User talk:P199

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

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:P199.

This is the user talk page of P199, where you can send messages and comments to P199.

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.


Request for template edit

[edit]

Hello. Happy New Year!

Could you have a look at my request at Template talk:PD-US-patent#Removing the 1989 date content? I am asking an admin directly, because from what I can see (e.g. at Template talk:National Railway Museum permission) the wait can sometimes be months before such a request is processed.

Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Veverve: I won't act on this right away, to allow time for discussion/comments by others. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you process my request now? Veverve (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I allow myself to sed you a reminder. Could you process my edit request at Template talk:PD-US-patent#Removing the 1989 date content?
I also add that it would be wise to also process the edit request at Template talk:National Railway Museum permission since it has had no opposition for months. Veverve (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: done both updates, except translations to Arabic and Chinese for PD-US-patent. Therefore, that request is still open. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for processing this.
1) Could you also process the proposal by Mikhail Ryazanov, still at Template talk:PD-US-patent#Removing the 1989 date content?
2) What about all the patents deleted from WCommons due to this template containing incorrect information for 10 years (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keurig K-cup patent drawing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Magpul Magazine Patent No20100212653A1.pdf, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fractal antenna patent.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:US5800311 Wrist exerciser.PNG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:FJ DUARTE POLARIZATION ROTATOR.jpg)? Veverve (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Done #1. For #2, you'll need to go through COM:UNDEL. And don't forget to ask Arabic and Chinese speaking admins for the other translations. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite contacting two Arabic-speaking admins months ago (User talk:Dyolf77#Mettre à jour la version arabe d'un modèle, User talk:Tarawneh#Update the Arabic version of a template), none have updated the Arabic version of the template so far. Wat should I do then? Veverve (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try User:Michel Bakni, who did the original version of Template:PD-US-patent/ar. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done The content is updated. Please ping me next time you need any translation to Arabic. Michel Bakni (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P199: I allow myself to send you a reminder to please close the edit request at Template talk:PD-US-patent#Removing the 1989 date content since it has now been treated, thanks. Veverve (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nomination for deletion

[edit]

Hello and a happy new year! :)

I originally submitted File:Krabbenbroetchen-01.jpg for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krabbenbroetchen-01.jpg. At that point, the file was kept due to COM:INUSE.

AFAICT, that is no longer the case. Would you re-consider the file for deletion?

Thanks in advance. RudolfSchreier (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RudolfSchreier, simply renominate it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bali Arts Market

[edit]

At Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bali Arts Market you summarized this as "deleted" but I see a few hours later that it's been kept. With its much-reduced content, now added parent categories, and with Category:Balama now redirecting here, I think that's actually fine, assuming that the remaining content there does not consist entirely of copyright violations. But if you are keeping it, then you probably want to revise your closing remark on the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: No. The DR was about Files in Category:Bali Arts Market, not the category itself.
BTW, as for the duplication between categories Balama and Bali Arts Market, that was already resolved by others before I closed this DR. As for the remaining images in the category, they were not part of this DR. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I deal with a lot more CfDs than DRs, and got confused. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahnhof alt, Tailfingen (1).jpg

[edit]

Hi. You removed the Licensed PD template on the above file with the summary, "changed license (an exact photo/copy of a PD photo remains PD)."[1] However, the file is not an exact copy of a PD work. Similar to a frame of a painting, we see the wire binding at the top of the image and that the camera is angled slightly off from horizontal. There is a small amount of creativity here in the choice of shot. We could argue de minimis but why go to the effort when the uploader has already provided a license for the photographic element? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Springer_A73_with_her_younger_calf_Storm_A116_looking_well.jpg

[edit]

Hi. For this file, you recently changed a category from British Columbia to Salish Sea. Knowing these orca populations, I submit this is going in the wrong direction. The photographed orcas are northern resident orcas (see Wikipedia article), which inhabit more northern British Columbia waters (where they were photographed), and rarely enter the Salish Sea, which is the territory of southern resident orcas. Thus the category Salish Sea is not so much a refinement, but rather restricts the orcas concerned to a marginal territory. Please revise or discuss this edit. Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebecca Beecham Gotzl: Thank you for that information. For now I changed the category to "Bodies of water in British Columbia". Please feel free to make corrections as necessary ("anyone can edit"). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being inexperienced with Wikimedia Commons, I had not thought of the category “Bodies of water in British Columbia”, and had originally used the category “British Columbia”, which was discarded. I see your intervention above is a factual improvement, and I thank you for your attention to this discussion, which has been educative for me. Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imagejpg3 zps4ef5991c.jpg

