User talk:CLI

User talk:CLI/Archiwum 2010 User talk:CLI/Archiwum 2011 User talk:CLI/Archiwum 2012

File:You Can Dance Poland Studio.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Copyright status: File:Marek Ząbczyk - U podnóża Gór Świętokrzyskich Nagroda Panoramio 2 2011 r..jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - U podnóża Gór Świętokrzyskich Nagroda Panoramio 2 2011 r..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.

Lymantria (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marek Ząbczyk - UFO nagroda Canon 2011 r..jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - UFO nagroda Canon 2011 r..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.

Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orneta, ratusz.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}}}

Copyright status: File:Marek Ząbczyk - portret.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - portret.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.

Lymantria (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marek Ząbczyk - Na parapecie.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - Na parapecie.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.

Lymantria (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marek Ząbczyk - Jest taki samotny dom.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - Jest taki samotny dom.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.

Lymantria (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Marek Ząbczyk - portret.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - portret.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lymantria (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Marek Ząbczyk - Na parapecie.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - Na parapecie.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lymantria (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Marek Ząbczyk - Jest taki samotny dom.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marek Ząbczyk - Jest taki samotny dom.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lymantria (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:V Bitwa o Mławę, CLI 01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:V Bitwa o Mławę, CLI 01.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Plushy (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beatty (Nevada), Main Street.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 good to me. SkywalkerPL 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! UEFA Euro 2012, Warsaw, Fanzone 11.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.--ArildV 13:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoover Dam, 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Rjcastillo 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ramsowo, kościół, modlitwa.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. --Mattbuck 06:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orneta, kamienica Plac Wolności 37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Bgag 02:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Utah, State Route 9, near Canyon Overlook trailhead.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. --Selbymay 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sułowo, kościół 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Bgag 15:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szestno, kościół 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 18:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Wikimaraton Wójcik Śmierska obrys.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wikimaraton Wójcik Śmierska obrys.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Masur (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ponadto nalezy uregulować wykorzystanie tych logo w "stopce" plakatu. Znaki "towarowe" Foundation Wikimedia podlegają pewnym restrykcjom, chociażby potrzeba uzyskać zgodę na ich stosowanie oraz napewno wtedy nie można ich objąć wolną licencją. Także logo Wikiradia (o ilę mogę odczytać) podlega zapewne jakimś regulacjom. Osoba tworząca pracę pochodną (tu: plakat) powinna to wszystko uwzględnić, a plik powinien być czytelnie opisany. Masur (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Czy autorka plakatu przesłała zgodę do systemu OTRS? Bo na jej www nie widzę, może źle patrze, informacji o tym na jakiej licencji jest udostępniony plakat. Masur (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Zapoznaj się z Commons:Pozwolenia#Kiedy wymagane jest przesłanie pozwolenia. I to, w szczególności dla takiego pliku, powinno być dopilnowane. Masur (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Skasowałem , bo myślałem że to dubel- źle popatrzyłem. Zasadniczo w takiej sytacji zostawiamy zwykle najlepszy jakościowo plik. Masur (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rose id

