User talk:Ikiwaner/Archive/2007-08-13

Danke Ikiwaner, ich werde wahrscheinlich in der nächsten Zeit noch mehr Fotos hochladen. Danke & Gruss Raphael

P.S. Habe den Account Raphael zur Löschung bei Chris73 beantragt. Die drei Fotos der Diesellok möchte ich auf meinen Account übernehmen.

Copyright in Bildern

Hallo Ikiwaner, du hast vorhin 2 Bilder ersetzt (die 2 Torpedobilder) und das (c) bzw. den Streifen getilgt. Naja, eigentlich nicht weiter wild, aber nächstes mal lieber erstmal in der Dorfpumpe zwecks Zweifeln an der Lizenz nachfragen oder gleich in die Deletion_requests reinsetzen. Weil solch ein Copyright einen eigentlich immer sofort stutzig machen sollte, besonders wenn drunter etwas von GNU-FDL steht (ohne Autoren). Auf der Quellseite stand davon nichts, ergo ist anzunehmen, dass die Bilder diese Lizenz auch nicht besitzen und im Zweifelsfall sollte eher gelöscht werden (was auch bereits mit den 2 Bildern geschehen ist). Gruß Darkone (¿!) 23:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Schloss heiligenhoven lindlar.jpg

Huhu :) Schön, daß du dich solch unterbelichteter Bilder annimmst, aber irgendwie sieht mir das Bild so aus, als ob bis auf die Fassade alles schwarz/weiß geworden ist. Lässt sich da noch was drehen? Viele Grüße, --JensD 30 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)

Danke der Nachfrage. Ich schlage vor, die Diskussion auf der Diskussionsseite des Fotos weiterzuverfolgen und erlaube mir daher, deine Frage dorthin zu kopieren. --Ikiwaner July 1, 2005 15:08 (UTC)

in 1880

Image:Londone_evacuation.jpg

Hi, I just got this pic from wikinews, and copied the original description to commons. This pic is come from flickr, I thought it is a free pic :o) --Mosesofmason 7 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

You're welcome, at last we found out. Thanks --Ikiwaner 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Image:Kupfer Nugget.jpeg

Die Text sagt daß es Kupfer ist, aber das Bild ist Mitglied der Gold-Categorie... Also was ist es? Kupfer oder Gold? Vielen Dank im voraus! Shinobu 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Der Kupfernugget wurde nachträglich dorthin verschoben, ich habs revertiert. --Ikiwaner 10:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Das Bild ist von dir. Woher hast du denn den Kupfernugget? Gefunden? *Neugierig fragt* --SvonHalenbach 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Danke für dein Interesse. Ich habe einige Halbedelsteine, Erze und Schlacken, mich fasziniert das Rohe. Mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit habe ich den Nugget beim Mineralienhändler Sieber+Sieber in CH-8607 Aathal gekauft, es kann aber auch ein anderer gewesen sein. --Ikiwaner 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha, danke. War nur neugierig. :)

Image:München Hofgartentempel.jpg

Vielen Dank für die Verbesserung des Bildes! Das sollte die Chancen für die Wahl zum Featured picture deutlich verbessern. --Kurmis 08:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Royal_exhibition_building_tulips.jpg

Hi! Sorry, you are right to question these details! I will update the image comments now. It was taken in Melbourne, Australia and was built in 1880. You can find some more information on it in the English wikipedia here [1]]. Diliff 10:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems perfect now for me. --Ikiwaner 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Decat?

