administrador como "fuera del proyecto".

Leer Commons:Alcance del proyecto

"Archivo no usado legítimamente:
(...)
Ejemplos
(...)
Arte de diseño propio sin un propósito educativo claro."

En general, las pinturas que son bienvenidas son aquellas que conciernen a artistas que son lo suficientemente notables como para tener artículos en wikipedia. Por ejemplo, un artículo que respeta las reglas de notoriedad en wikipedia. Si Wikipedia no tiene ningún artículo, raramente conservamos las imágenes del arte personal.

Puedes hacer una solicitud aqui : Solicitudes de restauración; y necesitarás explicar por qué estas imágenes serán útiles para nuestro proyecto.

Atentamente, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Larus michahellis juvenile in flight, Sète04.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus michahellis juvenile in flight, Sète04.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

File deletion

Hi Christian, may I ask why you deleted File:Ecosia-globe.png? I don't understand why it was deemed to be above the threshold of originality (since it was just a small map with a circle around it) while images such as File:Subway restaurant.svg (which contains a unique logo identifying the brand, as well as a trademarked company slogan) are not. Also, I was expecting some sort of discussion before the file was deleted. nagualdesign 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with File:Ecosia-like logo.png. As you can see, I've used a generic map derived from File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, and all 3 colours are slightly different to the real Ecosia logo. I trust that this falls below the threshold of originality since, paradoxically, it's entirely original. nagualdesign 10:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, your uploads are also derivative works of the copyrighted logos. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nagualdesign --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No they are not. nagualdesign 00:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on this wiki. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on this wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

  • I apologize for posting in English.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal about sysop's minimum activity

Hello! I read your proposal to increase the minimum requirements of activity for the administrators and considered it quite necessary, courageous, and an attempt to solve an old problem. My favorite option would be between 50 and 100 action as a minimum required activity. Unfortunately, I see that none of the options will have any consensus :(

So, you thought about proposing an annual confirmation process? Of course, it would not be too rigid as steward's confirmations, but I think something must be done to stop us from considering sysops rights as a "lifelong privilege." Taking into account that it is quite easy to request to 'crats the restoration of the user right, I don't see what kind of loss we would have.

I got the impression that I already read something about it here, but I couldn't found nothing in the Village pump's archives. Anyway, what do you think about it?

Best regards,

Érico (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello, I agree on all except on "it is quite easy to request to 'crats the restoration of the user right", because since from a crat "mistake" towards INC rights it is impossible to go back to admin status, whatever the way you lose this status, even if it was voluntary.

Since the beginning of my proposal several users warned me that this way of voting could not lead to a consensus, but the enthusiasm and the strong participation from the beginning convinced me not to change. And although we are signifiant number to support this proposal there is a clear tendency to resistance to this reform, it is a fact. It is a pity because 50 or 100 action for a 6 months period is a very very small requirement, and for who try to do these 100 actions know that very well... "5 actions" is not a requirement, this is almost nothing.... it is like "I login 5 minutes every 6 months in order not to lose my admin status, and then I can go away again...", it's the exact opposite of what an administrator should be, IMO. I let this proposal still open for a few weeks, and I will try to write a kind of analysis of votes and comments. And after that, yes, why not a proposal for confirmation process? but one year is a very short period, I was more thinking to 3 or 5 years. We will also have to draw conclusions about how to vote, so that the result to have a chance to be more visible than in the current proposal. Maybe we should make a draft, with a dedicated discussion page, before to make such proposal. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember this case (IRC's rights), but I acknowledge that I didn't follow it very closely. I always avoid participating here in discussions that I consider very polarized. I agree with all the comments you have made, including the timing of confirmations. I'm happy to know that you had already thought of it and, please, let me know when you create a draft page. Kind regards, Érico (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The real question is, at what point is the requirement too high? IOW, when is it so high that people stop doing admin actions and the whole project's admin actions count drops? Finding that "sweet spot" is very hard. The should be to encourage more admin actions without losing admins who feel it's too high. I myself only did 5-10 actions per year for awhile and now do dozens. PumpkinSky talk 22:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyway there will apparently be no increase soon, at least my proposal has the advantage of having clarified this. Regarding your personal situation, "I myself only did 5-10 actions per year" : maybe with a requirement at 100 per 6 months, you would have been encouraged to do more. And if not, would it have been so terrible that you lost your status, and went back with a new Rfa again? Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
If it'd gone to 10 or 15 I would have been more active. If it'd gone to 50+, I would said it's not worth it and let my admin bit go. I would NOT file a new RFA, too much hassle. I might request it from the crat board but I would not bother with another RFA. PumpkinSky talk 12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of a photo

