Junkyardsparkle

Herbert J. Krapp

Nice find, and nice enhancement! Are you planning to do the same for:

• Henry B. Herts (ShubertTheatre, Booth Theatre)
• Charles Kirchhoff (Palace Theatre)
• Hugh Tallant (New Amsterdam Theatre, Lyceum Theatre)
• George Keister (Belasco Theatre, Selwyn Theatre aka American Airlines Theatre)
• G. Albert Lansburgh (Al Hirschfeld Theatre)…? Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't planned to go on a theatre architect rampage, but I'll see if I can direct my fill-in-the-blanks impulses along that tangent for a while... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Vitascope Theatre advertisement and article, The Buffalo Courier-Record, 1897-11-14.jpeg

It not only seems to work, it does work, but the proprietor states that no links are permanent:

Q. Can I put a link on my site to yours? A. Yes. But PLEASE, use ONLY www.fultonhistory.com / Other pages and links change as updates occur.

I have had the experience of sending someone a link to this archive that was no longer good when I sent it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf: This seems to be depressingly true of even the Library of Congress; Somewhere on my fuzzy TODO list is a mass conversion of dead old-format links to there... fortunately, specific identifiers or filenames tend to stay the same through these changes, even if the rest of a URL path gets broken, making this possible. For this reason I figure even a dead link is better than no link at all, but hey, whatever works. That collection seems like a gold mine for anyone with an interest in the region, too bad about the Windows back end... and it's still not as bad as the L.A. Public Library site. :P --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"…the Windows back end"? Vzeebjtf (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean anything by it (the query strings being used internally by the search interface were a mess of drive letters and backslashes, as I recollect). --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Mystery Mine cookhouse, Monte Cristo, Washington, ca. 1894.jpg
{| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="border: 2px solid #f00;" class="layouttemplate mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" lang="en"
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Mystery Mine cookhouse, Monte Cristo, Washington, ca. 1894.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

|} No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops... fixed. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hotel Arcadia, Santa Monica - Gardens.jpg
{| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="border: 2px solid #f00;" class="layouttemplate mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" lang="en"
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Hotel Arcadia, Santa Monica - Gardens.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

|} Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ojai Valley Museum 2014 02.JPG

Thanks for fixing this up! I also have raw (DNG) files for my pictures, which I can send you if you'd prefer to work from those. I just posted the in-camera JPEGs (shooting RAW+JPEG) because I'm new to the DSLR world, and Silkypix is a bit intimidating. --Ppelleti (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ppelleti: No problem, glad you didn't mind... I feel a little weird uploading over somebody else's work, but I felt like the changes in that case were fairly uncontroversial and not worth creating another file for. I'm actually a little behind on my own RAW developing from spending too much time on commons - beware! :P I'm sure you'll enjoy the digital darkroom experience once you get comfortable with it (I'm still figuring it out myself). It's especially nice to be able to correct for wide lens shots of buildings, etc... although I don't hate converging vertical lines as absolutely as some people do... just depends on the picture, for me. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

With duplicates

Duplicates need to be exact copies to be speedied. If there are variations, then deletions need to go via a normal DR process where the community gets to have an opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'll stick to that guideline from now on... there are some cases, such as the one I think inspired this message, where the "duplicate" has so many issues that it's probably speedy bait on other scores as well (bad license, author, source, still watermarked from wherever it was grabbed from, etc.), but... point taken. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising, just saying so you know why I rejected. Also to note that we can have two copies of different qualities, types, ... that is choice and not the reason for "duplicate." It is about the nature of duplicates and buggers, and exact matches. All taht said, some strive for perfection and don't like any specks to ruin their view of it. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Totally understand, It's mostly that I was being lazy, and trying to avoid the work of cleaning up all of that user's uploads, which all have incorrect information and no sources, and seem to be part of some campaign to promote their website. I'm not really cut out for that kind of stuff, but having having historical images on commons with false information in the info fields and bogus licenses seems like a Bad Thing... So, while I've got your attention, what's the best tag to use in those cases? "No source since"? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot

Hello! You might want to read this: Com:Bot, esp. section 2. Best regards, --[[User:|Hedwig in Washington]] ^(mail?) 00:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks, but I'm not actually running a bot, just doing some supervised batch category moves. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the summary states bot. I'd get a flag, someone might block your account for running a bot w/out flag. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I'll stop using the default summary, and use something similar to Cat-a-lot (since it's essentially the same operation, just from a command line). Thanks for the heads up. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically you are running a bot, please be careful. pywiki is a little buggy sometimes. Don't ask me how I know. ;) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So far replace.py seems to work exactly as expected, so I'll probably just stick with that. Didn't enjoy the experience of category.py creating a page without any indication that it was going to do so... . Thanks for taking care of that. I'm hoping to be able to return to using cat-a-lot in the near future, but for various reasons, it's not really feasible for this particular situation. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Bugs happen. I enjoy the Hot cat rework as well. :-)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind note at my talk page. I'm afraid that I'm not all that great a photographer, so I try to compensate by taking lots of photos, hoping to get a few good ones by blind chance. However, WP needed somebody to illustrate Nebraska, and I was available... — Ammodramus (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:The Curse of California.jpg