[edit]

I just noticed you very recently closed a DR about this image (the DR didn't check with the copyvio thing), and to my notice this appears the image is a clear copyright violation. The original appears to be posted some years before this was uploaded here. See this, and a closer view of the image this. I just thought before putting this to a new DR, I should seek your opinion. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aafi: Thanks for letting me know. The previous DR was only about the educational value or scope of the image. If you are certain about "clear copyright violation", it qualifies for speedy deletion, i.e. you don't have to go through a DR process and just delete it directly (since you are an admin). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P199 ✓ Done, Much more to learn from experienced people like you. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bengal Nolen Gurer Sandesh -Kolkata.jpg

[edit]

Just curious what led you to courtesy delete this one while you kept the other images from the same uploader (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Color Play-Performance.jpg‎)? Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IronGargoyle: It was a food image for which there are plenty of alternatives in Category:Gurer sandesh. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion request/File:2016 Demmitt Census Map.pdf

[edit]

Just a question regarding your deletion based on Copyright infringement? According to Stats Canada: the use of data provided through Stats Canada is provided under a limited-open license. The biggest possible issue may be the inclusion of government-related symbols, but even in their own wording, it seems to be acceptable as long as the symbols aren't focused/explicitly highlighted instead of the data its being pulled from

Regarding the file, the only violation I can see, from your lack luster, broad stroke deletion based on copyright rules, is the use of government insignias. But as I interpret it, the appearance of them seem to be within the limited-open license and actually help to reference/link to where the map comes from. Not to mention, Im pretty sure the file page also included a link to the 2016 data set ChemicalBear (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemicalBear: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. But you had added a PD-US template as license, which is why it was speedily deleted. I will reevaluate it. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted now, and correct license added ({{StatCanOpen}}). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Joe Biden appears on Late Night With Seth Meyers alongside Amy Poehler.jpg

[edit]

The file mentioned (File:P20240226AS-0657.jpg) did not redirect to the other but was renamed to a similar title (note the President in the title). Spinixster (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) ✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kostya Holoborodov

[edit]

Hi! I'm writing to ask about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kostya Holoborodov. I've contacted the uploader, and he can confirm he's he original author. What would be the best way to go about it since the files are already deleted? Should he send a confirmation before they are restored? Or can you restore the files & have him send the confirmation after that? Thanks. AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AntonProtsiuk (WMUA): best is to first provide permissions via COM:VRT, then request undeletion via COM:UNDEL. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veem musician.jpg

[edit]

Hi, please complete the request. TY. Drakosh (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drakosh: ✓ Done - thanks for letting me know. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symns en 1984.jpg

[edit]

Please delete it. 186.173.192.149 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Perfume Of The Sun

[edit]

P199, this is Perfume Of The Sun, i want to inform you that i don't own anything about those photos i uploaded. Please don't nominate the photos i uploaded on wikipedia for deletion, please... 🥺... don't nominate it please... Perfume Of The Sun (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfume Of The Sun: don't reply on my talk page, but add your comments to the deletion discussion here. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo edu project

[edit]

Not sure if d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/06/21#Q3922719 is really relevant. Can you undelete Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Pierfranco ? Enhancing999 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your "keep" argument was based on the reasoning that the files could be used for WD item Q3922719. Well, they can't, because the item was deleted as not notable. I also agree with the DR anyway. Moreover, the logo was above COM:TOO and the map also had uncertain copyright status. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No argument was made about the copyright status in the discussion. If you think this aspect is relevant, please reopen it and make your point. Admin superarguments aren't really the way to go. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my closing decision. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government documents of the United States

[edit]

I wanted to refer you to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Government documents of the United States since you had at least one related edit. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Dear Admin P199,
[2], [3]
Thank you very much.. for all your works relating to the noms.. --106.51.110.101 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Флеш-мобе «Звезда Героя России».png

[edit]

Hey! You challenged my file. It literaly says "Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" which translates to "All materials on this site are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license" on the bottom of the original webpage, please see this link: http://pfo.gov.ru/press/theregionslife/100255/ You may have overseen it? Please delete the tag. Best regards, Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: thanks for pointing that out. I will remove the tag. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

[edit]
2022 Picture of the Year: Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) and Gadwall (Mareca strepera) in Nepal.

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

[edit]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.


Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderwallbrownsville

[edit]

Hi. Following up on this.