Hi CLI,

I saw your rose yesterday evening and I wasn't able to identify it. But there's a special page on French Wikipedia ("Quelle est cette plante ?" I. e. "What sort of plant is this ?") where very nice specialists always help. Maybe you can try to use it : I'm not a botanist at all but I shot lot of flowers last summer and I was really helped a lot on this page. The link is : [[1]]. It's a French page, but I think you can ask your question(s) in English. Best regards. --JLPC (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krosno, kościół Franciszkanów studnia.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. --Christian Ferrer 21:50, 03 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa, otwarcie Mostu Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie 19.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 --Iifar 17:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wysoka Dąbrowa 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A little correction as an option (the file is updated) --Aleks G 23:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I think that your version is indeed a bit better. ;) --CLI 19:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa, Pałac Prezydencki, protest ACTA 11.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 Tilted anticlockwise. Mattbuck 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Is it any better? ;) --CLI 11:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I think the face needs sharpening, but generally yes. Mattbuck 11:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porterville, Co Rd J22, Chevrolet CK.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! Górowo Iławeckie, kościół NSPJ zewnątrz.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 Indeed, although I would have gone further with the highlights --Poco a poco 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bachórzec, kapliczka.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 Indeed --Poco a poco 22:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bachórz, 014.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 Bit soft but ok --Poco a poco 18:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Utah State Route 9, 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI! Kirua 14:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bandrów Narodowy - Cemetery 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rally Piaseczno 2012, OS Gąski, nr 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 Good. --Mattbuck 22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Las Vegas, Caesars Palace 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit unsharp IMO, but eminently fixable. Mattbuck 12:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Sharpness and contrast improved, better now? ;) --CLI 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC) OK. Mattbuck 10:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystre - cemetery 004.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 Some slightly overexposed areas at the leaves of the tree, but IMHO not relevant. --Tuxyso 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bóbrka, Muzeum Przemysłu, 005.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 Sky is overexposed, probably you can fix it in your RAW files? --Tuxyso 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Jagro has loaded a new version with darker sky. --CLI 08:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Very well (and selectively) corrected. How did he do it? Gradient filter in LR or standard correction of hightlights? --Tuxyso 09:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dukla - Military museum 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chołowice, cerkiew 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bandrów Narodowy - Horses.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. --Christian Ferrer 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bandrów Narodowy - House 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Better, although some CA there --Poco a poco 19:09, 13 February 2013 (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:
Flight Design CTLS cockpit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The nommination came bottom of the list. I change the scope and presentation. Do you agree with these changes? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  Dear Archaeodontosaurus, thank you for your help. It's my first nomination for VIC, so please excuse my lack of experience in this domain. ;) -- CLI (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not sure whether this is really a typical CTSW-cockpit. I visited flightdesign.com, clicked through the avionic packages they offer and wasn't able to find neither the EMS D120 nor the EFIS D100. Is this maybe something they stopped to offer at some point or some kind of user-requested custom-package? Some explaining sentences about that could imho increase the value of this image. Another point: The image doesn't really show the whole cockpit – something like this would be better in my opinion. Maybe the scope should be changed to Flight Design CTLS instrument panel? However, this is a good and valuable picture and I won't object it's promotion. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dźwiniacz Górny - Field 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit soft, but ok --Poco a poco 19:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dźwiniacz Górny - Field 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 22:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bachórz, 019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grabownica Starzeńska, 002.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. --Mattbuck 01:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Czaszyn - Old church 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Could you correct the perspective an slightly lighten the shadows, please ? --JLPC 17:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Fixed by Yarl. --CLI 08:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ...and then fixed by JLPC – I think his version is better than Yarl's. So can somebody else review this pic? :) --CLI 16:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dust spot needs fixing. Mattbuck 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)  Done : new file uploaded. --JLPC 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Sure, why not. Mattbuck 19:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoszów - Church 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Not perfect but good to go --Poco a poco 22:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iwonicz-Zdrój, kościół ołtarz 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dudyńce - Church 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit unsharp at top, and a bit dark? Mattbuck 00:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Yarl 17:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC) OK. Mattbuck 18:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dukla - Military museum 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 00:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Yarl 17:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC) OK. Mattbuck 18:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chyrzyna, prom.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 Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Sharpened a bit, is it better? --CLI 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Just about ok. Mattbuck 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rally Piaseczno 2012, OS Lesznowola, nr 11 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit overexposed but ok. --Mattbuck 16:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Las Vegas, Platinum Hotel 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent. --Mattbuck 16:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dudyńce - church 11.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 Perspective problem --The Photographer 03:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Perspective fixed by author (Pbm) --CLI 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Seems rather blue and a bit unsharp to me. Mattbuck 00:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)  Not done Mattbuck 18:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)  Done Finally done by Pbm, sorry for being late. ;) --CLI 16:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC) OK. Mattbuck 13:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bażanówka, 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jasienica Rosielna, kościół 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Minor CA but QI anyhow --Poco a poco 15:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dudyńce - church 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iwonicz-Zdrój, Stary Pałac 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Lollencja

