H005
 | This user page was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2011 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
About nominations
editI have read your comment in QI, and i respect your opinion. I have uploaded more than 450 photos, but nominate only tiny part of my contributions.
With best regards, George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi George, don't get me wrong, this is great work and very valuable for Wikipedia! I've browsed through your photos and most of them are of great educational value, I really appreciate that. -- H005 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
I always assume a good faith, and don't get You wrong. Each Wiki-user actually the friend for other users. The critic and to decline do not offend me in any case. Usually self-maded (own) photos are more difficult for estimating really, objectively. For me the criticism and the declined my images - only a lesson, training and a way for the best result in the future.
Concerning co-ordinates. The Google Earth very inexact for Vinnitsa, indistinct and blurred. Lot of a streets are non-visible. Exact co-ordinates happens difficultly to take. I do not wish to mislead peoples, therefore i long time specify camera position.
Excuse, if my English language is not so good.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
May I please ask you to take one more look at the FP nomination ?
editHi, H005, by suggestion of user Maedin I added the original image to that nomination. May I please ask to review the image? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
kannst Du bitte hier: Bromine noch einmal vorbeischauen? Danke und Gruss, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Bufo Bufo portrait editing
editGuten Tag, H005!
I have considered Your variant of the file File:Bufo bufo 2009 G1.jpg. Yes, the left bottom edge is better, but quality and colour balance as a whole is worse for me. If You prefer Yours variant, then:
- Keep Yours variant on the Yours computer.
- Return my file original.
- Upload Yours variant with diffirent file name.
Absolutely free licence allows to do it. The order of operations procedure matters.
I too try to editing this file, but original IMHO better.
With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, George, this surprises me, if I compare the two versions the colors are absolutely the same, it's just lighter on the left side.
- You can always restore any previous version by pressing the "reset" link left of the version in the table at the end of the page. But before you do so, please check again, load your version http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3c/20090709224857!Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg and my version http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg in two separate browser tabs and change forth and back between the two tabs: do you really see any other difference than the light? Even on a close-up view I can't see any difference. in colour balance or quality. -- H005 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, it is common practice to add new versions that are meant to be an improvement to supersede the original, this is what this function was made for. -- H005 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
For me my self variant more preferably. However, I do not wish to spoil Your work. I know, that itself I can return the old version. At first I should be assured that Your version is not spoilt.
Example:
- File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg and
- File:Tent caterpillar original.jpg
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi George, thanks, understand your point, I would like to continue the discussion on the image's talk page and have mived it there, if you don't mind. -- H005 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Graugans Anser Anser.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordpark Düsseldorf Springbrunnen.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Verzasca Hut.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.
|
fix
editHello,
You left a note here saying you opposed because it was tilted, I have fixed it now.
Is it good enough to change your vote?
Best regards, Huib talk 04:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Me again, I fixed the church do you think its beter now? Huib talk 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, better, but still not symmetric enough IMHO. I've uploaded a new version with my proposal which I'd support, please reset if you dislike it, but if you find it ok I'll be happy to promote it. :-) -- H005 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Btw, very confusing that your displayed name is so different from the original username ... ;-o
- Thank you, I like this version more than my own version, its kind of strange how different people can have a different look on something :)
- my name... I know, but when you know it you will get used to it. Huib talk 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for paying attention and correction. You are right. Yours. Albertus teolog (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Castelgrande in Bellinzona.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpg
edit
Perhaps you can have a look at that QI-candidat, I reduced the noise --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2Heißluftballons.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sonnenuntergang in der Reichstagskuppel.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Abras.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality image promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Potsdamer Platz vom Reichstag aus 2005.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.
|
- (it finished in my talk page, I don't know why :)) --Marcok (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
QI nomination File:Metro Helsinki.JPG
editHi, H005!
About nomination Metro Helsinki.JPG as QI. Your opinion is vote or the comment only?