You argued that we must assume good faith that it depicts what it claims, but also that it doesn't actually claim anything.

The uploader's only edits are to upload this photo and use it to illustrate an enwp article showing "Illegal alien climbs wall using horizontal beams for foot support." The image description also says it depicts "crossing". So if we assume good faith that the photo depicts what the uploader says, it does show someone doing something illegal -- that's the whole point of the upload. On the other hand, if we do not assume good faith and say it's just a bad photo of a random person on a random fence, how is it in scope? — Rhododendrites talk |  16:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only go by what is depicted. It shows a man on a fence, with a filename that indicates it is in Brownsville TX. It clearly looks like the borderwall in Brownsville (easily verified with Streetview), so we can't dispute that, and therefore it is in scope. As for the assumed illegal act, that doesn't make the photo out of scope, the man is not identifiable anyway. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so are we assuming good faith that it depicts what the uploader claims (and in accordance to how it's been used), as you said in the closure, or do we assume the uploader is lying and only trust it insofar as we can verify on google street view? if the former, the argument for deleting is COM:PEOPLE, not COM:SCOPE. If we assume the uploader is lying, it sounds like you are saying that a random, <1 megapixel, dark photo of a fence should be kept as in scope because it's probably a border fence in Brownsville? (and should be kept as such despite nobody making that argument in the discussion)? — Rhododendrites talk |  18:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply because the person is not identifiable. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he is -- more so than many other cases where we've deleted files. Just download it and lighten the shadows. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liceo de Colonia Nicolich.jpg

[edit]

CSD G7 does not apply to files which are in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion, I generally respect someone's deletion request if it's within a short time, especially if its use is marginal/incidental, like WD in this case. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of galleries

[edit]

Hi. I wasn't actually aware at the time that galleries shouldn't be blanked when they are being nominated for speedy deletion. Although someone did tell me as much recently. So that was my bad and it's not something I plan on doing again. That said, undeleting them kind of seems like Wikilawyering since Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion is pretty clear that single image galleries can be deleted anyway. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion saying pages can't be blanked to begin with. So can you please clarify what exactly was a "wrongful deletion" about the whole thing outside of cherry picking that the proper process wasn't followed since the guideline clearly says single images can be speedy deleted? @JopkeB: I'd be interested to know what exactly your justification for the whole thing is to since you seem to be the one who made the undeletion request to begin with. Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These list pages were not "single image" pages. They had a lot of info on it, with links, etc. It should be obvious that a page like List of libraries in Paris doesn't qualify for G2: Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Page is an unused and implausible redirect, or a redirect that is dependent on deleted or non-existent content. Unused talk page redirects created as a result of a page move and cross-namespace redirects may also be deleted under this criterion. None of this applies. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through them and most of them do in fact only have a single image. Sure, they have "lots of information" but that's not really the point. The heading for GA1 clearly says a gallery "without at least two images or other media files" qualifies for speedy deletion. I don't see anything ther about how the number of images doesn't matter in cases where the gallery "has lots of information" or whatever. You'd have to at least agree that galleries aren't meant to be glorified Wikipedia articles and that's essentially all the galleries were.
Although I'll grant you that I apparently used the wrong speedy deletion criteria, when I should have tagged them as G1. But so what? It's still Wikilawyering over a biennial procedural issue when they clearly qualify for G1 anyway. It's just a waste of everyone's time to undelete them when they can (and probably will) just be deleted again based on G1. Like you can't just base the deletion on other speedy criteria if someone uses the wrong one anyway. Come on. Your wasting everyone's time with that level of nitpicking. -Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Why a gallery should not be blanked: see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item. In short my opinion: To me it looks like a sneaky way to get rid of a gallery page which just one person does not like and only one person takes the decision that a gallery page should be empted. While the deletion procedure ... gives the Commons community the opportunity to react (perhaps other people do value the gallery page in spite of old images [or other objections]) and propose other solutions.
(2) We are discussing the criteria for deleting gallery pages on Commons talk:Galleries#How to handle Gallery pages with a wrong format?, for instance with only a table and no column for images, like the ones that were restored. So the Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion might be changed in the near future. And if not, there is time enough to ask for a deletion after the discussion has been closed. JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things since you seem hell bent on lying and being bad faithed about the whole thing. When I first signed up and researched how to nominate things for speedy deletion it seemed like other people where blanking the pages. So I just followed it. Someone told me recently that it's not how to do it though. So I stopped nominating them for deletion that way. That's it. This has nothing do with being sneaky or trying to get rid of galleries that I don't like. I've told you multiple times now that I nominated the galleries for deletion because they contained a single image. Which was your standard to begin with. So stop lying about it.
There is time enough to ask for a deletion after the discussion has been closed. Despite your disingenuous badgering about it I've actually had nothing to do with galleries for a while now and don't plan on having anything to do with them until the conversation is finished. I could also really care less if the galleries are undeleted. Your the one who's repeatedly made this about me when I essentially have nothing to do with it at this point. So be my guest and undelete the galleries. I don't care. But they shouldn't be undeleted purely because you decided to lie and act like I nominated them for deletion against the consensus or despite an ongoing conversation when your the one who originally edited the guideline to say single image galleries qualify for speedy deletion. Sorry, but it's just massively dishonest and bad faithed. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least tell me how exactly something like Monuments historiques in Paris 17e arrondissement isn't encyclopedic content? It literally has a long section explaining what a "monument historique" is. Plus it includes a "See also" and "External links" section. That's clearly "encyclopedic content" and attempt to create a Wikipedia type article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Svitlana Krakovska IPCC.jpg

