User talk:Diliff/Archive2

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

Quality image promotions[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clapham Common 360 Panorama - July 2007.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Derwent Water, Keswick - June 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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 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 {{{3}}}

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg, which was nominated by Carschten at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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

Congratulations! Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.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 blue hour shot. --Iotatau 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Grampians Panorama from Pinnacle Edit 1 - Nov 2008.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 Overexposed IMHO, but nonetheless a great panorama. -- H005 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.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 shure QI --Mbdortmund 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ascent of Helvellyn, Lake District - June 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  Support-- H005 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Canary Wharf Wide View 2, London - July 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 OK now. Lycaon 07:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

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

Hello, Diliff!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

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

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 05:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.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 --Pudelek 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Karen Padaung Girl Portrait.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 really good --Mbdortmund 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Bibury Cottages in the Cotswolds - June 2007.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! --Berthold Werner 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Swaledale Sheep, Lake District, England - June 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. --kallerna 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trafalgar Square, London 2 - Jun 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 Very good! --Marcok 01:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Washington Monument Dusk Jan 2006.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 although it is already excellent on de, it looks a bit tiltet to the right for me. --Mbdortmund 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm not sure it is. I tried correcting it to the left by 0.1 or 0.2, and then it seemed tilted to the left for me. I'm sure the angles/lines on the monument are just creating a trick for the eyes, :-) Maedin 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe you are right and it is QI anyway. I had a try here by using the vertical frontline as orientation, it was only some millimeters tilited to the right. I will delete my try later to prevent duplicating --Mbdortmund 09:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Salzburg panorama.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 12:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 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 perfect --Mbdortmund 08:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.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 Great! - Till.niermann 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.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 Really great image. --Carport 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg, which was nominated by Maedin at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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

Congratulations! Catbells Northern Ascent, Lake District - June 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 Amazing detail. --Ferengi 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Round Tower, Windsor Castle, England - Nov 2006.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 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens - July 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 perfect --Mbdortmund 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Well, not: stitching errors in the lawn and the woman's shadow, but way to minor to decline ;-) --Afrank99 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Black-headed Gull - St James 27s Park 2C London - Nov 2006 edit2.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 Really good. --Marcok 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London - May 2006.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 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, which was nominated by JovanCormac at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg, which was nominated by Mmxx at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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

Congratulations! Leadenhall Market In London - Feb 2006 rotated.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 Perfect view --George Chernilevsky 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brighton West Pier, England - Oct 2007.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. --Marcok 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! George Inn, Alfriston, England - May 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 Excellent night view --George Chernilevsky 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diliff/Licensing[edit]

Hi Diliff,

As I regularly write descriptions in french for VI, QI & FP, I came across your custom permission template, Template:Diliff/Licensing, and noticed that it was used on many pages (congratulations and thanks, by the way, for all these nice pictures).

I believe it would be nice if this template was internationalised, so your message would be displayed using the language of the user. If you don't mind, I think I can do it for you. I mean creating the "architecture" (all the subpages) and the french version of your message.

What do you think ? Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Minor point : do you have any objection if I move on your pictures the tech info (such as « Taken with a Canon 5D and 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. ») from the description field to {{Photo Information}} ?

No problem for the lag. As for the camera details, I just thought of moving the info to the template for the ones I have to edit anyway. But maybe it could be done by bot, I will look into that. In any case, don't worry, I don't plan to go on every single picture you have uploaded :-)
As for the license template : according to Category:User custom license tags, those templates should be in the user namespace. I do not know if it is a policy or just the guy who wrote this opinion ; but well, let's leave it where it is for now.
If you are interested in the process : I first thought of using {{Autotranslate}}, which uses as many subpages as languages (and is really hard to understand). But I just noticed that your summary was just text. It is better to use {{LangSwitch}} in this case, and much simpler, as you can see (no need to be black belt in templates !). I just translated your text. I did the best I can, and I believe I am faithful to your original text. You may see the result using this link, and an example.
That is as mush as I can do though. You may want to ask some german, spanish and so-on locutors for the rest. If no translation exists, english would be used. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.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 No question -- H005 11:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Derwent Water Panorama, Lake District - June 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 another good one... --Mbdortmund 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Admiralty Arch, London, England - June 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 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Catbells 360 panorama, Lake District - June 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 Very nice! --Makele-90 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Island Archway, Great Ocean Rd, Victoria, Australia - Nov 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 perfect quality and very nice --George Chernilevsky 09:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Georgia Aquarium - Ocean Voyager Tunnel Jan 2006.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 Really atmospheric. --Marcok 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diliff/Licensing‎[edit]

