User talk:Mattbuck/Archive5

Archives October 2007 - June 2008 June 2008 - August 2008 August 2008 - December 2008 December 2008 - April 2010 April 2010 - September 2010 September 2010 - May 2011 May 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - March 2012 April 2012 - July 2012 August 2012 - October 2012 November 2012 - January 2013 February 2013 - April 2013 May 2013 - July 2013 August 2013 - October 2013 November 2013 - December 2013 January 2014 - February 2014 March 2014 - April 2014 May 2014 - July 2014 August 2014 - September 2014 October 2014 - November 2014 December 2014 - February 2015 March 2014 - September 2015 October 2015 - December 2017 Current

File:Sentinel at Radstock 1952 cropped.jpg

Hi Matt, did this one wait seven days since tagging, or was it deleted immediately? It's in use in a :en:WP article I've been working on and it's a pretty obscure subject so I'm loathe to lose it. I don't recall seeing a tag going onto the page recently, so hadn't tried to obtain a source for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy. You#re right, I didn't wait 7 days, I've been performing a mass trim of User:Duncharris's uploads - almost none have permission. The photo in question had a source as http://www.geocities.com/the_buffers/pic-home.html (ergo now dead) and an author of "Geoffrey Chandler". I'll undelete and tag as no permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to ask if there are any more you want undeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine you'll be back to delete this a week from now, but I'll search around and see if I can turn up Geoffrey Chandler, and if he's OK with its use. Thanks for the undelete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not me, but someone. It's a shame, Duncharris has uploaded a lot of well-used good-quality images, but loads are lacking permission - some at least have links to userpages with copies of emails, but that's not really sufficient without a confirmation at source. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What I'll do is tag any which have some claim of permission, or at least look like they might not be replaceable, as missing permission, and then any which make no claims at all and are modern I'll just out and out delete - no point wasting another admin's time next week. You should probably check the images on articles you watch. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest 500 checked. Thankfully around halfway through he learned to use Flickr, which means I can just assume they're kosher thanks to FlickReviewr. Only around 800 to go... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

33109 negotiates the backstreets of Weymouth

File:33119 - weymouth hbr - aug 1981.jpg & File:D6547-nrsundridgepark-1963.jpg I'm not the original up-loaders , but I'm going to point this out because it is reliant, there is no practical replacements for these file. That line is pretty much gone (Service stopped years ago, with no real hopes on restarting it.) And that engine class is pretty much gone. Also that image was in use on the English Wikipedia on at least 3 pages. What was missing from it to began with? I might be over stepping, but better to over step, then to say nothing and have been correct.--The Navigators (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi The Navigators.

I tagged this one and around 500-800 others (as an estimate) uploaded by Duncharris as missing permissions. They regularly claimed permission from websites, but the websites said all rights reserved, or there was a message "I emailed the copyright holder and he said it was ok" - this sort of thing doesn't meet the OTRS requirement for images that were not taken by the uploaded - we need explicit permission either at the source or via email to OTRS that the copyright holder gives us permission. I did post a message about this on en.wp's Wikiproject UKRail, warning people that there would be a mass deletion, I'd rather hoped that people would check the images in articles.

As far as I'm concerned, due to the fact that the source is dead and the original email permission (note, this is not sufficient per this discussion at OTRS) lacks any email addresses, the only option from here is that I undelete the files and you transwiki them back to en.wp to use under fair use rules. I'll undelete them and then you can message me when it's done.

I suggest you check your other articles for files listed as lacking permission, almost all the ones I tagged should be in the following cats:

Category:Media missing permission as of 12 April 2010

Category:Media missing permission as of 13 April 2010

Category:Media missing permission as of 15 April 2010

Category:Media missing permission as of 17 April 2010

I think there may be a few which got tagged as no source, but not many. The files you mentioned shall be undeleted, and will remain so until an admin gets around to clearing the permissions backlog. Ditto the other Duncharris images missing permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you copied these across yet? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Started fixing the problems (Unfinished though), thing is the 'Cat' for April 17th, about half the railroading images, shouldn't have been there (EX: File:SR signals from cab of standard five.jpg (Check the info I put up). Also a side issue I've run into, how do I transfer an image from Wiki commons to Wikipedia. Is their a program? Or do I have to save it to my computer then upload it?--The Navigators (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was fairly careful about it. Links to other wiki pages as permission is not acceptable per the OTRS discussion I cited earlier, as "anyone could have written it". For people uploading others work, an explicit statement of licence is required at source, or permission via OTRS. As for the specific image you cite here, I guess that could be construed as PD, I'll ask at COM:L and see what they think. As for moving things between wikis, try Commonshelper 2 - never tried it myself, but looks like it can move images from commons as well as to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

COM:L discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Acceptability_question. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And that discussion seems to agree PD or maybe WTFPL, so OK for those. I'm still not happy about the ones with links to other wikipages as sources. As an aside, it may be best to check with the owner of that website and get him to send permission to OTRS so that if his website gets deleted we have written proof of permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get permission from him in email form, and I sent the Max Batten email, to OTRS/<permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, now comes the fun part of fixing changes on Wikipedia. --The Navigators (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Visa-electron-Poland-new-logo.jpg

