User talk:Bodhisattwa/Archive/2017

Flag of Afghanistan (1992-1996; 2001).svg

Hi There are a problem with the tittle. The flag was used by the internationnaly recognized government of Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, a government who controlled a part of afghan territorie during these period. Could you move the page ? Best wishes. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Tour de la Charité, Fête des Lumières (5263971076).jpg

File:Tour de la Charité, Fête des Lumières (5263971076).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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Tour de la Charité, Fête des Lumières (5263971076).jpg

File:Tour de la Charité, Fête des Lumières (5263971076).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!

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Close wing position of Elymnias vasudeva Moore, 1857 – Jezebel Palmfly WLB DSC 0056 (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  Support Good quality.--Scotch Mist 14:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support - Apparently the only photo on Commons of a live butterfly of this kind. Good photo; should be a QI as well, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  OpposeThe scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis. The scope must be reduced to the presented face (ventral). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support @Bodhisattwa: I have altered scope to correct format. You can do the same for your other nomination. Charles (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Ok @Charlesjsharp: , I will change the other nomination accordingly. Thanks for correcting the scope of this picture. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis. The scope must be reduced to the presented face (dorsal). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: , I have corrected the scope of the picture. Please review again. Thanks. Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Useful. I correct the binominal which must always be in italics. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Please add sub species as this butterfly does not seem to be the same as other Neptis magadha in India. I think there are two. 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment For VI images, better to crop please. @Bodhisattwa: Charles (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Content

Hi! I now clearly understand the violation of image copyright, but it seems unfair that your removed the entire page. I had neatly compiled all necessary information with necessary citations. I do not have a backup of the content for "Danish Sait". I would request you to retrieve the content, so that I can post it without the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noether123 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, @Noether123: , if an image indicates violation of copyright, the image along with other information with it are removed as per Commons policy. Besides, I don't delete or undelete images and its contents, the administrators have the right to do that kind of stuff. I just can send them request to delete images, only they can approve or decline the request. Thanks for understanding. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued images

Hi - It is great to have you submit your images for VI. It would be really helpful if you could identify sub-species wherever possible as that would allow us to have VIs for each sub-species. It's also good to crop them to make the butterfly more easily identifiable. I crop to a minimum of about 1200 pixels. I know this all takes a little longer. Happy editing! Charles (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: , actually, these images are not at all photographed or identified by me. All the works related to these images are done by participants of Wiki Loves Butterfly projects, who are clicking the images of butterflies, identifying the species, uploading and processing the images etc. I am just nominating them for VI and QI. Pinging @Atudu, Sayan911, and Sandipoutsider: to convey your message. I hope they can help regarding this. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bodhisattwa: OK sorry, I hadn't noticed they weren't your images, but this is slightly worrying as do we know each photographer's competence in identifying the species correctly? If you could make sure you only submit images by proven specialists that would be really helpful. Either that, if your are a specialist yourself, just not the actual photographer, then that would be reassuring. I have no first-hand knowledge of these species. I don't know about the expertise of @Ikan Kekek: who has been promoting them as VIC. Pinging @Archaeodontosaurus: for info. Charles (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: , As far as I know, the Wiki Loves Butterfly project has specialists and experts in their team, who are identifying the species. So, I dont think, there is anything to worry right now. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no expertise in identifying species of butterflies and have been assuming they were correctly identified. Thanks for the reassurance, Bodhisattwa. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There may be errors but they will be corrected over time. It is a common work and mutual help works well. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Charlesjsharp and Ikan Kekek: your views are quite agreeable. I as the leading coordinator of Wiki Loves Butterfly team state that we have some renowned Lepidopterists from West Bengal, India in our team and also have strong collaborative connection with Lepidopterists of National Centre for Biological Sciences and Ifoundbutterfly team here. All the identification are confirmed by those expertise figure. Presently the team is dealing with only species level and has definite intention in dealing with subspecies level later on. Thank you ----Atudu (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Atudu: . It is a great project. I am making my first butterfly photography trip to Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in November 2017 - a long way from West Bengal. I hope I can find some. Charles (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Happy clicking at Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan- but West Bengal is not miles away. Ever wish to come our cordial invitation rests for you. :) :) --Atudu (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Open wing position of Papilio crino, Fabricius,1793 – Common Banded Peacock WLB.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Close wing position of Charaxes solon, Fabricius, 1793 – Black Rajah WLB.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 despite processing Charlesjsharp 20:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

★ 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:
Flos adriana (Variegated Plushblue) ventral.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support - Seems messed up by post-processing, but best in scope for VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Euthalia phemius (White-edged Blue Baron), male, dorsal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jungle urbaine, Fête des Lumières (5303010131).jpg

File:Jungle urbaine, Fête des Lumières (5303010131).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!

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:45, 4 February 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!

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 4 February 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!