On which page did it look broken? File:Port Vell, Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg seemed ok. -- User:Docu at 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [1] looked strange - it seemed to make everything below the permission (eg the 'other versions') appear within the permission section. You can revert my change back to see what it did if you like, but I still prefer the way the license is presented with the bold and font sizing anyway. Diliff (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Glenridding, Cumbria, England - June 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 nice view and good quality --George Chernilevsky 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Eastbourne Panorama, England - May 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 looks perfect --Mbdortmund 23:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers Blackbelt[edit]
THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
I hereby award at you this Photographers Blackbelt for your outstanding and excellent pictures.
--ComputerHotline (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hong Kong Skyline Restitch - Dec 2007.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 Excellent --George Chernilevsky 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hemispheric Twilight - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.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[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.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 Quality couldn't be better --Massimo Catarinella 13:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Wind Turbines and Power Lines, East Sussex, England - April 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! --Aqwis 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! London Eye Twilight April 2006.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 --George Chernilevsky 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! La Adriática Building, Seville, Spain - Sep 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 Very good. --Dschwen 13:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support By my means strong FP candidate--Rünno 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Plaza Virgen de los Reyes, Seville, Spain - Sep 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 Nice atmosphere, good exposure, good sharpness, the ghosts dont bother me.--Korall 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Giralda, Seville, Spain - Sep 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 work --Mbdortmund 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Royal College of Music - April 2007.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 Diliff at his best.--Mbz1 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg, which was nominated by Maedin at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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

Congratulations! Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle 2 - Nov 2006.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 --George Chernilevsky 13:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.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 --George Chernilevsky 13:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008.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 quality and very nice colours --George Chernilevsky 11:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Thames Panorama, London - June 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 Excellent --George Chernilevsky 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Watsons Bay - Camp Cove Beach, Sydney 2 - Nov 2008.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 Excellent --George Chernilevsky 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg, which was nominated by Maedin at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Royal College of Music - April 2007.jpg, which was nominated by Tiptoety at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal College of Music - April 2007.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg, which was nominated by JovanCormac at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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

Congratulations! Peterskirche Munich - St Peter's Church Altar.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 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Royal Crescent in Bath, England - July 2006.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 07:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Richmond Riverside, London - Sept 2008.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. But I'm wondering if those resolution is really useful. --Berthold Werner 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Berthold, I'm not quite sure what you mean? Do you want the resolution to be lower? Maedin 09:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was a rhetorical question ;-) --Berthold Werner 10:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, :) Maedin 12:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Tagus River Panorama - Toledo, Spain - Dec 2006.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, no question. -- Smial 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg, which was nominated by Maedin at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Jamison Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg, which was nominated by JovanCormac at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jamison Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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

Congratulations! Keble College Chapel - Oct 2006.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 Excellent! -- George Chernilevsky 09:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! House Sparrow, England - May 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 Excellent! -- George Chernilevsky 09:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.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 to see my home city in all it's glory. --99of9 09:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Wakehurst Place Mansion 1, West Sussex - Aug 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 Very good -- George Chernilevsky 15:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eastern Grey Squirrel in St James's Park, London - Nov 2006 edit.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 composition, fine structures --Mbdortmund 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Star Inn, Alfriston, England - May 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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP delisting[edit]

Your image File:Hopetoun falls.jpg was listed for removal here. I voted to keep it, however it would be great if you could upload a version of that image in higher resolution because this seems to be the biggest problem with those who want to see it delisted.--Avala (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Thames Panorama, London - May 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 great --Ianare 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle Corrected 2- Nov 2006.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 -- George Chernilevsky 08:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Kew Gardens Temperate House - Sept 2008.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 14:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens - July 2009.jpg[edit]

File:Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens - July 2009.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--El-Bardo (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England - July 2006.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 Absolutely. --99of9 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument a Colom, Barcelona, Spain - Jan 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 Great work. My only regret is not being able to see more of the base of the column, but I presume there was a reason not to go further down? --99of9 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As far as I know, it's because the simple composition was ruined by the city life and clutter at the base. It did result in a failure at en fpc, though: here. Maedin 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong geotag on File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 2 - June 2009.jpg[edit]

