User talk:IagoQnsi

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, IagoQnsi!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki — it is really easy. 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. If you have experience contributing to Wikipedia, we have information that you might find useful.

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 see the files you have uploaded in your gallery. 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. Only upload freely licensed or public domain content. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. If you're copying files from another Wikimedia project, use the CommonsHelper. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.

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

Contents

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

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

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

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

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

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

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

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

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

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

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

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

Valid SVG

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

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

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

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

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

File:Gordon Freeman cosplay, PAX East 2014.jpg

File:Gordon Freeman cosplay, PAX East 2014.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

czar 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:Titanfall at SXSW 2014 (13223187855).jpg

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

4 Hoaxilla-Logos

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

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

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

File:PAX logo.jpg

File:PAX logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

Category:LetsPlay

LetsPlay has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:LetsPlay. 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!

Laber□^T 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. In addition, you can now share images from Flickr using the UploadWizard and upload freely licensed audio files in the MP3 format. Thank you. ~riley (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The image of DKC 2

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

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

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

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

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Carl Lindner Jr (6555491775) (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

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

File:No Agenda cover 844.png

File:No Agenda cover 844.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19058092423).jpg

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19058092423).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19683527341).jpg

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo (19683527341).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

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

File:SDCC 2015 - Bobbajo & Chris Hardwick (19652842556).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

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

File:SDCC 2015 - J. J. Abrams & Bobbajo (19679019785).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

File:Super Hexagon EP.jpg

File:Super Hexagon EP.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

Category:Photographs by Hayden Schiff

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

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

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

File:PAX South 2016 - Samus cosplay (24628848411).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

Comment from Stekkies2

Why did you flag Body stress release as possible copyrighted issue. I am member 432 of BSR association with full rights to postmour official logo and content. Pls revert all info back to how it was found

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stekkies2 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Copyrights violations patrooling

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

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

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

File:Mc Sar & the Real Mccoy space invaders album.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Hansa Records, or the graphic artist(s)." If you don't know who the copyright holder is and don't have their permission, it's a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Eurodanceguy (talk)

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

Licensing logo: question

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

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

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

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

undelete the photos

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

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

These files cannot be undeleted unless you have proof that you have permission from JotterPad's designated copyright holder or you need to prove its distributed under a free software license. 04:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~riley (talk • contribs)

Touron cartoon.jpg

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

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

Flickr Review

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

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

File:Aeropuerto Dubai.jpg

File:Aeropuerto Dubai.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

File:The mash 01 A4 300dpi.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 21: Unexpected identifier

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

WHAT'S WRONG !!

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DELETE MY IMAGE IF SUCH IMAGE HAS CREATIVE COMMONS, THEREFORE REMOVES THAT MESSAGE FROM DELETING, ALSO THE IMAGE IS FROM FLICK AND IS PUBLIC DOMAIN, SO DO NOT THE BORRES, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT! AND ANSWER NOW!

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT

WHY DO YOU DO IT

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

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

Please

Help me not to delete my image, I did not know that I had copyright.

Adding Screen shot

Hi there, I'm having a hard time adding a screen shot of our app on our company's article. It says the image is within a image, or does not look real. It is a screen shot of the phone screen using our app. How do you advise moving forward?

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - Matt Bahner after win (40301613165) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

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

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - Julie Stewart-Binks (39394289360) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