Hi... can you explain this edit? How is it "indirectly" in that category? Jkelly 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the Category tree this image would be member of Category:Castles in Albania which itself would be member of Category:Buildings in Albania. As there are too few pictures to create Category:Castles in Albania and the image is member of Category:Buildings in Albania there is no need of Category:Castles. General cats like this should be empty. --Ikiwaner 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think that "indirectly a member" is a confusing summary for that decision. I think it might be better, when doing category cleanup, to do things like make small categories (like Category:Castles in Albania would be) -- they'll eventually collect more images, and it allows someone to begin searching at Category:Castles, instead of Category:Albania, to find more images of castles. In any case, thank you for explaining. Jkelly 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is no possibility to view a category "flat" with the images of the subcategories included I'll stay with the 5 pics per cat at least rule of thumb. You don't find images anymore if you have one cat per image. Nevertheless I hope the "flat cat feature" is coming soon. The comment was wrong, I just took one of my standard ones, excuse me. --Ikiwaner 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:074-The-Siege-of-a-Castle-q75-901x1230.jpg

How can you tell that the castle in the picture is in the UK? // Liftarn

I strongly assumed that a drawing of a castle in a book called Life and Work of the People of England shows a UK castle and not one in Germany. --Ikiwaner 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Zuerich_Escherhauser.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Laracroft-neu.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Laracroft-neu.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:SPDFraktion

Hi.

The deletion debate of Template:SPDFraktion is still not settled. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:SPDFraktion

The statement by the SPDFraktion is not sufficient to determine how free their images are.

If the Template:SPDFraktion is to be kept, the SPDFraktion have to be asked again, and they have to give a more specific permission. If a more specific term of use is not granted, the images will probably by deleted.

Please see Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung für alle Anfragen which will give you an idea of what is necessary for permission.

I hope that you will send the SPDFraktion another email, and they respond in a positive way, so that this problem can be resolved.

Fred Chess 18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I wrote the email. Nevertheless the original text on their Homepage seems free enough to me. --Ikiwaner 22:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Retouching

Please always upload retouched versions on new name (especially when you cut smaller frame from picure or scale it down). All "noise reduction" techniques remove some information from picture anyway, so it may look better, but it's not obvious, and some people may even consider "noised" image better than retouched.

Your last upload (Brenna_kapliczka) caused some confusion on Polish wikipedia, because it was featured picture there and one of our admins removed it by mistake replacing with your retouched version, but our Wikipedians voted for original, full resolution, not on your work :)

Regards,

A.J. 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like this picture, but I honestly disagree that one has to upload edits under a different name. The Wiki is here to create new versions under the same name—you don't loose data because the software creates a version history. Despite I think the analog negative of this image is excellent the digital scan is not. If you look at the picture with a black backgound (this makes it even nicer) the white bar at the bottom is really ugly. Then the compression is too high which causes artifacts. The color aberrations are quite visible too and a bad sharpening algorithm might be responsible for at least some of the noise. That's why you'd better take an edit as the featured version. If you don't like mine simply do it better. The resolution is imo not so important since you can do a 11x17cm reprint even with the downscaled version. --Ikiwaner 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SVG help

As an svg expert, I'm asking your help again. I created this image (Image:Vernier_caliper_new.png) in CorelDraw 9 and then exported it, as png, to Inkshape in order to obtain a svg version. I can open this svg version in my computer (with Inkshape) but it won't show in Wikipedia. Do you think it is hopeless? Alvesgaspar 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Someone got there first! Please see Image:Vernier caliper legends.svg. Alvesgaspar 12:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Concratulations to your very illustrative drawing! --Ikiwaner 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rosa Ave Maria 1.jpg