Dear Sir,

I noticed that you deleted the following file: [[[File: Photos of Bodei Berlin. jpg|thumb|remo bodei (dzedda)]]] The photo was not taken by me, but by the author himself, Professor Remo Bodei, one of the most important Italian philosophers, of whom I was a student. He himself authorized me to publish the photo, with a letter (in Italian) that I paste hereafter, but that I wasn't able to insert in wikicommons nor to send here as an attachment for technical problems. I therefore hope that you can provide an undeletion and restore the deleted photo. Best regards. Prof. Teo Orlando

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES UCLA


BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ



DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY 405 HILGARD AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1451 (310) 825-4641 FAX (310) 825-6040 phil@humnet.ucla.edu

A chi di dovere In Wikipedia


Pisa, Los Angeles, novembre 2017

Autorizzo il professor Teodosio Orlando a sostituire l’attuale immagine sulla mia voce di Wikipedia con una delle due che ho scelto e che vi proporrà.

Grazie in anticipo e un cordiale saluto.


Remo Bodei



Cell. + 39 348 7836786

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teo Orlando (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This photo is available in several websites.

The deletion was done in order to protect the rights of the copyright holder(s).

Read Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope.

In case an artwork (poster, photo, logo, book cover, disc cover, painting, screenshot, etc. ...) has already been published we require that this publication was done with an explicit free license, in that case you must provide a web link to this publication, or we require that the copyright holder(s), even if it is you, send a permission to OTRS where you can read how to do it. Note that if you personally have permission(s) from the copyright holder(s), this is not sufficient, all permissions must be sent directly by the legitimate holders to the permissions system.

Note also that the permissions system (OTRS) is run by volunteers and there is a queue, if your image has been deleted, and you have sent a permission (before or after deletion), do not re-upload again the erased image yourself, it's forbidden. If the permission is valid and the image meets the criteria of our project scope, then it will be automatically restored.

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

possible copyright violation

Dear Christian,

I've received a notification about 3 uploaded by me images and possible copyright violation. In that case I guess I violate no copyrights because I am the author of these images. What should I provide to rectify the situation?

best regards, Bocharov Dmitry.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocharovd (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,the images have been already published there [1], this is written "Copyright © All rights reserved. ". The deletion was done in order to protect the right of the copyright holder(s).

In order to restore the images, the license of the web site must be changed to a compatible license, example "cc-by-sa-4.0" or whatever other compatible license of your choice. if you can not (or don't want) modify the copyright notice of the website, you can send a permission to OTRS, where you can read how to do it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation of Framasoft Logo.svg

This files has been deleted for a possible copyright violation but I’m the author of the logo. I am an employee of the french association Framasoft. The logo represent a pinguin trying to fly inspired by the original Framasoft mascot created by LL de Mars (under Art Libre license).

It's based on several F-clefs. There is a central symmetry between the right wing and tail. I remove his eyes and smile but I kept his feet. The bubbles of right lines replace the flapping wings of the mascot to be perceived as a take-off effect.

The image was published, described and explained first on july 2015 on the Framasoft forum. The logo is under a Creative Commons By-SA 4.0 license and only Framasoft is allowed to not mention me as an author on its communication medias. It is explicitly said on this page (graphic charter in french for which I am also responsible)

So there is no copyright violation. Can you republish the image ? --JosephK-Framasoft (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Block user

Hello. Sakincalimimar upload photos with copy vio. Can you check and block user, please? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Starship 420 graphics

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am explicitly and wholly the full copyright holder and owner of Starship 420 media, stories and graphics. Any graphics and story from the comic, film, music or web series are under my authority to give freely to be used on Wikipedia and to the public. My copyrights can found at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Starship+420&Search_Code=TALL&PID=HsT2yDDImI3XH2Rkump5d0RezV4Ql&SEQ=20180128084234&CNT=25&HIST=1

Registration Number / Date: PAu003782723 / 2015-08-21

Application Title: Starship 420.

Title: Starship 420.

Description: Electronic file (eService)

Copyright Claimant: Patrick Casey Dillistone. Address: 410 Nth 21st Avenue, Hattiesburg, MS, 39401.