Hello, Mattbuck, regarding this - this was actually no copyright violation, this was actually my own card and I had photographed it and edited my data out personally. I still have it and can make another photo as proof or just to reupload it if it's needed. Cheers, Ouro (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ouro. I'm sorry if I was unclear with my deletion - the issue is not about whether you took the photo or not, I'm sure you did, it's about whether you have the rights to the artwork on the card. Unless you hold the copyright to the artwork, it's a derivative work and thus not suitable to be on commons. Hope this clears things up. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, if that's the way it is, then so be it. As for me, this all falls into the category of copyright paranoia, and matters not. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! --Ouro (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Maturity

I will appreciate it if you approach the issues with the maturity that a Commons admin should display. Please don't make any more joke pages. If you want to join a constructive discussion around policy, please do so. If you want to mock and insult, then please leave. Full stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally thought that humour was somewhat of a way to defuse the situation. Apologies if it offended you. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Resignation Request

As per Jimbo Wales' statement advocating "removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue" I request your resignation as a sysop on Commons. Respectfully, Stillwaterising (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. When have I wheel warred? I have not performed any admin actions opposing another admin on this issue, I have only argued against the dictatorial imposition of policy by someone who is not a member of this community. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeleting after a vote

This is an undeletion you performed after voting. That is in direct violation of the deletion/undeletion standards. Please undo your action immediately before this has to be undone as an abuse of ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Errr, am I missing something or did Ottava add the wrong link? Mattbuck has neither voted on, nor performed, an undeletion of this mediafile. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong one. I fixed it." * Symbol support vote.svg Support - in use thus in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)" and "they are hereby undeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)". He basically pumped up the undelete votes before restoring it. This is highly inappropriate conduct and his statements do not reflect actual policy but personal, POV preference which he had stressed in previous statements as discussed above. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Plus, if you read it, most of the support for undelete was either support claiming it was in use (and thus not applying to the second and third) or support that did not apply to the second or third. The claim at the bottom reflects a prejudice that could be used to request a desysopping, which was mentioned in previous statements before. Mattbuck has crossed the line before and crossed a very bright line again. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The page for requesting something is deleted is here. If users were less quick to delete things and allowed the community to discuss it then there wouldn't be such a mess. Trying to discuss deletions when most people can't see the files is always going to be challenging. Better to restore and nominate for deletion properly in cases where there are significant concerns expressed. Adambro (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not how things work. You cannot say "it shouldn't have been deleted" as a justification to wheel warring and undeleting something you voted in to help shove consensus in a fringe and soapbox view. This is clear abuse of admin power. If he does not undo it himself and apologize for the abuse I will nominate him for removal with the above plus previous considerations expressed in other threads and his wheel warring while promoting a fringe point of view. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In general Ottava - please do not be so hasty calling for desysop when you disagree with an admin closure. In particular, I can't see anything in Commons:Undeletion_requests#Instructions for admins stating that undeleting after !voting is a violation (I may have been looking at the wrong place?). For the record, I haven't even had a look at the files in question as I'm currently not viewing *any* files that may be NSFW. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, requesting Matt have his rights removed isn't going to get these images deleted. If you think they should be deleted then nominate them as I've said. Then the community can have a proper discussion over a longer period which would be helpful to the many users who will have NSFW concerns which will limit the time they have available to investigate any concerns. That is one of the reasons why I'm not impressed by the massive number of deletions which have gone on recently. It will be very difficult for many people, and of course impossible for non-admins, to have the time to properly assess the speedy deletions due to such considerations. Adambro (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin closures can only be done by objective admin not involved in the discussion. Mattbuck was neither so there was no "admin closure", there was only abuse of ops. If you don't recognize that then your opinion is not grounded within our policies or code of conduct and I shall ignore it in the future. Adambro, that goes for you too. This was an abuse of ops. It does not matter if the images are deleted or not, but what does matter is admin not abusing their ops to further their personal political agenda and what is becoming a very obvious campaign against Jimbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, you are consistently misrepresenting policy and it is frankly getting annoying. I suggest you stop. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ottava, as Finn states, there are no rules against admins closing UDEL discussions they voted in, maybe there should be but currently there are not. As for the discussion, it was clearly going nowhere - you were just repeating every line that one of the major clauses of SCOPE does not actually mean what it says, and were in fact saying that you and only you knew the divine truth of it. And then there was the rest of the community who disagreed with you. Frankly, I find your actions to be tiresome at best, bordering on rule-surfing and outright vandalism - I decided that enough was enough and to close the discussion and undelete the images. As was stated, you want them deleted, take it to DR and come up with a reason other than IDONTLIKEIT hiding behind a mask of wikilawyering and misrepresentations of SCOPE. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava suggests there is a campaign against Jimbo. Perhaps Mattbuck is himself the target of a campaign here. As you Ottava suggests, he don't care whether these images are deleted or not, only that Matt might have made a mistake in closing the discussion. I don't think Ottava has his priorities right there. Adambro (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Adam, could you rephrase that third sentence, I'm a bit confused by it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote my comment that had an edit conflict so had to reword it but didn't do a very good job. What I means is that Ottava has suggested that he isn't really concerned with what happens with these images. He is only concerned with your actions. I would suggest his primary concern should always be about the images we host. Adambro (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, I made my vote, but if consensus is against consensus is again. However, Admin policy makes it very clear that Admin are not to use their ops in this way. Since you refuse to understand that, I am going to bring the matter up on Wikiversity as a part of you no longer being able to trust when to use admin abilities or not. Your statements show a clear inability to understand appropriate conduct for admin and I am disappointed in you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does Wikiversity have to do with anything? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 comment : "Wikiversity... ....offers a series of tutorials, or courses, for the fostering of learning, rather than formal content" (source:Wikipedia). Maybe they're offering tutorials in appropriate conduct for admins??Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no such admin policy on issues you're involved in. The (vaguely) relevant bit of COM:A is Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus. I think YOU are the one who is not respecting consensus by continually pushing a case that has been universally rejected and which is against policy (which is pre-established consensus). -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mention consensus but you haven't followed any. You made up a justification to push your own view after it was being denied. Furthermore, you need to look on Meta for the base principles and standards of adminship that apply to all projects, especially commons which is part of wikimedia. You don't gain a magical right to impose your own will in a directly abusive manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin policy makes it clear that you are not to use your ops in matters you are involved in. Not only did you try to push your view with a "comment", then you "voted", then you declared it was not a democracy. When it was proved that two were out of scope by not being in used, you declared the scope no longer applied. Those are three clear abuses of the admin policy. I will give you 6 hours to reverse yourself and apologize for crossing the line before I list you up for removal. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, you're right, I did say it's not a democracy, because it's not. I should not have said I voted in it, because that implies a democracy, which it is not. What I did was comment that I thought it should be kept. That is not a vote - we work by consensus building in accordance with established policy. Established policy says an image is in scope if it's used on another project. If you're unhappy with that, get the policy changed. As that is policy, it renders your argument that it is not in scope moot, and so the support for undeletion is pretty much unanimous. I will not apologise to you. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin are not to close decisions they were involved in. You commented once to influence the statements then kept, then closed saying with a statement that 1. opinion didn't matter because you were right and they were wrong and 2. claiming that the scope of the project was wrong because even though there was no actual use in any manner you made up a reason that there would be. That is majorly overstepping your position of authority and far worse than anything Jimbo did. You have gone after him while doing far, far worse yourself. That is not what adminship is about nor is it acceptable for an admin to act in that way. You are not a god king nor are you allowed to become one because you feel some other "god king" did something you didn't like. Your claim that there was unanimous support when there was not one proof that the second and third fell within our scope is utterly absurd and just verifies my statements. You have crossed the line and there is no hope you'd be coming back. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no restruction on admins closing UDEL discussions other than the original deleting admin is not allowed to simply close it as not done. You're right that the 2nd and 3rd images did not have the same argument as the previous one for undeletion - I stated my decision that as Commons hosted several similar images which were declared within scope that those were too. You have 3 options:

