User talk:Amandajm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Amandajm! Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | Català | Нохчийн | Čeština | Cymraeg | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

BotMultichillT 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Amandajm!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Hall[edit]

I notice that you uploaded a file of Ben Hall back in 2007 and described it as Ben Hall Painting. It is not a painting. It is a hand-coloured sepia photograph. Could you please get the file renamed. Amandajm (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not do it (I didn't even manage to find the file you're refering to), but you can just tag it with {{rename needs confirmation}}. // Liftarn (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Explain this to me[edit]

So if the statue of David was broken into many pieces, it would be better to take a picture of the rubble rather than keep a picture of what it used to look like? Aavindraa (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you're rampantly reverting my edits. Please do not continue reverting until we both reach a consensus. You think you're right, and I think for the most part you are wrong, and it would be destructive and pointless for us to keep reverting each other. I will await your return. Aavindraa (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for the reversion of your changes[edit]

Firstly, to answer your question about David (I take it that you mean Michelangelo's David): If David were to be smashed, then it would indeed be restored. One of the principles governing its restoration would be "integrity". It is the usual practice for any properly-done restoration where lacking material is added (eg in place of marble that was totally pulverised and lost) that the additions should be clearly visible upon examination by the unaided eye. It is also a principle of restoration that additions to the substance or other such "interventions" are reversable. In practice this means that when you restore a piece of plaster that has fallen off the wall and colour it to match the existent fresco, you also define the edge of the new work and texture the addition so that it is clear it is not the work of the original artist, and it is an addition to the actual present state of the artwork.

So if David was shattered and put back together in a modern restoration, then anyone looking closely at the statue would be able to see the break-lines and identify any missing parts that had been filled in with a mixture of mortar and powdered marble.

As you may know, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was recently restored. There has been a lot of argument that the cleaning went much too far, and that some of the decisions that were made by the restorers were not suitbale. What I want to point out is this: The restoration team spent years on those frescoes. Part of the process was to make sure that the layer of plaster on which the fresco was painted was properly adhered to the vaulted ceiling above it. In the interests of structural stability, non-reversible interventions were necessary, so that the painting didn't fall down. This meant inject adhesive into gaps between the plaster and the vault.

On the surface, bits of paint that were flaking were also reattached, but in fact very little of this had happened. The restorers cleaned the surface thoroughly, (so thoroughly it promoted outrage). But what they did not do was disguise existent cracks or belmishes or dicolouration by painting over them. If they had done this, many more people would have jumped up and down about it.

In the 19th and early twentieth century, blemishes, cracks and stains were covered up without any hesitation. Restorers filled in bits of other painters works without any conscience. This is not done any more.

The problems with what you are doing are:

  • Most significantly, you are consistently replacing a true image with a false one, ie one in which you have enhanced the colour and covered the blemishes. This process lacks the integrity one expects of an encyclopedia.
  • Secondly, you are doing what you are doing, badly! While some of your changes are relatively subtle, many of them are so extreme as to make the colours garish. It the case of the detail of the hand of Pope Julius, for example, the change introduced intense sky-blue patches to the shadows of the white surplice, and equally intense specks of yellow orchre to other parts. Neither of these colours is present in the painting. Likewise, your enhancements to the Sistine Chapel series are garishly intense.
  • You are obviously not an expert. You make changes without a proper knowledge of what you are changing. The change from the coloured version of the Leonardo to a black and white, cropped version was really unacceptable and indicates quite clearly that you were not sufficiently familiar with the picture you were editting.
  • Unless you are very familiar with the original work and have an uncommonly good memory for colour balance (a rare gift like "perfect pitch" in music) or else, you have analysed the painting and know theoretically that the artist employed Ultramarine at this point, Pthalo at that point and Indigo here (for example), then ther is a very high chance that you won't get the colour correct.
  • You appear to be using an automatic colour/tone adjustment. This has obvious risks.
  • Adjusting the colour/tone often looses the details. This has happened in a number of the pictures that you have adjusted.

