User talk:Jkadavoor

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome, my friend! Please tell, what can I do for you?
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at

This is the user talk page of Jkadavoor, where you can send messages and comments to Jkadavoor.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | русский | +/−

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page,
I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.
An Oberoi Hotel employee doing Namaste, New Delhi.jpg
നമസ്കാരം (Namaste)

Commons Photo Challenge January 2014[edit]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Needle Galaxy 4565.jpeg/nom 2[edit]

If the picture is already FP, why then she continues open? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ArionEstar, en:Wikipedia:Featured pictures and Commons:Featured pictures are different. The other close was also invalid, even per five day rule. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuwait Towers RB.jpg, you put not the best category. Although we appreciate new comers, FPC closing is a bit trival, and fixing mistakes are a tedious task for us. So it is intended for very experienced users. Hope you understand. Jee 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
So we have to wait the nomination ends? Note that in the description page of it, it is already marked as FP. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Most Wikipedias have there own FPs. See File:The Day the Earth Smiled - PIA17172.jpg. It is featured in EN and in Commons. Jee 14:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC),_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg[edit]

Hi Jee. Just wondering if adding my FP to the appropriate category (and leaving a message on my talk page!) was still on your list of things to do or you forgot to do it? ;-) Also, it seems like the campaign to get Wikipedia to take the issue seriously regarding the Creative Commons licence 'applying to the original files and not just the image licensed' has ground to a halt... I saw Jimmy Wales responded dismissively when you mentioned it on his talk page. What next? Diliff (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Diliff, it seems that image is already promoted by the bot. We interfere only if the bot failed to do so.
  • Yes; the CC issue has ground to halt, unfortunately. See the last attempts here and here. :( Jee 04:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies. I somehow missed the bot's edit on my talk page! It's a shame that others don't take the issue as seriously as they perhaps should. It is a big flaw in the CC license. It's a tricky situation, but I wonder if we can just state that we don't license the original files when we release a particular version of an image under the CC license. It may not necessarily hold legal water if it ever came to that, but it would at least assert the wishes of the author and would make a re-user think twice (I assume most re-users don't have a good grasp of copyright law to begin with). However, does that make the image ineligible for the CC license? I've never understood precisely what Commons' stance is on additional requirements beyond the CC license. I've seen comments that it is very much frowned upon, but is it specifically disallowed? Perhaps we could even go so far as to state on the image page in pseudo-legalese something like:
  • "In all applicable jurisdictions, only this version of the image and all derivatives thereafter are released under the Creative Commons license. No other version of this image is released under CC unless otherwise specified".
This leaves the re-user to identify whether it's legally applicable in their own country. It's the best I can think of to state our intentions while not making a specific legal requirement that breaks the terms of the CC license. What do you think? Diliff (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Diliff, Saffron Blaze made an interesting move yesterday by creating User:Saffron Blaze/license. Even though whether Commons accepts such a "custom license" is not sure, adding a clause in our license tag stating "This license is only applicable up to the highest resolution of the licensed material provided here." may acceptable so far. I didn't do it so far. The main problem we are facing is the lack of a group effort from our side. :( Jee 13:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Diliff, CC have said if you try to add restrictions to a CC licence then you can't call it a CC licence and can't use their logo. I would think WMF would adhere to that and delete such pages as a violation of the terms of the licence (by the user, not the reuser). One of the benefits of using CC is that one gets a well known licence where the reuser's legal folk can examine and know from one usage to the next -- as soon as variants start sprouting up then nobody knows where they stand. I have my doubts now that any file or copy based licence will meet the Definition of Free Cultural works. I'm thinking that the whole point is to reduce one's copyright claims on the "work of copyright". Think of a photograph that gets printed in high-quality and then scanned. How could one tell if the resulting image was based on one file variant or another? I suspect file-based licensing would only work well in the digital domain along with some kind of digital signature to link the licence