Quasipalm

Thank's. I've just asked for them my friend who return from this war. I finished for now. Radomil 17:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of Wrocław

According to the Library of Congress [1] and [2], where the pictures were taken from, 1930 and 1931 are print numbers, not years. Ausir 14:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what does FP means

what does FP means?--Yongxinge 08:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kaloe.jpg (COM:FPC)

Did you nominate this LoopZilla 22:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Which version of ArcticFoxSummer?

Thanks for enhancing my image Image:ArcticFoxSummer.jpg to Image:ArcticFoxSummer Adjusted.jpg. It really looked better than my original on. I had taken over your enhancements to the original image which does not suffer form JPEG compression loss. On the other hand I decided to make it not so bright as your version because I remember it was a cloudy day and I think I now restored the "real" light conditions. I would love if you would comment on it which version we should keep to not confuse people in the voting process with two different images.

Thanks for your enhancement! Andreas Tille 06:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

COM:FPC

Image:Matterhorn Riffelsee 2005-06-11_adjusted.jpg: I have added a separate template and nominated. Thanks for the adjustment! LoopZilla 07:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I hope you don't mind that I re-nominated the adjusted version... LoopZilla 07:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Quasipalm, thanks for adjusting levels of the Matterhorn image. However, you changed also the aspect ratio of the picture, it might be to high now. Do you prefer it as it is, or shall we either adjust levels of the original image again and put it with the original size (1536x2048), or rather cut a bit from the heaven to make it 1352x1803. Somehow it seems that the 3/4 ratio is followed by most people, right? --Dirk 28 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

I have made a comment at Template:Featured_pictures_candidates/Image:AubreyBeardsley.png and would happy for you to respond. This is a PNG, not a JPEG. LoopZilla 2005-07-06 13:56:59 (UTC)

Photo resolution

I noticed that you objected to several front page photo candidates on grounds of their having too low a resolution. Could you tell me what you consider to be an adequately high resolution?

JFPerry 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

resolution, my reasons...

Quasipalm, you wondered why this pic has a bad resolution - it's just because I am a photographer and I don't like it to be abused. So I put on the wikicommon logo to identify it as the only "common" version. A bigger one, copyrighted, is here - join it: Panorama Silvretta - regards, Mg-k 08:57, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

edit: "As such, an image that is 600 x 600 may look OK on screen, it actually would only be 2 inches by 2 inches if printed out" - you wrote on JFPerry's site. That's it... I don't like you to print... ;-) Mg-k 09:07, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

C-141 Starlifter contrail.jpg

You may want to change your vote. ed g2s • talk 18:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Merida Roman Theatre1.jpg

Hi Quasipsalm, you objected to this image being featured with the argument that it had too much noise. I tried to fix that. Are you still objecting? --Ikiwaner 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

FlickrLickr account

Hi Quasipalm,

did you receive the account data? I used Special:Emailuser to send it to you.--Eloquence 12:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos uploaded

Hi again,

most of the photos from your first slice are now uploaded. I decided to remove some of them, as you gave me quite a huge selection (almost one third). Here are some caveats:

1. Highly redundant photos of the same subject, over and over again (cars, tennis players, "The Gates" , Chinatown in your sample; cf. for example these two Chinatown photos: [3] [4]). In those cases, unless the photos depict something uniquely different, I'd suggest picking your favorite one.
2. Pictures of copyrighted art. This is a thorny issue, and it can often be difficult to draw the line. However, some cases are obvious. This includes the Cuban Che Guevara art. These are copyrighted by the artist, and we cannot use them.
3. Photos potentially taken by people other than the uploader. In general, I would advise against selecting those until you know for sure. (Write down the Flickr URL somewhere.)
4. Average photos of common objects or texture. These should be extraordinary. (In your slice: a couple of photos of wood and grass.)
5. Modern black and white or "sepia" photos, in many cases. Wikimedia is meant to illustrate and document; it is not an artistic medium. So specifically using black and white is rarely a good idea; only when the photo is otherwise extraordinary or unusal, it should be flagged.
6. Non-notable places and place signs; for example, in your slice there were a few bar signs. I don't see how these can be useful for Wikimedia, if the venues themselves are not notable.
7. Average quality photos of unidentified plant or animal life. Not knowing what a photo depicts decreases its value; therefore, the overall standard of quality should be higher. I removed this beetle, for example, because it's not an extraordinary photo, and I'm pretty sure we have, or can easily get, a free picture with proper identification.
8. Generally, noisy or blurry shots (like this: [5])

unless they show something really unusual

There are also borderline cases, of course, such as a really high quality photo of an egg sitting on a fence. I decided to keep it because it was very well done, but I'm still not entirely sure this falls under the "potentially useful" guideline.

