User talk:Sfu

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

File:Bastille de Grenoble 2012[edit]

I like your pano about the Bastille, but there's a slight stiching problem with the wires, just on the left of the left building on the hill. Second point : the whole picture it should be a bit brighter (but it's a personal point of view). I began to upload photos on the QI wiki-page a month and a half ago and I'm not used to the short (and sometimes harsh) reviews under the pictures. I prefer discussing this way, even if my English sounds sometimes like French... -- Best regards. JLPC (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using your image of Devi Jagadambi[edit]

Hello Marcin - I run a digital publishing company of cultural travel guidebooks (www.approachguides.com). We are updating a guidebook on Khajuraho and would like to include your image of Devi Jagadambi. We plan on using the following attribution "Photo by: Marcin Białek". Is this best for you?

Thank you, David david@approachguides.com

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

Congratulations! Bastille de Grenoble 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. -- JLPC 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Yamaha TDR 125 2012.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --AzaToth 00:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Hotel de Ville de Paris 2012.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 16:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rozdzielanie grafik c.d[edit]

File:Bolesławiec, sąd rejonowy.jpg 80.171.91.214 08:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gimnazjum, ob. szkoła podst. nr 1 Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 pl .jpg
File:Kościół ewang., ob. rzym.-kat. par. p.w. Chrystusa Króla Świnoujście Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 pl .jpg
File:Frombork 020.jpg (grafika do rozdzielenia przedstawia fragment portu we Fromborku i magazyn przy ul. Rybackiej 12) 80.171.89.109 05:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jerka - wiatrak.jpg 80.171.72.74 09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Miejskie mury obronne Chełmna.JPG 80.171.72.32 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ignalin, kościół p.w. św. Jana Ewangelisty.jpg 80.171.72.32 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kościół p.w. Św. Jerzego w Bytowie.JPG 80.171.49.3 14:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stajnia z wozownią z 1 poł. XIX w., zabudowania dworskie z XVIII w. przy pałacu w Lubostroniu..JPG 80.171.103.206 12:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Teatr im. J. Osterwy.jpg 80.171.147.92 02:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Toruń, ul. Konopnickiej 14.JPG 80.171.106.251 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Forsterowka Orle 1.JPG 80.171.91.32 16:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Plock Synagogue.JPG 80.171.50.145 09:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Łomża, ul. Dworna 10.jpg grafika do rozdzielenia to "Łomża, ul. Dworna 12 - kamienica, obecnie bank "BGŻ" (zabytek nr 212 z 26.11.1985)" 80.171.88.128 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Slupy church.jpg 80.171.104.11 20:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rossmann Mragowo.JPG 80.171.48.234 08:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nowa Cerekwia - Kościół św. Piotra i Pawła.JPG 80.171.34.54 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Altes Schulgebäude.JPG 80.171.50.11 18:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Pałac w Otwocku Wielkim 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very fine image. --Kreuzschnabel 22:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Okopisko at Jagiellońska Street in Sanok, rewerty i wandalizmy 46.174.26.245 (Silar)[edit]

Cześć. Czy mógłbyś wyrazić swoje zdanie i być może zdecydować w sprawie tej kategorii Category:Okopisko at Jagiellońska Street in Sanok. Pokrótce sprawa wygląda tak, że jest to zwyczajowa, ugruntowana i bez żadnych problemów używana nazwa tego miejsca w Sanoku. Wcześniej był to teren cmentarza żydowskiego (Art. wiki pl). Zaś po wojnie cmentarz zlikwidowano i powstał taki skwer nazywany Okopisko (patrz określenie Okopisko w wiki pl - w stronach płd-wsch. Polski nie ma ono konotacji negatywnych). Dodać należy, że wśród mieszkańców Sanoka jest to ugruntowana nazwa na to miejsce i nie występuje inna, po prostu "jedzie się przez Okopisko", "sklep jest pod Okopiskiem" itd). Jak podałem, nazwa występuje w źródłach, publikacjach, wypowiedziach i nikt nie uważa nazwy za noszącą przejawy antysemityzmu itp (określenie pojawia się nawet na stronie Sztetl). Użytkownik 46.174.26.245 (znany też zapewne Tobie) zgłosił tę nazwę pod dyskusję i stworzył dodatkowo nową kategorię pod nazwą "Category:Square at Jagiellońska Street in Sanok", co było zupełnym nieporozumieniem, jako że "square" to plac (kwadratowy), a nie teren zieleni, mały park czy ogród, a tym jest właśnie obecnie Okopisko w Sanoku, co widać na zdjęciach. Poza tym drugą nieścisłością jego nazwy był domysł, jakoby było to jedno jedyne tego typu miejsce przy tej ulicy, przecież są też ewentualne inne ogrody tego typu przy tej ulicy i też mogą otrzymać kategorię.