Thanks for uploading a better version of File:The Curse of California.jpg. However, by doing so that wiped out all the annotations. If you have the time, can you put those back in? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 21:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoah, sorry, I didn't notice those... that's probably something I should pay more attention to, since I do a lot of that type of uploading. I'll get to it as soon as I can give it my full undistracted attention. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. I have to say, that annotation system could be a hell of a lot more robust, by using proportional coordinates instead of fixed pixel values... but on the bright side, now I know how to do this... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Making File Names Specific (Madsion House in Watsonville)

I renamed my Madison House jpeg file and attempted to upload it with a more specific name but the upload failed with the error message: There is <a href="#">another file</a> already on the site with the same content.

I converted my original NEF file to a new jpeg file named watsonville_california_madison_house_2005.jpg and was able to upload the new version successfully.

Thanks for the advice. I will make file names specific in the future.

Robert Cushman collection of sheet music

Thanks for your excellent uploads regarding the sheet music covers, which I noticed when collecting a few 1919 silent film images into categories, and also for your kind message. I was surprised how widespread the use of silent film actors was in promoting the sales of sheet music, something I did not expect when I first joined the wiki project for films a few years ago. In response to your comment, as far as I can tell, nothing you have uploaded should be deleted, and even other examples of existing sheet music covers should be uploaded since there are differences in the quality of these historical documents that should be recorded and made available for others to use. Thanks for the suggestion regarding use of the Sheet music covers of the United States category. Also, keep up the good work! Deanlaw (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear somebody besides me finds that batch worthwhile. I enjoy illustration from that era in general, but this particular collection seemed to have Encyclopedic Value from many different angles, beyond just being nice to look at... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bancroft library images

hi, i'm just fixing the metadata, from images that were uploaded in 2006, part of the m:File metadata cleanup drive. only two angel island photos uploaded, so i added the others. thanks for the ping, needed to link to bl since no permanent link to loc. quite a few uploads already, needs an institution page, and a mass upload would work. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Junkyardsparkle/common.css

Hi Junkyardsparkle, 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:Junkyardsparkle/common.css. Glad to see you coding in css! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new prettyCss 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 css writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

1. ERROR: invalid-token: line 15 char number 1 - Evidence: /

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 22:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

Medicine man / men

Thanks for helping--Ashashyou (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ashashyou: No problem, nice work rounding up all those pictures. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Little---better copy

Hey! Not bad! Thanks! Resident Mario (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: Sure thing! Interesting book, that one, with a bunch of historical images that might not be found anywhere else... it's too bad the available scans are compressed as if it were just text. :/ --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There are so many fascinating things in the dustbins of history! Experiencing them is much of what holds me to this project, in fact. Resident Mario (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Commenting out geotag for non-geographical image" rampage

I see you've done a lot of recent edits "Commenting out geotag for non-geographical image"s for images of celebrities, book signings, etc. I went to Commons:Geocoding and didn't see anywhere that non-geographical images should have their geotags commented out. In fact, I can well imagine them being useful: "Let's see pictures of all the events that took place at this location." --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@GRuban: Yay! "Rampage" is such a fun word! Actually, I was just noting the incongruous stuff that popped up while browsing the commons-on-osm map for one city. On the one hand, there are the many obvious cases where the uploader never intended to disclose their location (pictures of objects taken in private residences, etc), which I hope aren't in dispute. The problem with with the celebrity pics, close-ups of car doors, etc is a little trickier... while having the data available is nice, that's not what people expect to pop up on maps of geotagged images, I don't think (but who knows, I could be wrong about that). The closest thing I could find to a guideline was Geolocations on a pizza?, which may or may not reflect anything like a current consensus. I figured the best thing would be to comment the tag in an easily batch-reversible way for now.

The thing is, "event" places like convention centers potentially end up with a huge amount of pictures being taken of there, most of which are not related to the location. Some of these pictures will be passively (or accidentally) geotagged by people using phones (enough to create pile-ups on the map), but most non-phone pictures won't be. Therefore "Let's see pictures of all the events that took place at this location" is much better accomplished with, say, a category for that purpose. In any case, maybe we should start a friendly discussion at Commons_talk:Geocoding and see if there's a better way to handle this, maybe with an additional template to help sort one type of image from the other. I'll be happy to go along with whatever the consensus turns out to be (or just give up on the matter altogether if there clearly isn't one). --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Enhancements to archive images

Hi, with regard to File:Portrait of Charlotta Bass, Providence (?), ca. 1901-1910 (scl-mss064-0451~1).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), I can understand why you want an enhanced and cropped version to be available to Commons, however it is good practice to leave the archive scan and create a new version as a derivative. Often there is value in seeing a discoloured original with its imperfections in order to judge age, help with other research or as a basis for further digital enhancements (such as removing the bad crease in the photo). Perhaps you could consider splitting the image you created to a new file? Thanks --[[User:|Fæ]] (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Done. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Junkyardsparkle, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as a long term colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Bob's big boy statue burbank 2013.jpg

File:Bob's big boy statue burbank 2013.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

AN-NOY (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Common housefly, Musca domestica 2015-08-06 3.jpg

File:Common housefly, Musca domestica 2015-08-06 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Marcello Consolo (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States - Thank You!