Please, use Support or
Oppose templates in future for discussion.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi George, it was meant as a comment, as you had already declined, and one vote is enough if there are no others. But for a matter of clarity I have now added an explicit oppose. -- H005 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Foggy morning on Stow Lake.jpg
edit
Hi The tilt is fixed. If you believe it is still present please tell me what side and how many degrees I should turn it. Thanks--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fucus stacking software
editplease look here: en:Focus_stacking. In the table the third one. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Carcasse d'âne.JPG
edit
Hi Ymaup, it's an interesting image, could you please add to the description where the photo was taken, and ideally also its geolocation? -- H005 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi H005! The geolocalisation is already available for this image! I will add a short description of its localisation! Thanks for promotion -- Ymaup (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FP promotion
edit| ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Graugans Anser Anser.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graugans Anser Anser.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
"Object location"
editHallo, danke für die Verfeinerung der Geo-Angaben bei File:St_Nikolaus,_Bensberg_(2004).jpg. Das Spannende für mich an der Änderung ist, dass ich so von der Möglichkeit der Einfügung der "Object Location" erfuhr. Klasse, sehr nützlich! Auf COM:GC konnte ich noch nichts darüber finden, wird dieses Feature irgendwo diskutiert? Danke! Jochen --Iotatau (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, freut mich, dass es dir nützt. :-) Ich weiß leider auch nichts viel über die Vorlage, ich habe sie genauso entdeckt wie du und verwende sie seither wo immer sinnvoll. -- H005 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Geocode
editGuten Tag, H005!
Die Geoortung ist sehr nützliche Information. Jedoch ist meine Meinung: man muss unbedingt es in den Nominierungen QI nicht fordern. Sie teilen Sie einfach dem Benutzer über solche Möglichkeit auf seiner Seite der Diskussionen mit.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've cropped 36 pixels of either side to remove the distortion, and rebalance the image. Might I ask that you re-examine it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Uno HQ Langer Eugen.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! BayArena neu 2009.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.
|
VI candidate
editGuten Tag, H005!
Please, read rules:
"If you find one or more other images/sets which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR."
MfG --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi George, that makes sense, I just haven't been aware of that rule. I have done as requested. (I hope I got it all right.) -- H005 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ja. Die Nominierung ist jetzt richtig gemacht. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Piaggio Douglas PD.808 Lucca.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.
|
VI
editGuten Tag, H005!
I have changed my mote.
MfG --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Langer Eugen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
BayArena (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Strandkorb.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Images by Cayambe
editHello,
Your comments are much appreciated (cf. my user page). I am currently making some tests and come back to them. --Cayambe (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Torre Palazzo Pubblico Siena.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.
|
sorry, mistake
editI did not understand the new system. I was not only FAIL but a LIAF. Thank you for supporting my picture :-) --Paddy (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
A note
editI don't disagree with your crop comment - one of those "I wish I had framed it better" ones, although I still think it is a quality image of an important building. However at the time it was built (1681) all bricks would have been of local manufacture & so dependent of local rock. The area of Devon is largely sandstone & so the colouring may be quite pronounced - this isn't bad but is probably undersaturated in practice. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Landschaftspark DU-Nord Windrad.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! FalkirkWheelSide 2004 SeanMcClean (jha).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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Head crash.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Olympiazentrum Schilksee.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Torre del Mangia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Campanile di Duomo di Lucca.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Torre Guinigi from Torre Torre dell'Orologio.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stellklappläden.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.
|
superior mirage
editHi H005, I responded your comment on QI page, but in case you miss it here it is :Please see this image File:Two frames image of superior mirage.jpg and compare the hills in two frames. Do you see how different they look? It is what superior mirage does with lanscape. (The most prominent mirage is seen on the right hand side of the Bridge). Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
QI
editGuten Tag, H005!
Meine Abstimmung ist meine aufrichtige Lösung. Ich wollte persönlich Sie nicht kränken. Ich wünsche Ihnen die schöpferischen Erfolge und die neuen guten Fotografien.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hallo George, das weiß ich, ich nehme das sicher nicht persönlich. Ich achte die kritischen User hier sehr, denn es erfordert etwas Courage, sich gegen die Ernennung von Bildern zu wehren. Und ich habe auch kein Problem damit, wenn meine Bilder abgelehnt werden, weil es offensichtliche Mängel gibt.
