User talk:H005

 

About nominations

I 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 ?

Hi, 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)

Bromine

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

Guten 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:

1. Keep Yours variant on the Yours computer.
2. Return my file original.
3. 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

• File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC_8260-Hotel-Hafen.jpg
• File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC_8260_retouched.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

Your 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. Comments good composition and colours --Mbdortmund 02:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments witzige Idee, aber prüf mal, ob's nicht ganz leicht aus der Horizontalen geht. --Mbdortmund 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)  Comment Done, the fountain frame is absolutely horizontal, that's the best you can have, isn't it? -- H005 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC) OK --Mbdortmund 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

fix

Hello,

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)

File:Wieża montparnasse.JPG

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

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Castelgrande in Bellinzona.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best overview. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpg

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

Your 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. Comments good.--Two+two=4 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

75px

Your 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. Comments interesting image --Ianare 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Abras.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment - Please add geotag. I'll support after you'll do that. -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ooops, I forgot to check that.  Done now. -- H005 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Needs proper categorization for a sound review, for now it is difficult to know how many pictures we have of that kind of boat, and whether this one is the most valued. --Eusebius (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  The current Category Category:Water transport in Dubai is proper. Please keep in mind that these boats do only exist in Dubai, so where else do you suppose to find images? Plus, not being sure what else could be out there in those 4 million files is not a valid argument to oppose, you can never be sure of that. -- H005 (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  The motivation for my oppose is the categorization, not the rest. I have (temporarily) opposed because I think that it should be categorized down to the scope to comply with the 6th VI criterion (current categorization doesn't even tell that it is about a boat). I'll work on it. --Eusebius (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Now categorized down to the scope, along with 12 other pictures. Best of the batch, slightly before File:Dubai Flusstaxi.jpg in my opinion. If "Abras" is not a proper plural for the word in English, please make suggestions. --Eusebius (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's a better solution, I agree. Thanks! -- H005 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - Now geocoded and well-categorized -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality image promotion

Your 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. Comments Interesting composition and atmosphere. --Marcok 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(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

Hi, 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

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

please 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

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

★ 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"

Hallo, 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

Guten 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)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG

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

Your 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. Comments  Comment Please crop out bit from bottom right, distracting foreground. Otherwise QI. --kallerna 20:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Better now? I wanted to keep the crop, so I've simply deleted the leaves. -- H005 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Great job! --kallerna 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments {{{3}}}

VI candidate

Guten 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

Your 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. Comments Ok --Pudelek 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

VI

Guten Tag, H005!

I have changed my mote.

MfG --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Langer Eugen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support The best one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
BayArena (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose I regret, however the interior has more significance. Only exterior not valued in this scope --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi George, what was that rule you reminded me of yesterdsay? ;-) -- H005 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, H005! :-). In my fair opinion, this picture fails criteria 3: Must illustrate its subject well. Try take shot inside and nominate both as set. With best regards --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, there are several interior photos on Commons to choose from - I uploaded them myself. But the interior is rather regular, it's just a football court with lots of seats around it, just like many others and by far not as unique and spectacular as the exterior, and definitely not illustrating the scope better, in particular if you're interested in the building's architecture. Please keep in mind that this is a rather special construction where the roof is completely independent of the building. You can tear down the building and the roof still stands. You cannot see any of this from the inside. But if you're really concerned about the interior, maybe it would be wise to split the scope into BayArena exterior and BayArena interior? -- H005 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from BayArena to BayArena (exterior) --H005 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Neutral Photo well illustrative, but scope too narrow for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment From the VI rules: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope -- H005 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    •  Support valued photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Best match for the scope. Yann (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Status now supported, no oppose votes --George Chernilevsky (talk)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Strandkorb.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose There are 2 problems here: 1. the category is "Beach chairs" and is different than the scope, so a sub-category propably need to be created, 2. "Strandkörbe" is the German name, the scope should be in English, i.e. "Strandkorbs". Yann (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Strandkörbe to Strandkorbs It's arguable whether the plural of "strandkorb" in English is necessarily "strandkorbs" or can also be "strandkörbe", just as "antennae" is a valid plural of "antenna". I know that the linked category is too wide, but the rules do not require that a scope must match 1:1 with a category. The link was only to ease finding relevant images. But I do not mind changing the scope. -- H005 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Best match for the scope. Since the category is singular, I changed the scope to match the category. That also fixed the issue of spelling. Yann (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Images by Cayambe

