User talk:Taxiarchos228/Archive2014

Archive:
2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019

(QICpromoted pictures, edit)

Mosquee Neratzes

There is a technical problem on your appointment VI. I do not know the solve. I suggest taking the opinion of User: Myrabella. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

[1] Gruß und frohes Neues, --SEM (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, danke für den Hinweis. Ist ja nett. Ebenso Dir ein gutes neues Jahr. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, kannst du hier vielleicht einmal kurz reinschauen: Der Punkt von Joerg30 klingt bedenkenswert- war es wirklich die Position des Turmes, die sich geändert hat? Gruß, --SEM (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2014 (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:
Mosquee Neratzes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Look good, but needs geocoding. I moved the nomination page. Yann (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Done geocode is added now --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support OK now. Yann (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nochmal FYI

[2] Bis auf die Positionierung des Turms (s.o.) kann ich davon gar nichts nachvollziehen, aber gut, jedem steht der Weg frei. Gruss, --SEM (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo SEM, dass die Position des Turmes verändert wurde habe ich aus angegebener Quelle entnommen. Ich hatte aber bisher keine Zeit, mich dazu weiter zu äußern. Vielleicht komme ich am Wochenende dazu. Und zu den Auslassungen von RTH kann ich nur sagen, dass es - wie leider öfter mal bei Wikipedia üblich ist - sich hier um viele unbelegte subjektive Empfindungen handelt und man Argumentationen vergebens sucht. Weitere Aufmerksamkeit als deine bisherige Antwort sollte man RTH besser nicht schenken. Das ist eben der Fluch und Segen, wenn ein Artikel ADT war/ ist. Oftmals erhält ein Artikel nochmal einen letzten Schliff, aber es zieht eben auch viele Pappnasen an, die gerne mal ein wenig fröhlich herum schwadronieren. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2014 (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:
Venetian Loggia, Heraklion (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Better than the old one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Agree, this image is better. Halavar (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Kreta - Iraklion - Venezianische Loggia.jpg: +2
2. Venetian Loggia, Heraklion 02.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <--
=>
File:Kreta - Iraklion - Venezianische Loggia.jpg: Promoted.
File:Venetian Loggia, Heraklion 02.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--

--Halavar (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Kreta - Europastraße75 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Europastraße75 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Kreta - Panorama bei Kerá.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Panorama bei Kerá.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Mury miejskie w Kotorze 05.JPG

Hello Wladyslaw, I uploaded a new version of this file ,can you take a look please? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Changed at QIC to pro. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke8.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke8.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (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:
Galleria Mendini, Lörrach, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive2014⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (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:
Wasserschloss Inzlingen, main view from southwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment : Could you add "View from E (or N...)" to the scope and to the two other ones, as we usually do here ? Thanks in advance. --JLPC (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support OK now. --JLPC (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2014 (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:
Aerial view of Wasserschloss Inzlingen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As Yann says, it's the best in scope. Wide enough so you can see the extent of the moat, and at such an angle that the trees don't get in the way. Nev1 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2014 (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:
Einsegnungshalle Hauptfriedhof Freiburg, aerial view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (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:
Haus zur Ilge, Einsiedeln.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2014 (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:
Reformierte Kirche Rheinfelden.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2014 (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:
Turkish House in Rethymno.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment I think that we should add "in Rethymno" to the scope. Remember, that there are milions of Turkish houses in the world... Halavar (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO not necessary, the category is a sub-cat of Rethymno and until now we don't seem to have a similar important house named "turkish house", but if you think it's necessary then make add the city name --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2014 (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:
Marienbrunnen (Einsiedeln).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met. Halavar (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2014 (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:
Wohnanlage Stadion, general view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"your personal campaign against my pictures"

You say that, but I don't review your photos any differently than any others. Nor do you review mine any differently, because mine are after all the ONLY ones you review, and they're all declines! Wow, that's an incredible coincidence! Makes you think, doesn't it! -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the intro of this page? Anyone who cares for the civilized manners is welcome here. A short welcoming and leave-taking speech seem not to be your custom. Next time such a message I will delete without reply.

