User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2023/Q2

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

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Genetti Hotel Williamsport October 2021 HDR.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 17:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yardarm Motel Searsport October 2021 HDR.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 17:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Conrad Las Vegas at Resorts World February 2023 HDR.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 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Las Vegas Strip from Resorts World February 2023 HDR 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. Well-executed night shot. --Mike Peel 21:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Las Vegas Strip from Resorts World February 2023 HDR 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Pi bot (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CA-84 Woodside April 2023 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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CA-84 Woodside April 2023 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 -- Johann Jaritz 04:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CA-84 Woodside April 2023 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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emmamarriage.jpg[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. Since you're an admin on both Commons and Wikipedia, I wondering if you think File:Emmamarriage.jpg is OK as licensed. If it is, then there's really no longer any justification for the non-free en:File:Emma Tenayuca.jpg per en:WP:F7 and en:WP:FREER. If it isn't, then the non-free file can be kept, but the Commons file will need to be dealt with. At the same time, if the non-free doesn't need to be non-free (e.g. {{PD-US-not renewed}}), then it probably should be moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not OK as licensed (CC-BY-SA 4.0), but either "no notice" or "not renewed" could apply. You can try to look for evidence of either, and if you can't find any, nominate it for DR per COM:PRP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CA-84 Woodside April 2023 HDR.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. --Rjcastillo 05:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King.[edit]

Hi King,how how are you? I hope fine. Sorry to disturb you,based on of this request [1].Do you know where I could make an 'aminist' request? If I can of course, just to upload photos and of course have no problems with anyone and not participate in FP? Thank you and Happy Easter 🐣 151.43.129.168 13:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you....--151.43.204.116 11:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessica Nabongo.jpg[edit]

What do you think about this file's licensing? The names of the uploader and the author are different, but that doesn't mean they aren't the same person. There's also no EXIF data and the file does appear like it's been enlarged quite a bit, but again that doesn't mean it's not OK as licensed. The photo can't be found online as is; it does show up in search results here, but it's not being used on that website (perhaps it was changed). The photo does, however, look like a crop of this one, which is attributed as "courtesy of Jessica Nabongo". It appears to be the only file uploaded by this user and the uploader might somehow be connected to the IP asking about photos at en:WP:THQ#How do I post an image when the account is locked, which is how I came across the file. My feeling here is that the subject of the article has asked someone to update it and add this image to it, but that's just a hunch. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough doubt to tag as "no permission". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I know....[edit]

Hi @King of Hearts, I add new things to my experience on daily basis. I recently added no-permissions on some files based on my understanding of certain aspects, may I know what did I miss in File:Al-Aqsa Mosque-Jerusalem.jpg and the other two images of Tajul Masajid? My main reason was the low quality of images and the missing/altered meta-data and that's what made me add the tag. I would be happy to know more from you. Thanks in advance. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: See Commons talk:Deletion requests#iPhone strips EXIF from HEIC when converting to JPEG, where I discovered that seemingly normal ways of uploading images from a mobile phone cause the EXIF to be stripped. So "low-res without EXIF" is not a reliable indicator of "not own work" and should not be used as the sole reason for deletion.
Often it is a judgment call. In general, pictures of landscapes, tourist sites, etc. are very likely to be own work, and should be presumed to be own work when tagged as {{Own}} unless there is evidence to the contrary, such as prior publication on a non-free website or uploader history of copyvios. Professional portraits uploaded by new users are often not own work, and so it is reasonable to tag them as "no permission", unless clearly described as own work in the text of the description (e.g. "selfie", "taken on tripod with self-timer", "taken by me", "Photography: [username]") without there being evidence to the contrary. In the case of File:Taj-ul-Masjid-1.JPG, while aerial photos are often not own work, I see the smudge on the right, which means that it was not a professional aerial shot and instead was shot through a window. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts, looks reasonable. Thanks for linking the discussion for me. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Poland[edit]

