Open main menu

Contents

Вики любит памятники 2016Edit

Здравствуйте! Спасибо за участие в российской части конкурса Вики любит памятники 2016! Сообщаем, что Ваша фотография:

оказалась среди 653 из 22580 загруженных в ходе конкурса изображений и вошла в лонг-лист. В ближайшие дни жюри определит победителей, а пока вы можете сделать так, чтобы Ваши фотографии увидели читатели Википедии. Найдите подходящую статью об объекте культурного наследия, городе или регионе и добавьте туда свои фотографии. Вы также можете проиллюстрировать путеводители Викигида. Ещё раз спасибо за интерес к конкурсу и культурному наследию!

Организаторы российской части конкурса Вики любит памятники 2016

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Villa Brünn Dambach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg, Brücke über Halsgraben.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Hans-Jürgen, ich hab mal zwei Kategorien hinzugefügt so wie ich das meinte. Das Bild scheint mir etwas zu dunkel ist aber gut. Von dieser Bahnstrecke gibt es eigentlich wenig Bilder. Ach ja und das Denkmal Template mit der Nummer kommt eigentlich weiter unten rein. Die Bildbeschreibung sollte in Worten sein so etwa wie der Dateiname. Gruß von Reinhold.--Ermell (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Reinhold, muss ich dann wirklich mal sehen, meine Intention war ja nicht die Bibertbahn, sondern Denkmäler in Ammerndorf. Ich habe die vorgeschlagenen Kategorien bei einem anderem Bild (dem Obelisk am Marktplatz) "Brunnen Bibertalbahn Ammerndorf.jpg" ergänzt. Ich muss aber die Uhrzeit mal kontrollieren, aktuell holt er sich die time von der gps-mouse, kann hier aber nicht stimmen. Helligkeit (Herbst vor einem Unwetter) kommt hin, ich mag es generell nicht, wenn (wie hier oft) auf Autofarbe und Auto-Helligkeit eingestellt wird, da dabei die Farbtemperatur verloren geht. Die Denkmal-templates sind doch automatisch von WLM2017 erzeugt? Soll hier der Text aus dem Bayern-Atlas doppelt in der Beschreibung des Bildes aufgenommen warden? Ist das nicht doppelt gemoppelt? Gruß, Hans-Jürgen


(talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pfarrkirche St. Peter und Paul, Ammerndorf 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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 9 (Cadolzburg) 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Deutschland!Edit

 
Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland

Hallo Hans-Jürgen Neubert!

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments 2017! Das Organisationsteam freut sich über mehr als 20.000 Bilder von deutschen Bau- und Kulturdenkmalen, die in diesem Jahr hochgeladen wurden, und möchte sich ganz herzlich bei Dir für deinen Beitrag zum weltweit größten, von Ehrenamtlichen organisierten, Fotowettbewerb bedanken!

Du hast noch bis zum 15. Oktober die Gelegenheit, Wettbewerbsbeiträge anderer Fotografen im Rahmen der Vorjury zu sichten und zu bewerten. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du dich daran beteiligst und mithilfst, die besten Bilder des diesjährigen Wettbewerbs auszuwählen. Gern kannst Du auch deine und andere Bilder in Wikipedia einbinden.

Nochmals vielen Dank für deine Beiträge. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch in Zukunft die Wikipedia bebilderst! Solltest du Fragen haben, so kannst du dich gerne an info wikilovesmonuments.de wenden.

(Martin Rulsch (WMDE) im Namen des Organisationsteams von Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland, 9. Oktober 2017)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Villa Hindenburgstrasse von Fritz Walter.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bahnhof Ammerndorf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Eisengitter von Fritz Walter, Cadolzburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Friedhof Cadolzburg 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Friedhof Cadolzburg 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg, Befestigung der Vorburg 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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 21 (Cadolzburg) 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Main donau park 2 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Georgensgmünd Jüdischer Friedhof 100.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cafe Barock 01 (Caputh).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pfarrkirche St. Peter und Paul, Ammerndorf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

KategorienEdit

Hallo Hans-Jürgen,

ich wollte gestern den Review zu dem Totenschädel machen, doch PumpkinSky war schneller. Jetzt seine Entscheidung anzufechten wäre albern, daher gehe ich nur noch kurz auf die Kategorien ein. Zum einen sollte es bei einem QI keine undefinierten Kategorie-Links ("red links") geben, jede Kategorie sollte also eine immer eine existierende übergeordnete haben. Bei den Cemeteries in Bavaria war es nur ein Tippfehler, die Friedhöfe in Mittelfranken hast Du ja schon selbst angelegt. Dann gibt es noch das Thema "Überkategorisierung", das steht auch irgendwo in den QI-Guidelines. Ist Dein Bild in Cemeteries in Bavaria, sollte es nicht gleichzeitig in der viel allgemeineren Cemeteries liegen. Es könnte aber gleichzeitig in einer anderen untergeordneten Cemeteries-Kategorie liegen (Cemeteries at Night als erfundenes Beispiel). Und zu guter Letzt wurden bei dem Bild die Kategorien Skulls und Graves verwendet. Die sind sehr, sehr allgemein. Besser wäre es, hier eine detailliertere Kategorie (oder mehrere) herauszusuchen. Die allgemeinen Kategorien sind häufig sehr überlaufen und die Kategorien sollen ja gerade dazu verwendet werden können, um Bilder schnell zu finden.

Auch Black and white ist nicht die beste Wahl, da solltest Du besser etwas Passendes unterhalb von Black and white photographs suchen.

Das ist alles, Du kannst das ja noch einmal an Deinem Bild überprüfen.