Hi David, the geotag on File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 2 - June 2009.jpg (and the other panoramas from there) seems to be erroneous. Maybe you can correct it? Bye, -- אx 08:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Leeds Castle, Kent, England 3 - May 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 Superb. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.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 Fabulous. --Yerpo 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP nomination[edit]

Nomination Notification

G'day! I love File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg, that you've uploaded to Commons, so I've nominated it for Featured Picture status. Its nomination is at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Montserrat Mountains, Catalonia, Spain - Jan 2007.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 -- George Chernilevsky 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Joss Bay, Broadstairs, England - Aug 2008.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[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hong Kong Skyline Panorama - Dec 2008.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 With a very thin IMO acceptable halo over the horizon. Impressive. --Cayambe 11:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hyde Park Albert Memorial Jan 2006.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 Excellent photo, but please improve the description: the sculptor should be mentioned and ideally the english and french versions should both refer to the same lens. --MattiPaavola 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profile size and activity criterion for Commons:Meet our photographers[edit]

Dear member of Commons:Meet our photographers,

Two issues have recently been raised at Commons talk:Meet our photographers:

Profile size creep
The page is becoming increasing cluttered due to a tendency among some members to make personal profiles, which are unreasonably large. You are kindly requested to consider the size used by your profile and consider if it has a reasonable size. Note that the same message is being send to all members, so it is up to you to use your own good judgement in this. We are not interesting in setting up exact quantitatve rules. It should be a matter of common sense.
Activity criterion
It has been suggested to introduce an activity criterion in addition to the minimum 10 FPs criterion to be included on the list. You are kindly requested to voice your opinion on this proposal.

--Slaunger (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Two featured picture candidates on the English Wikipedia[edit]

Hi David,

I feel honored that you nominated these two pictures. They aren't what I saw best in Laos, but you are right, there aren't --sadly-- that many FP for Laos, if any. When I have time, I'll upload a bunch of pictures of temples (Vat). Have some in stock. I was in Laos and Thailand in September. Though this is then the end of rain season, it's still is a nice moment to go, because rain "cleans off" dust from the sky I believe (hence the very clear picture of Bangkok, despite the pollution) and make the sun spots enjoyable for grabbing images. Same for Luang Prabang. I wish I had gone to Laos by myself... I would have taken much more time to shot. I was sort of in a hurry there, and had to follow my family. Luang Prabang has many temples and sites around that I've missed... I've miss people too. I'm sure you'll grab many more things that I haven't caught myself. You have the "touch" much more than I. Your latest additions to wiki are very impressive and beautiful. I now seldom come to have a look, but never miss your user page when I do so ;).

Thank you and good shooting in Asia ! - Benh (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Folly Bridge View of downstream River Thames, Oxford - May 2010.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. Lycaon 21:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Clarendon Building, Oxford, England - May 2010.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 FP ? --Jebulon 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

misrepresenting CC-BY[edit]