Date of Creation: 2009

Authorship on Application: Patrick Casey Dillistone; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: production, direction, script/screenplay.

Rights and Permissions: Patrick Casey Dillistone, 410 Nth 21st Avenue, Hattiesburg, MS, 39401, (601) 698-4336, casey@goldenspire.com


Names:

Dillistone, Patrick Casey 

I am Patrick Casey Dillistone and in our group everything that has been created for Starship 420 (media, music, artwork, and writings) are mine to give freely. Please let my know if you need any more proof and what you need.

Sincerely,

Patrick Casey Dillistone

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merclove (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello,

The deletion was done in order to protect the rights of the copyright holder(s).

Read Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope.

In case an artwork (poster, photo, logo, book cover, disc cover, painting, screenshot, etc. ...) has already been published we require that this publication was done with an explicit free license, in that case you must provide a web link to this publication, or we require that the copyright holder(s), even if it is you, send a permission to OTRS where you can read how to do it. Note that if you personally have permission(s) from the copyright holder(s), this is not sufficient, all permissions must be sent directly by the legitimate holders to the permissions system.

Note also that the permissions system (OTRS) is run by volunteers and there is a queue, if your image has been deleted, and you have sent a permission (before or after deletion), do not re-upload again the erased image yourself, it's forbidden. If the permission is valid and the image meets the criteria of our project scope, then it will be automatically restored. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

File:2000x1000 mm-02 (1)2 (1).jpg

Hi. This file was created by user who uploaded it. So, please renew it and if it is possible rename it to "Harmonia reabilitation center logo" (for example), because this user is newcomer in Wikiprojects. --Visem (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, no I'm afraid that is is not currently possible.

First, to be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content, included logos, must fall within the Commons scope.

Secondly, logos and trademarks are accepted in Wikimedia Commons only if

  1. they are in public domain (help) for a specific reason; or
  2. they are freely licensed by their owner, in such case please include a web link; or
  3. they are below the threshold of originality; or
  4. the copyright holder sends directly a permission to OTRS, where you can read how to do it. Note that even if it is you who are the copyright holder, you must send this permission.

Note also that the permissions system (OTRS) is run by volunteers and there is a queue, if your image has been deleted, and you have sent a permission (before or after deletion), do not re-upload again the erased image yourself, it's forbidden. If the permission is valid and the image meets the criteria of our project scope, then it will be automatically restored.

If the logo does not fit in the categories above, you may upload the file directly into Wikipedia under the "fair use rationale". But I'm not a specialist, you'll have to ask there. You can read en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Sivagopalakrishnan

Hi Christian Ferrer. You blocked User:Sivagopalakrishnan for two weeks back in April 2017, but they appears to have just uploaded another copyvio as "own work". I also have concerns that this might be the same editor as en:User:Ganeshprasadkp who uploaded quite a lot of similar files inappropriately to English Wikipedia and has since been indefinitely blocked for continuing to do so despite repeated warnings; one of the files uploaded by Ganesshprasadkp en:File:Old actress padmapriya kannada.jpg might even be the same as File:Padmapriya (old).jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, thank you for the notification, I blocked the User:Sivagopalakrishnan again. Regarding User:Ganeshprasadkp, this is indeed a possibility, but I do not think there is enough material to take sanctions for now. But thanks anyway. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Merclove

Hi Christian Ferrer,

All Starship 420 works has email to OTRS today detailing permissions for all my work. [Ticket#: 2018012810003767] Patrick Casey Dillistone

Also if it makes things easier, most images are directly from our official websites. I give this work freely as I am the sole copyright owner.

Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merclove (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have not access to the permission system, and there is a queue. therefore I can do nothing regarding the ticket, but if the images are deleted before a valid permission is processed/added to the files, then the files will be restored. And yes it can makes thing easier if a free compatible license is added to the official website. All images, as well as the compatible license, must be visible on website, let me know if this is the case otherwise the ticket when it will have been verified and validated may be sufficient. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Логотип "Карнавал профессий"

Почему был удален файл Логотип "Карнавал профессий"? кто и как нарушил авторское право?! Этот логотип придумал ЛИЧНО Я. ЭТО МОЯ РАБОТА. Мой логотип. Удивительно неудобный ресурс Википедия. Очень сожалею, что потратил время на регистрацию на этом сайте.