Hi there! Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States. We're excited to see people uploading thousands of photos from all over the country! You and others have collectively uploaded 4,929 photos so far, all of which are viewable at Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States (sorted by state).

We encourage you to continue contributing through the rest of the month. Uploading your photos of monuments isn't the only way to contribute, however. If you're interested, we have compiled a list of auxiliary ways to contribute - which include improving Wikipedia's coverage of historic and cultural sites, as well as finding existing free photos that can be shared on the Commons. While these contributions don't count towards the contest, we are still keeping track of them and they are great ways to contribute to the spirit of the project.

If you are interesting in contributing to Wikipedia, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is also great place to start. The WikiProject showcases the work that has been done so far in covering NRHP sites, and can also help you find articles that need improving.

If you're on Twitter, give us a follow @WLMUnitedStates for updates, news, and more.

If you have any questions between now or the end of the month, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States – Results!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2016}} to your userpage!

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States during the month of October! The United States contest saw over 1,700 people contribute over 11,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States and its territories. In addition to National Register of Historic Places sites, we welcomed uploads of sites designated by state- and local-level historical institutions and societies. Hundreds of these photos are already being used to illustrate Wikipedia articles!

We're excited to announce that our national judging process has concluded, and that we have selected the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States! We were amazed by all of the uploads, and regret having to narrow it down to just 10. That being said – congratulations to our national winners and their amazing shots! Our 10 winners will be sent to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury, who will then select the winners of the international contest. If you're interested in seeing the winners of the other various national contests as they are announced, you may do so at Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 winners.

Finally, we have also created a feedback form for all participants in the United States to fill out. The survey is optional and anonymous, and only takes a minute or two – we hope to use the feedback to organize better events in the future!

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, and we hope to see you again for future Commons photography events! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Junkyardsparkle, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Ipoellet (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States – Back for 2017!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2017}} to your userpage!

Hi there! My name is Kevin, one of the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Last year, you contributed to our 2016 event. It was a great success thanks to you and many others, with over 1,700 people contributing over 11,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States. Over 1,000 of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, making our open knowledge about United States history and heritage all the better.

I'm pleased to say that we're back this year with Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States, and I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our updated event page for more information, including updated tips, lists, and prizes. Like last year, you'll be able to upload your new photos of any registered historical site in the United States through the end of September (even if the photos were taken before this month).

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, and we hope to see you in this year's event! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AC powered NE-2 type neon lamp close-up.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Given the small size, I would say this is good quality. --Aristeas 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Circus Liquor clown sign at night 2015-08-17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Musicaline 13:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antelope Valley Indian Museum from southwest 2016-12-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 03:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2mm diamond drill bits macro.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality of the Macro-subject! --PantheraLeo1359531 20:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lufkin Universal 50 ft tape measure.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 enough. Somewhat low resolution. --Smial 13:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LAX Theme Building and moon from northwest 2016-07-21.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. --Moroder 13:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Santa Susana Depot view from southwest 2014-11-13.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, but not your photo. Please follow the directions above on how to nominate other people's photos. -- Ikan Kekek 04:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  Done -- Fluffy89502 20:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for uploading so many quality images to Commons!

Fluffy89502 ~ talk 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Santa Susana Pass Rd west from Topanga.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 Not your photo. Please follow the directions above on how to nominate other people's photos. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)  Done -- Fluffy89502 20:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Good quality. --Dirtsc 08:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Montecito Heights from Pasadena Ave. 2015-04-12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Not your photo. Please follow the directions above on how to nominate other people's photos. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)  Done -- Fluffy89502 20:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Good quality, though I dont't understand, why the motion blur of the cars was necessary. --Dirtsc 08:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Santa Monica PCH.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Looks good to me, but can you perhaps try to reduce the clipped highlights (street lamps) a bit? --Domob 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)  Question @Domob: Are you referring to the ones by the cliff on the left side of the image? --Fluffy89502 00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)  Comment In general, also the ones on the right of the road. --Domob 12:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)  Support I think it is ok. --Domob 15:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:President Roosevelt speaks at Pomona College, 1903.jpg

File:President Roosevelt speaks at Pomona College, 1903.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Buidhe (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Screws_(fastener)

Screws (fastener) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

University and college yearbooks

University and college yearbooks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

–IagoQnsi (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Crimp connectors

Category:Crimp connectors 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 category, 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. 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!

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)