User talk:Sfu/1

Welcome to the Commons, Sfu/1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image Tagging Image:Thomas bartholin.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Thomas bartholin.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Dodo 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories of varieties of Beryls

Hello. You removed Category:Morganite and Category:Golden beryl from Category:Minerals but, despite they also belong to the Category:Beryl sub-category, I believe they should also be added to the parent category. Why ? Because Beryl is a really big family, like quartz and most often, people do not know a given stone is a kind of Beryl or Quartz, and will look for it in the main category. For example, Onyx is a kind of Agate, which is a chalcedony which itself belongs to the quartz family (few know this — including me 5 min ago — and that's why they all 4 are in Category:Minerals).

If you and others at wikicommons are trying to achieve a complete taxonomy of minerals, what you did was right. Else, I suggest these minerals be brought back to the main category to ease the search of others. I'm doing it right now for Category:Morganite and Category:Golden beryl. If you're building a taxonomy, excuse me in advance and feel free to revert my changes. — Xavier, 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Churches of Warsaw

Hello,

In or of, I have not any personal preference, but my purpose is to standardize category titles.

According to w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), churches are in COUNTRY, as other buildings and made-made objects (see w:St Paul's Cathedral - in London). Religions are also in COUNTRY (see Category:Religion by country).

We can discuss this subject in Village pump, if you want. --Juiced lemon 12:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Foty Warszawy

Foty wywaliłem, usuwałem już z tej"serii" Kolumnę Zygmunta widzianą z poziomu ok 1,5 m nad Zygmuntem... też opisanajako self-made. Co do rysunku... to jak sam napisałeś być praca własna artysty, a to nie kwalifikuje grafiki do usunięcia. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

południowy wschód

Korzystamy z tego samego słownika, a jednak to ja mam rację. W zdaniu o które się bijemy występuje przymiotnik południowo-wschodni, a nie rzeczownik z przymiotnikiem południowy wschód. Vide [1]. Jezioro jest w południowo-wschodnim Kazachstanie, albo na południowym wschodzie Kazachstanu. --Anniolek talk 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

zdjęcia Parku Skaryszewskiego

OK, ograniczę kategorię do minimalnej Masti 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

languages for categories?

hello there, you had a question once on the usage of local language over English in categories. I have started a discussion page on this topic, maybe you want to drop by and give your thoughts? Commons:Language for categories. sincerely Gryffindor 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Voivodeships

Hello,

The rule in Wikipedia Commons is that Categories are in English. If you don't apply the rule, there will be certainly a dispute. --Juiced lemon 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

However, you can still create the main article Województwo lubelskie for the category [[Category:Lublin Voivodeship| ]].--Juiced lemon 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition

I'm working on the Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition, due to be launched next Thurday, 1st Feb. We have a couple of templates, as below, that will be added to the Commons mains pages, and used to attract voters, but we need some help with translations. I wonder if you'd be able to assist, please? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/−

What is the best picture of 2006? The candidates have been chosen. Vote for your choice now in the final of the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Final voting to choose the 2006 Picture of the Year is open until 28th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | svenska | 粵語 | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） +/−

Kategoria Warsaw

OK. Przepraszam. Poprawie się VaGla 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

re:

Just don't use our art for your own game/software. If you really want to do that, then send me an e-mail, with information on where/how/what/why you want to use, and, most likely, we can come to a deal.

Niestety ten fragment jakoby wyklucza komercyjne uzycie i zaprzecza licencji danej dla tej grafiki, pozdrawiam --Szczepan talk  20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No ale na pewno nie jest to taka licencja jaka podal uploader --Szczepan talk  21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Żelechów_1916.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Żelechów_1916.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Żelechów-road.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! Żelechów-fields.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}}}

Image:Żelechów-Reymonta6.jpg

Hi. I did a curve adjustment on your image. Please revert if you don't agree. Regards. Lycaon 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

identifying species on images

Just try me, you never know...;-). Lycaon 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Żelechów-Reymonta6.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! Warszawa-Focus.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}}}

For both the photography and the editing! Congratulations -- carol 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa-Biblioteka Narodowa.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! Warszawa-Krakowskie november 2007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa-Królikarnia.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 one. --Lestath 20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa-pod Blachą.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  CommentI really like this composition, but I'm wondering if the levels might need to be adjusted a bit. Dori 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC) * Comment I increased contrast slightly. Definitely a QI because of the simmetry in the lighting. --Ikiwaner 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) * SupportSharp & nicely composed. Shadows and highlights are well exposed.--Nevit 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hohenstoffeln.jpg