Hello,
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

Your 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. Comments  Support Excellent detail. The vertical panorama is interesting :-) --NormanB 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry, mistake

I 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

I 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

Your 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. Comments nice sunset --George Chernilevsky 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good quality image of interesting subject. --Korall 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Head crash.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. Acceptable scope, geocoding not applicable. Lycaon (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Olympiazentrum Schilksee.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good photo of an ugly building; I also like that both object's and camera's geolocation are provided. -- JovanCormac 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Torre del Mangia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Well documented, geocoded, good quality: this image of the Torre del Mangia alone is the best of its category, IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good shot & nice image --Herbythyme 08:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Simple clean image, I am sure it would be possible to argue about crops but it is a quality image as I see it. -Herbythyme 11:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

superior mirage

Hi 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

Guten 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

Hallo 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 21:08, 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)

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 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments very good for me --Pudelek 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Nice view (with an acceptable because unavoidable perspective distortion at left). --Cayambe 10:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Clean clear image nicely composed -Herbythyme 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Comment Good, but would benefir from CA reduction, see annotation mark. --Cayambe 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Done 20 wrong pixels out of 12 million ... and you spot them. :-) -- H005 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments  Support Nice. --NormanB 14:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good. Just a question: would the picture not benefit from cloning away the sign at right? --Cayambe 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I think it should be removed --Berthold Werner 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I thought of it, but wasn't sure, if you both think it'll be better I'll give it a try. -- H005 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)  Done -- H005 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments I like the absence of crop on this one. In my opinion the DOF is a matter of choice here, both would look nice in different ways. When a series of objects are the same as each other, there's no need to see the details, and the blur actually enhances the impression that they extend to infinity.--99of9 11:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)  Comment In case it does get controversial (!) I agree with this promotion I think. However I think the crop is slightly better :) -Herbythyme 12:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments After reflection: the distortion is acceptable here, therefore QI IMO. --Cayambe 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brachypelma auratum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose - Cute spider. However, not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) - Second image is better IMO --Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Geocode are not relevant. In rules: Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots. It is in description. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I follow H005. Lycaon (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I prefere this shot, because the head is better visible --Cesco77 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As above; also shows both pedipalps well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support and thank to all -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I think this one is better. Yann (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Me too, for two reasons: 1) its composition highlights the fact that it's a double spiral staircase: one can verify it following the handrails (more cropped in others images). 2) I find this compostion more harmonious, in line with the curves and volutes still used in art and architecture in that period. --Myrabella (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree --Cesco77 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Macaron.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support I agree with H005, some colour variants is far more illustrative -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Question This is an interesting debate. For such a topic, must we choose a singular piece or a pack ilustrating the diversity? In the different wikipedias, the article about "Macaron" begins by the definition of the item itself, as a singular piece. For exemple, in :en:w, "the macaron is a traditional French pastry, made of egg whites, almond powder, icing sugar and sugar."; in :nl:w : "Een bitterkoekje is een koekje dat bestaat uit een mengsel van gemalen bittere amandelen, kristalsuiker en eiwit."; in :fr.w: "Le macaron est un petit gâteau, etc.". It is why I incline to think that an image showing a lonely piece would be more valuable to illustrate the scope. --Myrabella (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Hmm... 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

Hmm... 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

Guten 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 20:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

