User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2022/Q3

Copyrighted images

I see you are familiar with copyright protected images. I came across this image, and also found it here. I suspect the Commons editor also owns the Flickr account. Should I just message the Commons editor and ask them to remove the copyright from their Flickr photos? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Properly speaking, "ask them to remove the copyright from their Flickr photos" is a nonsensical statement; what you mean is "ask them to change the Flickr license to a free license". Anyways, I see that the username matches between Commons and Flickr and it's a pretty unique username, so at the very least they are claiming to be the same user. But the critical piece of evidence which proves that the Commons user is not an imposter of the Flickr user is that the resolution of the Commons file is higher than the Flickr file. It'll certainly be nice to have matching licenses (and help avoid deletion tagging by overzealous patrollers who are not careful), but not strictly necessary IMO as I am sufficiently convinced they are the same person, and a copyright holder is free to release the same image on multiple platforms under different licenses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello. Any updates on File:Gisele Bundchen 2018 clear original.jpg and File:Gisele Bundchen 2018 clear original (cropped).jpg? --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Minorax: Looks like we still haven't received anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Casio Japan Confirms F91W-1 Release Date.png

File:Casio Japan Confirms F91W-1 Release Date.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

DontThinkMuchTwice (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Final Comment on Saudi flag

Hi, I appreciate your efforts on ending the reverting war on Saudi flag and I’m here to clarify my last points regarding this issue.

1- it’s not about whether the flag must be overwrite or not, it’s about how accuracy the flag is and how it’s identical with the source (Royal Decree 1973)

2- when I reported the issue to administration notice board , the admin @LaundryPizza03 supported my version and called for every Saudi flag to be reconstructed. [1] [2]

3- as I said before, it’s not necessary to create file (type 1) because there is already original one and there is a variant version (type 2) so I request you to dismiss the idea of creating (type 1) .

4- all these conflicts were created by one user : @Xpërt3 when he started reverting my edits for nearly 2 weeks over his illogical arguments and didn’t provided one reliable source to prove his words so all these conflicts shouldn’t existed in the first place.

5- the (Vexilla Mundi) version was actually uploaded 2 years ago by user @Alhadramy Alkendy and it’s unreliable source comparing to the government website. [3], It also didn’t match the 1973 royal decree so no need to be approved.

6- as I said before, you can create a similar flag to [flag of Saudi Arabia.svg] with small edits on the script to prevent Overwriting existing files & make the flag more accurate to the (Royal Decree 1973). Same thing with the (Vexilla Mundi) version.

7- I request the admins to permanently protect that file to avoid any reverting that has been taking place for years. The last file uploaded on USA’s flag occurred on March 2015, UAE on December 2018, Argentina on September 2012, Germany on September 2007 and they are all Protected files. This time a new measure must take place on all Saudi Arabian flags to end this endless reverting war. Aziz bm (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: The problem is that not everyone agrees with you that your preferred version is the correct one to have at File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. Let's be clear that you are the one who started the edit war at 07:28, 15 June 2022. The purpose of creating (type 1) and (type 2) is just to provide different options for people to vote on. Unfortunately it seems like LaundryPizza03 has not been active lately so I might need to start the RfC myself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I don’t care about some people disagreeing with me as much as I care about facts. And if they didn’t agree that my version is correct then I’ll leave these images for them

1-[4] 2- [5] 3-[6] 4- [7] picture 6 of 20 5- [8] 6- [9] Royal Decree 1973

I think it’s very clear, both official flags and the royal decree share similar calligraphies. Aziz bm (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hi homie could you review these 2 files please just uploaded. Are you a license reviewer?