Please cease making these changes to existent files. If you must do it, then upload them under another title and make it clear you have enhanced them! Amandajm (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Queenstown pic[edit]

It looks right to me: try refreshing the page, sometimes the thumbnails don't update right away. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go through and review his work after dinner. If it's as bad as you say, I'll give him a short block to make sure he gets the message. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

re: File:Profile of a Young Fiancee - da Vinci.jpg[edit]

Thank you. Postdlf (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

re:Vincent's Starry Night[edit]

Thank you for your expertise in this, as a layman, no.1 is the more pleasing image to look at, its not as harsh and is softer. no2 grates and jars and makes my eye jump about trying to find a place to rest. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that you're right (sorry too much of a cynic in me to believe every claim of expertise on the net), van Gogh wasn't considered a "difficult" artist for nothing, and why I think the image was adjusted. I think the editor involved actually did a good job of taming the image, of creating a chocolate box/post card version of the painting, but perhaps at the cost of the paintings integrity. However no image on a computer screen will ever be as good as seeing a painting in the flesh.KTo288 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to like to add to De sterrennacht, though longer discussions would probably be best on the talk page.--KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Birth of Venus Botticelli.jpg[edit]

Hello Amanda, can you please spell out the modifications you made relative to the original? Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stained glass authors[edit]

Brilliant! Thankyou very much for finding the stained glass artists. May I ask where you found this info? --99of9 (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Salisbury Cathedral[edit]

You're right. I also think that the picture was better before the perspective correction. So I have reverted the picture to the old one. --Bgag (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Gothic facades by country ... and other cat.[edit]

Hello Amandajm, I suppose that these categories might interest you Category:Gothic facades, Category:Romanesque facades, Category:Facades by architectural style. Are they all misnamed? Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo's drapery[edit]

Thanks for the note. BTW I have no time to rename the cat now (+1000 new pics in list to be uploaded), so you can change it or place there a category renaming tag. Thanks --Sailko (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have some nerve[edit]

You really have some nerve to call me a troll. I have -two- masters and ArbCom and the Foundation have verification that I am finishing my dissertation on Keats. You claimed those without a graduate education have no right to edit on architecture topics yet you have -nothing- in Literature. Then there are outright lies:

You claim the word metaphor wasn't used. Really? Perhaps you can't read: this shows it was clearly used when it says "Although there is process and the suggestion of motion within the poem, there is a lack of action. Within the second stanza, autumn is described through metaphor as an exhausted labourer in lines 14–15."

You claim that the poem has hiatus. The definition of hiatus is the use of two vowels in the row where there is a syllabic split between them. Anyone reading it would see that such is not present. This image of the source shows that Bate says it does not exist. You misrepresented a source, which is a serious offense.

Then you added this source here, claiming Bewell verifies the statement. Bewell doesn't mention -any- painting or painter on p. 178, 179, or 180. It is a comparison with Leigh Hunt's Calendar of Nature, which is not a painting.