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support - I consider this picture the best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This is the same picture as the one you opposed @Ikan Kekek: . @Bodhisattwa: should upload cropped version on original VIC. Charles (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. sorted now. Charles (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment No, Charles, this is the cropped version of that picture. I support it precisely because since it's cropped, the butterfly takes up more of the screen and is thus much more easily visible when the photo is used as a thumbnail on the web. But why are you opposing? Just a matter of procedure? Is it important enough to oppose this nomination of the photo I think both of us consider best in scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Just a matter of procedure Ikan Kekek. The cropped version should replace the image in the original version; we should not have a second nomination. @Bodhisattwa: is very welcome here, but it is good to establish the right way of doing things - it saves us all time! Charles (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes indeed to all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Charles is right it would have been better to load the version cropped on the old version. But that is not what has been done. So there are two distinct images physically. The first was denied legally. I propose to accept this one which is actually the best of both. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2017

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support OK now, but beware the caption is very mediocre. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment The caption must contain the binomial name and the name of the place of the photograph --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 22:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiven2240 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support --Tiven2240 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir hostages image

I've taken this issue to Admin board. Let the administrators decide what to do with the image. Regards! Liberal Humanist ^{Holla at me!} 12:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem with that. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support - Useful -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support useful. Charles (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - Yes, useful and best in scope, but I thought you would be the one to point out that there are no geo coordinates in the file. Bodhisattwa, could you add some? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment, @Ikan Kekek: , User:Atudu has added the geo coordinate in the description. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, and now I  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

review

 Support useful. Charles (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

File:History of the Armenians In India.djvu

File:History of the Armenians In India.djvu 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!

Hrishikes (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Clearly best in scope and sharp focus on the butterfly. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Bodhisattwa/Archive,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WMNL / Chinsurah

Hi Bodhisattwa, Thank you for your awesome work on the photos from the Chinsurah photo walk! It's really cool to see them, and I will make sure that we give some love and attention to it on our social media channels! I've taken the liberty to correct the name of the Netherlands in the categories, otherwise looks great! Are you planning to do any follow-up work on this? I've done a short write-up for our report on meta. Best, --AWossink (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @AWossink: , thanks a lot for the correction. The work is not yet complete and may be we need one or two more walks in the cemetery to document all the graves. We have scheduled our next walk on May 14. More images are coming. In the meantime, we are looking for and uploading PD books related to the area, to generate more resource for Wikipedia articles. Regards -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds great, and I'm looking forward to the results. I was wondering, it would be great if we here in the Netherlands could also contribute in some way, to make it a true collaboration. I might have to think a little bit about that - let's talk if you have any ideas already (maybe we should continue on Meta on the project talk page, so that others can chime in as well)! Best, --AWossink (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@AWossink: , that would be really great. What I feel that we do lack a good amount of resources about Dutch Bengal here. Also we have no knowledge about Dutch language books and documents related to this area. May be WMNL or Wikimedians from Netherlands can find and upload them to Commons, so that Dutch Wikisourcers can work on them. Also, the persons related to Dutch Bengal are almost not represented in Wikipedia, for e.g. the Directors of Chinsurah VOC, the Dutch missionaries in Bengal etc, an area where Dutch Wikimedians can contribute largely. WMNL can also dig up old images and historical maps related to Dutch Bengal. We should definitely start interacting in meta talk page and build this project as a true collaboration. Looking forward, -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Scope should be Athyma inara inara. Also, I'm not sure it's worth creating a separate category for a sub-species when there are so few images and if you do, you should only have the image in the category Athyma inara inara not also in Athyma inara. Charles (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Yes, the habit is that the subspecies of reference has its full name only if it is necessary to do so expressly. For the other subspecies it is necessary to give the full name. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I think we should identify the nominate sub-species in a VI if we know it. It avoids confusion when someone subsequently wants to nominate another sub-species. We can use the binomial alone if we are not sure about the sub-species. I have come across many VIs of non-nominate sub-species promoted only using the binomial (some are my own!) and it wastes time when I then want to submit an image of the nominate sub-species. Charles (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Bodhisattwa, 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)

File:Pulin Behari Das.jpg

File:Pulin Behari Das.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!

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Ermita de San Vicente del Campo en La Herrán.jpg

Hi.

Rename request declined: does not comply with renaming guidelines. The reason was the file renaming criterion 1: At the original author request (me). So, why is the request declined? --Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Gonzalo P.M.G.: , The name which you requested i.e. Ermitasanvicentecampo is not a single word, I assume. Its actually, Ermita de San Vicente del Campo as in the es.wiki article, which means the previous name is good enough. Thanks -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Bike Family (5273377232).jpg

File:Bike Family (5273377232).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!

Civa (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Opium Poppy Heads

Dear Bodhisattwa, we are currently working on a student textbook with the title “Biologie” scheduled to be published in 2019. In addition an electronic version of this book is planned which will be sold to scientific institutions and libraries. In this book we would like to use the following illustration

Opium Poppy Heads (190856180).

We want to kindly ask you for the nonexclusive permission to use this material in this and future editions of our book including the electronic version and for the German speaking countries (Germany/Austria/Switzerland). Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Kindest regards--UniDuE Biodiversity (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @UniDuE Biodiversity: , The image you mentioned was taken and uploaded by Alastair Rae from London, United Kingdom in Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. I just transferred the file to Commons using Flickr2commons tools. I suggest you to contact Alastair Rae for permission. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Guru Angad helping the sicks and needy.jpg

File:Guru Angad helping the sicks and needy.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!

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)