with the file. -- Colin (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes; any additional restrictions can be neglected. Colin, what about this template as it can be used as a friendly warning without breaking the CC terms? Jee 15:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Not keen on that template which kind of says the uploader didn't know what they were doing and isn't even clear about what they are saying now :-). A non-enforcible request to not use higher-resolution versions (or to make the reuser doubtful about such usage) isn't worth writing. Our motivation should be to make life easy for the reuser, not to make them worried. To be honest, I think the only people likely to "steal" a high resolution version and try to apply the licence for a low-resolution version are .... people on Commons. Everyone else wanting to use a "free" image doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer to work out if what they are doing is legal or not. So probably the best solution to this problem would be to
  • stop encouraging people to donate low-resolution versions with CC while thinking their higher-resolution versions are differently licensed and
  • get the Commons community to agree voluntarily to not acquire high-resolution images that are not explicitly freely licensed.
I think both tactics stand a good chance of acceptance because CC have said neither practice is safe in all jurisdictions or for all images -- you might get lucky and might not and nobody knows. So our precautionary principle should apply. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hope Commons:Same work will help to educate our media contributors.
We have three types of volunteers: 1. Media contributors 2. Volunteers help to maintain the media, respecting media contributors 3. Volunteers who have zero respect to media contributors. We have no way to deal the group 3. :( Jee 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I deliberately did not try to do what this fellow did as indeed the restriction may be ignored according to CC. I am not certain why they think the license trumps the restriction. Regardless, that is why I made my own license using 3.0 as a guide. From my reading of Commons licensing there is no prohibition to using a bespoke license so long as it meets the criteria of being free, which this does. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes; and there are so many license tags with such warnings, ads and threats. But as far as I know, they can only help to discourage the reusers from using our original files; not able to firmly stop them. I have a look at It says "Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information." So I assume we can refrain from publishing source. But ever it is published, they too fall under the free license, if we had published a final work with a free license. :(
I appreciate if you (Saffron Blaze, Colin, Diliff, or anybody interested) can initiate a discussion at per Jee 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The key word in that notice is "should" as opposed to "shall". The former is a request the latter being a requirement. If I make a collage then I should make available each of the source images not necessarily the original files; however, it is not a requirement. Here is an example: of what I think they are asking people to make available.
While people that re-use works with custom licenses, like the one I am proposing, may not have all the bells and whistles of CC license it is sufficiently legally binding that violating its terms, which include the restriction, would be a copyright violation and very much legally enforceable. If placing a restriction on a license was not enforceable then CC restriction from placing DRM on adaptations / derivatives could also be ignored.
The prospect of getting into a discussion with Free Culturists about the validity of providing restrictions... I think I'd rather chew live bees. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Jee, if an image has not become a FP, it can be nominated again? If yes, there is a time for that? Is that this nomination was not promoted and I decided to open another nomination. This is forbidden? Thanks. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, can nominate again. But I recommend that you wait for a few months first, preferably at least half a year. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
We have no concrete rules (as AK said above); but the "accepted practice" is to renominate only at least after one moth and if any modifications are done to satisfy the complaints raised in previous nom. If the failure to promote is just by marginal votes (like 6 support; less than 3 oppose), a renomination after one moth without any modification to the work is acceptable. But if no support at all other than you and the contributor or too many oppose in the early nom is a bad case for re-nom (as here). Jee 04:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Jee, I can make a Set with two images of a mushroom? I think both are the same mushroom, but the pictures were taken in different angle. The images have the same description. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes; and it seems they both collectively help to describe it in a better way. Jee 02:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Two chocolates as a thanks: one for you and one for your wife.