You said this image would be too noisy. Could i retouch the image that it is not „too noisy“ or do I have to change any settings on my camera?--Dany3000 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius park.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 photo -Pudelek 09:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Vilnius Seimas.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Seimas.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 There are some prominent moiré patterns on the columns, which I suspect may have come out of resampling during perspective correction. Thegreenj 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) No, the original image looks the same. Columns have some pattern: [2] which I think may cause that effect. --Sfu 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, the stripes on the columns could cause moiré. If the original has it, oh well. It's not a major problem, IMHO. Other than that, the picture looks good. Thegreenj 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goetheanum Dornach.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 schick --Mbdortmund 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun klamka ul Szosa Chelminska.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 subject and great detail - Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Morchella conica 1 beentree.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Absolutely QI - Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bliźniczka psia trawka

Zwróć proszę uwagę, co na polskiej Wikipedii ktoś napisał na temat twojego zdjęcia psiej trawki w dyskusji do artykułu (wg niego jest to szczotlicha siwa). Selso 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa - Wilanów 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 Soft focus, lacks detail, blown facade. --Dschwen 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)  Comment A question: would it look sharp enough if I resample it to the lower resolution? --Sfu 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC), don't do that please. I reevaluated. For the given resolution the softness is ok. Downsampling is mostly BS. I'm still not too excited about the exposure. --Dschwen 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Does it looks better now? --Sfu 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC), It sure does! --Dschwen 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bitwa o Berlin rekonstrukcja.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 Clean, sharp, composition - QI. #!George Shuklin 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ZloteTarasyWarsaw2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ZloteTarasyWarsaw2.jpg. This image 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. --Szczepan talk  17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa - fontanna w Ogrodzie Saskim.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 The sky is slightly artefacty and the shadows on the front are a bit disturbing... Otherwise, this seems fine. A second opinion? --Dilaudid 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC), Looks ok to me. --Dschwen 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Żelechów-Stanisława.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments What are the UFOs? -- carol 05:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Do you mean spots over the clouds on the right side of? These are birds. --Sfu 06:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That is what I thought. Interesting pano. -- carol 09:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rupicapra rupicapra - Jahňaci štít.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 How did you get so close? Ianare 05:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Actualy it wasn`t very frighten. It seemed rather interested in me taking the photos. --Sfu 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tank T-34.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 Interesting subject Ianare 05:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Veľká Studená dolina–top.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 stitch. Nice qiality. --Dschwen 14:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hińczowe oka.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 Pretty good too. People are really useful for a sense of scale. --Dschwen 14:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Červené pleso.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 Don't see anything keeping this from QI. --Dschwen 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szewach Weiss.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 like that portrait a lot. It's direct and shows the man waiting to give the next signature. Technically it could benefit from some deflashing (blueish cast in the face). --Ikiwaner 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jastrabia veža from dolina Zeleného plesa.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 enough for QI. Lycaon 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pieris brassicae na kwiatku.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 colours and big dof. --Ikiwaner 05:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Acacia cardiophylla 08.jpg

I've commented and changed the scope. Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replyed on the page. Bidgee (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Onion 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 Beautiful colours and details. --Lestath 19:17, 8 August 2008 (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:
Wilanów Palace.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Plenty candidates too choose from! But at this size and being a panorama and fulfilling al criteria, it is easily the best of the bunch. Lycaon (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

VI closure

Hi Sfu, Thank you for helping me to close valued image candidates. Please note that closure cannot be done earlier than at least seven days after the nomination according to Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. I will revert a few of your closures done on nominations which has not been open for seven days. Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I am sure you will not forget it again. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius presidential 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 {{{3}}}

FP

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Porto3flat-cc-contr-oliv1002 edit2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Porto3flat-cc-contr-oliv1002 edit2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

naerii 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I have closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Goetheanum Dornach.jpg as not featured. naerii 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa - Ogród Saski Astronomia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Berthold Werner 09:12, 20 August 2008 (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:
Królikarnia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support It talks to me. --Foroa (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Question Could you indicate why this particular building is of interest, please? We can't have a valued image of every building in the world and presumably there is some particular interest in this one that makes it worthy of being the subject of a valued image? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am not sure, but there are three elements in the picture that grab my interest: the building is standing there in the center of the picture, the low (sunset, low angle) and contrasting light that sets the building apart from its environment (and the sky) and there is a human presence/reference (3 persons, so we have a reference for the size). But that's just me. --Foroa (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Known to everyone living in Warsaw. There is an article about it in Polish and English wikis. --Sfu (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dwie maliny.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 Lovely image. Nice use of depth of field to highlight the ripe and unripe berries for comparison. --Jonathunder 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gozd kaplica.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great composition, quality OK --Ianare 01:03, 22 August 2008 (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:
Focus Filtrowa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Could you indicate why this particular building is of interest, please? We can't have a valued image of every building in the world and presumably there is some particular interest in this one that makes it worthy of being the subject of a valued image? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  There is an article about it in wikipedia, which I think is good enough reason. A question for question — why every single species is of interest? This building is quite a landmark. If it were the Eiffel Tower I think you wouldn't ask a question about it. A question arise now, which buildings are worth having VI? I think a good border between buildings in "particular interest" and out of it, is existance of article about on the one of wikis. --Sfu (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Support and  Comment You ask about plant species and the relevance of those. These are quite clear I think due to the presence of WikiSpecies as a Wikimedia project, as documentation of all living species is in scope of that project. When it comes to buildings, it is a little more subjective, but I tend to agree with the nominator that the fact that there is a non-stub Wikipedia article about it is an indicator of value, and I also note that the architecture of the building makes it a landmark type of building which is probably quite notable. It should not get much lower on the relevance scale for me though to make it a VI. It satisfies other criteria. Geocoding could be improved by providing a heading parameter. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  My question was rather rhetorical. I did not mean anything against the plants on VI. All species are worth having its article on wikipedia (not speaking of the wikispecies) so as VI scope. There is no buildingpedia — happily I think. --Sfu (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