Those are three claims that are 100% proven false. You insulted my background which ArbCom and the Foundation have proof of. You added pure original research, misstated what sources claim, and claimed verifiably wrong things about the original FA. You then removed required portions of the page to make it so it is no longer standard which is a requirement for FAs. These are serious problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ottava Rima, since you are not banned from this page, maybe we can converse!
  • Firstly, I don't think I "called you a troll". I used term in a general way to refer to those of questionable intentions, and the creation of dissent.
Keep in mind your statement that a vandal had inserted the word "cunnilingus" into the text, in order to get the whole lot reverted. I searched through every version of the article and could not find it. If you, as it appears, lied about this, then it was a case of blatant trolling which ArbCom might need to look into.
  • Secondly, with regards to my statment as to your ability to produce a worthwhile dissertation on Keats, I must restate that if what you produced on Wikipedia is any indication, then you need to knuckle down and work harder at it. Anyone who handed me an essay on "To Autumn" that failed to mention Personification would have difficulty in getting a passmark.
  • In the matter of understanding Rhythm and the fact that Bate, in discussing the percentage of times that alternatve forms were used, was referring to deviances from a norm. The norm, in the case of that poem, is iambic pentameter. If you fail to mention this, you loose further credibilty.
  • Hiatus occurs at "o'/er", "who/ever" and "dy/ing". While "o'er" might be regarded as a diphthong and even pronounced "or", the other two may not be so contracted and are examples of hiatus.
  • I must aplogise over saying that you had not mentioned metaphor. I will make that apology more public on the discussion page, if you wish.
  • With regards to Bewell and landscape, that reference is not to the book that you cited. It is a later book and the details are in the reference section. Bewell, Alan. Romanticism and Colonial Disease. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8018-6225-6 top of page 176. [1]
  • With regards the individual on the architecture page, I made no claim "that those without a graduate education have no right to edit on architecture topics". That is an exaggeration. I did suggest that one persistent individual would benefit from the same because of the persistent removal of refenced material, while not finding or writing an adequate description to replace it. My desire is to get the editor to do some really solid research into the subject, before assuming to know how the most famous church of the last 130 years ought to be described.
There is a statement in the introduction of To Autumn that says:
"To Autumn" has been regarded by critics as one of the most perfect short poems in the English language and it is one of the most anthologised English lyric poems.
If someone was to delete that statment, then both you and I, as well as others, would think that the true significance of this poem was not well enough represented. The sort of information that the editor of the Sagrada Familia page, with whom I was cross, kept persistently deleting was what the World Heritage Council and other such bodies refer to as "the statement of significance". The fact is that Sagrada Familia is unique, ground-breaking and hailed as a masterpiece of architecture. These points needs to be retained, rather than being persistently written out as "OR" Personal Opinion or Peacock language.
When something, like To Autumn or Sagrada Familia represents a pinnacle of artistc achievment, then the terms in which it is described in an encyclopedic article need to reflect that, as I am sure that you will agree.
  • Now perhaps you will tell me why you razzed up Ipatrol by stating that the article was vandalised and that someone had inserted word "cunnilingus" of which I can find no evidence?
  • And perhaps we can discuss why you are so vehemently against changes which are obviously to the benefit of the article, ie:
  1. the inclusion of the notion of "Personification
  2. the correction of the inaccuracy in the introduction about the "tastes of Autumn", so that it complied with a referenced source which you yourself (I presume) had provided.
  3. the correction to the statement that the harvester is introduced at the end of the third stanza, which is sheer unadulterated nonsense, and looses further credibilty because it looks as if the writer hasn't actually read the poem they are writing about, at least not with any comprehension.
Your objections seem to me to be personal, rather than in the interests of producing a good article. I cannot pretend that the article was well done. If having it editted takes skin off your nose, then so be it! Moreover, if you make such objection to changes that are obviously worthwhile, you do so at the risk of showing yourself in a bad light.
When you write this dissertation, then I trust that you will have learnt from this discussion and that what you write will be written with more insight, as a result.

Amandajm (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1. IPatrol was given both the vandalism by the IP and your insertion of directly false statements (see Bate example), original research (i.e. the art) and completely reorganizing an FA that has a set organization structure based on norms for poetry articles. Why he limited his response to saying it was just vandalism when, in IRC chat, he said he was reversing all the changes because they destroyed an FA without consensus, I cannot explain.
2. I have over 6 highly regarded FAs on Romantic poetry while you are trying to insert blatant original research without -any- academic background. You told another editor he had no right to alter cited information without a graduate degree in architecture and yet you try to criticize me, a very highly respected editor when it comes to content writing. You claimed you didn't say that, but you clearly did here: "Please leave it alone, unless: a) you get a graduate degree in architecture b) you get a divine revelation into just how "unique" and significant this building is."
My academic transcript:
3. "Bewell, Alan. Romanticism and Colonial Disease. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999." It is the same book with the same page numbers. Unlike you, I actually own it and sent people images of the pages. Even in your own Google Books link, there is NOTHING on art. The closest thing is ""is a veritable catalog of national imagery", which has nothing to do with painting or other artists, and it is on page 177 and not 179. 179 is, as I claimed, about Leigh Hunt's POEM. No paintings. No painters.
4. Hiatus requires -no- pause in emphasis. Compound words have pause in emphasis. This is why professional linguists who have Pulitzer prizes are credible and people without any academic background in the matter are not. Furthermore, you violate WP:V and WP:OR by trying to claim the most well-known and most highly respected critic in Keats studies is wrong. From Dictionary.com: "Grammar, Prosody . the coming together, with or without break or slight pause, and without contraction, of two vowels in successive words or syllables, as in see easily. " Your examples clearly do not apply.
5. By the way, you didn't include just the word "personification". You use that as a cover to add in blatantly wrong original research while misstating what sources actually claim. Many admin have sent me emails to say you do this often, and you've ruined many FAs with blatantly false information that you stubbornly cling to. You claim I am making it personal when you blatantly misstate what sources say. That is incredibly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Um[edit]

Perhaps you didn't notice but the page says 179 and not 176 as you then stated.