I am looking at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en and I do not see where "commercial licensing" is "restricted". The terms that you attach to the use of your work imply that such restrictions exist and I accordingly think that you are misrepresenting the terms of CC-BY. In my mind, and I believe the mind of the Wiki community, "free" means that we do not have to "negotiate" commercial use with you as you demand. What, exactly, do you expect to negotiate if this is not a demand for money? Restrictions on attribution or remixing? Then why not state such restrictions plainly in your terms? If you are not misrepresenting CC-BY, then why do you not follow your own terms and provide "a copy of, or full URL of the license." If you don't like what it says then select a license other an CC-BY. If you don't want to freely license your work, fine, no one is required to contribute the Commons. Indeed, your work is outstanding. But trying to mislead people into concluding that CC-BY is more restrictive than it is is another matter. I've gotten requests to use my Commons uploads and they make reference to how little they can pay even though all of my uploads are unambiguously declared public domain and I just repeat to them what the license was. I don't play on people's ignorance to make a buck because I consider myself a Wikipedian: my contributions are free. If I had photos I wanted to make money on, I would have a for-profit agency like Gettys market them fairly, I would not use Wiki projects as my personal IStockPhoto. Do you tell everyone who contacts you about using your photos the truth, which is that free commercial use (with attribution) is permitted by CC-BY, or not?--Bdell555 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't feel the need to explain myself to you when you make so many bad faith assumptions about why I've used the wording I have. I'll just summarise with some facts instead:
  1. I don't treat Wikipedia like my own personal iStockPhoto. My primary motivation is for people to learn from my photos.
  2. Commercial entities inevitably want to use photos on Wikipedia, and some of them don't want to adhere to the CC-BY-CA terms because it looks unprofessional. Commercial use is restricted by the way. They have to attribute and they have to license any re-use of the images as CC-BY-SA. That means including a caption or similar below the image saying Image by [xxx]. Licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0". As you can imagine, many commercial re-users of Wiki Commons images want to use the image without these restrictions.
  3. I have done my best to explain in simple terms what it is that CC-BY-CA requires. The reason I have done this is because I am constantly (even now) asked whether my image can be used in paricular situations and in particular ways. I have attempted to make the terms simple to understand to minimise the number of questions I receive. If my motivation was to convince them that no commercial use is possible, I wouldn't have bothered to do that.
  4. Rather than have them abuse the terms or not use the image at all, I give them the opportunity to negotiate the restrictions that CC-BY-CA imposes. Sometimes by not requiring them to attribute or release their derivative of my image as CC-BY-CA too, I would expect that they should pay for it. Sometimes I'm just willing to let them use it for free if they'd prefer to attribute in a different way, or something. It depends, that's why it's called negotiation. The key thing to understand here is that I'm not trying to convince them to pay for a CC-BY-CA licensed image when they have no obligation to. I'm giving them alternative license choices, and I'm completely within my right to do that as the copyright holder. They can then make their own decision. Diliff (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your license does not, in fact, say what you just said to me here. If it did, I would have no objections. It does not just say, "You have to attribute and license any re-use of the images as CC-BY-SA," like you say here. Neither does it say "Include a caption or similar below the image saying Image by [xxx]. Licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0" like you say here. With respect to what your license does say, I'm of the opinion that the existing, collaboratively developed licensing templates "explain in simple terms what it is that CC-BY-CA requires" and if you disagree with that, you can change those templates accordingly. Why do you only identify what users CANNOT do and not what they CAN if your "primary motivation is for people to learn"? An "opt out" licensing regime creates a very problematic precedent, and other users are doing the same thing you are, sometimes even more problematically (e.g. an uploader this week who explicitly says CC-BY-NC-ND in his "custom" license tag). Best practices in licensing is a collaborative project in my view just like the rest of Wiki projects. In any case, a fuller explanation of why I think this is a serious issue is here.--Bdell555 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why my permission summary details more what can't be done than what can be done is because I'm personally more concerned by misuse of my images than legitimate commercial use. I'm not trying to hide that it's permissable to use the images commercially within the bounds of CC-BY-SA, I just don't care to spell it out any further than what is already said in the license template. I'm ideologically opposed to 'exploitive' commercial use such as when a big corporation, standing to benefit financially from a photo, and having a choice between (a) paying good photographers for their time and effort, or (b) taking the cheap and ethically ambiguous way out and using photos for free (often without bothering to read the fine print), chooses the latter. I see that as unethical. I'd love to have our Commons images restricted to non-commercial use, but the powers that be have decided not to go down that path, and have only offered fairly tame reasons why, such as allowing for the ability to sell DVDs containing Wikipedia 'at cost'. I've never shied away from expressing my opinion on the issue of licensing when it's been brought up in discussions in the past. There are plenty of contributing photographers who feel the same way as me. We grudgingly submit to the rules because we think the benefits of educational access to the photos outweighs the potential exploitation from commercial re-users. Clearly I can't change the behemoth that is Commons, but I don't have to pander to it and submit to the ideology absolutely either. People with different opinions and motivations can co-exist within Wikipedia. It would be a less interesting and stimulating place if it were otherwise. Diliff (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Using a photo for free" is not "ethically ambiguous" when it comes from a project that says "anyone" can freely use. What's ethically ambiguous is instead of trying to change the free use notice that outsiders see on the project as a whole, just setting up one's own little sign on Commons as if it is one's private property in an effort to send a more personally satisfying or privately rewarding message. In other words you DO have to submit to the "ideology" of free use when that is a cornerstone of the project. You're not entitled to use the project to advance some anti-"corporate" "ideology" or whatever it is any more than I am. Just where to draw the line on what is free and what is not, however, is a matter on which reasonable people can, and do, disagree, and that is a matter that is settled by the Wikimedia Foundation and the consensus of the community. At present the line is draw at CC-BY-SA. You have had, and have, your opportunity to speak up for a more restrictive license just like I had, and have, my opportunity to speak up for a less restrictive license. Respecting consensus means using CC-BY-SA without additional conditions, embellishments, declaring that one is in a position to unilaterally "clarify the terms of the license" or otherwise use some idiosyncratic creation that is more restrictive.--Bdell555 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears that I can set up my own little sign, because it's happily sat there for almost two years without any complaints. You're the only person who's said anything about it, so will you accept consensus that it's not a big deal? I wonder. Diliff (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fir0002 was a great contributor, perhaps not as great as yourself but still a very good photographer, but after carefully considering objections to his license choice he decided that he would rather not upload his work than upload it under the conditions that had been agreed to by the Commons community and the Wikimedia Foundation. It is unfortunate, and it is possible that Fir0002 felt that he or his work was not being given the respect it was due, but somehow and somewhere a clear bright line needs to be drawn and it is my understanding that the Foundation wants to encourage good contributors to come over to the free side of the line without offering a fudging of the line as an inducement. If anything I have said implies that I or anyone else would rather you not contribute to the Commons as opposed to making contributions that are clearly inside the bright line I sincerely apologize. If the Commons community and the Wikimedia Foundation have no objections to your licensing practices I fully accept that and "I wonder" what your evidence is for doubting that I would support licensing practices that have been approved by the Commons community and/or the Foundation.--Bdell555 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Fir0002 wanted more respect for his work - he just wanted more control over the re-use of his images. As he mentions, he simply wanted a non-commercial license for Wikipedia so that he could satisfy his desire to help the encyclopaedia without allowing his images to be used commercially. I fully sympathise with him on that. I assume very few of us would be submitting images to Commons if it wasn't close associated with Wikipedia. Clearly we donate images primarily because of their use in the encyclopaedia, rather than because we like the idea of them being used commercially. There's a fundamental schism between the goals of many Commons contributors and the goals of Commons itself. We co-exist because we each benefit each other in some way or another. But that doesn't mean it's perfect harmony by any means. And yes, there are also many people out there like you, who have no commercial interest in the photos they take, and that's great, but I think it's an imposition to expect everyone to be like you in order to contribute. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you are willing to accept consensus. It's a constantly evolving thing, but right now, it looks pretty clear that consensus is to allow custom notices relating the licensing. As for evidence for doubting your support for consensus, it seems fairly self evident that you're driven by your own ideology and not by policy/consensus. Whether you can bite your tongue when consensus doesn't go your way on this issue, well, that's what I wondered. We'll see. Diliff (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Putney Railway Station at dusk - March 2011.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 what i have to say? Its an Diliff! --Ralf Roletschek 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dinard Panorama, Brittany, France - July 2011.jpg[edit]