Zu Deiner Information: Die „Ave Maria“ ist eine dunkelorange bzw. lachsfarben blühende Züchtung, die äußeren Blütenblätter bekommen nach dem Aufblühen einen leicht dunklen Saum. Die Beurteilung der Farbe solltest Du also noch mal überlegen. --Eva K. ^Message 12:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Respekt vor dieser schönen Rosenzucht. Ich hab sie mir das Bild nochmals angeschaut, bleibe aber im Grundsatz bei meiner Beurteilung: Die Rose ist grossflächig überbelichtet. Du kannst das im z.B. im Photoshop sehen, wenn du bei der Tonwertkorrektur bei den Lichtern die Alt-Taste drückst oder das Histogramm anschaust. Das fiese an einer Überbelichtung ist ja gerade, dass man nicht mehr sagen kann, wie stark die Abweichung der Farbe ist, es kann also gut sein, dass die Rose nur ein bisschen röter gewesen ist als aktuell dargestellt. Auf jeden Fall auf der Strecke geblieben ist die Zeichnung der Details auf den Blütenblättern, sie wirken einfach nur unifarbig. Hier ein beispiel einer korrekt belichteten roten Blume. Versuchs doch positiv zu sehen: Die Rosen werden nächsten Sommer wieder blühen, versuchs nochmals und kontrolliere deine Bilder im Histogramm. Lieber Gruss --Ikiwaner 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Prinzipiell tut es mir nicht weh, daß das Foto jetzt nicht durchkommen ist. Die Farbe paßt allerdings schon, die letzte Blüte dieses Jahres ist noch dran - aber wohl nicht mehr lange. Photoshop habe ich allerdings nicht, das kann ich mir nicht leisten.
Zum Bild selbst: Es ist bei hellem Sonnenlicht entstanden, die Blüten der Ave Maria leuchten dann sehr intensiv. Das macht das Motiv nicht gerade einfach. --Eva K. ^Message 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Für die Grundfunktionen wie Histogramm, Tonwert- und Gradiationskurvenkorrektur gibt es gute kostenlose Software. Dass deine Rose überbelichtet ist, wage ich einem qualitativ mässigen Belichtungsmesser zuzuschreiben. Er hat nicht erkannt, dass die Rose sattfarbig ist und deshalb die zulässige Belichtungszeit etwa eine Blendenstufe kürzer wird. In diesem Fall hilft nur manuelles Einstellen der Belichung. Wirklich schwierig zu fotografieren sind dunkelblaue und violette Blumen, da diese Farben kaum am Bildschirm dargestellt werden können. Farbsäume hin- farbsäume her: Wichtig ist die Freude am Fotografieren! Lieber Gruss --Ikiwaner 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Freude am Fotografieren sollte meinen Galerien zufolge kein Problem sein. ;-) Ich hatte sowieso vor, ein vergleichbares Bild im kommenden Jahr noch mal aufzunehmen, dann ggf. mit Stativ, manueller Einstellung und nicht gerade mit 400 ASA (von wegen Rauschen). --Eva K. ^Message 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Super, denk auch an die JPG-Komprimierung, sie sollte etwa 90% betragen. --Ikiwaner 06:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lara Croft deletion

It was a mannequin, clearly a violation of trademark. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's OK then. --Ikiwaner 10:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kannst du mir helfen?

Hallo, Ikiwaner, darf ich dir mal gaaanz vorsichtig mit einem Sortiment Fragen die Tür einrennen? Kannst du mir (kurz und knapp) sagen, was es mit den Bildern der Commons:Quality images candidates-Seite genau auf sich hat, bin mir nicht ganz sicher, was ich richtig begriffen habe. Wer stellt die Bilder dort ein und warum?

Hauptgrund meiner Anfrage: am 12. November wurde hier eins meiner Bilder von Diligent eingestellt. Nun beobachte ich es die ganze Zeit neugierig –aber seit einer Beurteilung durch Simonizer tut sich nix. -G'hört das so???

Mit diesem Bild gibt es außerdem Darstellungsprobleme. Hatte deswegen im commonsforum nachgefragt, aber bislang keine Antwort dazu bekommen. Hast du mir wohl eine? Eigentlich sollten Bilder ja in hoher Auflösung hochgeladen werden –oder verwechsle ich da was?

Jetzt hoff ich ja sehr, dass du nicht genervt bist. :o) Ganz lieben Gruß Gruss in die Schweiz! --Wildfeuer 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ob guten Fragen nervt man sich doch nicht :-) Danke der Nachfrage, erst jetzt stelle ich fest, dass die QIC-Seiten nicht übersetzt sind. Die QI dienen dazu, qualitativ einwandfreie Bilder auszuzeichnen, um sie vom grossen Mehr der qualitativ schlechten abzuheben und leichter auffindbar zu machen. Nominieren kann man Bilder, die vom Ersteller hochgeladen wurden. Reviewen kann auch jeder.

