User talk:17jiangz1

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, 17jiangz1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent DRs

If you wish to mark files as copyvio, enable Quick Delete in your preferences under Gadgets and you should see a “report copyright violation” link at the sidebar. 1989 (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Please remember to notify the uploader of the image you are tagging as a copyright violation. This can be done automatically by using the "Report copyright violation" button on your sidebar. Thank you and if you have any questions please don't hesitate to let me know on my talk page. --Majora (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

File:CityU.svg

File:CityU.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Wcam (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ZenFone 6 Mockup.svg, 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. --Pandakekok9 12:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mac Pro Mockup.svg, 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. --MB-one 08:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated 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:
Xiaomi Mi MIX Alpha, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please change the scope to Xiaomi Mi MIX Alpha, front view. pandakekok9 05:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9:  Done, although there is currently no other media in commons related to the broader scope so it might also be the most valued representation in Xiaomi Mi MIX Alpha as a whole.--17jiangz1 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope and used. Also nice SVG. --pandakekok9 07:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I can't see any value in this. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support per above. The photo is all black, but we see the shape, so it's IMO useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose The picture reminds me of my attempt to photograph a nonexistent black cat in the dark basement without light. I can not see anything but a black rectangle. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment @Spurzem: It doesn't matter if the image looks like a plain black rectangle; it can still be best in scope. However, the scope currently links to a Wikipedia article instead of a Commons category. @17jiangz1: Can you fix that? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Hallo Percival Kestreltail, I see a black, obviously three-dimensional rectangle with rounded edges and nothing more. It could easily be described clearly in the article. For me it is therefore not a necessary or valuable picture. Please nothing for bad and friendly greetings -- Spurzem (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Hello Spurzem, and friendly greetings to you, too. Of course, there is only the same picture and what I see is also a black, obviously three-dimensional rectangle with rounded edges and nothing more. But that is what the subject should look like; it is a smartphone and it looks like a black rectangle. It's a boring photo, but it still could be the one that best shows what the phone looks like. (Note: Because the scope does not link to the category I have not had a look at the other images of the phone, so there is the possibility that there are better images in the scope. I am waiting for 17jiangz1 to correct the scope.) —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Kestreltail: Why do you not support the image if it is the best of this object in your opinion? -- Spurzem (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Spurzem: Because the scope does not link to the category. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Kestreltail: But this is a mistake that you could easily fix yourself if you care so much about a good rating of the photo. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Why don't you use "Category:Black" for the scope or create a subcategory of it? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to get the VI-label? But to be serious, this picture does not show the shape of a smartphone, just some shade at the rim of something black. Hence I'm sorry to insist, it's useles to me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Spurzem: I honestly don't care if this passes or not. I have no special emotional attachment to the image, since I didn't make it and it really is just a black rectangle. Fixing the scope should be the responsibility of the nominator. But if this actually is the best in scope, then I hope that it does get promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment - My bad. As long as it links to a Wikipedia article instead of a relevant Commons category, I cannot support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Ikan Kekek: The error is irrelevant. The question is whether a black rectangle can be a valuable image. My Opinion: It can't. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment - I understand your opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I respectfully do not. If the subject of the image is a black rectangle, then the image SHOULD look like a black rectangle. If it didn't, then it would not be portraying the subject accurately. VIC isn't a place where we promote interesting images and decline boring images, it's where we promote images that best portray the subject. If the subject looks like a black rectangle, then so should the image. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, I'm not an expert in smartphones. Can someone explain what is cut off on the top right corner? Anyway, beside all other objections, IMHO a valued image should portray the entire object. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment @Palauenc05: I believe that is just the shape of the phone. Phones aren't perfectly rectangular these days! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Are you kidding? Something is cut off there. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Palauenc05: I'm not sure exactly what the "cut off" you're referring to is, but on the top right the asymetrical element is the physical power button of the phone. --17jiangz1 (

talk) 20:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Palauenc05: There is nothing cut off on the upper right corner except for the rounded corner that is found on all four corners. Maybe you should get your eyes checked. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kestreltail: Thank you for that friendly and polite advice. If you don't see that cut off button or whatever it is, it's fine with me. I'm out here. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Support @Pandakekok9, Ikan Kekek: Since the nominator seems to have disappeared, I fixed the scope myself. It now connects to the appropriate category. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't been active on Commons the past few days. @Kestreltail: Thanks for correcting the scope for me! --17jiangz1 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment - Support restored. —Percival, just because I understand someone's position that a black photo cannot be a VI doesn't mean I agree with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I realize that. I suppose, in a way, I understand the origin of the opinion too, but I don't understand how, even after explanation, an educated person could still hold it. I hope that makes sense. No hard feelings. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple S1 module.png, 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. --MB-one 08:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LegCo.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  Question - Might you have a bigger version of this file? If so, please substitute a full-size version. -- Ikan Kekek 12:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC) I have uploaded a higher-resolution file, but the resolution is limited due to the source file. --17jiangz1 13:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Hold it. I did not and never would ask you to upscale a file. If the size you originally submitted is the full size of the photo, that's that. Never upscale and also don't downscale unless, for example, you have an absolutely tremendous file no-one will be able to open. -- Ikan Kekek 12:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Ok thanks for the note, I have reverted the change. --17jiangz1 17:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)  Support - This is a small file, but I think it is a QI. Hoping for a larger file doesn't mean I think this is below the line. -- Ikan Kekek 00:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Wingdings 1.svg

File:Wingdings 1.svg 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 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!

Blythwood (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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 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!

Affected:

• File:SVG logo h.svg

Yours sincerely, Jonteemil (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated 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:
USS Enterprise (Star Trek).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I'd suggest specifying "top view", because File:USS Enterprise NCC-1701 starboard view.svg could also be a useful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: File:USS Enterprise NCC-1701 starboard view.svg is actually just the bottom half of this nomination, which is probably why the nominator didn't specify the view in his scope. It might be better though to crop this file to include only the top view and nominate the other for the starboard view. pandakekok9 01:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)\

Ah, you're right. Dunno, maybe? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Or we could just promote this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Support I'll call this useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Frivolous use of copyright violation tags

Do not post copyright violation tags frivolously, as you did on File:CUHK sign plaque.jpg. This is my own photograph, it is NOT a copyrighted work as your tag alleges. This is a textual sign, not a graphic work. Citobun (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Citobun: The copyvio tag was not frivolous, as I have legitimate reason to believe it to be a copyvio as per COM:FOP Hong Kong, "graphic work" includes "any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work", of which the plaque could be considered to be. Furthermore, if you object to a copyvio, it is advised to open a regular deletion request to voice your concerns. Thanks. --17jiangz1 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is plainly none of those things. There is no graphic or illustrative element to it. It's a textual sign. Stop making frivolous copyright violation claims. It does not benefit the project in any way and it's a nuisance. Citobun (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Citobun: The matter is not only with regard to the text itself, but the typeface, arrangement, and material the compose of the entire piece. Per COM:TOO Hong Kong, with the low standard for originality in HK, most arrangements of text are copyrightable. --17jiangz1 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Any source for this claim? Citobun (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- ~riley (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Isbonny Asus ZenFone 6 review.webm

File:Isbonny Asus ZenFone 6 review.webm has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyrighted software Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : OnionBulb.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Google Meet 2020.svg was recently deleted

File:Google Meet 2020.svg was recently deleted by Gbawden for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Google Meet 2020.svg

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Google Homepage.svg

File:Google Homepage.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : AllegedlyHuman.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)