Beste Grüsse,

--Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Hallo,

erstmal vielen Dank für die Antwort und die Mühe sie zu erstellen. Vllt. hilft es mir als wc-newbie doch noch etwas durchzublicken, auch wenn etliches zu aufwendig ist. Leider ärgert, vielmehr entäuscht mich, gleich der erste Satz. "....ich wollte gestern den Review zu dem Totenschädel machen, doch PumpkinSky war schneller. Jetzt seine Entscheidung anzufechten wäre albern..." Es ist überhaupt nicht albern - sondern eigentlich das einzige was mich persönlich interessiert hätte! Die Kategorien dazu sind mehr akademisch, viel mehr nerdig. (Und ich habe das mit "OK" schon verstanden...) Das Bild wurde großformatig mehrfach ausgestellt. Es hat immer emotionale Reaktionen in allen Richtungen ausgelöst, - der Tod ist halt ein schwieriges Thema - und b/w Fotografen werden gerne bildlich morbid. Technisch war ich selten zufrieden, man findet immer ein Staubkorn - wenn man will, gerade bei einem "undruckbarem" Bild mit einem Tonwertumfang in allen Barytstufen mit Zone III und VIII. Ich kenne dazu also hunderte Meinungen, eine weitere kann ich ab! Und das sind Abzüge in real, die Hektoliter an Wasser gekostet haben. Das Bild lässt sich kaum digitalisieren, mein TIFF hat alleine 84 MB. Die Qualitätskriterien dazu sind gerade auf Commons eben auch eigen und nicht immer objektiv. Interessiert mich weniger, Emotionen mehr. Es sind nur eine handvoll Leute die bewerten und oft kann man sich die "Augen reiben" noch mehr gähnt man. Ich kenne die Meinung von meinem Lehrmeister, der gemeint hat, "Schrott! Lässt sich nicht drucken." Er hat´s als Orginal in 45x70 gerahmt an der Wand, hat natürlich nochmal mit Farmscher Abschwächer und Tinte selber gepinselt (durfte er machen, ist ja mein Meister gewesen). B&W ist doch bei Commons total unterbelichtet, ich habe da Massen davon, das wenigste digitalisert. Es ist auch noch nicht lange her, das ich da digital mit b&w meinen Frieden gefunden habe.

"Friedhöfe in Mittelfranken" ja von mir erstellt, der deutsch-englische Begriff grauste mir, ich hatte also gesucht :-) St. Johannes gibt´s nicht nur einmal weltweit, oder Saint Johannes scheint nicht public bekannt zu sein. Angeblich der schönste Friedhof von Deutschland?! Es ist aber nicht das erste Mal, das eine Kategorie ohne Begründung verschoben und dann gelöscht wurde. Hatte ich als Newbie allein min. dreimal. Die Hierarchie versteht keiner (Nerd-Modus) dabei es ist destruktiv. siehe auch "Jüdische Friedhöfe". Skulls & Graves sind die Kategorien aus dem November Contest, ich habe mir einige Bilder dazu angesehen, ALLE nehmen eben diese CAT. Stimmt ja auch... Also, das erste Mal das ich ein Schwarzweiß-Bild einstelle, ein bekanntes und dann hängt eine technische Beurteilung an der Kategorie?? Wie viele b/w gibt es bei commons? Unter 1%? mehr als 3%?

Wiki-Commons sollte da zumindest so sein, zumindest nicht kleinkarierter, wie tagging bei shutterstock. Wenn admins zusätzlich kategorisieren oder taggen ist das sinnvoll, machen sicher die wenigsten. Wenn ein Bild von einem Friedhof (nicht von mir) in der QI-Bewertung tags&cats von den Bäumen verlangt, wird es irgendwie spanisch. Meine Meinung. Ich stehe offen zu Diskussion zur Verfügung.

Saludos, Hans-Jürgen

Bitte nicht falsch verstehen, ich versuche, nur beim Verständnis zu helfen, wie das hier funktioniert. Das Bild ist ja auch meiner Meinung nach technisch absolut in Ordnung, daher habe ich das nicht ins CR verschoben. Aber irgendwie habe ich auch das Gefühl, dass hier ein Missverständnis vorliegt, was QICs überhaupt sind: Es geht hier fast nur um technische Kriterien. Ob ein Bild "toll" ist oder nicht, wird in den Featured Pictures entschieden, nicht unter QIC.
D. h. wir überprüfen:
- Ist das Bild grösser als die Mindestgrösse von 2 MP?
- Ist zuviel Rauschen vorhanden?
- Gibt es chromatische Aberrationen?
- Sind vertikale Elemente auch vertikal, ist eine Perspektivkorrektur nötig?
- Sind Staubflecken vorhanden?
- Sind die Kategorien vernünftig und brauchbar?
- Ist die Beschreibung sinnvoll?
- Ist das Bild scharf genug?
All das steht in den Commons:Image_guidelines.
Gibt es hier Raum für Interpretationen? Ja! Jeder Reviewer interpretiert die Guidelines etwas anders, wir sind halt Menschen. Aber es gibt eine Grundtendenz. Unklarheiten werden im CR ausgeräumt, aber deswegen muss nicht gleich alles dahin verschoben werden.
Nochmal zum Thema Kategorien: Die sind wichtig, denn sie helfen beim Suchen. Wenn beim November-Contest alles unter "Graves" und "Skulls" eingeordnet wird, dann ist es einfach falsch, weil zu allgemein. Das mag kleinkariert erscheinen, aber ein QI ist nicht nur einfach ein "schönes Foto", sondern es ist ein Foto, das bestimmte Kriterien erfüllt.
Black and white ist nicht eine geeignete Kategorie, das steht ja auch auf der Kategorieseite.
Aber wie gesagt, das soll eine konstruktive Kritik sein.
Viele Grüsse,
--Basotxerri (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Kriege ich schon noch irgendwann hin. Und ich werde sicher keine Schrauben, Käsesorten, Käfer, Türschilder oder Kfz-Kennzeichen einstellen. QI -so habe ich es verstanden- sind aber ursprünglich weder Stock-Bilder oder nur Katalog-Aufnahmen aus der Hohlkehle.
Und wie so oft im Leben, passen die Beispiele dazu irgendwie nicht.
Ich werde mich nie und habe mich nie beschwert, wenn einer Staub auf dem Sensor findet.
Aber CA´s wo keine sind, oder perspektivische Verzerrungen mit starkem Weitwinkel bei Architektur in freier Natur am Hang,
da wird schon gerne auch mal übertrieben. Gerade fallen mir da einige Bilder aus Zirndorf, oder heute eines an der Burg in
Cadolzburg ein.
Daher ist Schwarz-Weiß auch sicher eine total ungeeignete Plattform für Commons (außer sie sind historisch).
Alleine in Farbe werden gerne Fotos in QI "declined" bei denen der Fotograf absichtlich den Kontrast und das Spektrum
auf die Spitze treibt. Warum? Gerade wenn ersichtlich ist, es war Absicht.
Ich bin mir sicher, ich hatte da auch mal ein Bild von Dir declined. Ich hatte meine Gründe, die auch sicher beschrieben.
(War ein Bild bei dem die Focusebene auf dem Laub und nicht der Architektur war, mehr fällt mir nicht mehr ein, jedenfalls
kann ich mir schwer vorstellen, das es hier Absicht, also Gestaltung war, passiert halt) -
QI sollte daher eigentlich von min. 2 Stimmen freigegeben werden, sonst wird das zu sehr "elite Nerds community".
Mag ja sein, das Kategorien wichtig sind, vieles lässt sich aber nachträglich "Katalogen". Bei einigen Sachen kommt man ja erst
gar nicht drauf. Auch das hatte ich. Ein Denkmal in Ammerndorf, dann kam einer mit Bahnlinie usw.
Frage daher welches Foto aus dem Nov-Contest erfüllt die CAT-Bedingungen? Ok, das image war unter QI und ich mag konstruktive
Kritik, sonst lerne ich ja nichts.
Heute fallen mir zu dem Totenkopf keine weiteren Kategorien ein und ich kann mir schwer vorstellen das andere unter der cat St.
Johannes mehr Bilder einstellen, was schade ist.
Schöne Woche, Hans-Jürgen
Ebenso! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