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

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! CINvPGH 2018-04-21 - Neco Brett (41144395674) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality (please keep in mind that only one of the files can be a QI; this means the original file now cannot.) --Peulle 20:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 20 May 2018 (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:
Justin Hoyte – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus: The image is in the subcategory Category:Justin Hoyte in 2017. –IagoQnsi (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I saw it. But the scope must lead directly; look at changing the syntax of the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus: I guess I could change the scope to portraits of Justin Hoyte in 2017? But that seems like a needlessly narrow scope. The only reason Justin Hoyte photos are divided into year categories is because I've uploaded so many dang photos of him. Oh I get it, you were literally just telling me to change where the link pointed, but not actually change the scope. Got it got it, I'll remember that for future nominations. –IagoQnsi (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 20 May 2018 (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:
Antoine Hoppenot – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 20 May 2018 (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:
James Chambers (Irish footballer) – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 20 May 2018 (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:
Danni König – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 May 2018 (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:
Julie Stewart-Binks – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope.--Peulle (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 May 2018 (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:
Derek Luke (soccer) – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 21 May 2018 (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:
Tim Dobrowolski – portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 21 May 2018 (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:
portraits of Kevin Kerr.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope.--Peulle (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 21 May 2018 (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:
portrait of John Harkes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Good but; We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus: Woops, I have this geocoded on Flickr; don't know why it was missing here. Fixed! –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus: Whoops, totally forgot about that. I manually geocoded it with Google Maps, so it should be all good now. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2018 (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:
group photographs of FC Cincinnati, 2017 season.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2018 (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:
group photographs of FC Cincinnati, 2016 season.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2018 (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:
portraits of Mark Pulisic.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2018 (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:
portraits of Mouhamed Dabo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2018 (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:
portraits of Thomas Vancaeyezeele.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! CINvPGH 2018-04-21 - Jimmy McLaughlin (26993710727) (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK but I still think you should have a link to your Commons profile in the author section. Any time somebody doesn't remember who you are, you may get declines ... --Peulle 17:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Commentthe framing is to review, too tight at the head.--Picte (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Picte: I went ahead and re-cropped it, adding a couple more pixels of space at the top. What do you think of the new version? –IagoQnsi (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• @IagoQnsi:I reloaded a new version, which respects the rule of thirds. Because if you cut the height you have to widen so that the eyes fall on the subject. you can cancel this version if you do not like it.--Picte (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Picte: Your version is a lot better! Thanks for doing that. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @IagoQnsi: good ! I valid !

•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Picte (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 3 June 2018 (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:
portraits of Andy Craven.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Image check at OTRS

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

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

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

File:CGPGrey.png

File:CGPGrey.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

File:Behin Batean Loiolan.pdf

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

File:ClubAtleticoPolicialescudo-Catamarca.svg

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you I'll redo it during the week!!! Ezarateesteban 21:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2018 (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:
portraits of Evan Newton.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (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:
portraits of Josu.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Font Awesome 5 solid venus-mars.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your unilateral actions on Category:Heterosexuality symbols

It's a little unfortunate that you charged ahead and created Category:Heterosexuality symbols unilaterally without consulting with anybody or asking for any advice, especially since I'm far from persuaded that your knowledge of such matters is deep. To start with "Category:Symbols of heterosexuality" would have probably been a better name... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that Heterosexuality contained an awful lot of symbols and thought it would be easier to navigate if they were subcategorized. I'm happy to discuss this and potentially undo some of what I did; I didn't start a discussion because it didn't seem like it was warranted (it's pretty typical for categories like Heterosexuality to have a "symbols" category, albeit often inside an "in art" category). You're right about the category name, and I've gone ahead and changed it to "Symbols of heterosexuality". --IagoQnsi (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, at some point I'm going to have to go through all the subcategories and check on them, and it's something that I'm not looking forward to doing, or that I really have time for right at the moment (I've already put off doing it for close to a week). I already have reason to doubt your understanding of the word "interlinked" (see the immediately preceding subsection of this talk page). AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:PEGI Sex.svg

This is exactly what I was afraid of. Two circles cannot be "interlinked" unless there is some over-and-under action, resulting in a mathematical Hopf link. Please look at various relevant Commons categories and Wikipedia articles, such as "Celtic knot", "Category:Knots in art and decoration", "Croatian interlace" etc. etc.
I'm really not looking forward to cleaning up the mess you seem to have created... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: As I put in the description, Category:Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols is for symbols that are interlinked or overlapping. It just seemed impractical to include that in the title name. If you have an idea for a better name for a category that includes both overlapping and interlinking symbols, I welcome your suggestion --IagoQnsi (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing I meant when I referred to the inadvisability of doing things unilaterally without any consultation above. Someone who looks at Category:Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols (one link) will not see your note on Category:Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols (that's what happened to me), and in any case, the word "interlinked" has a highly-precise and specific technical meaning which can't really be blurred in the way that you want to blur it. This means that you've kind of created a mess, which I'm not looking forward to trying to clean up (or setting aside the time to clean it up, for that matter)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I put a similar note on the "(one link)" category as well. I don't agree that "interlinked" can't be blurred (given that it's a category name that I just made up, it doesn't really have any prior meaning in the context of Wikimedia Commons). That said, I do agree that it's a suboptimal name, and like I said, if you have a better name I welcome it. With tools like Cat-a-lot, this should not be much work to revise. --IagoQnsi (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's nice that you announced what you meant in more relevant places, but there's still a problem with the names. I think "overlapping" allows for a lot more stretching of its meaning than "interlinked". Of course this means that "one link" could not be used in the renamed version of Category:Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols (one link)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: "Overlapping" works for me; feel free to change it. Perhaps the "one link" category could become "Singly overlapping Venus and Mars symbols". Alternatively, it could be "Overlapping Venus and Mars symbols representing heterosexuality", which technically a different scope (and probably a few images would have to be moved), but it's the same intent that I had when creating the "one link" category. --IagoQnsi (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to distinguish Venus + Mars symbol combination symbolizing heterosexuality ("Heterosexual symbols with overlapping Venus and Mars symbols"?) from others that don't really have that symbolism, but as I said above, it may take me some days to find the time to go through all the individual images to sort through and reclassify them... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