The problem wasn't on my side. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Response (also left on Ottava Rima's page)
Ottava Rima, you are almost beyond belief.
  • Yes, I did make a typo on the FA review page. But within the article itself the page number and the title of the book were both correct. You had already looked it up and accused me of being a liar, before I made the typo.
  • Out of good grace I presumed (and wrote on the FA review page) that I thought perhaps you had looked either at the wrong book, or a different edition. This seemed much politer than making some accusation about your character (as you do, repeatedly).
  • My typo (p.176) was accompanied by a direct online link to the correct page (p.179) and a suggestion that you used the arrow to find it.
Here is what you wrote, prior to my writing 176 instead of page 179.
3. "Bewell, Alan. Romanticism and Colonial Disease. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999." It is the same book with the same page numbers. Unlike you, I actually own it and sent people images of the pages. Even in your own Google Books link, there is NOTHING on art. The closest thing is "is a veritable catalog of national imagery", which has nothing to do with painting or other artists, and it is on page 177 and not 179. 179 is, as I claimed, about Leigh Hunt's POEM. No paintings. No painters.
  • I am still prepared to extend to you the explanation that, prior to calling me a liar, you had looked at a different book or a different edition, although you write "even in your own Google books link". Are you really prepared to continue to state that "the problem was not on your side", or could you see your way through to a better way of dealing with it?
  • Ottava Rima, because of this type of conduct, and the amount of my time you have wasted, I earlier suggested that you might be simply trolling. Your indignation prompted an apology from me. I hold strongly to the belief that being big enough to apologise and acknowledge error does not diminish one's character; on the contrary, it is a sign that one has grown to adulthood.
From this side, I am finding being accused of being a liar just a little tiresome. Since it is perfectly plain that I am not, how do you think you ought to approach the fact that you have delivered repeated and unwarranted insults?
  • I must tell you that the last person that I met who behaved online in so unreasonable a fashion, was using an assumed character that he was writing into a novel.
Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it was not right on the page. The page said 179. It had to be corrected to 176. That is the problem. You add references that are wrong. How do you not get the seriousness of that? You come into a page, remove all things required for poem pages such as summaries of the text instead of raw copy and pastes which are prohibited, you changed things without knowing what the sources say, say the sources are wrong in direct defiance of WP:V, and other things that are just not acceptable practices. There is nothing academic by your behavior but the direct opposite, and it is people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name because you insert blatant errors into the material and then yell at others for being upset by that. There are a lot of people in the FAC community who are absolutely disgusted with the way you take perfectly good FAs and ruin them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The article said page 179 before it was changed and there was no "link" on the article. This was clearly wrong. This is something you pretend wasn't wrong above. There are words for such behavior. I have actual degrees in the field and wrote hundreds of articles on poetry. You haven't. You didn't even have any of thte sources and your own comments show ignorance of the poem that even high school students who just had a class on it would know was wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Alan W. checked it in a hard copy and changed it. I only saw it online, not in a hard copy, so I take Alan's word for it. The book ran to several editions, which probably accounts for the difference. You can probably work that one out for yourself! You must surely have found the online copy by now? If you can't find it, then get out your book, read two or three pages in each direction, and let me know where it is, exactly. Amandajm (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Your online copy was the very same one I had in hard copy, and your own online copy verified that your page numbers were wrong and I even pointed that out twice and you still fail to acknowledge that. Why is it that hard for you to admit that you messed up and did it quite a bit? You call me a troll, yet I spent months on each of those articles, had dozens of copyeditors and checked every little detail. You went through, slopped things up, changed format from what was acceptable on poetry articles, and added false things. Don't you see how destructive that is? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici 2.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


File:Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici 2.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Gotland-Dalhem Kyrka Glasmalerei 12.jpg[edit]

Sorry for my mistakes in the descriptions of stained glass in Dalhem kyrka. I was indeed fooled by a description in a Gotland guide book and so I didn´t take a closer look as I should have done. Anyway, Petterson´s paintings look pretty medieval, don´t they ? In my home region we´ve got lots of Gothic revival panels that can easily be distinguished from true medieval ones.