File:Conde Só Brega - 2022-07-10 144101.png
File:João Gomes Caruaru - PE São João 2022-07-10.png LeonaardoG (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: It looks like this YouTuber, Emerson yslley, primarily reviews videos made by others. So the clips of himself speaking are indeed under the Creative Commons license, but there is no evidence he has the authorization to release others' videos under CC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Please check this File:(1) Priscila Senna Record TV, 2022-05-24.png, so i can use it on Wikipedia. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have accepted it. Even though her video stream is not directly produced by the TV channel, COM:ZOOM seems to suggest it is OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @King of Hearts: , could you help me to verify this file, please, it was uploaded recently and has a compatible license. -- Leonaardog (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @King of Hearts: , Please review this file: File:"(2019)" Gravação do DVD Priscila Senna - 10 anos de carreira no Clube Português do Recife.jpg. The font is from Vimeo, a Commons-compatible license. -- Leonaardog (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User uploading copyrighted material

Hello, there is a user here on commons: napoleonjosephine2020 who keeps uploading the same image from an instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfEw2yKLpuM/?hl=en which has been speedily deleted from commons two times and i have already given him a warning about doing this. It is really starting to get annoying and I believed it was finally time to get an admin involved. This is the latest reupload he did with yet another new file name: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LindyLi2022.jpg Putitonamap98 (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. No more action necessary since you've already given them a warning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 005.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 005.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Királd megállóhely.jpg

Hey, seeing that you have – completely rightfully – replaced my copyvio template with the template asking for permission, I've decided to dig further and managed to find the source of the image. I believe now we have sufficient grounds to delete it.

Thanks, everyone's favorite Blua lago(let's have a chat y'all) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Noem Portrait.jpg

Hello, thank you for reviewing the Kristi Noem portrait I uploaded. I am wondering why this was deleted previously (via speedy deletion I might add) by User:Túrelio. I don't have a ton of familiarity with Commons, just WP, so I was wondering why you reviewed this photo, but when I uploaded the same photo with the same licensing information, it was deleted. It wasn't until I contested the (speedy) deletion that it was kept. I am looking to understand Commons better, thanks. --InTheLoops1 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@InTheLoops1: We get a lot of copyright violations uploaded which need to be processed quickly, so sometimes people don't check the copyright statements on the page carefully when deleting. To make sure people take a second look, you should add a {{LicenseReview}} tag if the external source has a free license stated, and otherwise tag with {{subst:PP}} if you intend to have the copyright holder send an email to COM:VRT agreeing to the license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I suppose I could do that, but in this case it doesn't even seem as if it were checked at all, not even briefly. The license disclosure is literally below the image on the website. How more clear could that possibly be? I know I'm rambling, but it is discouraging to say the least. --InTheLoops1 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@InTheLoops1: Unfortunately people tend to make assumptions when they've seen a lot of similar images. Except for a few states like California and Florida, works by state governments are generally not public domain and they almost never use a CC license, so somebody just made an assumption along the way that it couldn't be properly licensed. Hopefully this doesn't happen a majority of cases. But by providing more information and using the templates I've suggested, you can help protect your uploads from inadvertent deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Npd?

Hi King of Hearts. What do you think about File:SMM still 1 (1).jpg and File:Marcia Griffin.jpg? Do you think they should be VRT verified? FWIW, similar photos can be found here and here. Perhaps the uploadeds to Commons were parts of sets of photo taken of Griffin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tagged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

file:Kevan_Barlow.jpg

Hi, what exactly is the issue with Kevan_Barlow.jpg ? I am contacting you on behalf of Kevan Barlow. The photographer has already emailed Wikimedia and cleared the rights for this photo to be used. What else is needed? Please provide exact instructions so I can pass on. Neither the photographer nor Kevan Barlow are familiar with the requirements and I am trying to help them get the pic posted. Jerseyfire (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jerseyfire: I cannot find the sender's email address online, so we don't know if this email address belongs to some imposter merely pretending to be the photographer. The photo has shown up on Getty Images, so we need to be extra careful that whoever is claiming to be the copyright holder is actually the copyright holder. Therefore I suggested that he take a photo of the negative to prove his authorship. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I spoke to Kevan. The photo that Peter Brouillet has authorized is this one [File:Kevan Barlow 2.jpg]. He took both photos, but the one you put up has not been cleared for use. Only [File:Kevan Barlow 2.jpg] is cleared and the one he emailed about. You also will not find this anywhere online. It came from his own personal files. So you can go ahead and delete file:Kevan_Barlow.jpg. There was some kind of confusion because someone else had added the same image with the same name before, so when Patrick stated the file name, someone at Wikimedia recovered the first deleted version not the 2nd version. Jerseyfire (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also Kevan said that if there is any doubt in its legitimacy, you can contact Patrick at his instagram to verify. https://www.instagram.com/peterbrouillet/ Jerseyfire (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 18:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Quick update on behalf of the Commons Photographers User Group