Dein Bild wurde für gut befunden, es muss jetzt eine 14-tägige Einsprachefrist abwarten, bis es zum QI wird. --Ikiwaner 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Danke sehr für die kurzundgute QIC-Antwort! Das hört sich interessant an.

Darf ich in aller Beharrlichkeit die bislang unbeantwortete Frage betreffs des Umgangs mit diesem darstellunsgproblematischen QIC-Bild nochmals vorlegen? Es nervt mich total, dass es nicht richtig angezeigt wird. Andere Bilder mit dem selben Darstellungsproblem hab ich nochmals neu hochgeladen, teils in kleinerer Auflösung, teils einfach unter neuem Dateinamen. Da sie jetzt einwandfrei angezeigt werden, hab ich die Originale löschen lassen und somit nur brauchbares Material. Bis auf dieses 1900 x 1353 Pixel große QIC-Bild. Mit dem würde ich gerne genauso verfahren. Nach mehreren fehlgeschlagenen Versuchen, es durch erneutes Hochladen in anderen Größen unter demselben Namen sichtbar zu machen, habe ich es in einer minimal kleineren Version (1888 x 1344px) unter dem Namen Image:2006-10-18Cucurbita pepo06.jpg nochmals hochgeladen. Diese wird einwandfrei angezeigt. Natürlich würde ich das Original am liebsten genauso löschen lassen wie bei den anderen. Un nu kommze, die Frage: Kann die brauchbarere Ersatz-Version als QIC-Bild anstelle des Originals genommen werden? Oder, noch genauer, was fang ich nu mit den Doppelgängern an? Fragende Grüße --Wildfeuer 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Für mich sieht das nach einem Softwarebug aus. Der Weg, die zu melden, ist in de:Hilfe:MediaZilla beschrieben. Er ist steinig und lang, also lerne lieber mit dem Fehler zu leben. Daher würde ich auf der QIC-Seite das Bild austauschen, alle Links darauf entfernen und es als Duplikat schnellöschen lassen. Gegebenenfalls stellt sich die Frage, weshalb bei dir der Fehler auftaucht und bei anderen nicht (Kamera, Software). In der Hoffnung, dir geholfen zu haben: Gute Nacht! --Ikiwaner 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jetzt isses für alles zu spät. Das Bild hat sein Auszeichnungsbapperl und ist auf allerlei schönen Seiten zu finden. Hach, hurra! Wie sagtest du so zu Herzen gehend: "...lerne lieber, mit dem Fehler zu leben." Yep. Ich mach jetzt gar nix mehr mit dem guten Stück als mich einfach nur tierisch zu freuen. Weißt du, ich hab mich erst diesen Sommer so richtig ans Fotografieren gemacht und finde das jetzt total motivierend. Danke dir nochmals sehr für deine Mühe. Prost! Liebe Grüße --Wildfeuer 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Gratulation auch meinerseits! --Ikiwaner 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Danke! :o)) --Wildfeuer 20:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Do you talk me about Category:Churches in Slovakia ? This is a different category than Category:Churches in Switzerland; you can notice that near all subcategories are Churches in X.

However, I agree to stop edits regarding this category if other people stop to revert my edits. --Juiced lemon 13:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very worry about the way decisions are taken in Commons (rather are not taken). An arbitration began in September between I and user:Martorell about basic issues, and it has not progressed since. I tried to talk about the category names for religious buildings in village pump, without result.

Of course, I agree to talk about this last issue, by where? with who? --Juiced lemon 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion request is a good place for this discussion. See my comments there. --Ikiwaner 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks and more...

hello, a short message to say i really appreciate the change you've done for her and to suggest that you (i don't know/not sure, how to) go on just a little bit and get rid of the little non-essential white zone at the bottom right corner. --Diligent 21:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work finding all the good images. Correction is done in this case. --Ikiwaner 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks again - i've just seen it. It's really my pleasure to browse Commons and try to promote some of the pictures i like and make commoners feel good at being "qualified".