Anyway I have corrected all the descriptions of stained glass panels in Dalhem kyrka using your texts, but translating them into an English and German description. I hope I´ve done everything right. Take a look and inform me if you approve of the corrections. Xenophon (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2011 ( UTC)

File:Lastjudgement.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lastjudgement.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarise[edit]

"I don't have a clue why the categories I have added don't show. I've tried several formats! I give up!". There are millions of images properly categorised. All you had to do was look at how one of them does it! And then do this edit. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi! Thanks for your message. I had just successfully categorised a number of similar pictures which all worked perfectly. I do it all the time when I upload. For some reason that I can't understand, the category simply wouldn't stick. Thank you, if you have fixed it. Amandajm (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"For some reason that I can't understand". I gave you this link to my correction. Did you follow the link? Surely you now understand? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

I see from your user contributions that are several files which you believe to be incorrectly named, and that you have added notes to the description or talk pages of said files pointing these errors out. See File:Groin Vault.jpg, for example. It would be much better if you could simply request that the file be renamed, by using the template {{rename|newname.ext|reason}}. For more information, see Commons:File renaming. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

File:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

99.127.65.92 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

99.127.65.92 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Delphi Museum2 edited.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy of painting of interior of St Mary's church Bury St Edmunds.jpg[edit]

Hello, you left me a message on my talk page. Let me be clear here. I've made over 5,000 contributions to Commons, and another nearly 24,000 to Wikipedia itself. If you find a problem with something I have uploaded, please use a civil tone in discussing it. There may be small problems here and there, although I go to great lengths to make sure my contributions are correctly licensed. Thank you for your cooperation. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Constructive criticism[edit]

Recently, I received two messages from you and neither of them was very pleasant. I don't mind criticism as long as it is objective but not when it is written by a person who seems to want to vent their personal frustrations rather than providing others with constructive criticism.

First of all your comments regarding images of Lincoln Cathedral were sent to the wrong person--Those images that you mentioned are not mine. Not only did you claim that the file names were not indicative of the content of those images, when in fact those of mine were perfectly fine, you also professed to give me a lecture on rules on how churches are named! Frankly I was pretty upset.

Regarding the facade of Abbaye-les-Hommes, Caen, you are absolutely right about the proportion but bear in mind that if it was left to the camera itself without adjusting anything, it would still be wrong -- optical illusion. A number of cameras these days try to squash the image into a frame and as a result the image comes out incorrectly. In addition, your unsigned comments belongs to the discussion page. I don't mind the comments but I very much objected to the tone. We all try our best.

Mattis (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:San Gimignano 05 crop 2.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Antelope County Courthouse, Nebraska[edit]

I'm afraid that I must admit to a near-complete ignorance of the fine points, or even many of the tolerably coarse ones, of architecture. I only classify buildings to architectural types when I've got a source for it: in this case, the Nebraska State Historical Society's NRHP in Antelope County website. The NSHS may be in error, for the reasons you mention; unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to detect such an error, and had to rely on their authority.

Note that Category:Antelope County Courthouse is in the parent Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Nebraska. If you're confident that the building's actually Classical Revival, could you change the category classification? Again, I'm loath to make such a change without a source that I can point to, whereas I assume that you could justify such a change if it were disputed.

And: I'm sure it's unintentional, but the first sentence of your comment gives it a rather condescending, not to say somewhat hectoring, tone. Your contribution history indicates that you've been reclassifying a lot of buildings apparently misclassified as Romanesque Revival, and I'd imagine that you could get frustrated with what seems like the deplorable ignorance of your fellow editors. However, you'll find others more willing to read and consider your arguments if they don't come in the context of a scolding.

--Ammodramus (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize. When you know a subject well, it can be irritating to find people making basic mistakes concerning it. I've been tempted to send off tolerably snappish messages to editors who don't know what seem to be basic facts about Nebraska history or geography; happily, in most such cases I've taken a walk around the block before hitting the "Save page" button, and cooled my temper a bit.
To change categories, click on the image or category that's miscategorized—not on the bad category—then edit the page and change the category there. It's a bit confusing, because intuition is to click on the bad category and try to change something there; but you have to edit the miscategorized object, not the incorrect category.
For example, if you want to move Category:Antelope County Courthouse from Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Nebraska to Category:Neoclassical architecture in Nebraska, you'd open the category for the courthouse and then edit it. When you do, you'll see a list of categories; change the one that you want and then save. It's a good idea to check the parent of the category-to-be-corrected and make sure you've got the right name for the new category; I, for one, can never remember whether it's Category:Neoclassical architecture in Nebraska or Category:Classical Revival architecture in Nebraska. Making matters worse still, capitalization matters: so there's Category:Greek Revival architecture in Nebraska, but Category:Gothic revival architecture in Nebraska.
I suspect that this explanation could be clearer—if you try following it and you're still having difficulty, leave me another note and I'll try to explain better. Good luck—
--Ammodramus (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Queen Victoria Building 4 adjusted.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Craftsman[edit]