Good morning, a short question: what are the legal grounds for marking this (and the others) as PD-Poland? This license can only be used for the works which which were published (in print) before May 1994. Posting on Facebook does not meet this essential legal requirement. I would be grateful for explanantion. Thank you. Boston9 (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boston9: "No permission" should only be used if the image is claimed to be released under an actual free license, but either it is not claimed to be own work and there is no evidence that the copyright holder has agreed to the license, or it is claimed to be own work and you don't believe the claim. It should not be used to dispute PD rationales. I have replaced the tag with the most likely PD rationale to apply in this case. If you wish to dispute the validity of the PD status, you can file a COM:DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:CA-84 Woodside April 2023 002.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CA-84 Woodside April 2023 002.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi. User:Orijentolog, At first, he edited a page of his own accord, and there was no evidence to change the name of that page. In the following, he has linked me to another user without any evidence and has started an editing war two hours ago. He far from complying with the law, he edits my page. I tell him to please stop his destructive activities, but he continues his behavior. Please stop the destructive activity of this user. I am sure this user will message you and repeat his false claim. I asked him more than twenty times not to edit my page and not to leave a message for me. But he continues to work. Ngsharif (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ngsharif is a sockpuppet of globally blocked user who is abusing Wiki projects for several years. Just for the notice. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention that he insults users with extreme arrogance and edits other people's pages. Every second of this user's activity causes the Wikipedia environment to crash. Ngsharif (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngsharif, I'm an editor with hundreds of thousands of edits over the past two decades here, with clear history, and you're globally blocked user who started edit warring with very second edit of your newest sock account. You won't fool anyone with your twisting. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Again a false claim. Yes, your editing is clear. I asked you not to edit my page, but you repeated it again. Am I fooling or are you? You edit all pages of all users. Who gave you permission to do this?!! Your activity is darker than night. Dark with insults and destruction.Ngsharif (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:2degrees logo.svg[edit]

Hi. This file has an incorrect license aswell as being a non-free file. What to do about this? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've already filed a DR, so there's no further action required from you. There is a backlog so it might be a while before the DR is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks Kiwiz1338 (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narzo 30 Pro 5G.png[edit]

Hi again King of Hearts. What do you think about File:Narzo 30 Pro 5G.png? It looks more like something lifted from a website than an actual photo taken by the uploader. The same image also can be seen here, but I've got no idea as to whether that predates Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Denisvldk[edit]

I don't want to cross the red line of 3RR, but after diving into the watermarks appended on the uploader's uploads, it is confirmed that 2 of the uploader's files are indeed downloaded from the website of wuhanshi.ru (most likely the others are gone in deleted webpages). The website states its photos are taken by photographer Denis Kim (Денис Ким). I see no similarity for the author's name with the account name, so can this be deduced as conclusive evidence of missing permission for the watermarked files?

P.S. the corresponding sources:

Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@廣九直通車: How exactly is "Denisvldk" not similar to "Denis Kim"? To me it is most likely that they are the same person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the "vldk" part of the uploader account does not correspond to the photographer's last name. They're not that substantially similar?廣九直通車 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but "vldk" is not a last name at all, so you cannot conclude that they are different people. For me, if an uploader claims "own work" and shares either a first or last name with an externally credited author, without a clear mismatch in any portion of their name ("cannot tell from the username" is not a mismatch), then at the very least they are claiming to be the same person (so the only chance that they are not the copyright holder is if they are an imposter, which happens much less often than taking credit for other people's work while remaining honest about their own identity). For me, the consistent EXIF and inclusion of a few uploads taken with the same camera without a watermark are sufficient proof of identity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Maybe for clarification I could notify the photographer using his website's feedback form (things would be the clearest if he could send us OTRS), but I'll not pursue these files for deletion per your advice.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth 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 (2022) 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 two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with uploading a .mp3 file[edit]

Hello King of Hearts. I wish to upload a .mp3 file (source: [4]). I believe the audio recording is in the public domain. The website says that it was created by Bronisław Piłsudski: [5] He died in 1918: [6] So the recording is in the public domain in all countries whose copyright term is life + 100 years. FunnyMath (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunnyMath: What issues are you having with the upload? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MP3 uploads are restricted for me because I don't have autopatrol. FunnyMath (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunnyMath: I have given you autopatroller. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! FunnyMath (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 003.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 003.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:RVIC Optimized for web.jpg[edit]