1. Start a deletion request.
2. Start a de-admin request.
3. Just drop it, you lost.

Pick one and do it, stop with all the hot air here. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You think you are right on the action whereas many common users I've talked to on IRC agree that you clearly crossed the line. This has been made clear with other admin who have protected pages they were involved in or used blocks on those they were opposed to. But lets get to the theory which you gave. Mattbuck, do you or do you not agree that your claim directly contradicts the scope: "The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images". The scope makes it clear that your statement was 100% wrong. That suggests that not only were your actions inappropriate, but your statement went against consensus based policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my previous statement, I'm really not willing to argue any more about this here. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You stated: "As for the second and third images, they were not in use, however judging by the fact that multiple projects use similar images, I would argue that these also fall into scope."

Policy states: "The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images".

Are you going to admit that you directly went against policy or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that it is not pornography, and that it is reasonable to have such educational drawings. I don't support keeping all images of penises and vaginas, or in fact all images of anything - commons has a lot of crap that is utterly useless, but this is not one of those times. Now, take it to DR, take it to deadmin, or drop it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the section, it applies to all images. It starts with "blurry images" first. Therefore, saying it is "not pornography" is not appropriate in responding. Pornography has nothing to do with it. The policy is about image clutter and use. Do you or do you not admit that your statements about use directly contradicted our policy? The statements above are very clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Take it to DR, take it to deadmin, or drop it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Mercury Records I Got Rhythm.JPG.

Hello. I was wondering about the reason for the speedy deletion of File:Mercury Records I Got Rhythm.JPG. It looked like it was properly licensed to me. What important was missed? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right on that. However, I do find it a bit... strange that it wasn't copyrighted. Are we sure there was no copyright notice anywhere on the sleeve or something?

There were a few more I deleted - I gave up after about 24 and went back to revision. Can undelete if you want. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, printed works published in the US in that era without notice of copyright are now public domain. Many record labels of this era lack copyright notice, thus the labels and mechanical reproductions of the labels are PD. (There may still be a trademark for any corporate logo on the label, and this doesn't apply to the music on the record, just the label itself.) On that one, the full label is shown, and there's no (c) nor similar notice. So I think that one should be restored. If there were similar cases you deleted, I think any that seem to be correctly described and tagged and potentially useful in project scope would likewise be okay; note this applies only to US works. Feel free if you want my input or opinion on any individual cases. Thanks for your work and attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall undelete the lot and turn them over to your more informed gaze. I confess I looked through then and thought "not pd-ineligible, not pd-ineligible, not pd-ineligible", etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeleted. Some may have been delinked. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But I had taken the trouble of putting a license on them. You may also want to have a look at Threshold of originality#United States to adjust you own threshold to those of the Copyright Office. Your job to relink them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattbuck. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ATW 158823 BRM 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 17:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Llandanwg railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good photo --George Chernilevsky 09:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:'File:30166 on shed.jpg and other planefacts images'