- Nur in diesem Falle fühle ich mich missverstanden. Ich mag das Bild, weil es in der Tiefe unscharf ist, weil die Stimmung so trostlos und grau ist, und ich habe es absichtlich unten abgeschnitten, weil es so besser dazu passt. Aber das ist meine Meinung, es ist OK, wenn andere da anderer Ansicht sind. Also, sei ruhig weiter so kritisch!
- PS: In deutschen Internetforen ist das "du" üblich. :-) -- H005
10:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Kommentar zur QI-Nominierung von File:Mesa Verde National Park Cliff Palace Right Part 2006 09 12.jpg
editHallo H005, vielen Dank für Deinen Kommentar zur Nominierung. Könntest Du mir bitte erklären, wofür die Abkürzung „CA“ steht? Das Bild ist übrigens nicht nachträglich geschnitten worden. Ich erachtete es damals als sinnvoll, nicht nur die Totale zu fotografieren (wie etwa hier, das bereits QI-Status hat), sondern auch Teilansichten. Mehrere Wikipedia-Projekte, darunter auch en-wp, haben jeweils dieses Bild ohne mein Zutun als Hauptbild für den Artikel ausgewählt. Deswegen war ich mal so mutig, es zu nominieren. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hallo Andreas, CA = de:Chromatische Aberration. Mit den richtigen Tools und den RAW-Dateien der Kamera kann man das meist beheben oder wenigstens stark reduzieren.
- Zum Ausschnitt: Hmm, ok, verstehe ich, aber auf mich wirkt das so zunächst einmal so, als hätte der Fotograf versehentlich daneben gezielt ... :-) -- H005
- Vielen Dank für die Erklärung. Leider habe ich für dieses Bild keine RAW-Datei. Ich bin erst vor kurzem dazu übergegangen, RAW-Dateien zu erzeugen. Vorher fehlte es mir an der passenden Software und dem nötigen Speicherplatz. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Inzwischen gibt es dank Mbz1 eine neue Fassung des Bilds, bei dem die CA-Effekte entfernt sind. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Na wunderbar! Man braucht nicht unbedingt die RAW-Datei, damit geht es aber meist besser. Der Ausschnitt hält mich trotzdem davon ab, das Bild zu befördern, sorry. Aber ich werd's auch nicht ablehnen.
- Habe übrigens selbst noch ein paar Bilder von der Anlage, aber das sind 15 Jahre alte eingescannte Dias, die werden niemals QI. ;-) -- H005
- Mit der Nichtbeförderung habe ich absolut kein Problem; ich kann auch mit Gegenstimmen sehr gut leben, wenn sie sinnvoll begründet sind. Und Deine Begründungen sind fundiert und nachvollziehbar. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Inzwischen gibt es dank Mbz1 eine neue Fassung des Bilds, bei dem die CA-Effekte entfernt sind. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die Erklärung. Leider habe ich für dieses Bild keine RAW-Datei. Ich bin erst vor kurzem dazu übergegangen, RAW-Dateien zu erzeugen. Vorher fehlte es mir an der passenden Software und dem nötigen Speicherplatz. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Piazza Anfiteatro Lucca 360.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Paper recycling in Ponte a Serraglio.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Serchio Ponte a Serraglio.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ponte della Maddalena side view.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ponte della Maddalena daylight.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ponte della Maddalena by night.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pelargonien in Ponte di Serraglio.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Duomo di Barga from NW.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Strandkörbe Eckernförde höher.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Duomo di Barga from SW.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Brachypelma auratum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Macaron.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Guten Tag, H005!