Всего доброго.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Кривоногов Николай (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

First, to be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content, included logos, must fall within the Commons scope.

Secondly, logos and trademarks are accepted in Wikimedia Commons only if

  1. they are in public domain (help) for a specific reason; or
  2. they are freely licensed by their owner, in such case please include a web link; or
  3. they are below the threshold of originality; or
  4. the copyright holder sends directly a permission to OTRS, where you can read how to do it. Note that even if it is you who are the copyright holder, you must send this permission.

Note also that the permissions system (OTRS) is run by volunteers and there is a queue, if your image has been deleted, and you have sent a permission (before or after deletion), do not re-upload again the erased image yourself, it's forbidden. If the permission is valid and the image meets the criteria of our project scope, then it will be automatically restored.

If the logo does not fit in the categories above, you may upload the file directly into Wikipedia under the "fair use rationale". But I'm not a specialist, you'll have to ask there. You can read en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful Photograph

Hey, Photos in your profile is taken by you? 🤗😍 If so, then you are ch a talented photographer. Take this as a compliment. Thank you and keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.30.35.4 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the compliment, happy if you like my photo(s)... Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Francesca (15216079527).jpg

Plea for the end of madness. Did you even bother reading the rationale and discussion of why this file and similar should be deleted? On what basis is "good visual quality" sufficient grounds to put this image on the project, never mind fly in the face of policy and keep it. Even the text that goes with the image reads as if it's publication is part of some sleazy chat up line by the photographer/uploader. He has even given her a Category:Francesca (model) no doubt to impress her. The project is not a modelling agency. Again I'll repeat some of the discussion: Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Does not conform, and there is no merit to be had here, not even technically. This file violates several guidelines in COM:PS, COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED etc. The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Scope of Commons: To be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content must fall within the Commons scope. Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope will be deleted. This image is emphatically not within scope. what part of this mediocre image and sleazy text is "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"? It should be deleted along with the several other similar files I nominated that day. For example yet more rubbish File:Fountain Reflections (14848115016).jpg (subtitled: "Rachelle posing so expertly alongside a water feature"). How many photos of women wearing Jeans does the project need... This rubbish was better off on Flickr, where it was uploaded from (wholesale and indiscriminately) for no better reason than it was cc-by-2.0. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • "He has even given her a Category:Francesca (model) no doubt to impress her" : I'm not sure this tone is fully appropriate. Regarding the photos themselves, we have plenty of selfies, of self-promotion/vanity photos, families albums, amateur porn, ect, ect... it certainly represents more than several tens of thousands photos that (IMO) should be deleted. But I don't think we have so much good quality, though I can agree that "good quality" or "good visual quality" may be subjective, artistic photos of models. I really think those photos are good, and there is not so much "good" artistic models photos available in Commons nor so much freely licensed "good" artistic models photos in the web, and there is even less such good photos in high resolution. When I look to those photos me I see photos at pro level, or at least not far from a pro level, therefore I consider we are lucky to have these free licensed photos in. I see in these photos undeniable visual quality, what is for me, as amateur photographer, the first of the qualities, although you're entirely right that, unlikely that someone will use one of those photos to illustrate the geography of Alaska. Copyright and privacy rights aside, I stay on my position that the, these, good pictures have their places here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    I’m glad you basically agree with me in the main. You were right to bring me to task for saying "He has even given her a Category:Francesca (model) no doubt to impress her", because it was an innocent party who created the Wiki category. However the original uploader on Flickr did create a a category there, and it is laced with narrative that is heavily suggestive of “grooming”. We are either following policy or we are not. If we are not, then why have Administrators. Server space costs money. Nothing is being lost here; there is no shortage of websites devoted to these kinds of images. Policy within COM:PS (too numerous to repeat here) tells us very specifically that these particular images are “not” for the project. Example: Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills. What about: The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. Leaving all of that to one side. These girls are not great beauties, and technically the images are of poor or mediocre quality. Most of the Francessca photos demonstrably display failures in handling “depth of field”. Compare them with File:Camargue cattle, Saint-Gilles 03.jpg. As you say the likes of Category:Models (people) has more than enough images for our uses. Many are them are of enough value to the Wiki, but there are limits. In this particular category these images I nominated are the most mediocre / inept. Then there is the “grooming” thing. This is not the time to attract this kind of attention to the Wiki. The policy emphatically says: Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope COM:PS will be deleted. Even on this very page you say to another: “First, to be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content, included logos, must fall within the Commons scope”. So I say again; “Delete them”. Respectfully yours. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a few points, firstly I spoke without looking at open images in full resolution, and I probably overstate their techniqual qualities, this is a fact. But at thumbnail the images stay nice. Secondly I don't know very much Category:Models (people), therefore in reality I don't very much if we have much better and in what quantity, this is also a fact. Thirdly I have without doubt many flaws in my behavior as administrator. As far I know, even when deleted the images stays on our servers, they are just visible only for authorized users, so to delete an image does not free up space. If you are not satisfied with all my arguments that I said above in the discussion, you can renominate these images for deletion, I will not see any inconvenient and I will not take offense, I would just observe or vote. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I will certainly think about your graceful comments, Christian, however the policy is clear. There is no discussion necessary. If you as an Administrator censor people with policy, then you should also uphold it yourself. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Christian, I have quoted the policy at length that indicates these images should be deleted. Please refer me to the policy that says otherwise. Opinions don't count on this issue. Regards --BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I will do nothing, feel free to re-nominate the images. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Christian, I have done as you suggest, Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Francesca (model) --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I commented there. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Canal du Midi, Vias 2018 (05).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canal du Midi, Vias 2018 (05).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my image?