December

Fixing the Venus and Mars symbols symbols categories was as annoying as I thought it would be beforehand, but I finally did it... My opinion remains just as strong as ever that File:Font Awesome 5 solid venus-mars.svg uses a rather poor visual technique, which obfuscates and obscures its intended meaning to an "awesome" degree, but that won't prevent it from continuing to exist on Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Valued images?

By the way, I'm curious how you get so many Valued Image promotions. I tried once with File:Shoelace knot.svg (which seems pretty useful to me), and basically got bubkes... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Looking at that image's VI nomination, it seems like the issue was that the scope was too specific. I bet that image would pass with a scope like "illustration of shoelace knot" -- simpler and broader is best (COM:VIS goes into a lot more detail). That's really the crux of VI -- find the right scope.

I have gotten a decent number of images through there, but if you look through my VI images, all but two of them basically have the same scope: "portraits of [some person]". I don't have much competition with other photographers for most of my subjects (mostly second-division pro soccer players), so it's not too hard for me to get the "best" photo if I have an image that's half decent.

By the way, the nomination you linked wasn't going to work at VI, but it would have probably passed at QI. QI isn't about being the best in a particular scope; it's just about the image being excellent, so that might be more what you're looking for. I have a few QI images, but I don't try there as much because my photos tend to fall short of their technical expectations. (I take photos at soccer matches. Whenever there's a stoppage in play, I take a break from shooting action shots and try to get close-up portraits instead. I don't have time to change my shutter speed and sensitivity for the portraits, so they're grainier than they would be if I was only shooting portraits.) Your SVG diagrams don't have any issues like that, so I bet you'd do well there. --IagoQnsi (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I had the impression that Quality Images and Featured Images are kind of biased against non-photographs (with relatively infrequent exceptions). The image File:Shoelace knot.svg isn't visually stunning or anything, it's just very, very useful for one particular purpose, which is what led me towards Valued Images -- but the reception I got there didn't really encourage me to try again... AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

File:2016 MLS All-Star Game logo.jpg

File:2016 MLS All-Star Game logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Taivo (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:Pizza Hut logo prototype, 2010.svg

And also:

• File:Pizza Hut logo, 1999–2014.svg
• File:Pizza Hut logo, 2010–2014.png
• File:Pizza Hut logo, 2014.png

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

COM:A

Hey IagoQnsi,

Have you considered being an admin? You seem to have the knowledge to be one. -- 1989 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@1989: Hey 1989, thanks for the message. I have thought about it a little bit, but never too seriously. Your suggestion that I'd be a good candidate is a big confidence boost -- I think I might try to write up an application today. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you do decide to go for it, good luck. -- 1989 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you need a nominator, let me know. -- 1989 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0882.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0882.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

And also:

• File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0883.jpg

Yours sincerely, IagoQnsi (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

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

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

1. You edited User:IagoQnsi/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
2. Though, that change appears to introduce 29 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