Okay, will remove the first bit, I forgot to remove it when I was adding the correct info, will fix the other problems. But it's going to have to wait till at least Saturday, so don't flag it for deletion or anything.--The Navigators (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just added another image (1907 book scan, fairly decent works photo) to Category:LSWR L11 class, so File:30166 on shed.jpg isn't perhaps as vital as it was earlier on. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I dropped an email to Max Batten, and just got a reply back saying CC-BY-3.0 for all photos on his website. I'll forward this to OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So to be absolutely clear, we are good with the Max Batten images?--The Navigators (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I haven't got a reply from OTRS yet - I'll poke them later - but the permission is fine from there. Let me sort out the ticket and we can upload some more. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Caersws railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like this one, too --Mbdortmund 15:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! WHR 87 Beddgelert MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aberdesach MMB 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice image. --Cayambe 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Harlech light colours.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  Comment Nothing to see of the expensive pottery --Mbdortmund 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)  Support Nice and sharp. Good! --MichaelBueker 09:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)  Comment - the pottery wasn't worth photographing. Mattbuck 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Floods in QI

You might be interested in an ongoing discussion regarding QI floods of late, here. Cheers, ianaré (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amman notturna HPIM3410.JPG

Hello Mattbuck!

I have seen that you have closed the deletion request above with kept because of the fact that this image is in use on it:wiki. I agree, you have acted correctly, images that are used elsewhere are to be kept. But now the image is replace by another one on it:wiki. Would it be possible to reopen the request and deleted now? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 158822 Porthmadog WHHR 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 OK --Ianare 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder

Hi Mattbuck, at Jimbo's page you discussed the categories of a garbage, I would rather not link to. You made me to understand that you do believe that [....] should be put to the certain category I'd rather will not link to. So I wonder what prevented you personally from adding the removed category back? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Partly I hadn't actually noticed it had been removed, and partly that I would rather not get into an edit war over it. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could have put the removed category back and protect that [....], if it is removed again, but I understand you are afraid to get involved.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am unsure of the distinction between antisemitism, which I believe to be based on religion, versus anti-Israeli sentiment, which would be based on the state. I feel that the artwork is more anti-Israeli than antisemitic, but I understand that since Israel is a jewish state there is considerable overlap. And it's not about being afraid, I simply don't want to get into an edit war over it. I'd be happy to protect it, but iirc Pieter is an admin, so it wouldn't do any good. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I guess I overestimated your knowledge on the subject, and I am not going to discuss it with you. kuiper is not an admin. I do not think he ever was and I doubt he ever will be.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my bad. Well, I agree it should be in some sort of anti-Israeli category, but I won't pretend to know which one. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 37324 and 37215 at Toddington.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough. ZooFari 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:37324 at Toddington railway station (2).jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 37324 at Toddington railway station (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 Minor noise, minor CA, but overall quality is acceptable. --Dschwen 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)  Comment I think cropping out the lady from the left will add more value to the composition. --Jovianeye 02:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 175113 Deganwy A.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 Do not see major problems here. --Dschwen 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 313123 HKC 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhyd Ddu sheep pen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice pic, (with another nice welsh name !)--Jebulon 16:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I must admit I'm unsure quite how to pronounce it - I think it's "rhith thee" or something. Mattbuck 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:37324 at Toddington railway station.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 37324 at Toddington railway station.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 Seems fine! --Jovianeye 04:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 175011 Newport B.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI. --Jovianeye 01:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado with the Severn Coast Express at Chepstow Tunnel 30 May 2009 pic 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me.--Jebulon 23:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado with the Severn Coast Express in Yatton, North Somerset 30 May 2009 pic 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 Good, --Cayambe 18:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado on the West Somerset Railway at Crowcome Heathfield station 2 June 2009 pic 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me - especially i like the composition and I think whole picture is high quality --J. Lunau 07:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado with the Severn Coast Express at Chepstow Tunnel 30 May 2009 pic 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 The very little view of the tunnel (edge right above) is too small or too large. Its disturbing IMO. If cropped, I'll change my vote, because I like this image--Jebulon 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Bridge corner duly cropped. Mattbuck 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)OK Qi now in my opinion.--Jebulon 09:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 01 378005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 11:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ATW 158839 STJ 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI. --Jovianeye 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ATW 158839 158820 STJ 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Berthold Werner 13:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ATW 158839 158820 STJ 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ok --Pudelek 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have done it again

If you'd like to decline the image yourself, or to block me, please do be my guest, but please do not re-post the decline by lycaon. lycaon voting on my nominations is against the consensus that was supported on AN/U by 4 uninvolved administrators, and was not opposed by any uninvolved editor. I'd also like to ask you for a favor. Please do not threat me with blocks. Better just block me without "last warning". The blocks are OK with me, the threats are not. Why? Because, if I am to comply with "last warning" and threats to get blocked, it will look as I am scared or I care. I am not and I do not. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

mbz1 he did decline himself. "Per Lyacon" does not mean he is restoring Lyacon's decline, it means he agrees with Lyacon's rationale (and adds "fish is not sharp" to emphasize the point). I'm not going to be drawn into the AN/U, but I am going to enforce the rules of QI. I am moving to discuss so you can contest Mattbuck's decline, but you really should have done this yourself, not engaged in edit warring. Please don't let your conflicts spill over to the rest of us. --99of9 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See previous comment. Per Lycaon means I agree with Lycaon, not that I am doing it to spite you. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