I am the creator of File:Adam Hoodie sticker logo.png

My full name is Adam Lui, I made the logo for my artist name. Why did you delete it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaaaam (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

First, to be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content, included logos, must fall within the Commons scope.

Secondly, logos and trademarks are accepted in Wikimedia Commons only if

  1. they are in public domain (help) for a specific reason; or
  2. they are freely licensed by their owner, in such case please include a web link; or
  3. they are below the threshold of originality; or
  4. the copyright holder sends directly a permission to OTRS, where you can read how to do it. Note that even if it is you who are the copyright holder, you must send this permission.

Note also that the permissions system (OTRS) is run by volunteers and there is a queue, if your image has been deleted, and you have sent a permission (before or after deletion), do not re-upload again the erased image yourself, it's forbidden. If the permission is valid and the image meets the criteria of our project scope, then it will be automatically restored.

If the logo does not fit in the categories above, you may upload the file directly into Wikipedia under the "fair use rationale". But I'm not a specialist, you'll have to ask there. You can read en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Review some image files?

Dear Christian Ferrer,

Do you have a bit of time to review this image files by me please?

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Done Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your time Christian. Trusted user Leoboudv from Metro Vancouver, Canada...where it is now 9:03 PM. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gnome Alone_poster.jpg

Christian, hello,

I am an employee of the company Volgafilm, which is the distributor of the animated cartoon "Gnome alone" in Russia. The poster was adapted by Volgafilm. Accordingly, I have the right to publish a poster on the page https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5_(%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC). Let me do it, please.

Yours respectfully,

Tatyana Ganyushkina

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tganyushkina (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello, we must have an evidence that the company (the copyright holder) agree for a publication here under such license therefore an officer of the company must send a permission to OTRS where you can read how to do it. See also com:Licensing.

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
I hereby award you the Original Barnstar for a lot of hard work in wikimedia......


Christian Ferrer I hereby award you the Original Barnstar for a lot of hard work in wikimedia......

Good to see

where you stand on this matter. -- Tuválkin 11:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)

Greetings,

There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos de Remo Bodei sur wiki commons

Cher Monsieur Ferrer, Je vous écris en français parce qu'elle est votre langue maternelle, mais vous pouvez également me répondre en anglais ou en italien. Le 20 janvier, vous avez supprimé les photos que j'avais inclus dans les pages de wikipedia en italien et en anglais dédiées au philosophe Remo Bodei et que j'avais précédemment téléchargées sur wiki commons, parce que vous craigniez qu'il n'y ait une violation de copyright. Je voulais vous rassurer: les photos m'ont été fournies par le même philosophe Bodei, dont j'étais étudiant, ainsi qu'une lettre d'autorisation: se vous me donnez un e-mail, je peux vous envoyer la lettre jointe. J'espère donc que les photos pourront être restaurées, à la fois sur le wiki commons et dans les voix de wikipedia dédiées à Remo Bodei. Avec les salutations les plus cordiales.