Użytkownik który stworza w tym przypadku problemy to 46.174.26.245 i jest to ta sama osoba co Silar w wiki pl i commons, 46.174.24.10 oraz pojawia się pod innymi nazwami i IP. Jest już znany z tworzenia edycji kwalifikujących się na wandalizmy, wypisywania wymysłów, nieuzasadnionych teorii. Wielokrotnie otrzymywał ostrzeżenia, blokady. Wszystko można sprawdzić:

Proszę o interwencję. --Lowdown (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Ratusz w Zurychu 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Crematorium at Auschwitz I 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me. --Iifar 10:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Arbeit Mach Frei gate Auschwitz 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments pleasantly good enough for qi --Vamps 08:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zürich Grossmünster panorama 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments sufficiently good --Vamps 08:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Jeleniec klasztor 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Liw dwór i wieża 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good. --Florstein 10:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Węgrów kościół 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good --Moroder 21:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Mińsk Mazowiecki kościół 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QI reviews[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate if you could give yor comments (or at least a short abstract of it) in English, so others can consider and/or comment your opinions. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Grenoble panorama 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality imo. --JLPC 11:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mińsk Mazowiecki kościół Mariawitów 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Please addd a descr. in English. A geotag would be appreciated. --Cayambe 14:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Liw zamek 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Potchozenie do wieży krozi śmierdzią lup kalestwem... Mam to dzieś! Srasznie nieosre te napisy, za to jakoś w dechę! ;) --Kriskros 22:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Grenoble Basilique Sacré coeur 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A bit soft IMO and tilted Poco a poco 18:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Sfu 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sharpness didn't get better after the tilt, can you increase it? Poco a poco 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done + dust spot removed. As we say in Poland: our clien, our master ;). --Sfu 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good now, ja nie jestem twoim klientem, jestem twoim kolegą w Commons! :) Poco a poco 09:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nie wiadziałem, że kolega tak dobrze mowi po polsku (i do tego poliglota). Teraz będę mógł pisać jeszcze więcej recenzji po polsku ;) (nie na serio). Btw. czy mógłbyś jeszcze zmienić nominację na promoted, bo mi raczej nie wypada. Gracias. --Sfu 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Mińsk Mazowiecki Pałac Dernałowiczów 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Perspective distortion - bends out at the top. If fixed, it's promotion material. Mattbuck 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried too correct the right wall wich is really somehow bending. After some trials I got to the idea it have to look like that in fact. I uploaded a new version, and I hope that's the issue. If on the other hand, you are trying to say what I would call the perspective overcorrecting, then I won't do it. I like straight walls (if they are in fact straight, sometimes it's hard to tell). --Sfu 19:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better. There is a dust spot, or maybe real discolouration, which should probably be painted out, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Mattbuck 14:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Pułtusk dzwonnica 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--Bgag 11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Praski brzeg Wisły 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --Rjcastillo 01:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Zamek w Trokach 2008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good and nice. --Rjcastillo 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Vilnius Lukiškės Square.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 bit CW I think. Mattbuck 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
corrected --Sfu 10:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mattbuck 11:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful[edit]

Please be careful, you have removed the nominations of another user. --Art-top (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Stare Zadybie kościoł.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, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stare Zadybie dwór.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 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius Dawn Gate closeup.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 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Crematorium at Auschwitz I 2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crematorium at Auschwitz I 2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Yungang 13.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, although I'd reduce exposure a bit --Poco a poco 21:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ursynalia 2012, Luxtorpeda, publiczność 01.jpg[edit]

Dziękuję za miłe słowa. :) -- CLI (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Yungang 12.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 I see some distortion in the windows, however, let it go. QI for me --The Photographer 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problemy[edit]

Proszę zobaczyć twórczość tego użytkownika [1] mamy tu do czynienia z pogwałceniem jakichkolwiek reguł poprzez wprowadzanie podwójnych standartów. Commons jest przecież projektem międzynarodowym a nie czyjąś prywatną galerią. Kategorie dla miejscowości w dzisiejszej Polsce i dotyczące współczesnych fotografii powinny mieć jedynie jedną "urzędową" i obowiązującą nazwę. Do czego to ma w ogóle prowadzić ? Proszę spróbować coś z tym zrobić. Commons nie jest przecież prywatną galerią depczącą obowiązujący porządek. pozdr. 80.171.90.117 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oczywiście kategorie po niemiecku nie przejdą, nazwy galerii również, ale całą zawartość można zrobić w dowolnym języku. Można również robić przekierowania z nazw w innych językach (np. Wilno). --sfu (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

powiat gryficki[edit]

Hello Sfu

I am trying to do this via your talk section, rather than emails.