Hallo jedenfalls bin ich zumindest zu dumm zum editieren! Mit Chrome wird nicht alles angezeigt, mit MSIE11 hat er mir den html text
so zerlegt das das image auf Löschantrag steht. Himmel, Hölle, Hilf! Ich wollte nur den grünen Text und am liebesten in einer Box.
Ich glaube ich pausiere mal! Bitte um Hilfe! Hans-Jürgen

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Johannes Nürnberg Bronzeguss.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hauptstraße 12 001 (Zirndorf).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Georgensgmünd Jüdischer Friedhof 101.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Johannes Nürnberg Totenschädel 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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Saint Johannes Tomb 0002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Saint Johannes Tomb 0001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Love Paddlocks around the world (North Thailand).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Frage bei File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Mäusescheune -- 2017 -- 0149.jpgEdit

Hallo! Du hattet bei den QIC gefragt, mit welchem Zoom ich die Aufnahme gemacht hatte. Es ist das Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS II USM. Erst sind die ersten Gehversuche mit meinem neuen "Immerdrauf". --XRay talk 17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Dann viel Erfolg mit Deinem neuem Glas! Auch wenn 35-45mm eine schöne praktische Länge ist, bei Architektur kommt´s es halt immer auch auf das lens-profile an.
Habe mich bei dem Bild etwas am rechten Tor "gerieben"...
wird hier gerne auch mal übertrieben mit der Perspektiven-Korrektur, bei Architektur geht es halt leider nicht anders. Mir ist die Anfangslänge 24mm leider oft zu lang.
Schöne Woche, Hans-Jürgen
Es sind halt die ersten Versuche. Mit einer etwas längeren Brennweite kann man halt unliebsame Objekte rechts und links ausblenden. Ein 20-mm-Objektiv habe ich auch noch. Im Frühjahr hatte ich leihweise ein 11-24-mm-Objektiv mit heftigen Verzerrungen in den Ecken bei 11 mm - irgendwie klar. Bei 20 mm finde ich es OK, daher traf meine Wahl bei der jetzigen Fotoausrüstung auf diese Festbrennweite. Die Scheune steht übrigens vergleichsweise gerade (und die Kamera hat eine Wasserwaage). Ebenso eine schöne Woche! --XRay talk 05:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Ich glaube ich kenne die Scheune, ist ja auch interessant wie sie "aufgebarrt" ist...Ich könnte nur sagen, ich bin neidisch, wie viel Weiß sie Dir lassen (wenn ich mir mein Amtsrichterhaus ansehe) ist ein flax :) An den Enden haben Zooms immer so ihre Zicken und kleiner 24mm@FX fangen echt die Probleme an. Gerade flairs (die ich hasse) oder das sich nichts "anschrauben" lässt an gewölbten Gläsern. Mich interessiert aktuell dennoch ein Tamron SP 15-30mm Weitwinkel Objektiv F/2.8 Di VC USD habe nur noch keine Bilder hier gefunden.

Saludos, Hans-Jürgen

Es gibt so ein paar oft gemachte Kommentare, die ich nur teilweise für berechtigt halte. Ein einheitlich grauer Himmel hat oft Akzeptanzschwierigkeiten. Oft fehlt es an Struktur oder es war so hell, dass Teile des Himmels eher überbelichtet sind. Das ist schon eine Gratwanderung. Gerade sehr helle Partien im Himmel zeigen uns die Grenzen des Dynamikumfangs auf. (Ich habe schon den Eindruck, dass dir mit deiner Erfahrung das nicht unbekannt ist. Sieh es einfach als kleinen ausschweifenden Exkurs.) Aus diesem Grund nutze ich schon lange RAW, aber die Entwicklung der Sensoren schreitet voran. Das menschliche Auge schafft bis zu 20 Blendenstufen und arbeitet punktuell, moderne Sensoren liegen bei bis zu 13 Blendenstufen. Von älteren wollen wir gar nicht reden. Oft reduziere ich die hellen, mittleren Bereiche oder dunkle den Himmel mit Hilfe einer Maske etwas ab, weil dies der Empfindung unseres Auges näher kommt. Es sind aber auch schon etliche meiner Bilder bei QIC wegen desselben Problems mit dem Himmel abgelehnt worden. Manchmal habe ich den Eindruck, dass nur Schönwetterbilder akzeptiert werden, aber das ist schon besser geworden. Und dabei ist strahlender Sonnenschein für viele Gebäude wegen der Schatten gar nicht so schön. Sei es drum, es erweitert die Erfahrung. --XRay talk 07:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Meine erste Serie "White Temple" war so ein Beispiel, was kamen da für Kritiken, meist Perspektive, dabei sind jetzt etliche Anbauten so gerade wie sie es in echt nie sind. CA´s waren kleine Spiegel usw. es war anscheinend kaum einer dort, doch Fussi. Bei Weißtönen, gerade Himmel sehe ich das Problem eigentlich nicht so, dafür bei Schatten. Vieles liegt am Farbraum oder den Monitoren und dem Umgebungslicht. In b/w gab es immer die beiden Übungen, Schwarzer Pudel auf dem Kohlehaufen und Blondie als Braut auf weißem Satin. In b/w lag vieles am Papier. Was gerne vergessen wird, es brauchte für jeden Maßstab eine eigene Graduation im Film (nicht Papier), deswegen waren große Formate auch härter. Ein Monitor der für Grafik-SW eingestellt ist, kann nicht für Photos verwendet warden (zu hell)- Hier wird übertrieben, gerade bei QI (ich habe schon 2-3 RAW´s gesehen, da darf ich mich wundern:) Ziel des Picmakers sollte doch sein mit Licht zu arbeiten und nicht eine jpeg-Entwicklungsmaschine außer bei Repro. Mir fehlen unterschiedliche Stile, bei denen zu erkennen ist, warum ein Photograph das so macht, auch wenn es graphisch oder Punk ist. Ist hier ja schon black&white.