You did excellent work on the image titles. However, I would appreciate it if you would also copy the most basic information into the description field of the template, and remove POV information from there.

I've given you another slice. I'd like you to be a little more conservative with this one, and if you find the time, more work on the description pages would also be appreciated. This is another hand holding slice; if I'm happy with that one I'll give you full upload permission. Best,--Eloquence 02:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from you - do you want to do any more slices? Otherwise I'll reassign the last one I gave you. Thanks,--Eloquence 00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reassigned your slice to Andre now; let me know if you want to work on FlickrLickr again.--Eloquence 19:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Source of Image:An Early Three Buttoned Mouse.jpg

Hi Quasipalm! I tagges the image Image:An Early Three Buttoned Mouse.jpg that you have uploaded with "Incomplete License" as the link supplied does not point to the source any more, as the gallery has been enlarged. Do you think you can find the exact location of the picture again and also provide the photographer's name? (Drop me a line if you are busy, then I will try to research the data myself. I just thought you might be able to get to it faster than me.) --Martinroell 09:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Martinroell -- I looked around the site, but couldn't find the image. I'm not sure if it's been removed, or moved to flickr or what... I'm not sure what the protocol is when a link is removed... let me know what you think we should do. Thanks! -Quasipalm 14:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png‎

I'm not trying to be excessively argumentative, and I'm sure you have good intentions at some level, but the situation is not helped by the fact that you seem to have no awareness of your own limitations. Everybody has particular strengths and weaknesses, and nobody can be knowledgeable in all areas. It could very well be the case that you're admirably equipped to make valuable contributions to Wikimedia/Wikipedia in a number of areas -- but unfortunately, this particular area does not appear to be one of them. AnonMoos 07:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Times_Square_New_York_City_FLIKR_8_One_Times_Square_looking_up.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Times_Square_New_York_City_FLIKR_8_One_Times_Square_looking_up.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

MichaelMaggs 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:World Trade Center Observation Deck New York City 1999.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:World Trade Center Observation Deck New York City 1999.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Jusjih 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your good work! I wish to suggest the reworking of categories relating to New York City from 1900 to 2000 from the current format of eg Category:New York City from 1980 to 1999 to by decade, eg, "Category:New York City in the 1980s" and "New York City in the 1990s". I think we have enough material for such categories, and this would make it easier to tie them in with other decade categories. Let me know what you think. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A small cup of coffee.JPG

FYI: de:Portal:Gesellschaft --Mipago 10:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Architectural model of Suzzallo Library 1925.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Architectural model of Suzzallo Library 1925.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

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

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Jodo (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

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

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Kanonkas_(talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated License

---

It has been found that Image:Flatiron Building New York City 1903 Chicago Trib.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 13:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Flatiron Building New York City 1903 Chicago Trib.jpg

Hi. I notice you just changed the license tag of File:Flatiron Building New York City 1903 Chicago Trib.jpg from PD-US to PD-Old. {{PD-Old}} references 70 years after the author's death. I see no information on who the author is in the web source. If you have info on who the photograper was and when they died, please add it to the image description. Otherwise, I think {{PD-US}} was a more accurate description of why the image is public domain, and suggest changing back to that. (Note: If your edit was a belated response to the "outdated template" notice from October of last year above, that was in reference to the image originally having been uploaded with the "PD" tag.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:World_trade_center_new_york_city_construction_flickr.jpg

File:World_trade_center_new_york_city_construction_flickr.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Otr45 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Statue of Liberty

Category discussion notification

Category:Statue of Liberty 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!

--Teofilo (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Manhattan Korean War Memorial.jpg

File:Manhattan Korean War Memorial.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

--Gryffindor (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:For_Knitwear_mural_on_brick_wall,_2005-02.jpg

File:For_Knitwear_mural_on_brick_wall,_2005-02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:New_York_City_from_1980_to_1999

Category:New_York_City_from_1980_to_1999 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!

Jim.henderson (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to specify a category.

Category:New York City from 2000 to 2004

Category:New York City from 2000 to 2004 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!

--Infrogmation (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2011 (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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 82664690.jpg

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 15:21, 27 May 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 82664692.jpg

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Aerial_views_of_New_York_City

Aerial views of New York City 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!

Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Tribute in Light Memorial September 9 2004.jpg

File:Tribute in Light Memorial September 9 2004.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

40.133.1.162 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

File:40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg

File:40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

ɱ (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Times Square New York City FLIKR 8 One Times Square looking up.jpg

File:Times Square New York City FLIKR 8 One Times Square looking up.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

FASTILY 23:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)