★ 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:
Marszałkowska Street in Warsaw.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Could you indicate why this particular street is of interest, please? We can't have a valued image of every street in the world and presumably there is some particular interest in this one that makes it worthy of being the subject of a valued image? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  There is an article about in Polish and English wikis. Known to, I think, almost everyone in Poland. --Sfu (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Not every road can be valued, but I feel convinced that this particular road is of interest to Wikimedia projects. There is another image, Image:Marszalkowska 2.JPG, which is perhaps equally good at illustrating the subject, but this one wins as it is geocoded. The geocoding could be improved, by the way, by specifying a heading, see COM:GEO for details. When a heading is specified the Wikimedia icon is shown as a pointer in, e.g., google maps pointing in the direction of the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Vilnius Seimas.jpg

★ 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:
Seimas.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support The Lithuanian parliament building is certainly relevant for Wikimedia projects, I find it is clearly the best image we have of this building and it fulfills all other criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pomnik Sienkiewicza w Okrzei.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}}}

COM:QIC

Thank you Marcin for your promotion of one of my picture (Image:Thor Barge in Gaillard Cut.JPG) for QI status. I also appreciated the comments you made about Image:Lake Massawippi seen from North Hatley.JPG. I have to buy a better camera if I want to get rid of that noise problem. See you around! Phil13 (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A vote on VIC

Hi Sfu, I inserted a support vote on your behalf here. Please check that this is in line with your actual opinion. I will await your response before I close the nomination. Just reply here. I am watching ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I forgot about it. Sorry. --Sfu (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Żelechów-kościół zwiastowania NMP.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 It's OK. QI worth. --Lestath 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Staroleśna Dolina

Nie wiem o co konkretnie ci chodzi z tym czyszczeniem kategorii. Domyślam się, że chodzi ci o usunięcie kilku zdjęć, które nie były skategoryzowane. Ale ja ich nie usunąłem, a tylko przeniosłem do podkategorii, tak, by system kategorii był jednolity. Wszystkie zaś zdjęcia w kategorii Staroleśna Dolina znajdują się w artykule Veľká Studená dolina. No bo skoro ktoś podzielił kategrię Dolina Staroleśna na jeziora, to jaką podkategorię utworzyć dla zdjęć dotyczących samej doliny (bez jezior) ?. Ponadto w Wikipedii przydatna jest galeria dotycząca całej doliny. Tak nawiasem mówiąc jestem autorem największej liczby zdjęć w kategorii: Tatry, Beskid Wyspowy, Pieniny i Gorce. W kategorii Tatry jednak tak wielu wikipedystów tworzy systemy kategorii, tak wiele jest tutaj namieszane, że ostatnio już trudno mi się zorientować co jest co.Selso (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Twoje zdjęcie nie jest w kategorii, lecz w artykule Veľká Studená dolina. Zauważ, że w kategorii Category:Veľká Studená dolina nie ma nie tylko twojego zdjęcia, ale i moich, ani żadnych innych. W tej kategorii są tylko podkategorie i jeden artykuł (ten z twoim zdjęciem). Ale być może masz rację, że warto wstawić zdjęcia do kategorii (jak ktoś otworzy kategorie, to będzie miał przegląd zdjęć) - to zrób to, ale nie tylko dla swojego, lecz wszystkich pozostałych. Commons to prawdziwa stajnia Augiasza, głównie dlatego, że każdy zajmuje sie kategoryzacją własnych zdjęć, nie zważając na ogólny porządek. Niektórzy zaś są nadgorliwi, nie tak dawno jeden z wikipedystów do kilkuset moich zdjęć, które były już prawidłowo skategoryzowane dodał po kilka kategori wyższego rzędu z gór całej Europy... Pozdrawiam. Selso (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ludzie różnie szukają zdjęć i trzeba im dać jak najwięcej możliwości dotarcia do nich. No to daj im tę możliwość (tylko weź też pod uwagę, że inni też edytują zdjęcia). Selso (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