99of9, how an image could be declined referring to a review that is not there, and should not have been there in the first place, I mean lycaon's one. Don't you think it looks kind of silly? I believe matt is experienced enough to decline an image on his own, and I have absolutely no problems with that. Honestly I really cannot care less, if an image gets promoted, or it gets declined. I simply was trying to enforce consensus reached on AN/U about mine and lycaon interactions. I guess I am failed. I am sorry, if you feel I tried to spill my conflicts over to the rest of you, but anyway...
BTW mattbuck, how come that after "my only warning" I am still not blocked? It reminded me how China issued the relevant 437th and 593rd serious warnings to the United States. Maybe I should be blocked, at least, if I am, it will b easier on me.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

About turtle image. I was very upset with you, when I withdrawn it, but not because you declined my fish. Please do believe me, if I nominate images on QI and/or FPC for that matter, I do not care about the results anymore, I used to, but no more. I am doing it simply to share the pictures, because while they are present at the boards there are few extra people to see them. As I explained many times before I believe that the consensus about my and lycaon interaction was reached, and should be enforced. That's it. You may decline as many of my images as you wish, you may block me for edit warring for example, and after that decline my nominations. I will be absolutely fine with it, but I believe, if lycaon does not wish to respond my questions concerning his comments, if he ignores me completely, he should not be the one to review my images. If instead of declining my image, he would have promoted it, I assure you my reaction would have been absolutely the same.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Marbled Blenny Entomacrodus marmoratus.jpg

Since it is needlessly upsetting and divisive, could you please remove your reference to Lycaon on your review of this file's QIC nomination? I think that would help a bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have done it already. I would not, since while I do not like Lycaon I do agree with him/her in this circumstance - the fish is not sharp, the image should be declined. I request you put back my comment. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, please do, Matt back your comment only without mentioning lycaon and blocking me. I assure you I cannot care less, if the image is promoted or declined.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I added back your oppose, but without your reference to lycaon's review, that is not there. Hope it is ok with you.--04:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pill MMB 16 Ham Green Lake.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 Definetely a QI to me. ABF 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «58 Feeder Canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Something wrong here... Oh yes, it is not a train ! lol. Seriously : Nice pic, good light, a good use of the shadow IMO. QI to me.-Jebulon 11 june 2010 I do take photos of things that aren't trains occasionally - ie stations when I'm waiting to take photos of a train. Mattbuck 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry bad joke... I was a bit provocative as usual... --Jebulon 10:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Harlech waves and houses.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 Didn't we have this one already? --Mbdortmund 10:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Nice view, but what I don't like is the noise. Weak promotion from me. --Carschten 16:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash 4 may 2010.JPG

File:Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash 4 may 2010.PNG --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash 4 may 2010.JPG Yes! I Blanked. Sustitucion for the File:Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash 4 may 2010.PNG --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Righto, deleted. You don't need to add a new topic for every reply you know. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of my vote by lycaon

what do you think about this [1]? A time for a block just to be fair, you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blocking Lycaon for that, it could be a mistake. Further, I'd appreciate in future if you don't try this sort of push to direct action when you've already started a thread on AN/U. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Try again....

Are you sure you got the correct person [2], [3], [4] and [5]? Lycaon (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the effort. Lycaon (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming I was being told the truth. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newport Stn P1-2.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 Sharp and good. --Cayambe 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minffordd railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --PS-2507 09:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:37218 at Bristol Temple Meads.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 37218 at Bristol Temple Meads.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parson Street Station 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! D1062 Western Courier at Bridgnorth railway station.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. Lycaon 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 175011 Newport A.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good -- Smial 23:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:FRL-4H.jpg

File:FRL-4H.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mattbuck. You have new messages at ww2censor's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blaenau Ffestiniog LNWR station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Little sharpness issue, but enough for QI --Niabot 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Same as for previous nomination --Niabot 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Icon request

As you created  (WASSERqd), would it be possible for you to put together the opposite icon, i.e. with the water across and up but not down? It would be greatly appreciated for the route diagram which I'm putting together here User:Lamberhurst/Sandbox3#Lincolnshire Loop. Ravenseft (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I could, but there is an easier way, which I've taken the liberty of doing in your diagram. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Many thanks for your help. Ravenseft (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mass copy

I am not operating the category related parts of the bot. You should ask Siebrand or whoever is doing that currently. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think I did ask Siebrand at the same time as you, but the reply was a no. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reading railway station MMB 50 220013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice composition, use of line. --King of Hearts 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamworth railway station MMB 06 221142.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good, with some acceptable chromatic aberration. --Cayambe 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamworth railway station MMB 12 221109.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 Best one of the four images. QI for me. --A.Ceta 08:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Commons photos

Hi. I'm always trying to improve my understanding of the site's policies and guidelines, so I have a question. When you say, "general interpretation of CC requirements say that a link back to a page where the author is given is sufficient", do you mean for use by external sites, or on Wikipedia, or both? I ask, because the disclaimer generated by the CC Attribution 3.0 license that one chooses from the pulldown menu on the upload page says, "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." How exactly does this work? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't say - I'm not a lawyer. All I can say is that sending a link back to a source page - eg flickr - is generally deemed sufficient. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But for who? On Wikipedia or outside of it? (I just want to understand what you meant by this.) Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I ask because the template that appears when you choose the Attribution 3.0 license says that "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it up at COMT:L. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamworth railway station MMB 17 350117.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham railway station MMB 07 222103.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham railway station MMB 26 222103.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 Also good to me. --Cayambe 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First Great Western livery categories