:File:Gehry Medienhafen 7th floor.jpg

Hallo, 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 20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 15:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Also good. --Cayambe 15:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments In memoriam "Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari" -Archaeodontosaurus 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good --Grez 07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Gutes Auge für einfache Bildkompositionen --Ikiwaner 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Very nice. --Berthold Werner 14:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Vey good image, some noise in the sky, and one more thing. I added note to it. Please remove my note as soon as you see it.--Mbz1 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I had noticed it, must be a bird as there are no dust spots etc. on the other images I shot directly before and after. The noise is as good as I could get it without losing too much sharpness. -- H005 12:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good details and composition --Cesco77 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Kowloon Walled City

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 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good work, nice colours. Distortion are normal for this point of look  Support --George Chernilevsky 09:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Odysseum_Köln_Fassade_Detail.jpg

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

Your 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. Comments Excellent --99of9 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments So hot that good Archaeodontosaurus 07:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments very good -- George Chernilevsky 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments OK--Mbz1 00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Very nice cave.--Mbz1 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

QI review

Hello,
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

Your 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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 10:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good, with some acceptable noise. --Cayambe 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Would benefit IMO from cropping part of the floor. Otherwise good. --Cayambe 16:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, you are right,  Done. -- H005 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Good now IMO. --Cayambe 16:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Wolken leichter Rotstich, dunkle Teile vielleicht etwas aufhellen, wenn Du das RAW hast. --Mbdortmund 00:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Habe ich, aber das geht zulasten des Kontrasts. Ich kann auf meinem kalibrierten Monitor keinen Rotstich erkennen. -- H005 16:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Mir gefällts besser so. --Mbdortmund 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)  ??? Ich habe das Bild doch gar nicht verändert ... :-) -- H005 17:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FF

Hallo, FF ist FixFoto, guckst du hier: http://www.j-k-s.com/ --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Ich habe eine Schwäche für minimalistische Architekturbilder wie dieses, welches grundsätzlich gelungen ist. Allerdings sollte der recht auffällige Kissenverzug korrigiert werden, aber das ist eine Kleinigkeit. --Ikiwaner 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Der ist mir nicht entgangen. Aber ich weiß nicht, womit ich ihn beheben soll. Lightroom kann gar keine Verzerrungen, in GIMP finde ich nur lineare Werkzeuge. Bin für Tipps dankbar. -- H005 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Blöde Nikonpolitik, dass man quasi gezwungen ist, Capture NX2 zu kaufen, was die Nikonobjaktive ordentlich korrigiert... --Mbdortmund 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)  Done Man kriegt mit ShiftN zwar keine wellenförmigen Verzeichnungen weg und es funktioniert gegen Tonnen und Kissen nur mit unbeschnittenen Bildern, aber ich denke, die neue Version ist akzeptabel. Schönes Bild! -- Smial 03:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Da lobe ich doch mein FF. Da kann man manuell korrigieren, man kann aber auch ein Muster ausdrucken, anhand dessen man eine Korrekturtabelle für automatisches Entzerren erstellen kann. --Berthold Werner 07:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)OK now --Mbdortmund 14:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the edit and reviews. -- H005 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankfurt am Main

Hello 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

Your 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. Comments  Comment Clever exhibition! The floor and ceiling are posterized, can you do something about that? --99of9 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Very good image in terms of composition and mood. I can't see posterization, there is a little bit of luminance noise in the almost dark parts and some CA around the lights but both are acceptable at full screen or print resolution. --Ikiwaner 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks to both of your for your review. 99of9, can you point me to where you see posterization? I'm happy to further improve the image, but I can't spot it. -- H005 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I can't see it anymore either! Sorry about that. I think it must have downloaded incorrectly before - it was very strong and clear to me, but I've looked again at the same places and they're perfect. --99of9 00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --George Chernilevsky ^talk

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for the fix to Sydney_Opera_House_with_Tall_Ship.jpg: [1].