Teo Orlando

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teo Orlando (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Bonjour, l'image que j'ai éffacé a été publiée à plusieurs reprises. Nos règles exigent que le propriétaire des droits d'auteur de cette photo envoit une permission à notre service de permission, où vous pourrez lire sur comment procéder. Si une permission valide est reçue, alors l'image sera automatiquement restaurée. Cordialement, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Review one image?

Dear Admin Ferrer,

Would you be able to review this single image upload by me. It is called a good/great photo at the source.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Gartree Logo - Grey.jpg

Hi Christian, Could you temporarily undelete File:Gartree Logo - Grey.jpg please so that I can save the file and info, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Image was restored by another admin - I obviously needed the file but I also needed the whole info with it hence why I asked, If you're not willing to temporarily restore files then don't delete them it's that simple!. Thanks for your help!. –Davey2010Talk 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not at your service and I usually don't do thing that I don't fully understand, especially when that's mean to undelete a copyright violation, even if it is temporarily. I still don't understand why you needed a restoration, the image is available on line at the link provided by me above and there is not a single info in the file, the description was exactly identical to the file title, tagged as "own work" and uncategorised. I'm not sure of what you managed to do with this indispensable restoration and that you could not do with what I gave you above. If there was essential additional information I would have provided them.

But indeed if you don't give me good reasons for a restoration, better that you ask to another administrators. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I needed the uploaders name and the date for when I upload to EN - I prefer having it undeleted (as opposed to you copying info) so that way If anything goes wrong then it's my fault if you see what I mean,
It's not about "I am not at your service" - It's about doing one simple task - If I asked you to climb Mount Everest then sure I could understand the refusal but you were asked to undelete one file (which once saved and info saved you could've then redeleted),
You were given a good enough reason for file restoration and the fact I said temporarily would indicate I wanted it temporarily,
As I said If you're not willing to temporarily restore files then don't delete them in the first place. Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 17:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand why you need uploader name and the date to upload a file under fair use to illustrate the article en:Gartree High School, mainly because if you upload it for fair use then it is you who become the uploader, and I gave you the link to the file. Most of my administrative actions are to delete files, better not to be administrator if I "don't delete them in the first place". I understood very well temporarily, but all the files I have restored are because the copyright issues were fixed. If you want a specific info of a deleted file, then I can give you any info that you want (provided it does not violate any privacy breach), no need to undelete it. I have never restored copyvios for to "save" it, and I 'm absolutely not aware of this policy or of this practice, and in what extend this practice follow our policies. And yes apparently I must be at your service because it seems I'm obliged to access your requests.

An uploader upload a copyvio as "own work", the file is deleted, that's all. Now you want to upload a similar file to Wikipedia for fair use then you become the uploader of this new file and you take the full responsibility of this new upload, no need of the username of the first uploader. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

3 final images

Dear Admin Christian Ferrer,

Could you review these 3 final images. I know you are a busy person and I will not disturb you further but please help review thse 3 images.

FYI, the default license at Mushroom Observer is actually CC BY SA 3.0 and not All Rights Reserved...but the professional photographers today license their images there as CC BY NC SA 3.0. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Done you are welcome, make as many requests here as you wish. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. I will consider that. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


2 images

Dear Admin Christian,

Would you be able to review these 2 images below? From the amount of votes for the first image at the source, it seems to be one of the best images at MO.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Done indeed nice and useful image, a pity that the crop is a bit tight at top. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your kind help Christian. It is much appreciated. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Landscape in Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (05).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape in Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (05).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

10 images

Dear Admin Christian,

If you can, please review these images please. The first 3 images are highly rated images apparently at the M. Observer source.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karfreitagsei Dotter,2011-08-19 20.32.15-1.gif

Hello.
Your ruling “condemned” a GIF picture—lossless format—on grounds that a lossy JPEG replacement exists. Could you elaborate please? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello, as per our policy Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types, the standard format for photo is jpeg, mainly because GIF has a limited number of color. I saw no special need to keep the GIF version of this file. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    The history of the JPEG version and EXIF suggest that it is an original photo (from the camera), not a transcoded GIF (as Sebastian Wallroth suggested). Agree, no need to keep GIFs and PNGs made from a JPEG photo, but you better had to point to mistake in Sebastian Wallroth’s verbalization instead of rubber-stamping “per nomination”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Likely, indeed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

These 13 images

4 images

Dear Christian,

If you are free, please help mark these last 4 images from the Ramaria species that were free from Mushroom Observer.

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

8 images

Dear Christian,

If you have some time, please kindly review these 2 images.