1. ISSUE: line 60 character 18: Unclosed string. - Evidence: talk_tag: '
2. ISSUE: line 61 character 61: Unclosed string. - Evidence: == {{Autotranslate|1=:%FILE%|base=No watermarks/heading}} ==
3. ISSUE: line 63 character 33: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 56 and instead saw 't'. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
4. ISSUE: line 63 character 35: Expected ']' to match '[' from line 2 and instead saw 'upload'. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
5. ISSUE: line 63 character 41: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
6. ISSUE: line 63 character 53: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
7. ISSUE: line 63 character 61: Unclosed string. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
8. ISSUE: line 64 character 6: Unclosed string. - Evidence: },
9. ISSUE: line 65 character 5: Unclosed string. - Evidence: {
10. ISSUE: line 63 character 60: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
11. ISSUE: line 66 character 15: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
12. ISSUE: line 66 character 18: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
13. ISSUE: line 66 character 28: Unclosed string. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
14. ISSUE: line 66 character 26: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
15. ISSUE: line 67 character 13: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
16. ISSUE: line 67 character 19: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
17. ISSUE: line 67 character 23: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
18. ISSUE: line 67 character 33: Bad assignment. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
19. ISSUE: line 67 character 38: Unclosed string. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
20. ISSUE: line 68 character 21: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
21. ISSUE: line 68 character 24: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
22. ISSUE: line 68 character 32: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
23. ISSUE: line 68 character 40: Unclosed string. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
24. ISSUE: line 68 character 38: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
25. ISSUE: line 70 character 5: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 70 and instead saw '{'. - Evidence: == {{autotranslate|1=:%FILE%|base=Provide better quality/heading}} ==
26. ISSUE: line 70 character 6: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: == {{autotranslate|1=:%FILE%|base=Provide better quality/heading}} ==
27. ISSUE: line 70 character 21: Bad assignment. - Evidence: == {{autotranslate|1=:%FILE%|base=Provide better quality/heading}} ==
28. ISSUE: line 70 character 22: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: == {{autotranslate|1=:%FILE%|base=Provide better quality/heading}} ==
29. ISSUE: line 70 character 22: Expected '(end)' and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: == {{autotranslate|1=:%FILE%|base=Provide better quality/heading}} ==

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

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

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

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

1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 60 column 19: Unexpected token ILLEGAL

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

Code issues in User:IagoQnsi/common.js

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

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

1. You edited User:IagoQnsi/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
2. Though, that change appears to introduce 23 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

1. ISSUE: line 61 character 33: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 56 and instead saw 't'. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
2. ISSUE: line 61 character 35: Expected ']' to match '[' from line 2 and instead saw 'upload'. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
3. ISSUE: line 61 character 41: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
4. ISSUE: line 61 character 53: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
5. ISSUE: line 61 character 61: Unclosed string. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
6. ISSUE: line 62 character 6: Unclosed string. - Evidence: },
7. ISSUE: line 63 character 5: Unclosed string. - Evidence: {
8. ISSUE: line 61 character 60: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Please don't upload watermarked images'
9. ISSUE: line 64 character 15: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
10. ISSUE: line 64 character 18: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
11. ISSUE: line 64 character 28: Unclosed string. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
12. ISSUE: line 64 character 26: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: label: 'Low quality',
13. ISSUE: line 65 character 13: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
14. ISSUE: line 65 character 19: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
15. ISSUE: line 65 character 23: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
16. ISSUE: line 65 character 33: Bad assignment. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
17. ISSUE: line 65 character 38: Unclosed string. - Evidence: tag: '{' + '{Low quality|1=}}',
18. ISSUE: line 66 character 18: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
19. ISSUE: line 66 character 24: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
20. ISSUE: line 66 character 31: Label 'subst' on Provide statement. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
21. ISSUE: line 66 character 38: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
22. ISSUE: line 66 character 45: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
23. ISSUE: line 66 character 55: Bad assignment. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
24. ISSUE: line 66 character 56: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
25. ISSUE: line 66 character 56: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 66 and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
26. ISSUE: line 66 character 57: Expected an identifier and instead saw '%'. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
27. ISSUE: line 66 character 58: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
28. ISSUE: line 66 character 63: Expected an identifier and instead saw '}'. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
29. ISSUE: line 66 character 67: Unclosed string. - Evidence: talk_tag: '{' + '{subst:Provide better quality|1=:%FILE%}}',
30. ISSUE: line 67 character 21: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
31. ISSUE: line 67 character 24: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
32. ISSUE: line 67 character 32: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
33. ISSUE: line 67 character 40: Unclosed string. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
34. ISSUE: line 67 character 38: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: img_summary: 'Low quality image',
35. ISSUE: line 68 character 22: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
36. ISSUE: line 68 character 24: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
37. ISSUE: line 68 character 28: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
38. ISSUE: line 68 character 33: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
39. ISSUE: line 68 character 40: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
40. ISSUE: line 68 character 48: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
41. ISSUE: line 68 character 55: Unclosed string. - Evidence: talk_summary: 'Do you have better quality file?'
42. ISSUE: line 69 character 5: Unclosed string. - Evidence: }
43. ISSUE: line 70 character 3: Unclosed string. - Evidence: ];
44. ISSUE: line 71 character 1: Unclosed string. - Evidence:
45. ISSUE: line 72 character 17: Expected ':' and instead saw 'User'. - Evidence: //importScript('User:IagoQnsi/Gadget-QuickDelete-custom.js');
46. ISSUE: line 72 character 21: Expected an identifier and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: //importScript('User:IagoQnsi/Gadget-QuickDelete-custom.js');
47. ISSUE: line 72 character 22: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: //importScript('User:IagoQnsi/Gadget-QuickDelete-custom.js');
48. ISSUE: line 72 character 62: Unclosed string. - Evidence: //importScript('User:IagoQnsi/Gadget-QuickDelete-custom.js');
49. ISSUE: line 72 character 59: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: //importScript('User:IagoQnsi/Gadget-QuickDelete-custom.js');
50. ISSUE: line 73 character 17: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: //importScript('User:Kanonkas/twinkle.js');
51. ISSUE: line 73 character 17: Too many errors. (82% scanned). - Evidence: undefined