I've been looking at the FGW top category to try to sweep things into appropriate sub-categories. I notice that one of your pictures is still there — File:Bristol Parkway railway station MMB 01.jpg — despite all your hard work on the livery cats. Do you want the privilege of moving it? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't got around to doing 150s yet, so just put it in the main cat. I have however now done 158,159,165,166,168,170,175,313 and 960s. I'll probably get to it in a week or so. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also, I've made a few requests for comment about livery cat names at WT:UKRAIL. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oxford railway station MMB 07 166220.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK, noise imo acceptable, ISO 100 would perhaps been better --Mbdortmund 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamworth railway station MMB 13 350107.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamworth railway station MMB 16 350117.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 Also good. --Cayambe 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Filton Abbey Wood MMB 04 150243.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. Pitke 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Filton Abbey Wood MMB 10 143618.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good, though could use a touch more contrast. Pitke 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rugby railway station MMB 12 350233.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rugby railway station MMB 20 390017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oxford railway station MMB 06 166220.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 The objects frame one another quite nicely. Slightly oily (from a denoise?), but I think it's QI. --99of9 02:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Filton Abbey Wood MMB 02 67030.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good; lighting would be a bit odd, but makes sense with the funny man on the doorstep of the engine. Rama 12:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham railway station MMB 21 43047.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 Would prefer a tighter crop at the top. --Cayambe 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I did consider that, but decided it made the image seem unbalanced. Mattbuck 22:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I'd also favour a tighter crop at the top, but it's good anyhow. Rama 12:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 02 378005.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 Looks very good to me. --Petritap 10:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

QI promotion

Thank you. The blown highlight bugged me too, BTW. But nobody gets away with challenging Colossus' sheer size. ;D You'd have to meet him to appreciate it. :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He does look quite substantial in those, the one you nominated didn't really give a sense of scale. Go promote my trains :p -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leamington Spa railway station MMB 02 221127.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice composition. Would like to see a touch more contrast if it doesn't look too unnatural for a cloudy day photo. Pitke 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Freimut Bahlo

Hi, you blocked him infinite. As the LoC put some 1600 pics of "The Golden Area of Jazz" to PD, i could need his help uploading. Category:Photographs by William P. Gottlieb, Template:PD-Gottlieb [6], [7] -- Cherubino (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. Please keep him from uploading copyvios in future. I think my block was a bit severe though - I may have mishit the block command on that one :/ -mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanx! :-) Cherubino (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado on the West Somerset Railway at Crowcome Heathfield station 2 June 2009 pic 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 looks tilted cw or is reality tilted there? --Mbdortmund 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Reality is always tilted, but I have now rotated it by 0.88 degrees - does it look better now? Mattbuck 20:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC) OK now --Mbdortmund 09:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60163 Tornado steam locomotive Tamar Tornado near Flax Bourton 8 August 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 378005 HKC 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aberglaslyn xWHR MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments goood view, interesting landscape --Mbdortmund 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rugby railway station MMB 05 57307.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 01:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:37324 at Toddington railway station (3).jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 37324 at Toddington railway station (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good photo, reminds me on my train excursions. --PetarM 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

my topic ban

hi, could you please write a formal proposal for my topic ban that it could be voted upon. As I explained at AN/U I cannot ban myself voluntarily. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride 2010 MMB 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Tasto 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Narroways Jct 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice composition, including all junction point-work, on an exceptionally clear day so background very clear. Like it very much. Wonder if cropping out less interesting right side, including the crane like machine, would improve it. Rwendland 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 44.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --kallerna 15:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «49 Feeder Canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments this picture is a bit unsharp but the composition and the lighting is beautiful, QI IMO --Croucrou 11:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop category spamming on Category:Electric guitars, Category:Acoustic guitars, etc.

Hi, Mattbuck.

Please stop category spamming on Category:Electric guitars, Category:Acoustic guitars. You added a lots of images under Category:Kenelis and Category:Mel Sanson to Category:Electric guitars, Category:Acoustic guitars, but these guitar categories are not appropriate for guitarists and vocalists with guitars. Please consider the use of sub-category of Category:Guitarists, or create new sub-category under it.

Additionally, almost same images should be grouped by sub-category or <gallery/> in other_versions field to avoid crowding other categories.

P.S. Usage of "other_version" field to avoid category chaos was mentioned at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Jun#Category_chaos, too.

best regards, --Shoulder-synth (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC) [edited]--Shoulder-synth (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a photo of someone with an electric guitar, hence I added it to a category for electric guitars. To me, this seems sensible - categorising an image by its content. I don't know much about guitars, I know craploads about trains instead, so I just put them in the best categories I could. That is how wikis work - you do what you can, and then if it's not perfect, someone who is an expert in that field comes along and corrects it. There is no subcat "people playing electric guitars", otherwise I'd have put it there. And Other_versions should be left for images which are actually other versions of the same file, not just ones which are similar - that is what categories for. I grant that Docu mentioned that, and that you have found one comment in however many years of commons to support your opinion, but general consensus is for other versions to actually be other versions. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At first, You said "may I suggest using your userspace ?", then you said "general consensus" at here.

• What is "suggest using my userspace" ? I can't understand your metaphor at all.
• Where is the "general consensus" you said ?
• Why you ignore the discussion on Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Jun#Category_chaos ?