Hi, as you know, I had nominated two of your images for FP and I was going to nominate this one too, however FPC rules doesn't allow me to open more than two nominations and I had to ask someone else to nominate this for me. I believe it's beautiful just like your other works and it is featureable, please nominate it if you like or I'll do it after closing of current nominations.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dinard Panorama, Brittany, France - July 2011.jpg   ■ MMXX  talk  13:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License[edit]

Hi Diliff; Another user has asked about your license at Commons_talk:Licensing#Is_this_license_permitted_on_Commons.3F.[2] You may wish to comment. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blois Loire Panorama - July 2011.jpg[edit]

Hi Diliff, Your picture of Blois is a candidate for FP, nominated by Tomer T. I noticed 2 cloned guys on the bridge and wrote it as a comment. Tomer T asked me to erase them, and I did it... I noticed only afterwards that the picture was not his, but yours. Well, I'm sorry to have modified one of your picture without asking you ! Feel free to get back to the previous version !! Regards. Gzzz (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Blois Loire Panorama - July 2011.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. (I see some maybe-a-little-tilted vertical edges though, but otherwise very good) --Ximonic 18:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Or now when I look it again, I'm not sure, heh. I thought I saw some on the right side at some buildings or the bridge. Nothing too obvious probably. --Ximonic 18:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amboise Loire Panorama - July 2011.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 doubts as Ximonic about the next picture, but excellent work anyway: absolutely QI. -- MJJR 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

legal?[edit]

is this legal ?see I guess no, I've uploaded to wikipedia ,because is a free project, nobody pay to wikipedia,just donations, or am I wrong, I don't think it. Is not fair (justice) wikipedia shows the licences each picture and other websites no or ¿yes? . where's the copyright?

