Open main menu
There are archived discussions. Please see the archive.

Contents

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Härjångsfjället October 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
ok --Carschten 10:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stora Nyckelviken February 2011b.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 --George Chernilevsky 08:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jarlaberg february 2011.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 shadows could be slightly brightened, but QI nevertheless. --Cayambe 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! White arkitekter 2011.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, although I think would rather like composition to bo more toward left. Now it's a little bit to central, as for me. --Sfu 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fladen.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
Looks nice --Jagro 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ms Lisen january 2011.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 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lövsta February 2011.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 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lentille verte du Puy.jpgEdit

Hi Ankara, in your latest version of the image, the background is fine but the lentils seem to be even more yellow/greenish than they were in the first version. Maybe you reduced the yellow highlights only and left the midtones and shadows unaffected? If you want to, you can send me the original file (RAW or JPEG) and I can try to fix it and send it back to you. Just click on "E-Mail this user" and I'll send you my address. I think the image is QI once the tone problem is corrected.

Having said that, I think it's pretty difficult to "guess" the right white balance for this image. A good idea for shooting pictures like this (using artificial light sources) is to take a first test shot with a so-called "white card" so you can later use that one to tune the white balance. Best regards, --BennyJ (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will send you the orginal file now. Unfortunately, its not a very high resolution scan.--Ankara (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nacka kyrka 2011c.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
snow blown out, a bit too many tees, but otherwise good --Carschten 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ystadsvägen april 2011.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 10:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Villa Folkvang.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
house clearly tilted cw --Mbdortmund 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Clearly! New version uploaded. Thank you.--Ankara 10:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Good now --Mbdortmund 08:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sickla strand 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Ok now. --Cayambe 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skuru IK-s klubbhus.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 now :-) --Cayambe 08:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Solsunda 2011.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 --Carschten 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spökparken 2011.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 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...Edit

...for the perspective correction of File:Mladika palace, Ljubljana.jpg. Archaeodontosaurus okayed it now. — Yerpo Eh? 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! regards--Ankara (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011c.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 now :-) --Cayambe 12:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Duvnäs övre gård.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 QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011b.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 09:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nacka ström april 2011.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
Please clone out the dust spots from the sky. Jovianeye 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)  Done Thank you.--Ankara 10:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
QI now. Jovianeye 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011a.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 bad white balance (too blue) and ccw tilted. Please fix it and I will support --Carschten 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for pointing it out. IIs it better now? But are you sure that the image is tilted, for me, all vertical lines looks straight.--Ankara 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I leaned the image 0.1 degrees clockwise.--Ankara 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC) better now?:)--Ankara 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  Comment it's much better now. The only problem I still have the the snow looks blue-grey anymore. Maybe the snow had really thia color at that day? --Carschten 08:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) It was a gray morning and not really clear (haze / thin cloud cover). Most of the pictures in the category was taken one hour later when it had become clearer. Meantime I took the photos in Category:Hasseludden (same pale colors).--Ankara 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't there. If it's like reality, I believe you and   Support --Carschten 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Thorildsplan Metro station april 2011c.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot


File:Thorildsplan Metro station april 2011b.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ABF-huset.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 the two buidlings are a bit overexposed, could you darken them/the image plaese? --Carschten 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) New version. Maybe to dark? --Ankara 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  Support maybe, but it's much better now! QI imo --Carschten 08:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Villa Duvnäs april 2011.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
Spot in sky, over the roof. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)   Done thank you!--Ankara 15:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  Comment good, but needs some contrast --Carschten 16:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC) New version uploaded.--Ankara 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) *   Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 07:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011f.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
  CommentSee image note. Jovianeye 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Why not? Actually I made ​​a crop even on the left side. The grass in the foreground is important, it is part of the area's architecture. But what is left should be enough. Thanks for your input, I think the picture turned out better now.--Ankara 22:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Better now! Jovianeye 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gillevägen april 2011.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 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Globen sedd från Slakthusområdet.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 interesting and good, but please fix the dust --Carschten 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you. The problem here is I do not know how I can do to remove the dust without destroying the power line. It is located directly on the power line.--Ankara 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I think user:Pro2 (thanks!) have removed dust spot now.--Ankara 10:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)   Done I've removed another dust spot from the globe and I also edited the lighting (or the exposure) a little, if you don't mind. Please, revert if you don't like it! :) --Ximonic 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you very mutch for your help! Best regards--Ankara 09:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Winborg ättiksprit.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}}}