In my opinion, your story seems to be difficult to justify. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't citing a discussion so much as one person's offhand remark. When I said "suggest using your userspace", it was in response to your rather shouty revert summary "I AM WORKING ON THESE IMAGES. PLEASE WAITING FOR..." which led me to believe you were using the gallery as a way of listing which images you were working on - which should be done in userspace rather than imagespace. As for where the general consensus is, it's on every image which doesn't list 100 similar images in other_versions. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not the "general consensus" on Wikimedia Commons. On Wikimedia Commons, "general consensus" is formed by discussion on community. You seems to fail to form consensus at here, in my opinion.

Anyway, if you think listing of hundred of similar images are too complicated, you should consider the use of subcategory such like a Category:Mel Sanson with acoustic guitar. But on this issues, the number of similar images is far from hundred. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't see the need for any gallery here - there is a perfectly appropriate category (Mel Sanson) which they are all in and which can be browsed at will rather than cluttering up an image page with a gallery. Your choice of pictures for the gallery is completely arbitrary - you leave out many which are in the cat and similar, instead choosing only a select few for no obvious reason. I honestly couldn't care less about the guitar categories - I don't know guitars, I have no wish to. As a layman, I put photos of someone with an acoustic guitar in the acoustic guitar category - is that really so bad as to warrant your accusing me of spamming the category? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject of discussion is a problem of category chaos, not the usage of gallery.

And the problem is not only the guitar category but also other categories including Category:Men of England, Category:Females with microphones, Category:Jeans, etc. Most user and maintainer of these categories might dislike category spam by similar images.

Before adding hundreds of images to categories, you should carefully assess destination categories. And if you once check these categories (before or after!), you could found some mistakes, certainly.

That's all.

I expect your categorization skill may improve if you continuously check your categorization in good faith. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me, good faith. Right. The whole POINT of categories is to group similar images together, and I find your assertion that adding images to relevant categories is "spam" is NOT good faith. I check my categories - I don't put things in categories that aren't relevant. Is it a photo of Mel Sanson? Yes. Does she have a microphone? Yes - ergo she is a female with a microphone, and thus should be in the relevant category. Is there an acoustic guitar? Yes. Is there a category "people playing acoustic guitars"? No. Ergo, put it in the relevant category, acoustic guitars. I tried responding to you with good faith, all you've done in return is continuously claim I'm a spammer for putting things IN RELEVANT CATEGORIES. I encourage you to create more relevant categories, I don't know what the guitar subcats need, I leave that to someone who knows the subject. In short, show some good faith and maybe you'll be shown some in return. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To me it sounds wise to add Category:Guitars on images where it is possible to get a good view on the guitar. We should not add all possible categories to all images. So if only 1/10 of the guitar is visible then the category should not be added. If you think there is too many images in the category it would be possible to create a subcategory for "People playing a guitar". --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 83 Kenelis.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK to me. --Cayambe 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuff

I was trying to think of something on the Doctor revert earlier - made me smile anyway. I see Nard is now having a go at provoking PK... I need to go and talk to an ostrich I think. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO Kuiper will end up banned within a few days again anyway, it's only a matter of time. As for the doctor, what can I say, I see strange crap I remove it. I don't suggest talking to an ostrich - I hear they're rather mean-tempered brutes. I think one tried to shag Michael Buerk once. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blinked Kentwood

Thanks. I've just been to about 5 wikis removing the images; some bot will get any I might have missed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

We've had many disagreements (and probably will have some more in the feature), but tonight unblock was nice and brave of you. I am glad that you do not get upset with me because of my jokes (sometimes it is the only thing that is left for me). I am afraid not everybody takes my Russian sense of humor as stoically as you are , but after all tonight image, and my block were your own fault Remember you wanted to topic ban me, and I asked you to write a proposal, and...here we go again Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

Why have you blocked Pieter Kuiper? I see no direct reason, no discussion and no warning. Please reconsider your block.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion and warning - we spent several weeks wringing our hands over his last block. He's come back, has been as abrasive as ever and has threatened two admins already. I see no need for another round of pointless arguing over it when it's clear he hasn't changed, will never change (see his block log) and frankly gets on the nerves of a lot of people. Maybe his wall of shame wasn't restored by him, but he was told to remove it, and it's still there - it's his userpage, so his responsibility on that one. Maybe it isn't as explicit as before, but the intent is still the same - crowing over people's mistakes. He harms the community, he wastes our time, he makes us all feel like crap because we have to keep arguing about him. Again and again and again and again and again. This has to stop. I stopped it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I know of the older discussions, but what is the reason for blocking him now? Has he done anything now to be blocked?

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusing people of lying, intimidating behaviour, continued bad attitude, forum-shopping, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction - forum-shopping appears to be from last time. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some concrete examples? Kameraad Pjotr 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See the beginning of the AN/U thread, and here he calls Rama a troll. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I was going to revert myself on his user page after you blocked him as it doesn't matter now. I have no feelings either way over the block itself, I just don't want you to think I was supporting (or opposing) the "wall of shame" or his behavior in general. Rocket000 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

...Uhm, OK. I'm not sure I'd even realised you were involved with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB 75 Kenelis.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  Comment Could you lighten it up a little? --King of Hearts 19:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)  Done Mattbuck 21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC) OK,  Support --King of Hearts 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ec...