I have closed your FP nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Selassie restored.jpg as not featured. Thank you for your interest in promoting high quality content in the Wikimedia Commons, and I hope your next nomination is more successful. naerii 08:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa - Ogród Saski muzyka.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 Please name of the sculptor, dates, rights ? --B.navez 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)  Info No rights — 18th century --Sfu 07:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Subject is well illuminated and sharp. --LC-de 10:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adamów kościół z dzwonnicą.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 Please remove the black spot in the sky. Otherwise very nice picture. -- MJJR 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)  Done --Sfu 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC) -- O.K., MJJR 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adamów kościół front.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 picture -- MJJR 20:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trzmiel na białym kwiatku.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 details and sharpness. --Lestath 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kategoria:Staroleśna Dolina

Każde zdjęcie powinno trafiać do kategorii.. - no właśnie, każde. Ty jednak przywróciłeś do kategorii tylko jedno - swoje. Jest dobre, myślę jednak, że inne, skoro już są wpisane na commons też trzeba umieścić w tej kategorii. Tylko, że ktoś podzielił tę kategorię na podkategorie, np. Category:Dlhé pleso (Veľká Studená dolina). Ja wpisałem sie w ten nurt i utworzyłem dalsze podkategorie i teraz to trochę dziwnie wygląda. Kategoria Dolina Staroleśna dzieli się na kilka podkategorii, a oprócz niej było twoje zdjęcie, które nie należy do żadnej podkategorii, zapewne dlatego, że trudno dla niego ustalić nazwę podkategorii. Myślę, że obok niego powinny się znaleźć w takim razie wszystkie te, które przedstawiają ogólny wygląd doliny. Selso (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zakępie kaplica.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 angle. What an amazing building ! --B.navez 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wola Gułowska-trumna.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 Wow, what a great image. TimVickers 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Interesting image indeed, but could you straighten it a little? Not a the plank level, that one is tilted because of the skulls, but at the ground level. Lycaon 06:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)  Done --Sfu 14:59, 6 September 2008 (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:
Belianske Tatry.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info Working svg version. --Sfu (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Support This one works for me both when seen in a browser (FireFox 3.0 on Vista) and as a downloaded file in InkScape. Thank you for doing the effort! This is my preferred version. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support As per previous comments. Lycaon (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Image:Belianske Tatry from Jahňaci štít-captions sk.jpg: -1
Commons:Valued image candidates/Belianske Tatry from Jahňaci štít.jpg: 0
Commons:Valued image candidates/Belianske Tatry from Jahňaci štít-captions sk.svg: +2 <--
Results:
Image:Belianske Tatry from Jahňaci štít-captions sk.jpg: Declined
Image:Belianske Tatry from Jahňaci štít.jpg: Declined
Image:Belianske Tatry from Jahňaci štít-captions sk.svg: Promoted <--

-- Slaunger (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szczałb 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 It's OK. --Lestath 19:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adamów plebania.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 think that sharpness and detail are more or less inferior but on the whole is enough to QI. _B.navez 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wola Gułowska dzwonnica.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 Sharpness is nice, and very illustrative composition. _Fukutaro 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Wola Gułowska-trumna.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wola Gułowska-trumna.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? - Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szczałb kościół.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! Huta Żelechowska droga.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 trees are a little dark, but good quality --Pudelek 08:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Castle tourists.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 Quite good Aotearoa 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wola Gułowska kościół .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! Huta Żelechowska-droga.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 It's OK. --Lestath 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius tentement house.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius house Pilies 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 {{{3}}}

category:Villages in Silesia

Witaj, może lepiej przenieść zawartość tej kategorii to category:Villages in Silesian Voivodeship? Śląsk to w końcu całkiem spory obszar. Yarl ✉ 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bota mam podpiętego pod konto, więc problemu nie ma. Jest za to spory bałagan, np. w category:Regions of Poland, gdzie większość powinna trafić do województw. Yarl ✉ 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dobry pomysł. Można coś napisać, chociaż generalnie mało osób zagląda do tutejszego Baru. Zacznę poprawiać co nieco, zobaczymy co z tego wyjdzie. Yarl ✉ 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A, i jeszcze jedna uwaga, w Category:Piekary Śląskie, Katowice, Tychy i innych miastach na prawach powiatu kategoria "Silesian Voivodeship" zostaje, podobnie jak dla powiatów. Niech będzie jakaś ciągłość. Yarl ✉ 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I jeszcze co do Category:Cities in Poland to przyjmujemy standard jak w Category:Cities in the United States, czyli wszystkie miasta to kategorii "Cities in xxx voivodeship" a potem wywali się Category:Cities in Poland by voivodeship i te wszystkie kategorie z województwami da się do Category:Cities in Poland. Yarl ✉ 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)