As someone who is also interested in words, I noted your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel ceiling - Lunette "Hezekiah - Manasseh - Amon".jpg

"Craftspersonship" is an inappropriate and unnecessary construction. The "....man" in this word comes from the Latin "mano" for "hand" and doesn't refer to a male person. A "craftsman" is a person who uses their hands for craft."

Although it would be nice if it were so, the OED disagrees, citing that it was once two words "crafts man" and also notes the word "craftswoman", albeit as "rare".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How to rename a file[edit]

I just renamed File:Basilica di Sant'Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna.jpg. You can use {{rename}} next time (see COM:RENAME). -- Common Good (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

King and Queen of Tunis[edit]

Hello, a while ago you made a expostulation on File talk:Wenceslas Hollar - Two deformed heads behind a wall (State 2).jpg about the King and Queen of Tunis by Wenceslas Hollar. It is not sourced, so I suppose it is original research. If it is, even on a talkpage it is not appropriate, but alas! (If you have a reference, please add it.) What I need to tell you though, is that you used the wrong image to show what you wanted to tell. The correct image is Portrait of an old man, by Quinten Massijs (I).jpg. Now, I could change it on the talkpage, but since the image is more or less pivotal in your expostulation, I'd rather you do it, because it might change the conclusions you draw there. Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Chester Cathedral ext Hamilton 003.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tower[edit]

Thanks! good job!! --Sailko (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

All the pictures I have are online. The interior is not allowed to be shot, so sorry! --Sailko (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:The Holy Trinity Church, Malatia-Sebastia district, Yerevan, Armenia adjusted.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:The Holy Trinity Church, Malatia-Sebastia district, Yerevan, Armenia adjusted.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Takabeg (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Ancient Greek plan House of Colline Delos.JPG[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Ancient Greek plan House of Colline Delos.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

All Saints, Odiham[edit]

Thanks for incredibly extending that article over on the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure if my image would've gained enough support votes without the article expansion. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, it was fun to read :) I've only recently been interested in architecture and the history of buildings after taking photos of them, and I'm surprised I just walked past so much of this stuff before then. Another building I found to have a very interesting history but I couldn't find much on is St Mary's Church in Silchester. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, such a long history for something only 200 years old, I'll definitely give that a read later. When I see buildings like this it always disappoints me that I have neither the money or time to travel to them. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Window, Chester Cathedral detail of east window Heaton Butler & Bayne.JPG[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Window, Chester Cathedral detail of east window Heaton Butler & Bayne.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Rome basilica st peter 011c adjusted.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Rome basilica st peter 011c adjusted.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Leyo 13:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Brislington House chapel cosmetically improved.JPG[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Brislington House chapel cosmetically improved.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 22:28, 1 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 »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

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

Virgin of the Rocks[edit]

I'm always anxious when I promote a painting in Quality Images, Valued Image Candidate or Featured Pictures, especially when I've never seen the painting in real. I didn't know this work but I assessed it according to the rules on the VI page : a/ quality (which picture is the best in scope (... up to now) ?), b/ usefulness (is it used on some or many Wikipedia pages ?), c/trust in other users (I'm not the only one : every one can vote pro or contra within a few days with some explanations or without any). Futhermore, the assesment can be suppressed at any time if you think another picture is better in the category. There's a special part (called MVR, i. e. "Most valued reviews")on the VI page, where every one is allowed to nominate a new picture so as to replace another. So, if you think that ANGELUS' photo isn't the best, you can easily ask for a MVR or upload another version if you know where it is or if you've got one.

Anyway, I'm glad to know you're a specialist in museum practise and education : feel free to vote, to discuss and to nominate pictures on the different Commons pages. Wikipedia is a collective work and it's always very useful to get specialist's advices or works.

Sorry for my English. Friendly. JLPC (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File Name[edit]

Thanks but this is not the original name, be so kind as to mark the file for speedy deletion. Merlin-UK (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)