Well "block conflict" actually. It is a dynamic one unless he has changed his isp tho. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about ME, he's German, and they ALL change IPs every 24hrs. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Conwy Castle MMB 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --Mbdortmund 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tal-y-Cafn MMB 01 Afon Conwy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 23:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This photo

This is a heavily used image but from the 3 week old DR I'm not sure Commons can keep it. The copyright owner never didn't give any verbal permission at all unlike the other possibly unfree panoramio images here. (in those cases, some AGF should be exercised) Admin MGA73 has tried to contact the copyright owner without success thus far...but I suspect he has been away from panoramio for a long time--maybe 1-2 years. You can contact MGA73 if you want but if nothing happens, someone will have to delete it eventually. Maybe you? By all rights, this DR has crossed the normal 1 week boundary long ago but its a heavily used image.

But without any sign of permission what does one do? Hence, the dilemma. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• PS: This is the only possible replacement but its really poor:
• File:Selhurst Park, Holmesdale Road Stand - geograph.org.uk - 138710.jpg

Well, I'm in Western Canada....but I think you're English. Though you may not live near this structure. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere near I'm afraid, although I will at least be in the same city next week. I've deleted it, might see if I can get a photo, but probably not - I'll be at a conference most of the time. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well if you can get a good photo that would be appreciated. If not, well such is life. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Pride MMB A5.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 IMHO nice portrait. — Jagro 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station MMB 05 Merddin Emrys.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tal-y-llyn MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 18:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

watch your language

this is unacceptable language. Please stop it.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how any of that is rude. I'm asking what you're looking to get out of this. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not exactly rude, but the tone of your involvement in that matter was inappropriate to say the least. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Conwy Estuary MMB 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good atmosphere, well done.--Jebulon 10:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bury Ditches MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bury Ditches MMB 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pont Croesor MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good -- George Chernilevsky 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porthmadog Harbour railway station MMB 01 Prince.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 07:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Llandudno railway station MMB 02 175112.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pont Croesor MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hedging MMB 03 Bridgwater and Taunton Canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice.--Mbz1 04:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Durston MMB 04 Bridgwater and Taunton Canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like it, good idea and good composition supported by nice colours. Technically OK. -- Rama 06:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pont Croesor MMB 05.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 imo a bit boaring, perhaps better at an interesting point, e.g. a track switch --Mbdortmund 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)  Support probably not so high EV but good photography in terms of composition (diagonal band) and colour intensity contrast (red rust against neutral grey BG) --Ikiwaner 18:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aberglaslyn WHR MMB 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice and good. --Cayambe 08:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aberglaslyn WHR MMB 03.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  Comment The description should be changed. I presume Beddgelert is the village (which is hardly visible) not the mountain (which is the focus of this image). --Quartl 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Description is correct. Nice intense colours and full of athmosphere --Ikiwaner 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hopton Heath railway station MMB 06.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 composition, good use of perspective. --Kae 22:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Nottingham Pride MMB 33 Pride march.jpg

You might know something about this file. Add license ASAP or will be deleted. Thanks, ZooFari 05:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - forgot to close the info template. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Llandudno railway station MMB 03 175112.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 Like the composition track-road-track with station building in background. Rwendland 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bridgwater railway station MMB 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good to me.--Jebulon 00:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Conwy Castle MMB 05.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 better --Carschten 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tan-y-Bwlch railway station MMB 04 Merddin Emrys.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 interested and very good composition --Carschten 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Llandudno Junction railway station MMB 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --George Chernilevsky 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bury Ditches MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Mbdortmund 17:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bridgwater railway station MMB 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Mbdortmund 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bridgwater railway station MMB 02 43366.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Carschten 18:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tal-y-Cafn railway station MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Carschten 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porthmadog Harbour railway station MMB 03 Blanche & Prince.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 okay --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aberglaslyn WHR MMB 07.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 interesting view --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bath MMB 14 River Avon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice --Jebulon 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bristol/Gloucestershire

I was unaware of the administrative entity that the railway station lies in. This however then makes the 'Bristol' category somewhat redundant. The image cannot be in two administrative districts, unless of course the image shows two administrative districts (for example File:M62 Scammonden Bridge to Windy Hill.jpg which was quite difficult to accurately categorise given the wide range of things it shows in the unitary districts of both Kirklees and Calderdale). For commons purposes it is generally best to use administrative boundaries because it is impossible to categories images given everyone's differing definitions on cities. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, normally I'd agree, but Bristol is a bit of a grey area due to boundary considerations - one can travel within the conurbation from (South) Gloucestershire to (North) Somerset quite easily. My personal view is that anything in the north within the bounds of the M5, M4, A4174 is Bristol, even though if it is administratively Gloucestershire. Of course, Bristol could also be a subcat of Somerset, due to ceremonial counties. Even moreso, even if it is technically Gloucestershire, the station is called Bristol, so it would seem sensible to put the images there as well. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

About the file "Map of Sofia from 1972 (detail)"

Hi, Mattbuck

I would like to ask you about the file I've uploaded. The author or copyright holder agreement needed is not available, as the map was made by the Bulgarian State Cartography Institute (ГУГК), which after the political changes in 1989 was renamed to "Cartography Ltd." (Картография ЕООД) and existed until 2008, when officially ceased it's activities. On the other hand it's just a part of the map, so what should I do in this case? Thanks Vasilcho (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what happens in cases like this - you should probably ask at Commons talk:Licensing, but I believe that under EU law the authors retain copyright until 70 years after their death. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bath weir MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support very good to me.--Jebulon 08:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tan-y-Bwlch railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 06:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tal-y-llyn MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --George Chernilevsky 06:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bury Ditches MMB 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 06:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)