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

VI

Guten 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 16:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lophophorus impejanus (male).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Link to the zoo: the geodode should suffice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• I usually geocode all my images; here I intentionally only added that it is a zoo and the region of the zoo, as I think that is completely sufficient - it doesn't matter which zoo it was. Don't ask why: I have my reasons, but I will not disclose them, it's a private matter. -- H005 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

understood : all criteria met, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your understanding. :-) -- H005 10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

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

Your 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. Comments OK, although slightly overexposed. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Torre Guinigi.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, agree with reason. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Question It's tagged as stitched panorama. Is it? Shouldn't be necessary for this view. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Not really necessary, I also have a single shot of it. But the stitched version allows for a much higher resolution and detail. -- H005 17:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Biodiversity Photo - route

Hello 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 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Emirates_Towers_Hotel_Interior.jpg

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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.61.131.141 15:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Sehr gut. Nice --George Chernilevsky 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Signatures

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)

* * * :) * * *

Ich wünsche Dir fröhliche Weihnachtsfeiertage und alles Gute und ganz best im Neuen Jahr!
--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

Hi 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)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good. --Cayambe 11:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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. Comments Who nominates ?--Jebulon 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, forgot the sig, now added. -- H005 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Great angle, good composition. LeavXC 09:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

QIC-Frage

Hallo 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)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Not very sexy but good.--Jebulon 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments The crop at the top appears to tight to, but qi nevertheless. --Cayambe 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments I like plaques, and this one is sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 17:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments A bit unsharp, but IMHO very interesting shot --Jagro 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Torpedopfanne.jpg

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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

80.187.106.166 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

FP Promotion

★ 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.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Deine Cat-a-lot-Änderungen vom 25. Mai 2011

Moin! 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)

Frage

Hi 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)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good -- George Chernilevsky 07:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Josue007 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 00:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Date format

Thank 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

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 18:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments QI to me--Lmbuga 19:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments Good--Lmbuga 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

QI Fernsehturm Münster

Hi H005,

besser? Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:H-ludmila-sber-8959.jpg

"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

Your 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. Comments The upper label is maybe a bit overexposed, but good QI, I think (if no copyright violation.--Jebulon 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments I think it meets the criteria.--MrPanyGoff 15:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 09:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments Very good. --Jovianeye 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments Good quality. --Carschten 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments very nice --Pudelek 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments some motion blur, but I like it --Carschten 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good--Butterfly austral 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Comments {{{3}}}

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Post Tower X-Mas yellow-red edit.jpg

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

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 02:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ 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.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments for me QI, because I think, special color came by light of sunset, not because of CA (maybe you should mention sunset in file description --J. Lunau 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC) You are right, I will change it. Thanks for your review! -- H005 19:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ratingen

Photos 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

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Yann 10:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

AW: File:Estambul-Turquia9494.JPG

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

hi 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)

Commons:WikiProject Romania

Hi! I created the Commons:WikiProject Romania as a sister project to the multilingual WP:ROMANIA versions (currently en, fr, ro and ru) to better organize, categorize and improve the quality of media and galleries related to Romania and the Romanians. From your contributions, I think you might be interested and maybe you wish to join and support the project. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Sonnenuntergang in der Reichstagskuppel.JPG

Yours sincerely Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Puertoba.jpg

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 {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. 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. 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!

Cambalachero (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Name change

Hello! 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

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pyramiden (Svalbard).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it is always helpful to link the scope to a category or a gallery. Look at the change in scope. It lacks the geocoding on the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Sonnenuntergang in der Reichstagskuppel.JPG

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 15:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:GERRSAwiki1.jpg

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Bacardi old bottle back.JPG

And also:

• File:Hkbitters.jpg
• File:Old Bacardi Front.JPG
• File:Variety of Bitters.JPG

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 21:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Image QI candidate

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

Your 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Category:Taken_with_Sigma_150_mm_F2.8_APO_Macro_DG_HSM

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!

Maksim Sidorov 18:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments  Support Good quality. Welcome back to QI nominations after a very long pause! --George Chernilevsky 20:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Construction of the CE logo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must contain the link to the category; the remark field can contain a link to an article. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2020!

		* Happy Holidays 2020, H005! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, George! :) -- H005 18:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:20150725 Cologne Amphi Festival DAF 0004 crop.png

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 OTRS 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

thanks 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!

		* Happy Holidays 2020/2021, H005! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, George, wish you the same! -- H005 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your 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. Comments  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 19:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)