Cześć. Obserwuję stronę Lollencji od jakiegoś czasu. Wciąż są zgłoszenia dotyczące błędnych nazw, zwłaszcza drewnianych kościołów. Jak jesteś pewny według innych źródeł to zmieniaj i przenoś. Czasem mam wrażenie, że to było celowe, bo żeby tak pomieszać!? Miałem zamiar przejrzeć jej pliki z tego okresu kiedy dodawała te kościoły, ale jeszcze się za to nie wziąłem. Poza tym strasznie mozolna praca, bo jak nie zna się budynku, to bardzo trudno wyszukać, że opis jest zły. PS. Ona ostatnio coś dodała prawie pół roku temu, więc nie sądzę, żeby Ci odpowiedziała. Pozdrawiam, Blackfish (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Las Vegas, pool near Bally's.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 18:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jasionów, cmentarz kaplica 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jałowe - Church 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! WZT Wisła.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 style of photo. --Mattbuck 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jasionów, kościół 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI imo, nice view. --ArildV 09:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jasionów, kościół dzwonnica 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI imo. --ArildV 09:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iwonicz-Zdrój, Pod Jodłą 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Powinieneś wyretuszować ten kabel na górze. Ale nawet wtedy - drzewa w tle są nieco nieostre/You should get rid of the wire in the upper part. But even then - the trees in the foreground are a little unsharp --Crusier 14:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Zrobiłem, co w mojej mocy, drzewka w tle nieco wyostrzyłem (kitowy obiektyw... ;)) I did my best, also with sharpening the trees. --CLI 20:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)  CommentNo OK, ale ogólnie lepiej by było z całym budynkiem/OK, but it would be better if the building wasn't cut... I think it could use a second opinion, promotion for now, though. --Crusier 15:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jasienica Rosielna, 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belgrade, Old Palace park 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Dust spot on the left. Apart from that, good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)  Question NorbertNagel, I can't locate this dust spot, could you please mark with a note? --CLI 20:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry, the dust spot is two images left. --NorbertNagel 21:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Good quality. --NorbertNagel 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jaśliska - Cemetery 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 21:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Końskie, 006.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 OK --A.Savin 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Korczyna, kapliczka JS Pelczara 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tilted on the base and distorsion on the right of the monument.--Grondin 16:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Fixed - is it better now? ;) --CLI 19:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Good for me.--Grondin 22:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Korczyna, Sercanki kapliczka.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. Better now --Moroder 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rally Piaseczno 2012, OS Gąski, nr 04 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --ArildV 10:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jurowce - church 7.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 perspective distortion --Iifar 16:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Fixed by author. --CLI 19:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krasice, cerkiew.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 Small but nice. --Selbymay 11:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kostarowce - school 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tilted --A.Savin 20:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed? Should be better now. Pbm 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)  Support OK --A.Savin 10:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kostarowce - church 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Needs perspective correction. --Tuxyso 23:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Better version uploaded. Pbm 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Much better. --Tuxyso 21:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kiełczawa - cemetery 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Fine. --Mattbuck 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! UEFA Euro 2012, Warsaw, Fanzone 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some brighter spots, but just ok --Poco a poco 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM.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 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Las Vegas, Flamingo Rd and Hotel Rio Dr intersection.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. --Dirtsc 17:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoover Dam, Police Chevrolet Tachoe.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 --Poco a poco 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jurowce - church 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment needs perspective correction. --Óðinn 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Corrected by author. --CLI 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Good --Óðinn 16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krosno, kościół św. Trójcy dzwonnica 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit of noise but ok --Poco a poco 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arizona State Route 64, parking near Rd 6140, Toyota.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 Wrong geotag - same as next picture --Moroder 10:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Geotag fixed. --CLI 18:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arizona, U.S. Route 89 near Page.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krosno, cmenatrz żołnierzy radzieckich 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok --Poco a poco 20:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krasiczyn, most nad Sanem.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. --Ralf Roletschek 12:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krosno, lotnisko pomnik 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Distorded perspective and loss of compression quality. Can you correct it from your original photography ?.--Grondin 18:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Perspective corrected. --CLI 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC). Good work, QI for me.--Grondin 14:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krasiczyn, zamek kaplica ołtarz 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perspective problem --The Photographer 12:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)  Not done Mattbuck 13:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Perspective fixed, sorry for being late. --CLI 19:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC) OK. Mattbuck 11:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Carnal, Robert Gajewski, Proxima, RNZ II.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Carnal, Proxima, RNZ II.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ursynalia 2013, Dead by April 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Płock, Orlen, budynek biurowy.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. --Dirtsc 04:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ursynalia 2013, Dead by April 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

File:16QAM Constelation.svg

Na "Zgłoś błąd" od maja br. "wisi" to. Czy mógłbyś to sprawdzić i ew. poprawić. Z góry dziękuję i pozdrawiam, Blackfish (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Wikiekspedycja 2013, CLI 21.07.webm

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wikiekspedycja 2013, CLI 21.07.webm. 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.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your reply acknowledging that you have a deal with Sony in exchange of equipment. Wikipedia tries to raise money every year to keep itself ads-free (probably you've seen their recurrent fund raising campaign) and for instance, I donate some money because I want to see it ads free so it is contradictory that now I am seeing Sony links in the pictures that do not even generate revenue to this project.