thank you for your review, some more words about KlausenturmEdit

Hello Ankara,
thank you very much for reviewing my picture Klausenturm Treppenhaus. My D700 is still new to me and I have to learn using this great camera. So for sure, you are right: my actual pictures are far away from possibilities of this equipment. You are right, with the statement about ISO performance of the D700, even I have used it till now not very often. The shoot of staircase was taken on a busy day (Muttertag). I decided to use my camera in program mode to catch a moment without any persons in the stair case. And unfortunately the program mode does not float the ISO, that is the reason, why the photo of staircase is taken with big aperture. When I checked the result on cameras display, it looked fine to me (sharp enough), so I went away from the crowded look-out tower without doing more shoots playing with ISO. When I ever will visit this tower again, I will try to do more shoots with different aperture / ISO, but I think, even my actual shoot meets wikipedia QI. Don't you think?
The difference in handling to my old Nikon D70 is very big and I need to practice much more with my new D700. A look to your great shoots here in Commons shows, you are a user of an analog Nikon camera. Before digital SLR I used a Nikon F50. May I ask, how you do the very high quality scans of your analog shoots (which equipment (scanner) do you use, do you use negativ- or slide-film)? Looking forward to your answers and to all your interesting reviews,
regards from Germany --J. Lunau (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello J Lunau,
You're most welcome.
All my analog pictures are developed and scanned by local photo lab in Stockholm. It is not too expensive, around the 10-15 euros (standard full-length roll) roll for processing and scanning. The equipment used seems to be SP300 (File:Ms Lisen january 2011.jpg, ) or more expensive Noritsu QSS 30 (file:Havrekvarnen_2011.jpg). Hopefully I'll soon have the opportunity to test a professional scanner, and scan in some negatives.
I've looked at the picture again, and I would agree that it meets the criteria. And I really like the composition. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fredriksdal april 2011d.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 --Ximonic 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! STF Mountain station Helags in April 2011.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 and good coversion. --Jovianeye 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Helags panorama April 2011.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 very good panorama. Perfect brightness. --Fandecaisses 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Capella2010.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. Harrison49 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kornhamnstorg 53.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 for me.--Jebulon 17:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clipper Adventure December 2007.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. Harrison49 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
Clipper Adventurer (ship, 1975).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Eurocon 2011Edit

Wow, thx for the photos from Eurocon. Could you write a short news (in Wikinews). Best regards. Przykuta[edit] 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will upload more pictures later in the week. I'm not sure if I have time for Wikinews, and have never used Wikinews. If you wish, you may add a photo to pl:Eurocon. Best regards --Ankara (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SmakfrågaEdit

Hej! Snygga analoga bilder (givetvis de digitala också, men... :-))du får till! Nu till mitt ämne En liten smakfråga, som jag tror du är bra på att avgöra. Bör jag beskära bort det utfrätta på himlen i File:Mellansjön 02.jpg? Det blir väl en ny bild, eftersom båda i så fall bör behållas, då det nog mest handlar om smak. Allt gott /V-wolf (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hej och tack! Det är en vacker bild med fina färger. Jag tycker inte att du bara ska beskära himlen, det blir först riktigt störande om man laddar ned bilden och tittar på den i full storlek och det håller inte bilden för ändå (vilket inte är ditt fel, jag antar att du inte hade stativet med dig när jag ser på bländare och exponering). Redan nu utgör himlen mindre än en tredjedel av bilden (en:Rule_of_thirds). En beskärning som däremot går att gör är att beskära på alla sidor och sen justera så att den horisonten kommer rätt, jag prövade att beskära bilden till ungefär 3600x2400 och behålla mittdelen. Då kommer den delen av stenstranden som är sticker ut längst i vattnet med, skuggan från träden hamnar i blickfånget till höger (där linjerna möts) och man får med sjömärkerna/pinnarna som sticker upp ur vattnet. Allt gott!--Ankara (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Det stämmer, jag var på scouthajk och hade därför inte stativet med. Dina råd låter bra. Jag brukar ofta använda 4*6-ram när jag beskär, jag ska prova de mått du angav. Tack! V-wolf (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Kan det här vara något? File:Mellansjön 02 cropped.jpg? Glad midsommar! V-wolf (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ser mycket bra ut. Glad midsommar!--Ankara (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alcro-BeckersHQ.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 --Sfu 10:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lumafabriken november 2010c.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
Looks boring, but OK. --Ikar.us 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Duomo Firenze in QICEdit