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

If you use the helper scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi IagoQnsi, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR

importScript('User:Majora/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.freenode.net. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! 1989 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@1989: Thanks a ton! :) –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:CINvBST 2017-05-20 - The Bailey (34420771910).jpg

And also:

• File:CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - The Bailey (26325669177).jpg
• File:CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - The Bailey (40487751674).jpg
• File:CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - The Bailey celebrates win (40301763495).jpg
• File:CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - The Bailey celebrates win (40483657184).jpg
• File:CINvCHI 2017-06-28 - The Bailey celebrates win (41197562671).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34403855580).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34626884962).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34628992652).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34658668411).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34659223011).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34659236951).jpg
• File:CINvCLE 2017-05-17 - The Bailey (34751187456).jpg
• File:CINvIND 2018-09-29 - champions celebration, The Bailey (30243847407).jpg
• File:CINvIND 2018-09-29 - champions celebration, The Bailey (44271477705).jpg
• File:CINvIND 2018-09-29 - The Bailey (44459642614).jpg
• File:CINvIND 2018-09-29 - The Bailey (45132864522).jpg
• File:CINvLOU 2017-05-31 - The Bailey (34210441114).jpg
• File:CINvLOU 2017-05-31 - The Bailey (34924959891).jpg
• File:CINvLOU 2017-05-31 - The Bailey (35013957466).jpg
• File:CINvLOU 2017-05-31 - The Bailey (35016468156).jpg
• File:CINvLOU 2018-04-07 - The Bailey (40749062605).jpg
• File:CINvLOU 2018-04-07 - The Bailey tifo Streamer Things (41641257501).jpg
• File:CINvNSH 2018-08-04 - The Bailey (44069042382).jpg
• File:CINvPGH 2018-04-21 - The Bailey (40963027805).jpg
• File:CINvPGH 2018-09-01 - The Bailey (45085487181).jpg
• File:The Bailey (27761708705).jpg
• File:The Bailey (29784631580).jpg
• File:The Bailey (30079237935).jpg
• File:The Bailey celebrates goal (26713734973).jpg

Yours sincerely, IagoQnsi (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Works by the Raspberry Pi Foundation

Notice of Impending Speedy Deletion Category:Works by the Raspberry Pi Foundation is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: An appropriate category with the proper and descriptive name - Category:Raspberry Pi original accessories for official accessories made by Pi Foundation already exist If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

Maybe I simply should ask you here first, if so - sorry for my to speedy acting Jasc PL (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jasc PL: The purpose of that category was for files created by the Raspberry Pi Foundation -- i.e. official photos taken by the Foundation. Probably a poor name on my part; "Works" should probably be changed to "Photographs" or "Files". –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: yes, in my opinion "Works" was unclear, including near everything: boards, publications, events... - breaking existing category tree. There is, and will be only the few photos taken directly by the Foundation - I asked them, so they taken and upload some especially for us with CC licence but without NC.

However, there is probably a problem with the pictures that need to be categorized more than once at the same subcategory level in Category:Raspberry Pi accessories, e.g. image of Pi case or so "should" exist together in ...by application > cases, ...by producer and ...by model. Is it allowable or definitely unproper? I'am not sure what should I do. --Jasc PL (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jasc PL: Yes that's fine. The purpose of having "X by Y" categories is precisely so that you can sort things that belong in X multiple ways. –IagoQnsi (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Fanart - Hello Internet by kittyninjafish.png

File:Fanart - Hello Internet by kittyninjafish.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 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!

DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)