The last 2 images are unaninimously called Great Images at the source. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

4 Amanita mutabilis & 3 Amanita solaniolens images

Dear Christian,

Could you review these 7 images below which are generally called Good/Great images at the M.O. source.


Commons doesn't even have any images or category for these 2 species because there are no photos of them here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Done useful images, geolocations added and categories created. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your kind help here Christian. I appreciate it very much. Have a good day. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Leoboudv: I wanted, me too to upload a few images, such as [2], [3] and [4], using this tool but just before the upload I got a message "Copy uploads are not available from this domain. ", do you use this tool? Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I use "Upload file" and then "basic upload form" and then "Back to the old form" where I have already created a template for my images with all the sources and license prepared. (usually from an MS Word document) Then I copy and paste my old form and upload it. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are your 3 images. Please license review them. Have a good day.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Leoboudv:   Done Great, thanks you for the answer and for the files. Just one more question, when you uploaded as example this image, did you use this url [5]? Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, you got that link by clicking the "show original image" option for the maximum resolution version of the image available. Then you save that image to a computer folder (like I do) or USB flash drive and upload it. I do it manually since someone has to review it. Then later after uploading the image to Wikicommons, I can delete this image--like I usually do. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, I understand why I got an error message, it's because I tried to upload the file directly from the url and not to save the image in my PC. One advantage of this tool is that the template (with source,author...) is automatically generated and you know automatically if the image is already in Commons. + geolocation is also automatically generated. I think I have the message because the domain mushroomobserver.org is not white listed. I made a request [6]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

6 final images for a while

Dear Christian,

Good luck with your efforts to upload images from mushroom observer. I am taking a break from Mushroom Observer. So, these are my final uploads for a while. Could you mark them please? Unfortunately, Wikicommons doesn't have these Amanita species.

Thanks for all your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Final free Amanita images

Dear Christian,

I am uploading my final free Amanita images from M.O. I hope that you can license review these images.

The tool you mentioned is very helpful but I am almost finished with Mushroom Observer. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done ~riley (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, this was missed:

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Oops, I had prematurely moved on to your newest ones. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Leoboudv: I understood you are finished with Mushroom Observer but just for info in case you want to upload a few more images and in case you want use the tool (and to avoid to save the image in your PC), the domain is whitelisted and the tool works well now (it already worked but now the upload can be achieved). But one need to be careful to the address of the .jpg example with File:Leratiomyces (62501).jpg if you try to upload from https://mushroomobserver.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/orig/62501.jpg (the adress show in my navigator) then it don't work, you have to use http://mushroomobserver.org/images/orig/62501.jpg. In summary you use http://mushroomobserver.org/images/orig/ + your image ID +.jpg. Address that is also accessible when you open the image in high resolution from MO and that you right-click with the mouse "copy the address of the image". Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I finally uploaded all the species of free Amanita mushrooms just today and riley reviewed them. I may upload a few images in future but the only image I really wanted but cannot get is an Astroboletus occidentalis mushroom. I had flickrmailed someone who has this image but his flickr account has been inactive since January 2016 so I assume he is away and all the other images of this mushroom on M.O. are CC BY NC SA 3.0. Thanks for the tip. Your image was reviewed. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
ok, thanks you Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Omega Star (ship, 1991), Sète 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

3 images

Dear Christian,

If you have time, please review just these 3 images:

I think these images are fair since they don't exist on Wikicommons (I checked) and is not common here Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Done + fully categorised Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your help. Usually before I upload an image I look at the image's observation to make sure that the fungi is indeed the right species...and the discussion (77% vote) for S. lilacina was quite strong here. One time, I uploaded 2-3 images based on a new fungi's "proposed name" but a week later that observation was destroyed by the creator as the other participants of M.O. discovered the right species of the fungi. So, I had to order 3 renames on the 3 images I uploaded. On M.O. people upload an image and make an observation or suggestion that a certain image is species X. Sometimes it is correct but sometimes, it might be species Y or Z and the original observation is abandoned. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking at something like that... maybe better to upload the at least one year old images... Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • PS: You uploaded one Xylaria I notice. I did upload MANY Xylaria but Thiotrix has not yet categorised them I don't tell Strobilomyces as he is working on the Amanita categories. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Omega Star (ship, 1991), Sète 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Omega Star (ship, 1991), Sète 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Christian Ferrer/Archive29".