Hi Ankara.
Thanks for review.
You were right.
I've corrected the perspective and I think I was a bit careless in this case !
It's much better now.
Thanks for the hint.
--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome!
I have promoted the images now.
Regards --Ankara (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bogserbåten Björnen juni 2011.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 08:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Petersenska huset.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 20:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Tiger June 2011a.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 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Danviksbron June 2011.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
Minor (fat?) spot in the sky above the bridge's head, othervise very nice imho.--V-wolf 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I removed the spot.--Ankara 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC) "Green" now, what I can see. --V-wolf 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bondeska palatset June 2011.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 09:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Riksdagen June 2011.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 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RotateEdit

Hi,

Thnks for the note, its done now [1] Huib talk Abigor @ meta 10:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jewel of the Seas in Stockholm June 2011b.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
New version here also, but I'm not sure about the result. --Ankara 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I would be very grateful for comments on the new versions, are they better and/or there is more to improve?--Ankara 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Why withdraw? This one is good IMO. --Ikar.us 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I was worry about the colours, maybe i was wrong.--Ankara 06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)   Support --Ikar.us 21:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Operan.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--Lmbuga 09:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Inre delning.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 The isolation is great except that pole is a distraction. I'd also edit out the people in the background as their bright clothing is also a distraction. Saffron Blaze 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, I dont know how to remove the pole and the people.--Ankara 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  Support I do not see as much of an issue with the pole, and none at all with the people. Sharpness at the lower end of the stone is more a problem, but overall it's still acceptable. -- H005 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC) --H005 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Masthamnen June 2011.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 see annotations. The WB seems a bit too cyan, too. --Carschten 12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Done.--Ankara 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  Support good now (maybe a bit extreme WB correction though) --Carschten 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Emilie.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
WB corrected.--Ankara 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  Support nice --Pudelek 09:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hammarby sjöstad from Danviksbron.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 PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Svalbard June 2011.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 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stockholm Central Station June 2011.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 07:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Södertörn.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, nice sky --Carschten 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castella july 2011.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 quality. Would be even better if you would correct the perspective distortion. --Carschten 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)   Done thanks you.--Ankara 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brottö July 2011b.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 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brottö July 2011a.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 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Blasieholmstorg July 2011.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 nice and good quality, but I don't like the crop at bottom and the shadows are a bit harsh IMO. I uploaded a new version in the file history. Maybe it's better? --Carschten 13:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I like your new version. Thanks!--Ankara 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  Support no problem! QI to me (now) --Carschten 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oberon - Eric Grate.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 DOF --Carschten 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stockholm Ström 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
  Comment dust spot --Carschten 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Dust spot removed.--Ankara 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Good now -- MJJR 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ljungris August 2011b.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 for me--Lmbuga 21:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ljungris August 2011d.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 for me--Lmbuga 08:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cirsium helenioides (Ljungdalen)b.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
DOF is a tad low, but nice composition and background make up for it. --Quartl 07:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Torkilstöten August 2011.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's good --Ximonic 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Betula pubescens Ljungdalen August 2011.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 white fringes probably strengthened by sharpening could be fixed in photoshop (if you just have). Using some darkening brush with the sky color would most probably do the trick. Yet good otherwise in my opinion. --Ximonic 18:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ljusnedals kyrka August 2011b.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 09:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jan Inghe-Hagströms torg July 2011.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. --Andrei Stroe 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ljusnan in Ljusnedal.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, but the bridge is not perfectly horizontal. Slight clockwise tilt maybe ?--Jebulon 09:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you. New version uploaded.--Ankara 10:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Good now, IMO.--Jebulon 08:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ljungris August 2011c.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
Sorry, for me the description is not clear, I don't understand what is this tool looking like a guillotine :)--Jebulon 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC) It's actually a guillotine. It was built in the 1700s by French emigrants who came to Ljungdalen to start a revolution. There is a forgotten and unknown part of European history, ignored by both the French and Swedish historians. I really do not know, probably it is a ramp used to load the reindeer in a truck (if they are off to slaughter) --Ankara 10:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Thank you for historical explanations (I love history!)... But no need of guillotine nor revolution in Sweden: 1)choose a napoleonic marshal, 2)make him king. A good recipe too ! ;) By the way: it is a QI--Jebulon 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gröndörrsstöten August 2011.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 and lovely.--Jebulon 22:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Mysing 2011.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 22:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
Nationalmuseum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Birger Jarl.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. Please geotag. --Cayambe 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)   DoneThank you.--Ankara 10:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nationalmuseum July 2011.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. --Berthold Werner 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Set PromotionEdit