Hallo Jkadavoor! I would like to thank you for adding the picture into the article on en.wp. The wiki-drama is over. We all have learned something from it. Now it is high time to forgive, forget and move on. Greetings. Seleucidis (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Seleucidis; and you're most welcome. Jee 09:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Plant profiles[edit]

Jeevan, thanks for visiting my pictures. Whenever I add pics from third party I invariably add {{License review}}. --Vinayaraj (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Vinayaraj. Jee 13:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Alabarracín pano or not pano[edit]

Dear Jee, as you saw (and thanked) I changed the category of the FP File:Albarracín, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 051.JPG not just because I believe that the fortification is the main subject but also because it is possible to do real panomaric views out of that as you can see here. That's a pano, isn't it? :) Poco2 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Poco a poco: Indeed. In fact, I failed to identify it in any existing FP categories; so finally added it to panorama as it has a nearly 2:1 ratio. Thanks for choosing a better category. Jee 12:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion in Commons: Featured picture candidates[edit]

Jee, I have a suggestion in Commons: Featured picture candidates. When a registered user enters the page, he/she will receive suggestions for nominations that have not been voted on and/or that he/she has not yet voted. How about the idea? It is good? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@ArionEstar: You are welcome to make any suggestion at the relevant talk page. Jee 14:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Jee, just note regarding the category this is to be placed... well, it is neither a castle nor a fortification. It was purposefully built as the seat of the Canadian government. As such it doesn't seem to fit correctly in any of the special categories. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I had no better idea what to do with representative government buildings (like town halls, parliaments etc), and on Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_14#Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture no one had any further suggestion. Many public buildings of this kind are very similar to palaces, so the borderline is fluent and I put everything there to have comparable buildings in the same category. Now we could either remove all entries which aren't called palace and put them back to Places/Architecture (overflow again), or create a new category (not sure what one exactly), or rename the existing one (again, no idea yet for an alternative name). --A.Savin 10:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I endorse your decision here. They look like palaces of the modern/republican times. :) Jee 10:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the current solutioin makes sense, the only thing I'm not happy with is the name: castles and fortifications doesn't sufficiently match its content and may be irritating for users who aren't familiar with our FPC process. --A.Savin 11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@A.Savin: You can elaborate the explanation "For example: castles, palaces, manors, city walls / gates, citadels, fortresses." to "For example: castles, palaces, manors, city walls / gates, citadels, fortresses, city halls, legislative buildings, ..." or something similar. Jee 11:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --A.Savin 11:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Away for a day[edit]

Jee 11:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Look what they did in Template: Potd/2014-06 and Template: Potd/2014-07[edit]

Hey Jee. Look what they did in Template: Potd/2014-06 and Template: Potd/2014-07. Brazil is my country, but what they did here is not good. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; I just warned him and made a request at COM:AN for a mass revert. BTW, I hope others will fill those slots with existing FPs. Jee 02:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you & Goodbye[edit]

A thanks for your valuable contributions to Commons: beautiful pictures and wise comments
The beautiful rose is for your wife

Hallo Jkadavoor!

Before I leave Commons I would like to thank you for your kind cooperation and efforts to make Commons a better place. From the bottom of my heart I hope you will stay in contact with Russavia and help whenever necessary, because you immediately notice when things can get out of control and know how to avoid escalation. Although Commons is the subject of criticism I had a good time here. The ambiance is nice, completely different than on en.wp. I think I will miss it, but I have other things to do and I have not much to offer to Commons. I wish you and your wife all the best. Greetings. --Seleucidis (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Seleucidis; thanks for your kind words. In fact, I have no personal issues with any user here, including Russavia. I'm not a blind supporter of Jimmy too. As I said somewhere else, there are different types of volunteers here based on their viewpoints. I am a middle-ground man; like free culture and striving for it. But at the same time, I respect third party rights and don't like people infringing such rights for the sake of freedom, freedom of expression, or whatever they call it. I'm not against nude or sexual contents as far as we can ensure the subjects are fully consented (not just to take a photo but also for such a free release).
I see no reason for you leave this project. Hope you come back occasionally. I like Poland (I think you know it from the quotes in my user page); love to visit those places, one day. Hope you have a wonderful time. Jee 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Will be away for 3 more days. Jee 05:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FP category[edit]