Irgendwie scheinen wir doch eine gewisse Seelenverwandtschaft zu haben. Daher plaudere ich doch noch mal ein wenig aus dem Nähkästchen. Deinen Tempel habe ich gesehen und auch viele andere Dinge. Die Guidelines bei QIC werden manchmal auf die Goldwaage gelegt, manchmal allerdings auch schroff missachtet. Das ist eine Folge des unterschiedlichen Kenntnisstands all der Beurteiler. (Mal ganz abgesehen von ganz anderen persönlichen Eigenschaften, die unterschiedlich ausgeprägt sind. So sind wir (alle) halt.) Über die Jahre hinweg kenne ich etliche, die nicht mehr dabei sind, viele die heute nominieren und einige auch persönlich. Sehr viele sind wirklich gute Fotografinnen und Fotografen. Aber es sind auch imemr wieder eher unbeholfene Neulinge dabei, die sehr von ihren Ergebnissen überzeugt sind. Derzeit sind - so mein Eindruck - sehr viele Neulinge dabei. Ich denke, dass uns allen gemeinsam ist, dass wir bei QIC (und auch bei FPC) viel lernen, da doch viele Kritik sachlich und korrekt ist - in Bezug auf technische Qualität. Bisher habe ich - außer im direkten Austausch mit befreundeten Fotografinnen und Fotografen - nirgendwo sonst derartige Kritik erhalten, die mir sehr geholfen hat. Aber es ist viel technischer Natur und wenig individueller Stil - wie du ja auch bemerkst. Teilweise ist es - meiner Meinung nach - auch krass überzogen - und damit meine ich nicht kleinere CAs und Konsorten. Große Diskussionen gibt es immer wieder beim Himmel oder bei den Senkrechten. Da ich oft Denkmäler fotografiere und das sind oft keine Bauwerke aus dem 20. oder 21. Jahrhundert, sind auch vermeintliche Senkrechten nicht immer senkrecht. Oft nehme ich dem Ganzen schon mal den Wind aus den Segeln, wenn ich schon in der Beschreibung erwähne, dass die Wände nicht senkrecht stehen. Aber Kritik dieser Art war übrigens vor geraumer Zeit noch wesentlich heftiger. Mittlerweile bin ich allerdings so weit, dass ich mich selbst so weit entwickelt habe, dass mir das oft dokumentarische Ablichten nicht mehr geeignet erscheint. Ich mache es zwar noch, aber auch Bilder, die überhaupt nicht mehr für QIC geeignet sind. Es ist derzeit eher ein geordneter Rückzug. Einen gewissen Kontakt möchte ich halten, weil ich einige Fotografinnen und Fotografen bei Wikimedia Commons doch sehr schätze. Was die persönliche fotografische Entwicklung angeht, kann ich deinen Ausführungen schon sehr gut folgen. Eigene Dunkelkammererfahrung habe ich schon, aber es beschränkt sich auf meine fotografische Anfangszeit vor gut 40 Jahren. Das Digitale ist so eher meine Welt, vielleicht auch, weil ich aus der IT-Welt komme. Mit mittlerweile meiner dritten DSLR bin ich unterwegs und nutze digitale Elemente wie früher die Enthusiasten in der Dunkelkammer. Und auch digital ist der Schwarze Pudel auf dem Kohlehaufen eine Herausforderung oder - ein Blick aus dem Fenster - Fußspuren im Schnee. Und ich liebe großformatige Abzüge, denn so kommen Bilder richtig zur Geltung. Die Smartphones sind eher fürs Knipsen geeignet und übertreiben es oft mit den Farben. Eine Folge aus der Vielfalt der unterschiedlichen und nicht immer fotogeeigneten Displays.
Darf ich mal erwähnen, dass mich einen Austausch auf dieser Ebene übrigens sehr erfreut? Ich bin auch bei einem lokalen Wikipedia-Stammtisch schon mal dabei, aber es ist hier in der Region kaum ein Wikipedia-Fotograf (und erst recht keine Wikipedia-Fotografin). Bei vielen endet das Fotografieren leider mit dem Druck auf den Auslöser. Im Rudel mit mehreren Leuten bin ich einmal losgezogen, um in einem Freilichtmuseum zu fotografieren. Es war mehr ein Ablichten unter Hast, unsystematisch und jeder stand dem anderen im Weg. Das war dann auch das letzte Mal. Jetzt habe ich einige Bilder aus einer GLAM-Tour in einem Museum gesehen und habe mich bei den Aktivitäten direkt gefragt, wie man in einem Museum sinnvoll ohne Stativ arbeiten kann. Selbst eine Graukarte konnte ich nicht entdecken, aber zu der Qualität abgelichteter Gemälde habe ich sowieso ein Störgefühl, da ich den Weißabgleich nicht nachvollziehen kann.
Wenn du mal so richtig Kritik für deine Bilder bekommen möchtest, versuche dich doch mal bei den Exzellenten Bildern in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. Du wirst enttäuscht sein. Einerseits ist es die Art und Weise des Umgangs miteinander, die nicht mir nicht mehr antun möchte, teilweise aber auch eine krasse Unsachlichkeit. Ich erinnere mich an zwei besonders unsachliche Kritiken: "Ich mag keine Glasfassaden." und "Es wurde zu harsch geblitzt.". In dem letzten Fall wurde mir sogar ein Tutorial zugeschickt, wie man richtig blitzt. Das Besondere daran: Es war das Licht der öffentlichen Beleuchtung und es wurde gar nicht geblitzt. Ich hatte auch ausdrücklich darauf hingewiesen, aber gelesen wurden die Hinweise nicht.
So, nun soll der Text aber enden. Ich hoffe, du hast bis hierher durchgehalten. ;-) Viele Grüße aus dem Münsterland! --XRay talk 07:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Irgendwie scheinen wir doch eine gewisse Seelenverwandtschaft zu haben." Da wäre ich vorsichtig Fotografen schärfen nicht nur die

