User talk:Danesman1

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! London Eye at night 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blackwater and Chelmer canal 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 20:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blackwater and Chelmer canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Danesman1,

Welcome in the QIC page, and congratulations for the promotions above.

But please notice that in "Commons" pictures must be categorized. And they must be categorized at a relevant level before to be nominated (in QIC and in FPC pages), according to the images guidelines. Unless this, nominations (and promotions) are not valid. No worries, I've categorize your picture. Could you please not forget this rule next time ? Thanks and have fun !--Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My votes and your requests in QIC page

Hello again, Danesman1, and welcome, another time.

I've opposed your pictures because of the images guidelines you have to read in emergency. There was recently a noticed issue with your QI promoted picture of the Essex canal. Your pictures of flowers need to be categorized correctly (you are asked for categorization during the process of uploading), and they must be identified at a good scientific level (taxon latin names + english vernacular names, for plants). One of the goals of "Commons" is to provide good and useful pictures, that's why the better identification possible is needed (even if not a always mandatory) in many cases (identification of Coats of arms, geolocation for places etc etc...). You may find help for this by asking many friends of "Commons", don't hesitate to ask, and look what and how others do. As you are a beginner, I was a beginner too !! Tip: if you are not a specialist in botanics (I'm not !), you may surely find a FAQ forum about plants identification in your own language wikipedia. So do I in the french WP. Friendly, --Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User page and talk page

Hello Danesman1.

I've made a mistake, because I made a confusion between your "user's page" and your "talk page", which seems to be almost the same. May I suggest you to create a personal user's page (like you did in english wikipedia) to avoid confusion ? Please notice that you will receive warnings for message left here, by mail and when you log in "Commons" (and not on your user's page)

Kind regards,--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

btw, I use Blues and twos too !

Hi Jebulon

Thankyou for all your help, really appreciate it.--Danesman1 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for the barnstar, I think we must help newcomers, and it is a pleasure to welcome new users.

Sadly, my English is not so good, and I'm sorry for that. But I should (try to) help you in case of need ! Anyway, you will find here in "Commons" a lot of good english speaking friends, among them very good photographers and "Commons" old timers, like User:Slaunger, or User:George Chernilevsky for instance, they are very kind and give good and helpful advices.--Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Geranium1.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  OpposeNot categorized.--Jebulon 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Good category now, opposition removed.--Jebulon (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I am new to this, please can you assist and tell me how to change this so that I can continue to do it correct in future, thankyou. --Danesman1 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC) You need to add a category with the species of the flower. Yann 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Hello thankyou for your help with this, I think I have now done this. --Danesman1 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Species name should be properly identified. Only genus name is not the complete identification. Complete identification needed. -- JDP90 18:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Believe now completed .--Danesman1 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)  Done for the good level category :Category:Pelargonium Zonal Group (redirected from Category:Pelargonium x hortorum)--Jebulon 15:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)  Support Looks good now: identification, category, and technical quality of the picture. QI, IMO.--Jebulon 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 19:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Congratulations on your recent nomination The London Eye at night photograph which achieved quality image status. Despite frequent criticisms at FPC, I'm glad to see you are recognising the critisms and building upon them in a resilient way. -- CassiantoTalk 11:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

QI nominations

Hello Danesman1, congratulations for your successful QI images. I'm here just to guide you in a small matter regarding QI nominations. While nominating others images please be sure that those images are works of commons users or else they would be declined. Because Commons QI guidelines clearly mentions: All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.
Hope to see more of your images in QI. Regards. -- JDP90 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello JDP90, thankyou for your guidance and encouragement, I will make sure of this in the future. Such a shame though some of them pictures were of good quality. Kind regards --Danesman1 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

QI Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Nicholas church, Tolleshunt D'Arcy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spheniscus humboldti in the London Zoo (01).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! London Zoo 01118.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Thank you for nominating Atlas moth.

A cookie for you! Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for nominating! Although a modified version featured I would like to thank you for drawing attention to the image. Best regards, --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canary.Wharf.Marina2.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. --Ralf Roletschek 22:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orbit2.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 Nice composition too. --Kreuzschnabel 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you. for abusing multiple accounts.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "Jim, I see you have blocked my account without any warnings and without any discussion, I have not done anything wrong to deserve this and as you can see from my home pages I am a serious wiki user which contributes alot and am learning from a lot of wiki users. My IP address may be used more than once because my computer is used by a number of friends who also use Wiki especailly some of my older friends. I respectfully request that my account is reactivated please. --Danesman1 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "see below" This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