Der gute Scherz :
Diese drei Belohnungen sind ein Friedhof der fremden Nominationen. Es ist das ausgezeichnete Ergebnis Du findest die wirklich beste Variante in der Kategorie.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Pics on QIC
editHmm... I probably should check my monitor calbiration (recently had to do a clean reinstall) of Windows. Either that or I need to recalibrate my *eyes*. At least overexposure (without blown highlights) is easier to fix in post-processing. Uploaded new version of File:Roos Tor.jpg].--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Pics on QIC
editHmm... I probably should check my monitor calbiration (recently had to do a clean reinstall) of Windows. Either that or I need to recalibrate my *eyes*. At least overexposure (without blown highlights) is easier to fix in post-processing. Uploaded new version of File:Roos Tor.jpg]. Any other feedback/thoughts would be handy - don't like getting something so basic messed up!--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
QI
editGuten Tag, H005!
Ich danke dich für die Übersicht meiner QI Nominationen.
1) Kannst du die Beschreibung dieser Fotografie auf dem Deutsch ergänzen? Es ist das Tal des Todes. Das Denkmal ist ins Gedächtnis über diese: de:Schlacht von Balaklawa.
2) Du kannst das Denkmal den überschwemmten Schiffen ablehnen, wenn es ungenügend gut ist. Ich werde andere Fotografie später beladen. Andere Fotografie ähnlich nach der Komposition, jedoch sie fordert die Korrektur auch.
MfG -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, it's a pleasure. Ich bin aber etwas verwirrt über die Kategorie: "Category:Monument to Feel British in Crimea" Was soll das bedeuten?
- Das Bild mit den Schiffen will ich nicht ablehnen, es ist ein gutes Bild, ich denke nur, diesen Punkt sollte man noch verbessern. Und ich würde es anders (symmetrisch) schneiden. -- H005
- Vielen dank!
- Kannst Du ander Titel der Kategorie anbieten? Ich werde dann korrigieren und ich werde die Dateien verlegen.
- Ich habe noch eine Fotografie beladen. Es ist mehr Bearbeitung und es ist die Komposition ein bißchen besser. Ich konnte symmetrisch nicht abschneiden. Der russische Ponton (die Schwimmbrücke) war sehr schön mit den Fahnen, er hatte den häßlichen Rand rechts jedoch. Ich wollte nicht sehr enge Fotografie machen.
- MfG -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged the category with a new proposal -- H005
- I've tagged the category with a new proposal -- H005
:File:Gehry Medienhafen 7th floor.jpg
editHallo, in dem Fall (Aufnahme nicht von einem öffentlichen Platz aus gemacht) gilt die Panoramafreiheit nicht! Vielleicht kommt jemand und läßt es löschen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, ich kenne das Hundertwasser-Urteil, aber ich hatte angenommen, dass es nur darum geht, dass man sich dadurch nicht den Blick auf etwas erschleicht, das man vom öffentlichen Raum aus (wegen einer Mauer oder eines Zaunes o. ä.) nicht sehen könnte. Und bei meinem Bild sieht man ja eigentlich nichts, das man nicht auch von der Straße aus sehen könnte, ist nur ein anderer Blickwinkel. Aber möglicherweise hast du Recht. -- H005
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Skip hoist ramp DU-Nord.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pfannenwagen DU-Nord.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Torpedowagen DU-Nord.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gehry Medienhafen 7th floor.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Abgasrohr DU-Nord.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wirbler und Staubsack.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Manganelli Siena.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hochofen 5.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Duomo di Siena Campanile 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Duomo Siena, window over main portal.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.
|
Just to let you know, you inadvertently used the {{Delete}} template instead of the {{Vd}} template when making this edit. I fixed it for you. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ooops, where did I have my mind, of course, thanks! -- H005
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Odysseum Köln Eingang.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Odysseum Köln Fassade.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.
|
Hallo H005, ich kenn LR nicht, da ich mit Adobe Camera RAW und Photoshop arbeite. Meines Wissens nutzt LR aber auch ACR und dort kann man Kissenverzug korrigieren (Reiter "Lens corrections"). Alternativ kann man mit Hugin entzerren oder mit PtGui. Gruss --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Metal Ladle.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gussmetallschmelze.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Garfagnana - Tal von Fornovolasco.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ponte delle Catene (Fornoli).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Grotta del Vento 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rotierende Kaminhüte.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Drehbarer Kaminhut.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.
|
QI review
editHello,
You gave a look at my picture, and found it nice, but tilted. I have corrected it one more time. Does it feel traight for you now? Many thanks for reviewing.