Augen :) Ist wie mit den QI-Rules, ich bin ja noch nicht so lange dabei und möchte das auch gar nicht auslegen, interpretieren oder ähnliches, reibe mir aber oft die Augen. Und klar es ist auch eine moderne Zeit, damit ändert sich vieles, gerade in Gruppen. Irgendwie hast Du Wiki Commons für mich gerettet, es war das Puppy das am Schwein in Laos saugt, ist auch dumm, ein tolles Bild aber halt wieder nur ein snap. Oder anders --> Will ja nichts sagen, aber noch vor kurzer Zeit war kaum ein b/w-Bild darunter, jetzt ist es besser verteilt. ITIL wäre ja auch ein logisches und einfaches Konzept, nicht mal neu, noch weniger unlogisch, aber es "menschelt" eben. Jeder dritte IT´ler ist gefühlt "Fotograph" und die meisten sind männlich und fehlsichtig (Brille) - (unqualifiziert geschätzt.) Verrückt, oder eben auch natürlich ist, das in Bildern in denen die meiste Arbeit steckt, oft Prügel kommt. Dabei kann man jedes Bild totreden, das dürfte auch jedem klar sein, nur dürften die wenigsten hier kommerziell gearbeitet haben oder Sachen ausgestellt haben. Gibt da auch ein treffendes Zitat von David Bowie dazu - Es ist halt auch ein gewisser Masochismus andere aufzufordern Fehler zu finden. Ich bin ja mit WLM zu commons gekommen und klar hier nerven mich zwei "declines" besonders (sind keine wichtigen Aufnahmen, selbst für mich nicht) es steckt nur viel Arbeit drin und bei aller Sorgfalt muss man es auch mal gut sein lassen. Ich habe aktuell das Problem das viele digital entzerrte Bilder dennoch seltsam aussehen. Einmal wölben sich Dinge die gerade sind und selbst unter dem Aspekt Glas/lens werden Ansichten "glattgebügelt" die in ein paar Jahren sicher anders entwickelt werden. Bei allem technischem Schnickschnack wird eine DSLR dennoch nie eine optische Bank. Und man darf auch ruhig sehen, das eine Aufnahme mit einem Weitwinkel gemacht wurde. Die Industrie vermarktet uns immer wieder neue "Verbesserungen" warum finde ich nur alte Aufnahmen oft Spitzenklasse, nicht nur unter der technischen Brille? Man nimmt sich nicht mehr die Zeit, es herrscht halt eine Bilderflut und Video, TV mit 800 Kanälen. Daher finde ich es eigentlich gut das viele newbies dazukommen und das sie es vllt. auch anders sehen. Ich wäre nicht so schüchtern nicht auch die Personen real und privat kennenzulernen. Andererseits hatte commons (und auch wiki) schon den Eindruck es ist ein kleiner elitärer Zirkel (mehr als komischer Kauz-Faktor), der seine eigenen Regeln aufstellt. Ich kenne das leider von vielen Fotogruppen oder eben auch der fc als Beispiel. Da werden dann oft aus privaten Gründen Bälle, Sternchen und Punkte vergeben. Alles andere als ein rationaler nüchterner Prozeß.-) Meine cam ist auch alt, gut das ist jetzt mehr ein Nikon-Problem (gibt es bei Canon sicher auch), nur wäre der einzige würdige Nachfolger der 700er imo die D850 und das ist nicht gerade Taschengeld. MFT ist ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung da herstellerübergreifend Linsen verwendet werden können. Mir macht nur der kleine Chip Angst (nicht Schärfe). DX war für mich schon ein Marketing-Gag. Und ob Auflösung allein glücklich macht? Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher (ok, ist gefühlt) den Detailreichtum eines KB-Dia´s bekommt man heute noch nicht hin bzw. digitalisiert. Bei b/w ist es nochmals eine andere Sache und ich habe Korn immer gehasst, ging ja auch anders. Der große Vorteil der digitalen Fotografie ist sicher die Lichtempfindlichkeit und die Geschwindigkeit in der Bearbeitung. Ich möchte heute nicht mehr mit Chemie rumpanschen, nur ob die Qualität wirklich besser ist, ist eben oft Geschmacksache. Es gab die Woche so einen halbwegs brauchbaren Beitrag in arte über digital und analog, wird mAn auch viel durcheinandergebracht. Die Zeiten ändern sich eben und real auf Papier gedruckt ist nochmal anders und das sieht man immer weniger. Kritik ist halt unbeliebt, bei "Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi.jpg" verstehe auch ich eure Welt nicht. Klar, Schatten rusen zu, Lichter fressen aus, aber das ist eines der wirklichen wenigen Bilder wo ich total neidisch bin ;-)