Selfactor

Hi! I have only one question about this image, you sent me (selfactor01.jpg). Is this image have to be accurate vector copy of this jpg, or only principle of operation this mechanism? I have some problems with English language. This letter wrote my son, so if you could use some more simple language/words in future, I would be grateful. --Bastian 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No copy, similar to Image:Warsztat_pion.svg. The old Selfactor image is just a template. --Ikiwaner 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Italy

Following the debate in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Churches in Italy, you have agreed with the project to standardize in Commons the form of category names for buildings in a special location. The standardized form is “<Type of building> in <location>”.

However, regarding in particular the “Churches in <country>” categories set, I thing that your opinion does not appear clearly, since you have not changed your vote delete in the same page. I don't want to modify the category names without consensus. So, can you clarify your opinion? --Juiced lemon 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy end?! --Ikiwaner 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Justinuskirche Höchst south-east view November 2006.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}}}

Alvesgaspar 11:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

THANKS For your feedback

Thank you for your beautiful feedback of my photo ( ScarpeBagnate.JPG ): I liked it very much! however, if you would, support it on Featured picture candidates too. --Mattia Luigi Nappi 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry I believe its just very good not excellent. --Ikiwaner 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Picture of the Year and Picture of the Month contests

I have posted a new proposal on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates regarding the creation of FP-related contests and would like your feedback on the idea. This message is being sent to some of the regular contributors to Commons:Featured picture candidates. Alvesgaspar 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. See my reply there. --Ikiwaner 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

QI promotions

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zuerich Migroshochhaus 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Peiden01.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}}}

Alvesgaspar 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY election implementation

Some help in needed to organize the POTY election. Please check the conclusions of the discussion in Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. What do you think of doing the election in the period 15-31 January? - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Parus major in flight 01.jpg

THX. If it was so easy to catch, I surely would. Maybe next time I'll be lucky. :) Jojo 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your picture Image:Glarus Stadtkirche Langhaus.jpg

This picture is beatiful, I like the perfect composition and the delicacy of colouring. I took the liberty of editing the image a bit, including a downsample (here). Suggest a nomination for FP. Alvesgaspar 11:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it and thanks for nomination! You're right that the image would benefit of some more contrast but I think it shifted towards the blue. And there is some noise that could be removed. --Ikiwaner 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Year - still on?

There has been little traffic on Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 recently. Are we still going to do this? If so, we need to decide the dates of the first and second rounds of voting, and make sure everything is ready to go (by 1st Feb?) I'm happy to help, but wouldn't want to do this on my own if no-one else has much interest. --MichaelMaggs 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See my suggestions there. --Ikiwaner 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Anas-americana-004.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anas-americana-004.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New QI guidelines

Don't think my input helped much. I agree with you 100% for what it's worth. Jnpet 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

QI promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hundertwasser nz 1998 hg.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}}}

Jnpet 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luzern Kapellbruecke.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}}}

Jnpet 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biel bienne sunset.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}}}

Jnpet 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

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） | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

QI Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zuerich Sunrise Tower 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--Jnpet 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Glaciers

Glaciers carve out a U-shaped valley (as opposed to the V-shape of rivers). The illustration is obviously a crossection through the valley part and focusses on the moraines and debris features left behind when receding, not on the carving action of the glacier itself (that would be a different illustration). I hope this explains?? Lycaon 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This helps. A good illustration anyways. --Ikiwaner 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Alvesgaspar 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is it possible to have a caption either in French or english? wether language you choose, I will take care of the other Berrucomons 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zuerich Uetliberg Sendeturm.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}}}

--Jnpet 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for comments on HDR image. I will consider your suggestions.--Nevit 09:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Glarus Kloentalersee.jpg, which was nominated by Leyo at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Glarus Kloentalersee.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, but I have the same request for thar one... Berrucomons 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems Leyo has been faster than me ... --Ikiwaner 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FP deleted

Your image above was deleted. Please check Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#FP deleted. - Alvesgaspar 10:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem to me. --Ikiwaner 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Two-toed sloth Costa Rica.jpg