Back to the point: I´m so sorry to decline your images. But it's a verifiable fact that your tedious and very connatural pictures are often clearly underexposed or sometimes there is even missing a clear object. I you doensn`t agree with my review, you are free to start a discussion. If I would take the QI criteria very serious I had to decline at least 50 % of your candidatures. This is the second point.

The first point is: on our last conflict you have restricted yourself not to review my images. From this time I have avoided your images. At once you seem to have forgotten your own statement and startet with reviewing my images. And so I started inevitably reviewing your´s. In fact your absurd decline-reasons are the real incredible coincidence. And now I would propose that YOU are not going me further on my nerves. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you broke that truce first. I won't lie, I don't feel sad when I decline yours, but I do not decline them out of sheer spite. I promote those I believe show the technical excellence required for QI, I decline those which I do not believe can be altered to QI status, and those in the middle I comment on and you bite my head off. "Why should I do perspective correction and a crop". Because that is what I am suggesting as a way to get your photo promoted! As with any suggestion, you are free to ignore it, but a comment means the photo is not QI as is, and I am trying to help you get it there. I really don't know why you seem to despise me so much, but it's really rather tedious. If you can't take your photos being reviewed, you shouldn't post them to QI.

I should point out that I do not disagree with all of your declines of my photos. Now that I look again, yes, some are far from perfect. But what do I object to is the way you have decided to further your vendetta against me by specifically reviewing my photos and no one else's, and then only those you can find some pretext to decline.

As for the intro to your page, clearly then you should not comment here. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(1) Let's stick to the truth: I do not broke nothing. I never said I will not review your pictures. But you did and you startet reviewing pictures in a dubious way.

(2) To complain that I have reviewed only your pictres although YOU did this nearly before is really absurd.

(3) After this I see no honest will to arrange, so here end of discussion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Taxiarchos228,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (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:
Bismarck-Nationaldenkmal, general view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2014 (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:
Haus des Reisens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2014 (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:
Schloss Bellevue.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in a rich scope. Yann (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2014 (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:
Christopheruskirche (Berlin-Friedrichshagen).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (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:
RBB-Sendezentrum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Berlin - Schloss Bellevue2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Schloss Bellevue2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle6.jpg

Sehr schönes Bild. Ich würde es hier nicht für eine unzulässige Veränderung halten, wenn Du die Spitze oben ein bisserl abschneidest und mit Himmel clonst. Falls Dir das aber widerstrebt, würde ich nach einem entsprechenden Kommentar zu meiner Review das Photo trotzdem promoten. Nur zur Info. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, muss ich mir noch überlegen. Eine künstliche Verkürzung der "Nadel" wäre meiner Auffassung noch gerade noch noch zulässig, da man im Bild ohnehin nicht reale Längen nachmisst. Muss nur schauen, ob ich ein Stück Spitze aus anderen Bildern hineinclonen kann. Bin nicht so sehr der Retoucheexperte. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nee, das geht ganz einfach mit 3 oder 5 Clones mittels LR. Erster Clone Spitze abschneiden, zweiter und dritter Clone ist dann links und rechts die scharfe Kante abrunden. Das wars schon. Das mache ich manchmal mit Antennen. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Vergiss den dicken Fleck auf File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle9.jpg nicht ;-) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Cccefalon: beides erledigt. Den Vogel habe ich auch vom Himmel in die Wüste geschickt ;) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Es sieht perfekt aus. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2014 (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:
St. John Cathedral Church in Wrocław, view to front with main portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2014 (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:
Iglica.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. I think you could removed "complete view". Yann (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ok --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2014 (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:
Centennial Hall, general view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle6.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle6.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2014 (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:
Woodside I (ship, 1986).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good. Yann (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasserkraftwerk Laufenburg