Vielleicht mag ich doch noch ein paar Wogen glätten. (Und ich versuch's mal kurz.) Die Seelenverwandtschaft sehe ich zum Beispiel da, dass wir wohl beide den Eindruck haben, dass die Schönheit der Bilder hier eine untergeordnete Priorität hat. Wikipedia hat sich zu einem ziemlich eingeschworenen Clübchen entwickelt. Neulinge werden oft derart schroff abgebügelt, dass es meiner Meinung nach kein Wunder ist, wenn es schwer fällt neue Autoren zu finden. Bei Wikimedia Commons ist etwas anders, da ist die Rücksichtnahme weiter verbreitet. Das mag schon allein in der Sprachbarriere und den unterschiedlichen Kulturkreisen begründet sein. Ich - ITler, männlich, fehlsichtig ;-) - finde, dass das Phänomen, sich als Fotograf zu fühlen, wesentlich weiter verbreitet ist - vor allem seit der Existenz von Smartphone. Auch Sprüche wie "du hast ja auch eine tolle Kamera" lassen mich gerne (innerlich) explodieren. Wikimedia Commons hat seinen Ursprung in der Wikimedia/Wikipedia-Welt. Die Hauptausrichtung von Wikimedia Commons ist lt. Projektbeschreibung "edukativ". Etwas schwammig, aber es erklärt vieles. "Wertvolle Bilder" (VI) sind Bilder besonderen dokumentarischen Werts, "Qualitätsbilder" (QI) Bilder, die technisch in Ordnung sind, und "Exzellente Bilder" (FP) die mit dem besonderen Etwas. Und darauf kann man sich einlassen und auch etwas lernen, aber die Schönheit der Fotografie findet sich hier nicht. (Am ehesten allerdings unter FP.) Dein Bild von dem Grabstein finde ich klasse und ich denke, ich kann das auch einschätzen. Aber es ist nicht unbedingt für QI passend. Das Bild aus New Dehli ist im Sinne von QI ist es ebenso nicht passend, denn es erfüllt klar nicht die QI-Richtlinien. Das mit den Richtlinien und der Zielrichtung von QI muss man erst einmal verinnerlichen.
Ecken und Kanten in dem Projekt gibt es reichlich. Aber das erzähle ich an dieser Stelle lieber nicht. Es wäre viel zu viel. Auch die Fotografie mit analogen und digitalen Mitteln ist so eine Sache. Deinen Ausführungen kann ich gut folgen. Sollten wir uns mal irgendwann irgendwo treffen, können wir uns ja mal auf eine Tasse Kaffee darüber austauschen. Wer weiß.
Aus meiner Sicht habe ich viel aus Wikipedia und Wikimedia Commons mitgenommen. Ich finde die Sache mit dem freien Wissen und den freien Lizenz sehr unterstützens- und lobenswert. Aus Sicht der Fotografie endet meine Zeit hier sichtlich. Für mich ist Fotografie mehr als nur das weit verbreitete Knipsen. Zur Fotografie gehört Zeit, die man sich nehmen sollte, um ein Bild so abzulichten, wie man es sich vorstellt. Ich mag nicht den einen, zufälligen Treffer aus einer Unzahl von Bildern, sondern möchte mein Bild schon so gestalten, wie ich es (sehen) möchte. Insofern passt das nicht mit QI und auch nicht VI. --XRay talk 07:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Ruhig blut, alles gut. In der spielerischen Erziehung gehört auch etwas Humor dazu. Ich habe heute (habe mich leider vertippt) ein Bild dazu eingestellt. Lanwgeiliges Holz, sehr technisch, habe mich leider vertippt (FoCus Swirl). Bin da einfach mal gespannt, ob der Witz an der Sache rüberkommt? Ich warte dennoch auf den Spanier, der mir zu Recht eine fehlende Kategorie des Holzes vorwirft.-) Ja die Mittelfranken haben wirklich einen seltsamen Humor *Warnung* :-D Ja, wenn wir es irgendwie hinbekommen, können wir gerne ´nen Kaffe trinken. Wir könnten auch gleich shooten, einige Bilder sind als Arbeiten mit einer Fotogruppe entstanden. Und oft waren Frauen dabei (gerade in der b/w-Phase) und nicht nur vor der Linse.
Im Vergleich der "schwarzen Pudel" erkennt man oft einen Zeitgeist, oder festgefrorenen Moment wie in der Musik und das ist gut so.

Wurde übrigens mit "russischem Altglas" (Kupferlamellen) aufgenommen, wofür ich oft ausgelacht wurde. Die alte Kopf-[Kino]-Equipment-Besitzerstolz-Diskussion.

Echt gute Bilder, sollten dennoch auch zeitlos sein, viele Techniken werden das nicht hinbekommen. Für mich fehlt etwas die Sinnhaftigkeit wenn
nicht erkennbar ist warum ein Fotograf es eben so macht, mit voller Absicht. Als bekanntes Beispiel gilt da (für mich) die Birken von Ansel Adams.
Aber mein alter Meister und Lehrer hatte mich schon mehrfach geprügelt, da der Printer und Finisher meinte er müsse die Preise erhöhen, da er
für einiges von mir mehr Druckerschwärze braucht. Man rutscht eben mit b/w gerne in die Schatten und damit leider auch etwas in´s morbide.
Übrigens ist hier ein herrliches Dezember-Licht. Gutes Licht!!
Alles gut. Meine Art Humor versteht auch nicht jeder (ITler sind seltsam, bin eigentlich Mathematiker - auch speziell). --XRay talk 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Love Paddlocks around the world (Bydgoszcz).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kirchhofmauer St. Katharina Innenhof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Love Paddlocks around the world (Bydgoszcz 002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Love Paddlocks around the world (Nuremberg).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Love Paddlocks around the world (Mockba).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Coca-Cola Gebäude Berlin East Side.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin East Side Oberbaumbrücke.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Turkmenistan Ashgabat Universität 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Coca-Cola Gebäude Berlin East Side (col 001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Osthafenspeicher Berlin East Side.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nhow sound studio 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Herzlichen Glückwunsch!Edit

 

Hiermit überreichen wir

die Urkunde für die erfolgreiche Teilnahme am Wettbewerb


FPC-NominierungenEdit

Hallo Hans-Jürgen,

ich habe gerade zufällig Deine beiden FPC-Nominierungen gesehen. Da muss wohl irgendetwas schiefgelaufen sein: Scheinbar hast Du die als *.jpg/2 angelegt, die sollte eigentlich erst verwendet werden, wenn die Erstnominierung zurückgezogen (per Withdrawn) wurde. Daher erscheinen jetzt in der FPC-Liste zwei rote Links. Keine Ahnung, wie man das am Elegantesten löst. Ich glaube, Du solltest die *.jpg/2 per Speedy Delete löschen lassen und anschliessend neu als Erstnominierung platzieren. Frag notfalls vielleicht bei Cart oder bei XRay, was die dazu meinen.