Hallo Ikiwaner. Durch das Stück Himmel, wo das Bild wohl überbelichtet ist, konnte ich das Bild nicht auf die gewünschte Qualität bringen. Ist da was zu machen? Wäre es allenfalls von Vorteil, die unbearbeitete Version als Ausgangslage zu haben? Betreffend des anderen Bildes habe ich dir auf meiner Diskussionsseite geantwortet. --Leyo 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...man kann natürlich ein Stück Himmel von anderswo reinkopieren, das Faultier etwas aufhellen, entrauschen, schärfen und wieder hochladen. Das kann unter Umständen etwas nunnatürlich aussehen, weil die überbelichteten Flecken auch auf deinem Auge überbelichtet sind. Profis hätten das Vieh vielleicht mit einem grossen Aluminiumreflektor aufgehellt. --Ikiwaner 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Naghshe_Jahan_Square_Isfahan_modified.jpg

Hi; I wanted to thank you for voting for my image on QI. I also had a question. I see that you made an edit on the image. Can I know what was the modification? It's just that I can't find it and I'm curious. Thanks. The image is here: [2]. --Arad 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comment upload-comment: CA means Chromatic aberration, the tiny purple fringes between the wall and the sky which are disturbing when looking at the full size picture. --Ikiwaner 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I didn't know what (ca) stands for. Can you tell me where are they exactly? I'm just trying to learn from your exprience. Thanks again. --Arad 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Glarus Panorama.jpg

In my limited experience it look like overexposure. I do not know how to read a histogram. Feel free to move it to consensual review. I am sorry if I misreviewed it. --Digon3 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Stadtkirche Glarus

Hi, thanks for the pointer. I must have been on autopilot when I did that one. At the moment I'm working on all the Gothic Revival images and I must have added that church to the category because one of its images had been categorised as gothic revival - so I removed that category from the image and added it to its category (if that makes sense). Will try and remain more awake in future. Madmedea 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Feldbrunnen Baselstrasse-2.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 Tagging Image:Zuerich_zur_Schanzenbruecke_morgen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Zuerich_zur_Schanzenbruecke_morgen.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 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry I forgot. Problem solved. --Ikiwaner 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Salginatobel on Wikimedia

dziękuję za te fotografie - it means "I very thank you for these pictures", yours Testra

You're welcome! Have you been there? I hope you enjoyed! --Ikiwaner 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bertrand Meyer.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Bertrand Meyer.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Deadstar 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed of your deletion request. I do not see any deletion rule that would justify a deletion request. I'll call Mr. Meyer maybe. --Ikiwaner 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know mr. Meyer - please do. It is his request, not mine. Deadstar 08:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neuenburg Hotel Beau-rivage.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 Promotion

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

Lycaon 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

QI

Hi. Can you see the talk, please? Greetings, -- Mateus Hidalgo 12:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

done, thanks for reminding me. --Ikiwaner 20:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rhone Gletscher

Hallo Ikiwaner. Ich hab dein Panorama vom Gletscher gesehen und festgestellt, dass wir am selben Tag dort waren um ihn zu fotografieren. Ich war dort gegen Nachmittag. Warst du da auch schon da oder bist du wirklich erst gegen 19 Uhr da gewesen? Das nenne ich ja mal einen Zufall. ;-) --Simonizer 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Simonizer. Zufälle gibt's! Wir sind erst gegen Abend angekommen und haben im Belvédère übernachtet. Von jetzt an musst du ein Wikimedia CH-T-Shirt tragen, damit ich dich erkenne :-) Viel Spass beim Fotografieren. --Ikiwaner 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

QI CR

Hallo, Ikiwaner. Would you mind re-evaluating my elephants? I've corrected the geotag. Danke. Lycaon 05:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ikiwaner 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhonegletscher.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! Winterthur Stadtkirche nordost.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 Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Rhonegletscher.jpg, which was nominated by Digon3 at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rhonegletscher.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 12:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwyz Kollegium.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}}}

Creative Commons 3.0

Hi. Re this edit, I thought there was a compatibility problem. Has this been resolved? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See the Talk page for links to some but not all of the discussions. It ends up that most legal amateurs (including me) misinterpret the text which shouldn't add additional restrictions. --Ikiwaner 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consider archiving this page.

This talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)