Hi Jkadavoor, thanks for closing my FP nomination. However I'm a bit confused about the category you chose, after all there is definitely no bridge to be seen in the image ;-). Could it be that you mixed something up there? Best regards, --DXR (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@DXR: FP galleries are a bit ambiguous in their names. I'm trying to keep roads, bridges, canals, ...(all transport related constructions) together. Pinging A.Savin to look in to it and make any renaming of that gallery if necessary. :) Jee 02:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
For me, bridges are just all that fits in Category:Bridges. Roads and canals are rarely architectural works. For pictures like the mentioned one, I'd use Commons:Featured pictures/Places, which is a gallery for anything that cannot be places in a more specific category. --A.Savin 10:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done OK; it makes sense. Jee 11:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the quick clarification. Have a nice weekend! --DXR (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


No worries. I respect that some people hold that opinion. One FP per subject. I don't subscribe to it as I see that more applicable to en:FP. However in this case I was actually looking at this pic for this article: I think this image represents a limestone arch better than the one in the Durdle Door article. Cheers... Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Saffron: I too not that much tight on the one FP per subject similar view concept; glad to give allowance for famous subjects like Taj Mahal or Eiffel Tower. The Wikipedia concept is also not one FP per subject. Some articles have more than one FPs. They only check whether the two images are necessary in a single article. They have no problem if both images are in differen articles too (as in your case). But in Commons, there no scope for two FPs for File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor.JPG and File:Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus.jpg in my opinion. BTW, my opinion is not final; we have so many such FPs but with my "oppose" vote. Good luck. :) Jee 05:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


I will be away for a week. Jee 04:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


I understand what you hoped to achieve but all it has done is forced the discussion to be repeated at ANU. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The best thing we can do whenever seeing an oversight request is to blank the content and forward to an oversighter or admin. Hope they will take care of it. Jee 02:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi :), Thanks for your edit but reverted, this let users thinking that this is not the ogrinal photo. the withe border at the rights site was removed (cropbot has a little bug and say croppen hz too ;)). A lot of Bundesarchiv pages was cropped and it was never a problem. I don't understand the drama? :( --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, no offence indeed. It is pity that Commons community has no much knowledge about the developments that happened recently. People may not be aware that how a small edit like a crop will affect the moral rights. I already provided the links at Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files#Mentioning_the_modifications_made_to_the_original and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_uploaded_by_Nana_Ntumba. This discussion briefly covers all the concerns raised during the process of finalizing CC 4.0 You may argue it is irrelevant for PD; but IMHO, it is an industry standard (per ethics) now. :) Jee 12:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
For me this is resolved. I really hav no time to arugung with other users.--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

CC BY-SA[edit]

Because I did not notice it was you who tagged the file as a copyvio (if I did I would have asked you, here, first) I have requested undeletion of the YouTube video. Could you please show me a CC or CCwiki page saying what kind information is definitely required for considering a work CC-licensed? I know of creativecommonswiki:Marking your work with a CC license but it only seems to be presenting best-practise examples instead of telling what is absolutely necessary. Although of course the question is whether or not CC BY-SA is a license at all the existance of a version number is no explicit requirement stated in COM:L#Acceptable licenses ... If you are absolutely sure the file is a copyvio I will apologise for requesting undeletion and welcome redeletion (it is of course more important that we host no copyvios than that I know why the file has been deleted), if not we should maybe start a regular DR.    FDMS  4    07:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi FDMS4, hope you already understand the issue there. According to COM:L, an eligible media should be explicitly freely licensed. There is a difference between each CC license versions, we can't assume lack of version number=1. As I said there, you tagged with {{cc-by-sa}} which is only a redirect of {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}. There is no such a license like CC BY-SA without version number and we need an explicit statement from the author. Let me know if you have any further doubts. Jee 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that when copyright holders use CC licenses without giving a version number we can assume that they mean version 1.0, but at #cc (IRC) I have received confirmation that you were right telling me that CC BY-SA is not a sufficient free license. Thanks for your explanations, I am not going to upload or review such files in the future.    FDMS  4    13:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you assign rollback permission to my account?    FDMS  4    19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No. Only an admin may do so. You may request for rollback here, or request for it at an admin's talk page. Some admins here are INeverCry, Russavia, Hym411 and Natuur12. But please read the guidelines first. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I knew that (from the guideline), thought Jee was one (quite experienced).    FDMS  4    13:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@FDMS4: I'm not an admin as AK said above. Jee 13:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Lagoon Nebula by ESO[edit]