--Berru (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kap am Südkai.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Parkscheinautomat Skidata.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Parkhaus Rheinauhafen.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! T-Mobile HQ Video Screen.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hafenkran Rheinauhafen.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.
|
FF
editHallo, FF ist FixFoto, guckst du hier: http://www.j-k-s.com/ --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Odysseum Köln Fassade Detail.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.
|
Frankfurt am Main
editHello H005, If you know Frankfurt am Main, it would be nice to have your opinion on this VIC. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sternstunden Oberhausen Sonne.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.
|
:)
editThanks
editHi,
Thanks for the fix to Sydney_Opera_House_with_Tall_Ship.jpg: [1].
Regards, Ben Aveling 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
VI
editGuten Tag, H005!
VI candidate not geocoded.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- The location is in the description, it's a zoo animal. -- H005
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Lophophorus impejanus (male).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your signature
edit Hello, H005. It has been noticed that your signature contains an image. Images are discouraged for use in signatures. You can change your preferences by clicking on "My preferences" at the top, or go to Special:Preferences. Thank you. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Haus zum Haus Winter 2009.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Torre Guinigi.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Biodiversity Photo - route
editHello John Mosesso
My name is Rita Neves.
I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal.
Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone.
The photo we would like to use are the following:
Bufo bufo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg
The brochure will have four brackets. - Broochura a pocket to take the route
- A brochure to present the day of inauguration - Schedules for species identification
- Panels that will be fixed in the Land
As i said the Free Access will be everything :)
Being Public Domain and if provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? George Chernilevsky?
If it´s possible please respond to rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt
Thank you very much
Our best regards
sorry, George Chernilevsky, not John Mosessso
Hi Rita!
I sent an email to you.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 07:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- err, what is this about? Seems you're on the wrong page here. -- H005
File:Emirates_Towers_Hotel_Interior.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kuppel Kleine Hagia Sophia.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.
|
Hello H005. Your current signature is not in accordance with the new guideline at Commons:Signatures because it contains an image. Please change it so that it doesn't contain it. alternative methods are described on that page. Thank you, ZooFari 23:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
* * * :) * * *
edit--George Chernilevsky talk 12:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi George, vielen Dank, and all the same to you! :-) -- H005 13:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Ivanhoe Christmas Lights.jpg
editHi H005, Thanks for your message in QI review page for my image . Could you give me your further guideline of how to improve the image? I am not sure what your comments exactly mean that I can have the material to accomplish the image. Thanks in advance Donaldytong (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Donaldytong, this really depends. Ideally, you'd have several images shot from a tripod with different exposures. You can then combine them to a single image with a "compressed" exposure range. See e.g. en:High dynamic range imaging for details. You usually would need some special software.
- If you do not have such images but such a single one, it might still be you have the RAW file, which usually covers a wider range of exposure. You can then light up the dark areas and darken the bright areas with almost any image processing software that can handle your RAW file.
- If you're unsure what I mean, you can mail me that RAW file and I'll show you how it can look like. -- H005 13:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi H005, Thanks again for your response. I can understand what you mean now, but I only have one single file of this image. How I can email my original digital file to you? Do you mean I need to upload the original file to Wikimedia Commons and than attahed it to your Discussion page or you have an email address that I can sent the file direcrly to you? Donaldytong (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look in your inbox. -- H005 14:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi H005, Thanks again for your response. I can understand what you mean now, but I only have one single file of this image. How I can email my original digital file to you? Do you mean I need to upload the original file to Wikimedia Commons and than attahed it to your Discussion page or you have an email address that I can sent the file direcrly to you? Donaldytong (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2010-01-18 Seebenalp.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Radfahrer Winterberg.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.