I have sent an e-mail message to User:Danesman describing the situation. If you are, in fact, Danesman, then this block is appropriate and Danesman, the oldest account, is the one you should be using. If you are not Danesman, please have Danesman describe the situation privately by e-mail. You may also wish to refer to Commons:RFCU#Danesman1, which lays out the reason for the CU investigation. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "Hi Jim, please let me explain. The account Danesman was set up by my friend who introduced me to wikipedia and wikicommons, unfortuantly Danesman was set up for me by my friend, but I set up Danesman1 thinking you couldnt have the same user name in the different wiki's. This has made things harder when changing from wikipedia and wikicommons as they log you out each time, because of this conflict my friend deleted or at least we thought deleted Danesman and you can see Danesman has not been used for a long time. My one and only page is Danesman1 as you can see that is the page I use on a daily basis and I live with the fact it logs me out when changing between wikipedia and wikicommons. As for the user Pollycat, this is an old friend who has started using my computer, she is also interested in photography and photos and has started looking at pictures on wiki commons placing edits. She says she used to use wikipedia quite a while ago. I see she has edited some of my pictures on QI which I am aware is not allowed, what can I say apart from appologise for her actions, but this is no reflect on the work I have done and I feel it is unfair to block me infinite for someones elses comments. I have spoken to her about this and have advised her of these conditions in place and why they are in place, I also think she feels she was helping me in some way when I have obviously shown some frustration with some persons comments when declining my pictures. I hope this explains this mess and hope you can appreciate this has not been my fault. --Danesman1 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "Explanation accepted. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

First, since you have both Danesman and Danesman1 here on Commons, why not use the same name on both WP:EN and Commons? Danesman1 can be moved to Danesman with the help of a bureaucrat, see Commons:Changing username and particularly Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests.

Second, please tell your friend Pollycat that two people acting in concert -- what we call meatpuppetry -- is frowned upon. It is OK for her to comment on your images, or to follow your comments, but full disclosure is a good idea -- she might simply add "(full disclosure -- I'm a friend of Danesman)"

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Citrus Swallowtail Papilio Demodocus Butterfly.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 Please categorize properly (species level). Biopics 23:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)  Support Category now OK. --Jkadavoor 09:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

QIC comment and discussion

Hi. Sorry about being too harsh the other day, it wasn't my intention. Generally I don't like nominators changing the status of the nominations, I think that should only be done in case the reviewer doesn't answer about a question or update, so that the image doesn't disappear from QIC page. Nominator and reviewer can discuss with red border, with blue border or even with a green one. Consensual Review is intended to be a place to reach a consensus but just because two reviewers didn't agree about the picture, and only in special cases because there are differences between nominator and reviewer. I have some images whose nomination failed because I couldn't improve the technical issues (or whatever), but I thought they were completely worth QI status. I try to write helpful reviews, but I can't always get it. Regards, --Kadellar (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not supposed to delete messages as you like

Hello, I recovered the messages you deleted. You cannot just delete them because you don't like them. You can only delete messages from the talk pages if they can be considered as vandalisms, but I think that it was not the case. You can archive the talk page, though, and place a visible link to it. Thanks for your understanding. Poco a poco (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to English Wikipedia -- and a personal remark

Hello Danesman1,

I saw that on your Commons user page you tried to put a link to your user page at the English wikipedia. You can do that in the way I used in the previous sentence, by prefixing the page name with ":en:", like this: [[:en:User:Danesman]].

An aside which is only my personal opinion, and of course you are free to ignore it: Today on the QI candidate list you inserted several requests saying "Please can you explain your comment in english for all to understand, thankyou." I see from your WP user page that you are "proud to be English", so I understand your motivation. And you may be right that it is by English that the highest number of active Wikimedians can be reached. Still, I find your expression "for all to understand" a tiny little bit pretentious.

As you can see it is very cumbersome for me to write in English, though I have spent thousands of hours and considerable amounts of money to study that language. I cannot claim to be one of the "all" that are fluent in it. Maybe putting yourself, for a moment, in the situation of one who has problems understanding details of English discussions might help you to bear with an occasional non-English remark in a QI discussion.

Wikimedia Commons has a rule that category names should be in English; I am not aware of a similar rule for QI discussions but even if it exists there might be a less condescending, and certainly more effective, way of requesting its enforcement.

No harm meant. Have a nice day. -- Aisano (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Danesman1,

I a truly sorry if you felt any need to apologise. That, in turn, was not my intention, and I interpreted your Union Jack in just the way you meant -- saying from where you are and, yes, what your native tongue is. That's what I meant by saying I understand your motivation.

As I said it is probably true that the English language reaches the highest number of Wikimedians. On the other hand the vast majority on the QI candidates page is already in English; so maybe it is not necessary to complain (again, I feel this is not the right word, so please do not feel offended about it) about the tiny rest.