If I were you , I'd been furious. or not? what do you think about?.

London Eye at twilight[edit]

David, Thank you for sharing your photo of the London Eye at twilight. We are featuring it as our photo-of-the-day on 19 January 2012 if you'd like to see it. Sincerely, Paul LightfortheDay.com

David, Thank you for sharing your photo of the reading room in Leeds Castle. We are featuring it as our photo of the day. Sincerely, Paul. wwww.LightfortheDay.com

We are featuring your photo of the La Trobe reading room at the State Library of Victoria as our photo-of-the-day on 4 April 2012. Thank you. Paul

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kings Cross railway station, London (Interior).
review

--MrPanyGoff 19:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Mont St Michel 3, Brittany, France - July 2011.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.--ArildV 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.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 quality. --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Erosion Damage, Wilsons Promontory, Australia - Mar 2012.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 and illustrative photo. --ArildV 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinokourov[edit]

David, do you have any additional photos of Vinokourov, from ANY point in his career (or even additional photos from the Olympics road race - or time trial) that you will contribute to the Commons? I am trying to build-out Vino's entry on Wikipedia and am enjoying doing so, but we absolutely need additional high-quality imagery of the sort you provided. Even one or two additional snaps would be brilliant. TIA. Joep01 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG the second image of Vino from today's TT is absolutely Vino-tastic! WOW! Will see about integrating both shots into the article shortly, and appreciate the chance to collaborate w/ you on such an important topic as the Golden Eagle! joepaT 21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture[edit]

Hello,

I nominated your picture: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama 2, Cumbria, England - Oct 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  Comment great picture, very well done --Rjcastillo 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pristis pectinata - Georgia Aquarium Jan 2006.jpg[edit]

Hi Diliff,

I just went through all the Pristis-pictures I found in Commons, checking them, using Fishbase, the FAO identification guides and the IUCN site and saw that what you photographed cannot be P. pectinata. Since there are less than 21 teeth per side on the rostrum, the caudal finhas has a distinct lower lobe and the first dorsal fin begins distinctly before the origin of ventral fins it clearly is a member of the P. pristis-group and most likely Pristis perotteti, which occurs (together with P. pectinata at the US East coast. Cheers, Cymothoa exigua (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Canary Wharf Skyline 2, London UK - Oct 2012.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 Less exposure time would have helped, but ok --Poco a poco 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support good quality. When nominating not your own work, you have to credit the author. It makes sure that the QICbot will notify the right user. I've added it afterwards --A.Savin 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Featured Picture Nomination[edit]

The image File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg, which was produced or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg. Good luck! — TintoMeches, 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture Removal Candidate Notification[edit]

Hello. The featured picture Tram interior edit1.jpg, which was produced, uploaded, or nominated by you, has been nominated for delisting and/or replacement. Please view that page to vote or comment on the discussion. darkweasel94 19:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Natural History Museum Main Hall, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natural History Museum Main Hall, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:British Museum Great Court, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:British Museum Great Court, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Glacier Point at Sunset, Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier Point at Sunset, Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Ivar (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of images[edit]

Hi! See what Richard Bartz sent me: http://www.zazzle.de/ein_smalltooth_sawfishpristis_pectinata_plakate-228015184776517552 I have started a topic here to see what we can do. Cheers, --Kadellar (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HDR stitch[edit]

You've got mail. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:More London Office Development at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:More London Office Development at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nodal point adapter[edit]