|
QIC-Frage
editHallo H005, könntest du mir kurz erklären, was genau ich an diesem Bild nachkorrigieren soll. - Danke, A.S. 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, das Bild zeigt sichtbares Rauschen; während das Helligkeitsrauschen noch geht, vor allem weil es durch die strukturierten Materialen überdeckt wird, ist das Farbrauschen gut sichtbar. Mehr Infos findest du unter de:Bildrauschen. Mit welcher Software du das machst, hängt davon ab, was du zur Verfügung hast; das kostenlose Programm mit den m. E. besten Ergebnissen ist Neat Image. -- H005 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ich weiß schon was Rauschen ist, ist auch klar, eine höhere ISO ist bei Kunstlicht halt immer drin, damit das Bild nicht verwackelt - ich stehe nur aufm Schlauch, wo genau im Bild das "Farbrauschen" ist. Wäre nett wenn das Entfernen mit Photoshop Elements ginge. A.S. 21:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmh, eigentlich überall. Am deutlichsten sichtbar ist es m. E. im dunkelgrauen Bereich rechts von den Gleisen sowie die Decke im Bereich der Oberleitung. Dort ist sind die Wände nicht grau, sondern bunt gesprenkelt. Zoom mal stärker heran, wenn du es nicht gleich siehst. Ich finde das aber schon sehr auffällig. Mit PS Elements sollte man das problemlos loswerden können. -- H005 21:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ich weiß schon was Rauschen ist, ist auch klar, eine höhere ISO ist bei Kunstlicht halt immer drin, damit das Bild nicht verwackelt - ich stehe nur aufm Schlauch, wo genau im Bild das "Farbrauschen" ist. Wäre nett wenn das Entfernen mit Photoshop Elements ginge. A.S. 21:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Central Fresco Duoma di Pisa.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Landschaftspark DU-Nord XXX.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hundestation Dornum 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Aquädukt Lorenzo Nottolini 2009-07-21.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tafel Neßmersiel 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! British American Tobacco Headquarters.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lichtinstallation DU-Nord tagsüber.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.
|
File:Torpedopfanne.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.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.
|
FP Promotion
edit| ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
Deine Cat-a-lot-Änderungen vom 25. Mai 2011
editMoin! Da scheint gestern Abend kräftig was schief gegangen zu sein. Du hast Bilder in nicht existente Kategorien und mindestens ungewöhnlich benannte verschoben. Machst Du's bitte rückgängig? Danke! --Hagar66 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, welche meinst du? Ich habe ziemlich viel rekategorisiert und kann auf Anhieb keine nicht existenten oder ungewöhnlich benannten finden. -- H005 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- hmm, sorry, ich dachte das wäre offensichtlich. Nehmen wir als Beispiel mal das hier. Eine Kat "People of HemerCategory" oder "Location not applicableCategory" wolltest Du sicher nicht vergeben, oder? Das ist bei einigen von gestern Abend so passiert, ich habe mir allerdings auch keine Überblick verschafft bei wievielen genau, denn -wie Du schon sagst - Du hast ja 'ne Menge recats gemacht. Und ich habe auch keinen Überblick, ob das die einzigen komischen Kats sind. :-) --Hagar66 (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, ja, jetzt sehe ich's. Da muss aber ein Fehler im Cat-a-lot vorliegen, diese Kategorien habe ich so nicht eingegeben, und die automatisch erzeugten Änderungskommentare zeigen ja auch die eigentlich gewollten Änderungen richtig an. Ich werde mal den Autor des Tools anschrieben. -- H005 06:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yepp! Dank Dir! --Hagar66 (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bug wurde gefunden und gefixt: MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Bug_report. Ich habe die kaputten Kategorien repariert (hoffe, dass ich alle gefunden habe). -- H005 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perfekt! Danke fürs Bescheid sagen! --Hagar66 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bug wurde gefunden und gefixt: MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Bug_report. Ich habe die kaputten Kategorien repariert (hoffe, dass ich alle gefunden habe). -- H005 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yepp! Dank Dir! --Hagar66 (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, ja, jetzt sehe ich's. Da muss aber ein Fehler im Cat-a-lot vorliegen, diese Kategorien habe ich so nicht eingegeben, und die automatisch erzeugten Änderungskommentare zeigen ja auch die eigentlich gewollten Änderungen richtig an. Ich werde mal den Autor des Tools anschrieben. -- H005 06:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- hmm, sorry, ich dachte das wäre offensichtlich. Nehmen wir als Beispiel mal das hier. Eine Kat "People of HemerCategory" oder "Location not applicableCategory" wolltest Du sicher nicht vergeben, oder? Das ist bei einigen von gestern Abend so passiert, ich habe mir allerdings auch keine Überblick verschafft bei wievielen genau, denn -wie Du schon sagst - Du hast ja 'ne Menge recats gemacht. Und ich habe auch keinen Überblick, ob das die einzigen komischen Kats sind. :-) --Hagar66 (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Frage