About the clean up project. I am currently only interested in powiat Gryfice. Looking through the villages, there are several ways categories are listed currently, and it is not clear if one wants to make a new category, of a place not yet listed, how to do this. here are the places in question:

Category:Gosław, Gryfice County Category:Kiełpino, Gryfice County Category:Lubieszewo, Gryfice County Category:Mechowo, Gryfice County

Category:Pustkowo (powiat gryficki)

Category:Prusinowo, powiat gryficki Category:Rogozina, powiat gryficki

obviously some are county, some powiat, some in parenthesis, others not. Can we make them all the same? Do we now need to make redirects?

I dont know how to delete files I uploaded. I would like the following deleted. I made thumbnail pictures to use, but have found another way. They are exact duplicates of pictures in the same category. So they can be deleted now.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rottnow_thumbnail.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kl%C3%B6tkow_2g_thumbnail.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hagenow_08_(11w)thumb.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triebs_ev_Kirche_1_thumbnail.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zarben_thumbnail.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robe-thumbnail.jpg

This file still needs a category, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Suckowshof.JPG it is in powiat gryfice, but I have not seen a category for it yet. Can I make one or do you want to make it?

German Name Suckowshof Alternate Name 1: Sokouw 1240 Alternate Name 2: Suco 1269 Alternate Name 3: Sucowe 1224 Alternate Name 4: Sukouwo 1227 Polish/Russian Name Zukowo Kreis/County Greifenberg German Province Pommern Today's Province Zachodnio-Pomorskie Location East 15°18' North 54°00'


As for Zielin, I am pretty sure it is in gryficki powiat, not gryfinski. can you check this and correct it? Category:Zielin (powiat gryfiński)

Thanks for helping with the clean up. I will make the redirect categories for the german names as soon as I have time.

Karin Cox --KarinCox (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Gołąb domek loretański 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 Issues of brightness, the contrast is too strong, over/underexposed --The Photographer 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better? --Sfu 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit bright on the low levels, but acceptable. Mattbuck 03:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Vilnius building near presidental palace.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. --Selbymay 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pomnik de Gaulle`a.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 now --Poco a poco 03:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Szablon "zabytek"[edit]

Witam. Jeszcze jeden problem [2], w tym przypadku user/userka wstawiła szablon "zabytek WLM" i kategorię "Cultural heritage monuments in Masovian Voivodeship" do wszystkich swoich mediów z automatu. Wykorzystała/wykorzystał przy tym "kod pocztowy" miejscowości, sporo wycofałem już manualnie, ale teraz mam już tego dość, może mógłby zrobić to któryś z botów ? A propos nic z w/w mediów nie figuruje na liście zabytków woj. mazowieckiego, powiatów pruszkowskiego i wołomińskiego, czy też gmin Brwinów i Ząbki, należałoby więc usunąć nadużytą kategorię. pozdr. 80.171.102.1 14:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Ursynalia 2012, Luxtorpeda, publiczność 01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ursynalia 2012, Luxtorpeda, publiczność 01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zielin two places[edit]

Thanks for getting back to me and helping me.

Here is the -other- Zielin

Sellin / Zielin @53.943028,15.211687 if you go on google maps, and ZOOM in, it is left to the route 109, abt 2 km north of Gryfice, between Neklatdz and Sikory. You are correct, that the Zielin on Wikicommons is not this village, as the church today is in ruins.

I will work slowly on harmonizing the names all to Gryfice County,

Is anyone paying you for all your work?

Thanks, Karin

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

Congratulations! Warszawa-Dolny Mokotów.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 Slight CW tilt. --Iifar 18:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Sfu 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Warszawa - panorama Pola Mokotowskiego.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 Could be QI, but imho noise level on the sky needs to be reduced. --Iifar 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Sfu 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Yungag entrance 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. Could you add location, please? --Kadellar 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Pułtusk bazylika 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Grossmünster 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 05:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rigi Kulm east slope 2012.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rigi Kulm cows 2012.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --Isiwal 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama warszawy[edit]

Witam! Chciałbym użyć Pańskiego zdjęcia Warszawy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warszawa-evening_panorama.jpg

Służyło by ono jako tło nagłówka strony internetowej. Byłby nałożony na nie m.in. tekst i obok kilka innych zdjęć. Mogę jak najbardziej umieścić informację o autorze, ale umieszczenie jej bezpośrednio na zdjęciu trochę popsuło by wygląd nagłówka. Czy jest inny sposób?