What do you think about this? By all means keep contributing but, would you consider removing the links to Sony from your pictures?

Thank you, Jorge.

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 exhibition at Warszawa Centralna railway station

Hi, your files showing WLM images are derivative works. The exhibited and displayed original works need credits (author, licences, URI/intenret address of the license legalcode, and titles if given at the description pages). Please add these credits to avoid deletion requests. Thank you. --Martina talk 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Prośba o pomoc

Chciałbym usunąć dwie kategorie, ze względu na ich nieprawidłowe nazwy. Tylko nie mam pojęcia jak to zrobić. Czy jest jakiś szablon lub strona aby takowe usunąć? Pzdr. Kapsuglan (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:AmigaOne X1000 03.jpg

File:AmigaOne X1000 03.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-edition of the Photowikimeetup in Wikimania 2014

Hello CLI! in the case that you are also visiting this year's Wikimania in London, you may be interested in attending the new edition of the photowikimeetup that took place in Hong Kong last year, and where you listed up. As the preparation is not yet settled, you are more than welcomed to take part in the discussion here. All the best, Poco² 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Górowo Iławeckie, Cerkiew PKŚ, tablica.jpg

File:Górowo Iławeckie, Cerkiew PKŚ, tablica.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

File:MT Ecto-1.jpg

File:MT Ecto-1.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!

Gazebo (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cmentarz w Trześniowie

Cześć. Widzę, że publikowałeś zdjęcia z tego cmentarza tu Category:Cemetery in Trześniów. Czy wykonałeś tam może też zdjęcia grobowca rodziny Grodzickich? Podobno jest to monumentalny grobowiec na tym cmentarzu. Być może masz takie zdjęcie a nie opublikowałeś go. Przydało by się artykułu: Stanisław Grodzicki. Lowdown (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Maciej Sosnowski.jpg

File:Maciej Sosnowski.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!

93.175.112.2 17:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

File:0085 Jędrzychowice kościół.jpg

Jak udało Ci się zrobić tak ładne zdjęcie pod słońce? Zwiadowca ²¹ 13:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zwiadowca21: , to zdjęcie HDR, trzy ekspozycje wykonane co 3 EV - dzięki temu widać i światła i cienie. Zdjęcie zostało złożone do HDR od razu w aparacie, potem jeszcze podczas obróbki trochę kontrast podciągnąłem. --CLI (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ibanez K7.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ibanez K7.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Ibanez K7.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Smooth_O (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Derivative works

Hi there,

I notice that you have uploaded images such as File:Alcatraz, Wikiexp 34.jpg and File:0170 Dłużyna Dolna, kościół.jpg which appear to be derivative works.

Could you please explain what basis these have been uploaded under? I assume that the "own work" aspect only refers to the fact that you re-photographed them, but we still need to know that the originals are freely usable.

Thank you, Ubcule (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Media by User:CLI (lacking description)

Hi CLI, i think we should remove this category from the files and delete it. Even when the description is not perfect it is much better than for many other files. Or do have any objectives not to do so? --Arnd (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

+Description

Hi, I've edited File:Alcatraz, Wikiexp 54.jpg and File:Alcatraz, Wikiexp 55.jpg and added a description and removed Category:Media by User:CLI (lacking description). Is that OK and is this how you intended to use the category? // sikander { talk } 00:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa, Marsz Niepodległości 2011 47.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File:0170 Dłużyna Dolna, kościół.jpg

File:0170 Dłużyna Dolna, kościół.jpg 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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative work with no permission indicated. (This was previously requested several years ago with no response). Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ubcule (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Alcatraz, Wikiexp 34.jpg

File:Alcatraz, Wikiexp 34.jpg 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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative work with no permission indicated. (This was previously requested several years ago with no response). Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ubcule (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

File:0187 Bielawa Górna kościół.jpg

File:0187 Bielawa Górna kościół.jpg 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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative of copyrighted work. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ubcule (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Mera 7900 02741.jpg

File:Mera 7900 02741.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!

Ubcule (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Krasiczyn, tablica informacyjna.jpg

File:Krasiczyn, tablica informacyjna.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!

Buidhe (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)