editHi H005,
kannst du zu Deiner Begutachtung [2] noch eine Erklärung abgeben? Was fehlt dir an der Beschreibung und wieso soll der Ausschnitt zu knapp sein? Der Geotag ist nachgetragen. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Leider ist deine Antwort nicht wirklich erhellend. Bitte äußere Dich, was Du genau möchtest. Mir ist nicht bekannt, dass eine in der Beschreibung des Bildes mehr zu stehen hat als die Beschreibung des Objektes. Wo sich der Turm befindet geht aus den unzweideutig Geokoordinaten hervor. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, tut mir Leid, aber ich verstehe dein Problem nicht. Ich schrieb doch, dass sich das Problem dank der Hinzufügung der Geokoordinaten (danke dafür!) erledigt hat. Haben wir vielleicht ein Sprachproblem (englisch)? -- H005 20:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, offensichtlich war es das. Für mich ist mit "Beschreibung"/ "description" nur die Zeile gemeint, wo auch die (verbale) Beschreibung steht; für dich ist es das ganze Konglomerat mit Lizenz, Geotag, etc. Nichts für ungut, ist nun geklärt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, tut mir Leid, aber ich verstehe dein Problem nicht. Ich schrieb doch, dass sich das Problem dank der Hinzufügung der Geokoordinaten (danke dafür!) erledigt hat. Haben wir vielleicht ein Sprachproblem (englisch)? -- H005 20:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gustav Dürr.png, 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Herrenhaus Cromford Brügelmann.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.
|
Date format
editThank you for the tip. I fixed all images from this batch. I'll look at my older images later as well to make sure they are all format-compliant. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great, many thanks for your consideration! -- H005 20:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Blick vom Torre Guinigi nach NW.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Duomo di Lucca vom Torre Guinigi 2009-07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Duomo di Lucca von vorne 2009-07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Aquila nipalensis - 20100905.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.
|
QI Fernsehturm Münster
editHi H005,
besser? Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Blown lights". Could you please explain me the correct way to make those evening photos so to keep the light parts visible? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I see several ways. First is not to choose an evening on a cloudy day. Second is to adjust the s-curve using the raw image - I am somewhat confident that the dynamic range of the sensor can cover the range found here. And the third option would be a tone-compressed HDRI. Do you have the raw image? The send me an e-mail. Depending on how good it is I believe I could avoid those bright areas. -- H005 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will check the HDRI possibility, thanks for an advice. Evening is evening, any evening will have this blown-out lights...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hendrick's Gin 1l.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Post Tower Bonn 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Roger Chapman Ratingen 2011-07-09 252.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fischer-Zunft sign Würzburg.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Roger Chapman Ratingen 2011-07-09 260.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hendrick's Gin 1l with cup.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yeni Camii Istanbul Dome.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Blaue Moschee Kuppel schräg.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Roger Chapman Ratingen 2011-07-09 248.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yeni Camii Istanbul interior view.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.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Post Tower X-Mas yellow-red.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.
|
Just thought I should let you know that I have nominated the edited version. --Jovian Eye storm 19:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! -- H005 05:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wappen Duisburg Leder.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Blaue Moschee Seitenkuppel.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.
|
FP Promotion
edit| ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Post Tower Bonn sunset.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Post Tower Bonn sunset.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Klabund - Dichtungen aus dem Osten (im Regal).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Post Tower Bonn 2009-06-25.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.
|
Ratingen
editPhotos must be under the locality where they were taken, or a subcategory thereof. So, if a category is too full, do not remove content you think is inappropriate. Instead, create the appropriate subcategory.