Hey,

I added some notes. I even open the file in lightroom and removed about 15 spotes. I can upload a new version if you don't mind?--ArildV (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to upload the new version. I have the problem to identify all spots by myself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (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:
Kraftwerk Laufenburg, main view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and useful ("SW view" added to the scope, as we usually do here.) --JLPC (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

JLPC: I don't think it's necessary here because this view from SW is also the general and main view. The opposite view from NE is much less representative. On churches the general view is also the main portal front and all other views need to be specified and not the main view. If we need now general a specification than I would recommend to use "main view instead of view from SW". --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. --JLPC (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Wasserkraftwerk Laufenburg1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wasserkraftwerk Laufenburg1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2014 (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:
Vitra Slide Tower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2014 (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:
Münster (Basel).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2014 (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:
Spalentor.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2014 (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:
Oleg Blokhin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2014 (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:
Landscape Formation One.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : OK. --JLPC (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Taxiarchos228 (talk · contribs), I have blocked your account for a period of two days for persistent edit warring on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpg, a featured picture nomination created by you. Repeatedly removing a comment of someone opposing your nomination after being told to cease doing so here, here, here, and here is disruptive. Additionally, your response to those who do not agree with your position is anything but collaborative. I will be leaving a message on Fotoriety's talk page asking him not to re-add the comment and continue the edit war. To contest this block, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Rather funny. This means: Fotoriety can use FPC for insults and personal allegations. After YOU have warned Fotoriety has re added his insults. Obviously without HE has been blocked for. You maid the proposition: A compromise. Fotoriety, please alter your comment slightly to ensure that it does not come off as offensive to Wladyslaw. But he obviously just added the old insults. If Fotoriety had do so I wouldn't have reverted his edit. So I apply unblocking me or blocking Fotoriety also for 2 days. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Your attitude has been problematic for years, and while Fotoriety's comments are not the best ever on Commons, they are not especially problematic to my mind. You were warned not to remove the comment, you declined to follow the advice. Take the two days and calm down. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

One of my warnings was at 15:15 on July 15th, 2014 and the other was at 21:04 on July 15th, 2014. Fotoriety (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since. Tiptoety ^talk 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And your "warnings" does not chance my arguments that he added his non factual and insulting comment again! Beside of this: WHO are you to bring a disussion to and end I have started just a few hours ago? I dont't think you have ability to control what should be discussed on commons and what not. Ever heard about this? Once again: either Fotoriety will be blocked same to me (2 days) because of edit warring and putting insults in FPC comments or you unblock me at once. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is not a relevant concept here. Just as if you start shouting in a cinema you will be asked to leave, the same applies here. You may have a right to free speech on the street, but once you venture into a private space, such as Wikimedia, you lose that right. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your cinama-analogy is not relevant. In difference between shouting into a cinema and starting a discussion topic in commons is: every single user is free to read this and express his opinion or to ignore it. That you're attitude to freedom of speech is such poor doesn't surprise me very much. Your skill and will for a dialog and logic arguments are not very developed or you aren't showing this. Commons Wikipedia is a collaborative work of many user that has to exchange and communicate together. This doesn't mean that every opinion must be popular. Beside of this: losing right of free speech is just your personal theory and not the basics here. If yes, you can for sure show me those rules. But I am sure you coulnd't show me. In nearly 10 years work here I never read about this. This block is same to your arguments a big farce. Take the 2 days to think abaout his. If it would chance anythink? --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Leuchtturm

Hallo … was dieses Bild angeht … wie wär’s hiermit? Etwas dunkel ist es nämlich auch geraten. Wenn dir meine Bearbeitung gefällt, lad ich es als neue Version drüber. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Kreuzschnabel, ich kann die Bearbeitungen selbst durchführen. Danke für die Anregungen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2014 (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:
Hochhaus am Chesterplatz.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : right ! --JLPC (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Best in scope