Hey Jee. The Set Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Lagoon Nebula by ESO is acceptable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

ArionEstar, I think it has "enough" supports now. :) Jee 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but does not have enough support for FP. Cheers! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


I've commented, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks for your opinion. Jee 07:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The 3 pics from Taiwan[edit]

Hi Jee, thanks for using my images on enwiki. =) I apologise for troubling you to do that because of my block over there; I was waiting for a time when my block is lifted and I can use the images there. I hope you can help me for future uploads. Anyway, please don't nominate my images, whether at or here at Commons, for any awards (FP, VI, QI) yet. I want to upload different versions of the images first, and I will nominate when that time comes. As for enwiki, may I trouble you to help me by that time, if my block is not lifted yet? Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes; off-course. :) Jee 12:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Boeing 777-200ER Malaysia AL (MAS) 9M-MRO - MSN 28420 404 (9272090094).jpg[edit]

I only compensated for ambient light, using clues in the image. You may think of it whatever you want but expressing your private opinion as "Poor edit" is rather rude. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Then may I know how he should have expressed that? IMHO "poor edit" is just a normal comment; it's perfectly fine. You have to accept critiques, unless they are too far-stretched. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


I kind of got what you were to say to me yesterday, and I would like to apologize for being such an ass to you. —Blurred Lines 12:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is OK; I personally don't care such small things. Try to learn how to be more friendly to others. Otherwise it is difficult to continue in a collaborative environment. Cheers, Jee 13:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Jkadavoor,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


As you state, the legs should be orange. Does not look like that on image.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by BubikolRamios (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the info; will search again. Jee 17:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BubikolRamios; ID fixed. Jee 16:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal Photograph[edit]

Does commons allow user to photograph their image in front of famous place/building and upload and use across Wikimedia projects? Check the last 3 images here. --AntonTalk 05:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I made DR. However, it seems error on DR. Could you have a look and fix it? --AntonTalk 07:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Jee 07:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --AntonTalk 07:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rapala manea[edit]

A lovely photograph of a lovely butterfly.Very warm regards Notafly (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Notafly:: Yes; she has two interestingly projected false eyes on flaps! I uploaded two more pictures. Thanks for the appreciation. Jee 17:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Invalid nomination on FPC?[edit]


Why did you remove this nomination? [1] Why is it invalid? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

At that time, no such page existed. Seems to be repaired now? --A.Savin 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes; and I had advised that user how to create one. :) Jee 02:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


These files looks like copyright violation as it low resolution, found in websites, etc. Could you take necessary steps? --AntonTalk 13:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Anton: Just report at COM:AN or COM:AN/U so that an admin will take care of it. Or you can make a mass DR using COM:VFC. Jee 16:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Informed at COM:AN/U. --AntonTalk 08:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist for Flickr streams?[edit]


You mentioned something about a whitelist for Flickr streams in Fastily's talk page, and said that I was against that. As I don't remember such a proposal, and even less being against it, could you please explain me what was this? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yann, if I remember will, it was in a similar discussion on Jim's talk page. Will try to find it. Jee 11:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yann, I find it. Jee 11:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think there was a clear proposal in that discussion. And I didn't say that I am against it, since because of that. What I mean to say is that such kind of proposals is like "putting a band-aid on a wooden leg". It wouldn't be really effective. The only effective mesure, specially on the long-term, is more admins. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Its OK; I respect your opinion, and you are much experienced user here. :) Jee 12:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges[edit]

Hi Jee, to finish this gallery, I do not have more than to verify if some images are not missing and it is good. After that I think that I am going to make the towers gallery, but I am perplexed for the Bridges there is a category and a gallery but for the towers there is no category, I think it will be also usefull to create a Category:Featured pictures of towers. What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian, I think it is a good idea. Jee 07:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

I will be on vacation from today onward as we are going to visit our parents. So please follow up Daniel. Have a hopeful Easter. See you next week. Jee 06:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)