So.... can you please put all the content you uncategorized in Ratingen into Category:Nature of Ratingen etc (same goes for any other such content you uncategorized). For a list of what goes into "Nature of...", see e.g. Category:Nature of Germany
Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Dysmorodrepanis, meinst du die Insektenbilder wie dieses hier? Die habe ich nicht entfernt, weil die Kategorie "Ratingen" zu voll war, sondern weil sie keinerlei Bezug zu Ratingen haben. Diese Tiere gibt es ja überall in vergleichbaren Breitengraden in Europa und nicht nur in Ratingen. -- H005 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Buch Geschichte der Stadt Duisburg 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
AW: File:Estambul-Turquia9494.JPG
edit
Hallo, ich habe deine Nachricht nicht ganz verstanden. Soweit ich in der Historie sehe kann, hast du doch bestätigt, dass es sich doch um die richtige Mosche handelte. Sorry fûr die späte Antwort, ich habe bis jetzt deine Nachricht nicht wahrgenommen. VG, --Poco a poco (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Dummy Image Generator
edithi h005,
i wanted to inform you (and say a big thank you) that we use one of your images on http://dummy-image-generator.com/
the credits list you find here:
http://dummy-image-generator.com/credits
best regards immo
- Thanks for letting me know! -- H005 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
editSome contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Puertoba.jpg
edit
| This media was probably deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Puertoba.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
[[:File:Puertoba.jpg]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
Name change
editHello! First of all, sorry for my bad english, but I'll try to write the better I can. That building called El Porteño was also owned by Molinos Rio de la Plata, but there exists another building of the same company, which is called Los Molinos. I think the author of that image thought that it was Los Molinos, and it's a mistake. Saludos!--Elsapucai (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Pyramiden (Svalbard).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Turkish plates.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.
|
Notification about possible deletion
editSome contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, A.Savin 15:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
editSome contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, LGA talkedits 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
editSome contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Triumph Tiger 800 MY 2012 side view.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.
|
Äs you suggested (thanks) I lightened up the face. Could you please give an other comment?
- Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Triumph Tiger 800 MY 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
|
Category:Taken_with_Sigma_150_mm_F2.8_APO_Macro_DG_HSM has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! CE with grid.svg, 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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! 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:
Construction of the CE logo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Happy holidays 2020!
edit| * Happy Holidays 2020, H005! * | ||
|
- Many thanks, George! :) -- H005 18:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:20150725 Cologne Amphi Festival DAF 0004 crop.png
edit
Copyright status: File:20150725 Cologne Amphi Festival DAF 0004 crop.png
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:20150725 Cologne Amphi Festival DAF 0004 crop.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
JuTa 12:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
spider id
editthanks for that - I have had amazingly difficult times with ants and lichen to be adequately identified, at least the spider is in something !! JarrahTree (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays 2020/2021!
edit| * Happy Holidays 2020/2021, H005! * | ||
|
Many thanks, George, wish you the same! -- H005 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! ALP GUARD (33352320692).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.
|
Happy holidays 2021/2022!
edit| * Happy Holidays 2021/2022, H005! * | ||
|
File:Emirates Towers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Happy holidays 2022/2023!
edit| * Happy Holidays 2022/2023, H005! * | ||
|
Copyright status: File:Frej IMO 9101156 2023 in Hull.jpg
edit
Copyright status: File:Frej IMO 9101156 2023 in Hull.jpg
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Frej IMO 9101156 2023 in Hull.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
edit| * Happy Holidays! * | ||
|