Hi Diliff! Again: Congrats to your amazing pano shots. Thanks for your information regarding the nodal point adapter. I am thinking for a few months about buying a nodal point adapter. For high quality adapters the only two considerable alternatives are the Nodal Ninja or one from Novoflex e.g. Novoflex VR II Pro system. Was there any rationale for you to buy the NN3 instead of a Novoflex product? The haptic of the VR II is amazing (I made some tests at a frieds who owns the adapter). Thanks for the information. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tuxyso. If you take a lot of interior panoramic photos, it's definitely worth investing in a panoramic head. When I bought the Nodal Ninja (more than 5 years ago), I don't think the Novoflex VR II Pro even existed at that time. I'd certainly never heard of it before. But I'm quite certain that even if it did exist, I definitely would not have spent €749 on it. ;-) It looks much better built than the Nodal Ninja but since it is 3-4 times more expensive, I would expect nothing less. I don't think the Nodal Ninja is perfect, but it is everything a panoramic head needs to be. I noticed that the Novaflex is much much heavier at 1.7kg. The Nodal Ninja 3 is 750g. If you plan to shoot with large lenses, it might be worth paying more and getting the Nodal Ninja 4 or Ultimate M because the arms are larger. If the vertical arm is too small, the lens will bump into the horizontal arm when tilted down, or the camera will when tilted up). But this depends on what lens you are using and how much you want to tilt (it's important if you do 360 degree panoramas including the zenith and nadir points, but not usually so important for regular stitched mosaics like I do where the angle of view is not extreme. Anyway, if you are even considering the Novoflex then cost probably isn't such an issue! I'm happy enough with the NN3 though. Diliff (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your in-detail reply. I asked YOU for the difference between NN and Novoflex because my first impression from product shots was that the NN looks a bit shaky. The heaviest lens I plan to mount is the Nikon AF-S 105mm macro. Most of the times it will be the AF-S (35 / 50 / 85) f1.8 60mm Macro or any wide-angle zoom. For that use case and for a hobby shooter the VR II might be overkill. If one takes a look into the NN shop there is no significant price difference between NN 3 and NN 4 (if you buy a package with leveler or rotator). Do you use a rotator / leveler from NN or a ball head from a different brand? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NN isn't shaky, it's pretty rock-solid. There isn't really any bend or wobble in the arms as they are solidly built. The only issue I found once was that occasionally the tilt arm - the one that attaches to the camera - would slowly rotate downwards (due to the weight of the camera and lens). The annoying thing was that it would happen very slowly and I wouldn't notice it happening until after I had completed my set of photos. Sometimes I didn't even notice until I got home and saw that the there was some blur in the photo. Apparently this is a common problem and is related to the teflon washers used in the tightening knob, and the rubber friction plate. This might not make much sense to you if you haven't already seen a NN and all its parts. In any case, I read the NN forums and apparently if there is contamination (such as oil) of these washers and rubber, it can cause the sagging problem. I've resolved the issue by cleaning the washers and also adding an additional washer and making sure I have tightened the knob extra hard. It's possible that the larger NN4 or Ultimate is much stronger but the NN4 arm looks almost the same as the NN3 arm, only slightly longer to work with larger lenses. It says that the NN3 and NN4 are both capable of working with up to 3.5kg but I don't think the upper rotator could handle that load without sagging. My 5D and 35mm lens combination is 1.6kg and I wouldn't expect it to hold too much more than that.
Actually I didn't get the advanced rotator (just the basic one that comes with NN3) or leveller. I use my Markins Q3 ball head for levelling. I attach the ball head's quick release plate to the rotator of my Nodal Ninja and put the Nodal Ninja plate (not quick release) on my camera's tripod mount, and then screw the plate onto the Nodal Ninja when I'm setting up for the panorama. It would be nice to have a quick release plate to connect and disconnect the camera from the NN also (and I believe it's possible to buy one for the NN3) but using a knob to screw the camera in doesn't take long so it's not really an issue. Because the NN3 has a built in bubble level, it's very easy to use the ball head to provide the levelling, then just lock the ball head and rotate the head with the NN's rotator. Anyway, all of this is difficult to explain in text. It's a very mechanical process and the best way to understand is to use it. As I said earlier, the NN3 is not perfect, but I'm very happy with it overall and can recommend it. As for the pricing of NN3 and NN4, I think you are comparing the NN3 with the advanced rotator and the NN4 with a standard rotator, because the NN4 with the standard rotator is the same price as the NN3 with the advanced rotator. The main difference between the standard and advanced rotator seems to be that with the advanced rotator, you can switch very easily between the rotation stop increments. With the standard rotator, it's necessary to change a brass ring inside the rotator to get different stops. However, I can tell you that you don't need to use the stops. The rotator can stop anywhere along the rotation if you want it to. The stops are just haptic feedback to tell you that you have rotated x degrees. I have mine set to provide the correct rotation for my 35mm lens which is what I almost always use with the NN. It's not that simple to change lenses anyhow because you also need to find the correct measurements to eliminate parallax for each lens and then move the camera along the rails on the arm. So I find it's easier to just use one lens and therefore I don't need to change the rotator stops either. If you do use multiple lenses and you'd like the haptic feedback of the rotator stops then maybe it's worth upgrading to the advanced rotator but as I said, for me it's not necessary. Hope this info helps you to make a decision. Diliff (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this circumstantial answer. A very valuable answer for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you use the stops to just help produce a reasonable number of overlapping images, or do you actually input the x-degree steps into PtGui/Hugin? I've read somewhere that this can be useful for really-high MP images that include sky -- where the software can't produce enough (or any) control points. But I worry how accurate this is compared to actual control points for areas where there is common detail. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rotator stops are only used as a quick and lazy way of ensuring that there is overlap. Rather than visually identifying overlap, you just rotate the head until it clicks (as I said though, if you use a different focal length, you can still use any rotation amount you like as there is sufficient stiffness in the rotator to hold the head steady virtually where ever you like. The rotator has the haptic feedback of a small rare earth magnet so it locks into place when you get very close to the stop, but is unaffected at any other time during the rotation. I still let PTGui do the control point matching. With blank sky, I usually just manually drag the sky images into roughly the correct location (I assume Hugin can do the same) and let smartblend sort the blending out. If there's nothing for control points to lock onto, there's also nothing to be screwed up by poor alignment. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting in France[edit]