Tak jak i tutaj informacja o autorze nie musi pojawiać się bezpośrednio na zdjęciu. Może to być w np. dziale "prawo autorskie", "informacje prawne", "informacje" itp. Pozdrawiam i dziękuje za zainteresowanie. --sfu (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Kolegiata św. Marcina w Opatowie stalle 2013.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. --Colin 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

hi, what is CA? --Sjokolade (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Milan Duomo 2013.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 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Santa Maria delle Grazie Milan 2013.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 I suggest cut imo. See notes --Rjcastillo 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Sfu 12:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Support QI --Rjcastillo 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Opoczno MDK 2013.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 --Christian Ferrer 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zamek w Opocznie 2013.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 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Wilanów płaskorzeźba 2013.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 See note --Rjcastillo 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Sfu 17:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 11:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Kolegiata św. Marcina w Opatowie 2013.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 Can you increase sharpness a bit? --Rjcastillo 17:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Sfu 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left is still a bit blurry. Mattbuck 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! Jastarnia dom przy ul Szkolnej 2013.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. --Florstein 16:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jastarnia dom przy ul Szkolnej 2013 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 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wilanów płakorzezba w bramie 2013.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  SupportQI --Rjcastillo 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

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) 14:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowe reguły" wprowadzane przez użytkowników zza Odry[edit]

Dobry wieczór. Czy mógłbyś temu userowi (Lienhard Schulz) wytłumaczyć żeby przestał wstawiać pod arboretum Wirty kategorię West Prussia ? Ostatecznie pod takimi historycznymi kategoriamii miały znajdować się tylko pliki historyczne z przed 1918/19 oraz historyczne mapy, herby i flagi a nie kompletne kategorie obejmujące komplet mediów. Wielokrotnie usuwałem już takie kategorie z kategorii polskich dworców, kościołów, zamków, pałacy itd ... niestety zawsze znajdzie się jakiś "wieczniewczorajszointeligentniejszy" zza Odry. Dla kategorii obiektów i instytucji nieruchomych (jaką bez wątpienia jest Arboretum Wirty) obowiązuje przecież współczesne kryterium geograficzne a nie epizod z okresu zaboru pruskiego w XIX wieku. Podobne dziwolągi tworzy user (Thoma) patrz tu przypisując je ostatecznie pod ... dwory w Niemczech i Siedliska arystokratyczne w Niemczech ... gdyby to robił tylko z plikami historycznymi z przed 1918/19 lub 1945 to "pal sześć" ale on podwiesza pod to całe kategorie (patrz np. tu dwór Sierakowskich w Waplewie Wielkim, Pałac w Krokowej, dwór obronny w Grocholinie na Pałukach itd..). Dzięki z góry za ewentualną pomoc. pozdr. 80.171.35.18 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Sfu, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship[edit]

Hi Sfu! This is just to inform you that earlier today, you had your adminship privileges revoked on Meta by a Wikimedia steward. Thank you for you service as an administrator, and I hope you will stay active on Commons as a regular contributor. Of course, please do feel free to re-apply for adminship when you get more active. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:COEX fountains.jpg[edit]

File:COEX fountains.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

INeverCry 21:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rozdzielanie grafik[edit]

File:Cewice, stara szkoła (Altes Schulgebäude).jpg
File:Nowogrodziec, kościół,.jpg
File:Skałki Twardowskiego w Krakowie.jpg
File:Molo in Sopot.jpeg
File:Góra Donas.jpeg
File:Sp1 Gubin.jpg
File:Młyn.jpeg
File:Prochenki,Gmina_Olszanka,Polska,UE. - panoramio - Roman_Eugeniusz (41).jpg
File:Prochenki,Gmina Olszanka,Polska,UE. - panoramio - Roman Eugeniusz (59).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.176.7.227 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Spływ - panoramio.jpg 85.176.5.193 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Romani people.svg[edit]

File:Flag of the Romani people.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

78.102.58.36 13:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chromatic_aberration[edit]

Category discussion warning

Chromatic aberration has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warszawa-panorama wiezowcow.jpg[edit]

File:Warszawa-panorama wiezowcow.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

~Cybularny Speak? 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seoul Plaza 2010.jpg[edit]

File:Seoul Plaza 2010.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfu&oldid=804561127"