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Sveriges Riksdag.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Sveriges Riksdag.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Well done!   -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Ankara (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eric Grates park July 2011.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 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statens bakteriologiska laboratorium July 2011f.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. Please add a descr. in English and a geotag. --Cayambe 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)   Done. Thank you.--Ankara 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−


Hello, Ankara!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finishedEdit

  català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−
Dear Ankara,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
 
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ID of your photographs File:Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ljungdalen 20101001.jpg and File:Majviva2.JPGEdit

Hi Ankara, I just moved your photograph File:Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ljungdalen 20101001.jpg to Category:Vaccinium vitis-idaea and corrected the description accordingly. Arctostaphylos has got its calyx at the base of the fruit, not on top of the fruit (as in your image). In addition Vaccinium vitis-idaea has got leaf edges, which are more strongly rolled downwards than those of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi and usually a slightly different leaf shape. But the calyx is most easily recognizable on photographs. These are typical images of the two plants:

In addition, I moved your beautiful photograph of violets in bloom, File:Majviva2.JPG, from the obviously wrong Category:Primula farinosa to Category:Unidentified Viola. These violets could be Viola tricolor or possibly some subspecies or microspecies of Viola arvensis. In my opinion these species are rather troublesome to tell apart, but I won't object if anyone thinks that he or she knows better and can give your plant its correct name. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good morning,
Thanks for your help. Im sorry. I'll try to be even more careful next time. I changed the name of the first image. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the flowers are discussed here. I think I forgot to update the picture page. They suggested Viola tricolor.--Ankara (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Judging by the stipules, which are spreading and with a linear central lobe, this is plausible. I changed the category to Category:Viola tricolor. By the way, this category contains lots of misidentified violets, mostly from gardens, which are certainly not Viola tricolor. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


  Hello, Ankara. You have new messages at Stefan4's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Graphics labEdit

Your dated submission to the Graphics lab has had a reply. Please take the time to reply. --Vera (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

File:Hanna Wagenius (beskuren).jpgEdit

Hello! The OTRS-ticket on this image only grants permission for the original image, File:Hanna_Wagenius.jpg. If I understand correctly, it is you yourself who are the creator of the cropped and derived work. Therefore it is you who must decide under which licence you want to release it. The original image's license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} would certainly be compatible. Would you be so kind as to add that license to the image page (so it is clear that's what you want) and remove the OTRS-links? --Bensin (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hej,
Tack för att du uppmärksammade det. Märkligt, normalt brukar man få med sig licensen när man laddar upp en bearbetad version. Jag lägger dit {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Angående OTRS-länken har jag ingen aning om vad som är praxis där, om du bedömer att den bör tas bort så gör gärna det--Ankara (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Fint! Nu är det fixat. :-) --Bensin (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

Eleassar (t/p) 21:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:AleppoCitadel.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:AleppoCitadel.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the 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.

–⁠moogsi (blah) 06:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Taynal Mosque2009b.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Taynal Mosque2009b.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the 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 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Taynal Mosque2009a.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Taynal Mosque2009a.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the 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 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Skansbacken november 2010d.jpgEdit

 
File:Skansbacken november 2010d.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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jcb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ankara".