User talk:Sreejithk2000/June 2010

Home Sunuraju Archive - 2006 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 Nov,Dec 2010 Archive - 2011 Archive - 2012 2013-2016 2017-2020 2021-2022

File:Beekman House.gif

This image was transferred to Wikicommons but for some reason it no longer shows on the Nathan Hale article. When it is clicked on it shows the image. If you could check it out I would appreciate it. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CIMG2793.JPG

Did you copy the file to Commons this time. I am getting tired of reverting your edits when I find that the file is not there. – allen四names 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that file is missing permission, as there is no evidence that the upload is the creator. —fetch ·comms 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the inconvenience caused. The file was getting repeatedly picked up by the Commons helper automated tool I was operating. After you pointed out the error, I have corrected the tag in the file page. I appreciate the time and patience you have shown --Sreejith K (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is okay. If you don't mind I would like you to move your reply to the "place holder" above as I dislike discussions held on two pages. – allen四names 07:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving tons of images to Commons

Hey, thanks for tearing through those categories and moving all of those images to Commons. I have started a thread at WT:IM asking for help in deleting the local copies, as there are a ton of files. I know there were a few mistakes with tags (as mentioned above), and some low quality / copyvio images were moved, but I think it's more than worth it for the good that was done. There are still over 400k images in Category:All free media, and it is next-to-impossible to get those all moved to Commons by checking and manually moving each one (I know, because I've been doing just that for a few years now). It makes sense to move them all in batches, and then check and delete the bad ones. I don't know if Commons will let you do this any more, but thanks for getting done what you did. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving File:800px-Crouch End Hill.jpg to commons:File:Crouch End Hill.jpg but please note that you should not have applied the {{db-nowcommons}} tag until you had done this edit. The same applies of course to all images: they must be orphaned before they are tagged for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons candidates

Hi Sreejithk2000. In this edit you removed a 'move to commons' tag on File:216FALL3 11.04.05.jpg. Just because the file is not used on Wikipedia does not mean it should not be transferred to Commons. "Any file that is realistically useful for an educational purpose" (if a freely licensed media file) is eligible for upload to Commons; this image certainly qualifies. - Gump Stump (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ardipithecus

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for finding a lower resolution of File:Ardipithecus ramidus.jpg for me. I'd been having some trouble finding a lower res, so I just uploaded the one I had. Thanks again! cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Saj2009. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HealingService.jpg

I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org yesterday. Thanks Alan347 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty Large

Thanks for resizing my image - I'd been meaning to do that but was struggling with my photo editor (I know it's not rocket science but I'm a luddite - what can I say)

Anyway - thanks again. Arthur Holland (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tintumon

There is frequent edits to the tintumon article and it is linked to non relevant external websites. I dont know how to revert the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koroth (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons

Hi Sreejithk2000, you tagged a lot of files with {{NowCommons}}, but the files are not at Commons. Why did you do that? I also noticed you don't seem to be checking your transfers. Please follow this step by step guide. Moving large amounts of images to Commons is easy, properly moving them is a lot harder to do. multichill (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please use {{subst:ncd}}? It timestamps the transfers. Thank you, multichill (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check...

Hi!

When you add a speedy tag like here [1] please check the file on Commons. The license is disputed on Commons so the file may get deleted there. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this one [2] is {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}} on enwiki but only {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. So the license should be fixed before file is deleted. Please check you edits again. --MGA73 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing... When you move images to Commons [3] it would be a great help if you click the link "Check now!" and correct the author and the license. --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more issue... File:Palenosetron 3D.png is own work by Solidach but on Commons it is own work by K90. One of them must be wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove "ToCommons"

Hi! Why do you remove the "ToCommons" [4]? --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because A different image is available on the Wikimedia Commons with the same name, File:Hispanoamerica.jpg, but at a lower resolution --Sreejith K (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But that does not mean that the image should not be moved to Commons. You would just have to pick a different name when file is uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is the same in en wiki and in commons, except for the resolution. It does not make sense to move it to commons again under a different name. More over, the file in commons say that it was taken from en wiki previously. So my take is to delete the en wiki version. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the enwiki file is a low res of a file on Commons I think you could just tag it with {{NowCommons|File:The file with higher resolution}} or nominate it for deletion whatever would be best. --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see the file on enwiki is the highres :-) Well this was just an example - I checked a "many" images yesterday. This is the first one where the files were actually the same image - and I did not notice. Sorry. Well in case we should just move the higher resolution to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teena

The original was only 207KB. Why was that a problem? In the new version, the caption is almost illegible. Pepso2 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The File:Hildaterryteena.jpg is non-free and non-free images need not be any bigger than the size used in the article. I agree that now the caption is unreadable, but I believe the caption is not relevant enough to be clearly visible. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:E E Speight.jpg has some discussions related to the same topic. Probably you might find the answer to your question there. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read that. Of course, a gag cartoon consists of two equal elements, drawing and caption. Pepso2 (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My point here is that we can understand from the current reduced resolution version that this gag cartoon has drawing and caption, but its not really required that the caption to be readable. The exact text of the caption adds no value to the article; only the captions existence does. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]