Bist Du jetzt neu bei FPC? Falls ja: Du musst eine dicke Haut haben! Ich sage immer, das ist so, als würde man sich in einen Kreis von Leuten stellen, und alle schlagen mit einem Knüppel auf Dich drauf  

Saludos, --Basotxerri (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Erstmal vielen Dank an die eine gute Fee ;-) die mir edit-technisch geholfen hat...

Ja, das erste Mal in FP und Himmel hilf, das ist ja noch nerdiger als bei QI. Heute morgen war übrigens total der Wurm drin, Bot hat experimentiert, etliche Kommentare/reviews im QI weg, einmal ein Bild da, dann wieder weg und bei FP war "Cache-War". Keine Ahnung zumindest stimmt die Beschreibung in deutsch und english nicht. Woher habe ich das wohl mit /2??

PS: In FP hat mich XRay "gelockt", mehr reingeschubst, wie eine Nixe am Pool :))

Ich werde sehen, ob er der Sadist, oder ich der Masochist bin. That´s Life! Saludos, Hans-Jürgen

File:Turkmenistan Ashgabat Universität 001.jpgEdit

 
File:Turkmenistan Ashgabat Universität 001.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

A.Savin 12:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Hans-Jürgen Neubert, leider sind Foto von modernen Gebäuden/Statuen in Turkmenistan nicht möglich auf Commons, aus dem Grund, dass der Architekt allein das Vervielfältigungsrecht besitzt und es im Gesetz keine Panoramafreiheit-Klausel ähnlich wie in Deutschland gibt. Jedoch, falls Sie Fotos von allgemeinen Straßenszenen / Stadtansichten, Menschen, Naturlandschaften, oder historischen Bauwerken aus diesem "Nordkorea 2.0" haben, aus dem wir auf Commons vermutlich wenige gute Fotos haben, sind sie höchst willkommen! --A.Savin 12:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nordkorea2.0 finde ich total überzogen. Und ich wurde in Turkmenistan schon "verhaftet" und das Bildmaterial wurde "behördlich" gesichtet (war ein Ministerium). Die Uni ist, wie sehr viele Gebäude in Ashgabat vom frz. Baukonzern Bouygues. Siehe auch einen der schönsten Flughäfen der Welt. Der Präsident selber sieht das so, das er sehr gerne Bilder von seinem Land sehen möchte, eben halt nur gute. An anderer Portalen (zb Panoramio) ist das weniger ein Thema. Die Uni befindet sich (wie der Unabhängigkeits-Park oder die weltgrößte Flagge) in der sogenannten weißen Zone, also frei zugänglich für alle Touris und öffentlicher geht kaum mehr. Die Turken sind da sehr stolz darauf. Ich sehe da null juristische Probleme, eher voraus eilenden Gehorsam und sprachliche Differenzen (wie geschrieben, meine Bilder wurden gesichtet). Mir wurde schon mal ein Bild hier gelöscht, dabei war es ein altes Denkmal in einem öffentlichem Park. Das sollte mal geklärt werden, sonst behalte ich die Bilder einfach für mich, wäre schade drum.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Es ist natürlich allein Ihre Entscheidung was Sie hier hochladen oder nicht. Aber, wie schon angemerkt: Fotos von urheberrechtlich unbedenklichen Objekten: Straßenszenen, Panoramen, Landschaften, Fahrzeuge, Menschen,... sind auch aus Turkmenien auf Commons unbedenklich und sind nicht von Löschung bedroht. --A.Savin 16:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple from the dark side 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you please, explain this edit?Edit

Hello. 10 minutes after having got your extremely disrespectful review, you go ahead and make a review in my name? What is your explanation for that? Poco2 10:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

At Saturday bot was testing (some scripts?) - Apropos, by the Way, two "Pro-Likes" from You. A lot reviews are lost, I stop editing.
Yesterday, I reviewed some pics at one time. It was never in my sense to review in your name. Java is not working evertime correct, with edit tools still
same matter. I see nothing about a intension from my side to work in other names.
And it´s not seenable in html-text. Like now, think you flounder about edit bug.
What You call disrespectful it´s from my side still the idea you wan´t to check out the sense of humor from community. If you got to foreign countries first
what you will learn are the dirty words, like Curva, Pusta, Hui and Pula. etc - You use it, not me.
And with contest of this picture, what should it be else?
Nobody have to like Frank Zappa, but we have to respect the genius. And something like "Sheik Yerbouti" is closely, or a good example.
Or maybee a marketing name fault like Mitsubishi Pajero.
Ok, I record, You have a limited sense of humor. That´s ok, I will do not something like this anymore. Mea Culpa!
And vice versa I see here some really non-neutral reviews and I don´t talk about mine. Regards, Hans-Jürgen
Ehrlich gesagt, habe ich kaum was verstanden. Vielleicht macht es mehr Sinn, diese Diskussion auf Deutsch zu führen. War das unbeabsichtigt? haben wir irgendwo ein technisches Problem? Poco2 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Am Sa war zumindest der Wurm drin. Es kam ja auch eine Systemmeldung das Änderungen verworfen werden. Ansonsten ist mir das nur aufgefallen, wenn zwei gleichzeitig an einem Bild editieren, müsste öfters vorkommen. Ich lasse es dann meist.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple V.jprg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple I.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz Waterfront 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Opera Nova - Państwowa Opera w Bydgoszczy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Qulitätsbilder bewertenEdit