[edit]

Hi P199, I noticed that the source page has the following message: "All ENB photos are free to use with attribution. For the 58th Session of the IPCC, please use: Photo by IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou". Is this compatible with Template:Attribution? Best, Joofjoof (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:East Pakenham railway station.jpg

[edit]

what more proof is needed beyond "it was previously published with no evidence of a free license, then it appeared on Flickr as an account's sole upload"? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thanks for pointing that out. Now deleted. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plotnikov.jpg

[edit]

So you were going to delete or to keep the file? Romano1981 (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Romano1981: sorry about that. I was working on a small device, which is easier to mess up. Now corrected. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by POS78

[edit]

Hi, the last DR on the linked page has files that were not actually deleted. It’s logged that it was, but it seems the action wasn’t fulfilled. 1989 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: very weird, yes, the log shows deleted, but they aren't (or some undelete action was not logged). Can't explain that. In hindsight, some are worth keeping. So the DR has been updated. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:弦巻営業所 営業案内 20220401.jpg

[edit]

You decided to "kept" the request. I accept it. I think that you deleted the file by a mistake? --Peka (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peka: thanks for letting me know. I think this was a mistake. I have undeleted the file. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Restoration of Deleted Files

[edit]

Hello! I’m reaching out regarding the following files that have been deleted:

I made sure to include all the necessary derivatives, but the files were still removed. If possible, I kindly ask you to restore them, and I’ll make any needed adjustments to meet the standards. Noaquico (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankebetsu homes.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankebetsu homes 02.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankebetsu forest.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kesagake oak.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.180.139.144 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion

[edit]

File:Girl with bob haircut, rear view.jpg has been used on nl.wiktionary for over 4 years to illustrate the meaning of a Dutch word. This is proper educational use, and we were not informed about the request to delete it. If it's reasonable to make an exception for this picture, I fail to see why the picture we want to use needs to be deleted. So I would appreciate you undeleting this particular picture per COM:EV. MarcoSwart (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoSwart: Done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downed power lines in Issaquah, Washington 5.jpg

[edit]

It wasn't a great photo, and I didn't actually argue for keeping it, but really, "per nomination"? So you're saying it was in fact "nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article, totally blurry, a selfie which is not used in any article"? Wow. I'm sorry, I don't respect that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a selfie, but the rest, certainly yes! --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not actually per nom. But come on, "nonsense" is a stupid reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't waste our time with this trivial debate over words... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the image, but files aren't usually deleted purely for being blurry or unusable in articles. There's plenty of other totally legitimate uses for a low quality image besides being used in Wikipedia articles. So it should be undeleted if that was your delete reason and not the whole "nonsense" thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respect you for thinking words are "trivial," either. Words have meaning, and your inaccurate "per nomination" closings are nonsense and lazy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

[edit]
   * Happy Holidays! *  
  • Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
  • Joyeux Noël! Bonne année!
  • Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
  • ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo!
  • Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!

   -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)   [reply]

File:ISS067-E-45226 - View of Earth.jpg

[edit]

Out of curiosity, what did this image depict (and provided it's not a copyvio, could you upload to Photobucket or similar)? Per Clarinetguy097, I'm curious what my tax dollars produced. JayCubby (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P199&oldid=977141133"