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I hope you're well and enjoy taking photos for Wikimedia Commons. Here are a couple of quick updates on behalf of our group:

• Our next virtual meeting will take place on Saturday, August 27. At this point we have two presentations lined up:

• Suitable! Unsuitable! How to choose photos for a Wikipedia for children, “Klexikon” (Ziko)
• The aperture and its (less known) effects (XRay)

You can sign up for the event on this page: Virtual Meeting on August 27, 2022. – Given that we can accommodate more speakers, I'll invite you to get in touch with me in case you'd like to present on the 27th. You can reach me any time on my talk page or by sending a quick email.

• Also, we now have a page for local events organized by members of our user group: Local events 2022. Please check it out and consider organizing an event yourself!
• And finally, we're planning on offering a Post-processing Workshop on October 8. Please save the date; an events page with more information will go up later.

Thanks for being a member of our group and for sharing your works under a free license. Have fun taking pictures!

All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision delete

Hello, on File:Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg, I tried to restore the colors, but in doing so I accidentally added a horribly misplaced paint circle onto one of his teeth, could you remove the revision so nobody mistakes it for intentional vandalism? Thank you. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't think anyone will have that confusion, but I went ahead and did it per your request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Holes in teeth is associated with bad dental care, so I was worried someone might think that I was trying to make him look ugly via vandalism, thank you. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 20:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

给您一个星章！

	摄影师星章
	Nice photo! Charlie fong (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Why the ZoomViewer mode of this file is incomplete?

Hello

Please check why the ZoomViewer mode of this file is incomplete?

یا ثارالله علیه السلام.jpg

Please review and correct.

Thank you

Koorosh Orooj

Best regards کورش عروج (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Open Request

Hello. Can you solve this case of copyright violation? The query was opened a week ago and no sysop has been interested in solving it. The given links prove these logos are a clear violation of copyright, and no one has proven otherwise. Thanks. 2A02:2454:421:900:9CC5:6D69:C5C2:DAFD 23:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Alexander-93 09:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 10:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lincoln Park Jersey City September 2021 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crater Lake October 2019 015.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

POTD Notification

⭐ The file you uploaded, is on the main page! ⭐ The file File:Chimney Rock Trail Point Reyes December 2016 panorama 2.jpg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

CNN logo

Hi, can you also restore the redirect File:Cnn.svg so it doesn't appear broken on old revisions as it was linked on several wikis prior to being deleted. Thanks Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 12:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

protection

can you "protect" a file against vandalism? info is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gogolplex#vandalizm ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You're invited to provide input…

Dear fellow member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

At our last meeting end of August, we talked about getting in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation and offering our help for improving Wikimedia Commons. Today, I invite you to provide your input on a draft open letter to the Foundation. Over the course of the next ten days, we'll further improve the text together, before inviting people to sign it. If you're interested in providing input, please engage in the discussion on the talk page of the draft.

In the meanwhile, I hope you're well and have a great time taking photos! All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Files nominated by Абдырашит Сатылганов

With reference to your reverts on Абдырашит Сатылганов's uploads, I have nominated {{Sputnik.kg}} for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sputnik.kg. So should I wait until the template is deleted, or can those files that are originally tagged with copyright violation can be processed for speedy deletion? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: COM:CSD#F1 says: "Content is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder." Therefore, for the purposes of speedy deletion, any license tag should be assumed to be valid unless and until it is deleted in a DR. The uploader has made a good-faith claim of a free license, so we should give them time to notice the deletion request and present evidence in support of their claim. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. While I doubt whether the user is really in good faith (given by his numerous past offences: [10], [11] and [12] plus cover up attempts by deleting them), I think after the template itself is properly dealt with, then the remaining files can be deleted under {{No license}} or something else.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)