That's all, I think. Please keep up contributing to Wikimedia Commons, and please bear with comments of non-native-speakers who sometimes do not manage to express themselves the way you could.

(I see no need for an answer but if you wish you can answer right here. I will check some time or other.)

Have a nice time, --Aisano (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aerlingus.a321-200.ei-cpe.arp.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. --Kreuzschnabel 03:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Klm.b737-300.ph-bdp.arp.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 picture of good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 20:45, 3 Ocotober 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Virgin atlantic b747-400 lady penelope arp.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. --Iifar 18:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Qantas a380 vh-oqa takeoff heathrow arp.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 Very good -- Lothar Spurzem 22:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Qantas b747-400 vh-ojp arp.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 -- Lothar Spurzem 14:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Virgin atlantic b747-400 g-vbig arp.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 Very good photo -- Spurzem 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ba a319-100 g-euog arp.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 -- Lothar Spurzem 20:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tolleshunt D'Arcy maypole, from east.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 QI for me. --JLPC 17:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lufthansa.a319-100.d-aili.arp.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 Very good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 12:54 4 November 2012 (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:
Somatochlora arctica (Northern Emerald), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Great picture, but the scope is not properly formatted. Reread recommantations and get inspired images in competitions. It lacks the geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I fixed the scope. Yann (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

From VI

Rainbows on Clacton On Sea in Essex UK. Here is the exact syntax of the single scope possible. Change the scope and put the geodocage place is essential. Bonne Journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Good for the scope. Place the geocoding on the caption of the image. If you do not know called me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello thankyou for your help and encouragment, its very much appreciated. Im not sure what geocoding is, would you mind helping me with this and explaining what I need to do, Many thanks once again. --Danesman1 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Danesman1. You may find all the interesting informations about geocoding in COM:GEO. Geocoding is interesting, funny, very useful, and...a mandatory in VIC. Now, I geocode almost automatically all the pictures I upload. There are many ways to do this. Keep going ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not very complicated. You go into Google maps and you find where you did the photography. With a right click you will have two digits. It suffices to put these numbers into the formula {{location dec | 43.59389716831656 | 1.4492297172546387}} (these are those of the Toulouse Museum) and you put this line in the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou both, I think I have done it now and am pleased to have now learnt something new and understand how to do this. --Danesman1 (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Danesman, There is a special template to change the scope during the review period : {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}. I've fixed it for you. I've also added two relevant categories on your image of remarkable English weather:) Greetings, --Myrabella (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow

Congratulations on your pugnacity. Your rainbow will be promoted! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (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:
Rainbows.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Dear Danesman1, your "scope" is not good. It must be related to a category, or to a gallery. The goal and purpose of the VI project is to distinguish the most valuable (not the best, not the most beautiful), but the picture among others of the better value in a predeterminate "scope", or "domain" you are free to chose. Not an isolated picture is worthy to became a VI.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Good scope now. Please, place the geocoding on the caption of the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This scope is too narrow for me. I don't think we should have a different scope for rainbows in every places. It would be a good candidate for Rainbows. Yann (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I have placed the geocoding on the image, hopefully in the correct place. Thankyou for your help with thisUser:Archaeodontosaurus and User:Jebulon.--Danesman1 (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support VI for me --JLPC (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Yann. Scope is too narrow. cmadler (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Rainbows on Clacton On Sea in Essex UK to Rainbows --Myrabella (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Change made by Myrabella on behalf of Danesman1

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Comment I have tried to change the scope to make better, if this is not good enough please can you assist and help me change the scope or give tips to make better, thankyou.--Danesman1 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done I have fixed the change of scope following Yann's suggestion and using the appropriate template. Remember: previous supporters must confirm their support vote. --Myrabella

(talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met. I've added the categories "Clacton-on-Sea" and "Rainbows in England" --Myrabella (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met. --JLPC (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Best in new scope. cmadler (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support OK now. Yann (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iceberg near sanderson hope 2007-07-24 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Though a tiny picture. --Martin Falbisoner 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iberia a320-200 ec-jsk arp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:London 2012 flags.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:London 2012 flags.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.

KTo288 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags

---

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from images that you have uploaded yourself. If you do not believe the image deserves to be deleted, then click "Challenge speedy deletion" to convert the tag to a regular deletion request. Thank you.

Change from speedy to DR if you must, theres a handy button, don't just remove the speedy.--KTo288 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

File:London 2012 flags.jpg

File:London 2012 flags.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!

KTo288 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

File:View from Burj Khalifa Dubai.jpg

File:View from Burj Khalifa 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 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!

Ras67 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 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 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!

Affected:

• File:Atlantis Palm Dubai.jpg

Yours sincerely, Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)