Hello, as first excuse my very bad english! I look forward to meet you in France at European Parliament. To me are your pictures ("really Diliffs") the greatest here in Commons. It is my honor, to take Photos with you there. The aspect of "Europe" is now truly global with you from Australia ;) We have already photographed many politicians in Germany, it's a good idea to make it now in Europe. See you in Strasbourg. --Ralf Roleček 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ralf, thank you very much for your kind words. How did you know I was going to be involved in the photography in the European Parliament? I didn't know that the details of the volunteers had been announced. (I haven't heard anything yet myself). As for my photos, I have quite a lot of experience with landscape and cityscape photography but I'm not so experienced with portraiture, so I will probably take some advice from you as you've 'been there, done that' before. :-) I'm looking forward to the experience though, it should be interesting. Diliff (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a great photographer and I admire your pictures. Yes, portraits of politicians are something other than buildings, houses do not run away. Houses must not nice smile. But the whole thing is not magic. As an experienced photographer, it is for you perhaps unusual but not difficult. I photograph portraits for 30 years and you will learn that too quickly.
I am one of the organizers of Strasbourg, you're in! More than later. --Ralf Roleček 00:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any public domain Vatican photos[edit]

Hi there, If you have any of the above can you please post them. We would still give you credit just not the intrusive one on the photo you took from the dome. Thanks

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Guildhall, City of London - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guildhall, City of London - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have message on my talk page![edit]

Jee 13:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my attempt. :) Jee 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Balliol College Dining Hall, Oxford - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balliol College Dining Hall, Oxford - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Greylag Goose - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.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 quality. --Poco a poco 18:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Exeter College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exeter College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Exeter College Chapel & Lectern, Oxford - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Exeter College Chapel & Lectern, Oxford - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Denniss (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, which was nominated by Mono at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:László Surján MEP 1, Strasbourg 2014 - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:László Surján MEP 1, Strasbourg 2014 - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Licia Ronzulli MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Hi, lack of permission by depicted person is not a valid reason for speedy deletion or normal deletion. I have however deleted it for you, because we normally grant deletion requests by uploader within a few days after upload. Jcb (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year 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.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright status: File:Gare de Strasbourg Interior, Alsace, France - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Gare de Strasbourg Interior, Alsace, France - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Copyright status: File:St Luke's Church Exterior 2, Chelsea, England - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St Luke's Church Exterior 2, Chelsea, England - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Bride's Church, London - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Bride's Church, London - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:King's College London Chapel, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Nave 2 - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Nave 2 - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded by Dog's eye.[edit]

Dog's eye
Shadowed eye for best panoramas Puppyofchina (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Diliff,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Grose Valley, NSW, Australia - April 2013.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grose Valley, NSW, Australia - April 2013.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Jee 06:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Immaculate Conception Church, Farm Street, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Immaculate Conception Church, Farm Street, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Jee 08:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Etheldreda's Church 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Etheldreda's Church 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Millennium Seed Bank Project, Wakehurst Place, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Millennium Seed Bank Project, Wakehurst Place, UK - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Cathedral[edit]

I have used your photo of the West Front here: [3]

Thanks, David! Amandajm (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Temple Church 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Temple Church 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:All Hallows-by-the-Tower Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:All Hallows-by-the-Tower Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diliff/Archive2&oldid=127978242"