Hi, to put the best in scope, in the Valued image Candidates, customary to put the command " Best in Scope" instead of writing it out in full, thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 20:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you change the status to support as I did. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There are things that are done and things that are done well, you still make them then --LivioAndronico talk 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I`m sorry, but I don't know to what exactly your remarks correspond to. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Basel - St.-Alban-Tor.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - St.-Alban-Tor.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - St.-Alban-Tor.jpg

We have an experience that the FPC Bot failed to close a nomination if more that one picture is on the page (except for where alt= is clearly specified). That is why I remove such pictures while closing a nom. No problem for your revert as the nom is already closed by the bot. Jee 06:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no problem then and thank you for information. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower16.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower16.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2014 (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:
Gate of Saint Alban, pricipale view (SE).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Could you add "NW (or SE...) view" to the scope, as we usually do here -- except for buildings or sites that can be seen (and photographed) from only one point of view ? Thanks in advance. --LivioAndronico talk 06:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the main view of this gate, so that there is no need IMO to specify the view. If there would be a need, we have to add the direction in all building images for VIC. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but as we have not had the chance to go there we do not know. Add back: facade or pricipale view, does not cost very much. :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (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:
Messe Berlin, main building.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --LivioAndronico talk 20:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2014 (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:
Viktoria (Berlin Victory Column).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : good and useful. --JLPC (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2014 (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:
Hans-Thoma-Gymnasium Lörrach, main building (E-NE view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- I hope "E-NE view" is Ok : I presume the picture was taken from the other side of Baumgatnerstrasse :). . --JLPC (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2014 (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:
Rosenfelscampus, aerial view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment It would be good to add to the scope: aerial view. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I did it but without an aerial view you could never make an image where all parts are pictured. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but it's better to say. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2014 (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:
Far de Formentor, offshore side (SE).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment It would be good to add to the scope, direction of shooting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lörrach - Burghof Lörrach - Abendansicht5.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Burghof Lörrach - Abendansicht5.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Schloss Lenzburg - Gesamtansicht1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Lenzburg - Gesamtansicht1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fernsehturm

Hallo Taxiarchos228, schau doch mal bei Deinem Bild vom Fernsehturm, das Du am 30. September 2014 vorgestellt hast, ob sich nicht das "little blue thing" leicht entfernen last, damit vielleicht auch Mattbuck zufrieden ist. Ich staune immer wieder, wie kritisch jemand ist, der selbst meist nur Mittelmäßiges bis Schwaches präsentiert. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Antwort per Mail. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Basel - Basler Münster - Hauptportal.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Basler Münster - Hauptportal.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt November 2014-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 12:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - November 2014.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. --Hubertl 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Dreibeinkonstrultion2.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. --Jacek Halicki 12:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Detailansichten5.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 --Ram-Man 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Detailansichten2.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. --Hubertl 06:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Münchenstein - Grün80-Park - Seismosaurus1.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. --Livioandronico2013 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Münchenstein - Grün80-Park - Seismosaurus3.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 --Christian Ferrer 05:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Bottabau am Aeschenplatz2.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. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Bottabau am Aeschenplatz1.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. --Jacek Halicki 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Eckhaus Freie Strasse 101.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 Good quality --Halavar 15:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Zeitungsständer.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 Good quality --Halavar 15:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Hohenfirstenhof.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. --Jacek Halicki 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lörrach - Panorama vom Fernsehturm St. Chrischona.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. --Jacek Halicki 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Helvetia Verwaltungsgebäude1.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. --P e z i 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Bottabau am Aeschenplatz3.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 15:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Detailansichten8.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. --Kreuzschnabel 13:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Helvetia Verwaltungsgebäude2.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 shadowy but very sharp --DXR 22:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basel - Hammering Man.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 Despite the wires, it's high quality. --Ram-Man 02:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

New level {{User PH-4}}

Hi ; new level 4 for you ?--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

PH-4

This user is able to take professional quality photographs.

Happy holidays! 2015!

		* * * Happy Holidays 2015 ! * * *
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt 22.Dezember 2014.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt 22.Dezember 2014.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)