Is the licensing on File:RVIC Optimized for web.jpg OK as is or should {{Licensed-PD-Art}} be used instead of {{PD-Scan}}? A picture of this bible was originally uploaded locally to Wikipedia as en:File:RVIC Bible cover.jpg, but there was no reason for that per en:WP:FREER since the cover art is essentially nothing more than gold text on a black background. I explained this to the uploader at en:User talk:PBI-Jeff and suggested they simply upload a straight-on image of the cover, which they did; however, they apparently didn't take the photo themselves but had it taken by another person, who sent it to them for uploading. The uploader uploaded the photo using {{PD-Scan}} (as I suggested) but just used a boilerplate license for the cover; they did attribute the photographer as the author in the file's information. It's seems like this is simply a case of c:COM:2D copying with no new copyright being generated for the photo, but not sure if it's just OK for a {{PD-textlogo}} license to be used without any wrapper for the photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think any time the digitizer does something more sophisticated than put the object into a scanner, it should be PD-art instead of PD-scan, because the UK might consider it copyrightable due to the "skill and labour" test. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be the case and that means {{Licensed-PD-Art}} should be used for the wrapper, correct? Is simple attribution to the photographer OK or do they need to explicitly pick a license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the photograph is unlicensed, then {{PD-Art}} should be used. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the licensing. Does it look OK now? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:MD Alam Balal ( চেয়ারম্যান আলম বেলাল).jpg[edit]

Do you think is safe to assume "own work" for File:MD Alam Balal ( চেয়ারম্যান আলম বেলাল).jpg? File's currently not being used anywhere, but it was being used here. There's no source or other identifying information provided other than what's written in the file's description. The EXIF data is similar to what you find when photos are downloaded from Facebook and then re-uploaded here. It's possible that this was an an attempt by en:Special:Contributions/103.189.156.84 at en:WP:AUTO, but I'm not seeing anything in that draft to indicate the subject meets en:WP:BIO. Even if the licensing is OK, I'm not sure this would be considered in COM:SCOPE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to take a rather permissive line when it comes to simple phone photos of random people, even if they have FBMD. I'm more concerned about whether it's in scope, and I think it's reasonable to nominate it for deletion on those grounds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this. Do you think this particular file falls outside of COM:SCOPE? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) 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.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issa (clan) image gallery[edit]

What's your take on the licensing of the nine files being used in the image gallery in en:Issa (clan)#Clan tree? Six of the files are sourced to Gallica BNF, but I can't find any mention of a license on that particular page. Gallica BNF seems to be en:Bibliothèque nationale de France and my guess is that these are digitial reproductions of some very old, possibly even now public domain, photos. I don't see how they can be licensed CC-by-sa-4.0 since that would mean that Gallica is the original copyright holder, wouldn't it? The remaining three files are all attributed to someone named Aubret De La Rue and said to date back to 1939. Once again, I don't think these can be "CC-by-sa-4.0" unless the uploader is De La Rue themselves or possibly an heir. My hunch is that these were uploaded in good faith, but still might be a case of COM:NETCOPYVIO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 1885 photos are OK since Philipp Paulitschke died in 1899. I haven't done significant research into the 1939 photos, but if you can't find any evidence of PD status feel free to nominate for DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the licensing on the 1885 photos be changed to {{PD-US}}, {{PD-US-expired}} or something similar? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-old-70-expired}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Battery Park City New York January 2018 002.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Battery Park City New York January 2018 002.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:TH3697.jpg[edit]

Any thoughts on the validity of the licensing of File:TH3697.jpg? Looks like it was taken at the same event as this and this. Does the background pose any problems from a Commons standpoint even if the file is "own work"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the background, the uploader has enough proven copyvios that any low-res files without EXIF from them should be considered suspect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. Do you think a DR is necessary or can it simply be tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio? In addition, the uploader seems to be making a claim of copyright ownership on their user talk page with respect to at least one of the other files they uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never tag as copyvio without clear proof. So either DR or "no permission" is fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the file as "npd" and apparently someone did send in an email. The file has been tagged with {{Permission received}}. This brings me back to my question about the background if the email is ultimately accepted by VRT. Can it be treated as "incidental"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine, it's focusing on the person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amedeo IX di Savoia fa la carità.jpg[edit]

hi, I would like to ask you if you could restore me this portrait done around the middle of the 17th century?? 191.186.106.34 16:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hello @King of Hearts. I don't understand why you took off the speedy deletion request from my drawings (human portraits) whereas they enter in a case of derivative works which can be treated with a speedy deletion. So, why did you do that ? (Sorry for my bad english). Olga Rithme (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an obvious case, and someone else has even !voted to keep at the DR. So best to let the DR continue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2023/Q2&oldid=781214842"