Hallo Hans-Jürgen Neubert,

bei Deinem Beitrag zum dem Bild „Hambacher Schloss“ in Wikimedia Commons (Qualitätsbilder) verstehe ich den eigentlichen, vielleicht wohlgemeinten Sinn nicht ganz. Ist das ganze ein Pro oder ein Kontra? Wenn keins der beiden zutrifft, wäre es vielleicht doch sinnvoller, klar und deutlicht zu schreiben was man eigentlich zum Außdruck bringen möchte, oder die ganze Sache einfach übergehen. Viele Grüße--Fischer.H (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hallo H.Fischer, ein Kommentar ist ein Kommentar. Nicht mehr aber auch nicht weniger.Sonst wird das wieder eines der unbewerteten Bilder. Wenn man die QI-Regeln beachtet (finde da vieles sehr eigen) kann das niemals ein QI werden.
Perspektive, gleich zweimal (vorne und hinten) und überschärft (was auch oft mein Stil ist) der "Rahmen" zu dominant und was geht damit verloren? Die eigentlich sehr nette Bildidee. Meines bewertet ja auch niemand... Warum? Bildumsetzung ist in QI weniger gefragt... Gruß, Hans-Jürgen

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fous Swirl inspired by Vertigo Swirl.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Deine Anmerkungen zu meinen Foto von der SchneeberglandrallyEdit

Hallo Hans-Jürgen!

Leider verstehe ich nicht so ganz, was Du mit Deinen Anmerkungen meinst. Das Foto wurde mit meiner Nikon D4 gemacht und ist kein Dia. Auf dem Foto fliegen viele Steinchen herum und daß auch vor dem Auto Steinchen fliegen liegt daran, daß das ein Allradler ist und der kurz vorher noch vorne eingelenkt hatte und mit Vollgas aus der Kurve vorher kam. Dadurch werden kleine Trümmer auch über das Radhaus hinaus nach vorne geschleudert.

LG, Julia

Hallo Julia,
ich hab´s ja geschrieben, "kann Realität sein", gemeint ist nur das es eben für den Betrachter nicht unbedingt realitätsnah/"richtig" aussieht.
Es gibt Dinge die in der Fotografie sehr schwierig umzusetzen sind, in 2D statt Video fast unmöglich, wie Regen oder "echter rieselnder Schnee", die Sachen werden dann eben manuell in PS reinkopiert oder oft einfach auch nur rausgestempelt.
Staub auf dem Sensor ist fast immer ein dunkler Fleck, mir ist auch klar was eine D4, nicht eine F4 ;-) oder ein Dia ist, nur kennen das :die meisten als übliche sonstige Fehler dieser Art über viele Jahrzehnte.
Weiße Flecken oder Stippchen im Druck (wo heute kaum noch einer druckt) oft auch nur sehr feine Druckstellen bei Ausstellungsfotos hinter :Glas etc. Das Papier Fehler hat oder punktuelle Fehler im Film auftreten ist sehr selten oder eben sehr alt, gibt es nur leider auch.
Quentin Tarantino macht da sogar einen digitalen Stil daraus.
Ich habe einige Stellen lokal maskiert, kann ich einstellen, denke es geht auch so.
Hinten links müssten sich zwei Steine im 90° Winkel treffen oder leicht graue Ministreifen (das war das mit sieht aus wie Kratzer)
und die herumfliegenden Steine rechts im Hintergrund sind fast alle gleich groß und so gut wie zeichnungslos. Ist alles möglich, nur :"stolpert" da der Betrachter darüber. Und so viele "Pixelfehler" gibt es weder mit einem Monitor noch einem Sensor. Ist halt so, störe Dich :nicht daran oder stempel es raus. Das das Nummernschild leicht unscharf ist, macht es ja auch real. Die "Jungs" lernen halt selten das :Blech zu entkoppeln, deshalb klappert das oft, sogar im normalen Straßenverkehr, nur dumm wenn es der Sponsor war. Als Beispiel denke ich :an ein (meist Mädchen-) Portrait Muttermal ok, da es Natur ist, einen "Diamanten" in der Oberlippe oder im Nasenflügel stemple ich meist :raus, da es sonst sehr oft wie ein Pickel aussieht. Denke mehr als genug Anmerkungen, keine Kritik - Übrigens habe ich mich über den :Langläufer mehr gewundert. Endlich geht mal einer "spielerisch" oder gestalterisch mit der ISO um (DAS Argument für digital) und dann so :eine harte Graduation. Ich gehe mit der ISO hoch um einfarbige Farbflächen, gerade Haut weicher einzustellen, hier ist es härter, gerade an :den Farben und Übergängen, wenn es nicht stark bearbeitet ist, musst Du da noch eine andere Einstellung haben. Auch nicht wichtig, nur :interessant, da es eben Absicht und damit Gestaltung ist. Was bei commons leider seltenst bis gar nicht gemacht wird.
Schönwetter-Belichtungs-Automaten die meist nur abdrücken, wäre dann wieder respektlos. :-D
Viel Erfolg! Hans-Jürgen
Nachtrag: Na, Du traust Dich was Julia! Jungdynamisch, forsch, frech und frei.-D Irgendwie kommen die Reviewer gar nicht damit klar, echt seltsam und das noch bei Fußball.
Ist bedauerlich! Keine Angst ich mache keine "Sport-Shoots, Käfer und Briefmarken" und wenn habe ich die nicht einmal selber entwickelt, nur die CF-Card abgegeben.
Interessiert mich privat halt einfach nicht.
Wenn ich mir etliche Portraits (nein, keine Lokal-Politiker am Fließband) und noch schlimmer Akt hier ansehe, reibe ich mir sehr oft die Augen.
Als Dame solltest Du echte Chancen haben, hier einige (nicht alle) mal von Ihrem selbst gezimmerten Thron auf die angezogene Realität einzuloten.
Schade ist es bei Concert-Fotos und Band-Covers, nur die neu zu entwickeln (nur wegen der Größe) und das nur für commons macht leider viel Arbeit und wenig Spass
-Nur ohne Spaß geht es halt nicht. Immer noch viel Erfolg ,-) Hans-Jürgen
Hallo Jürgen!
Danke für Deine Anmerkungen! Das Foto von der Schneeberglandrallye ist leicht mitgezogen und daher passiert es natürlich, daß dann auch mal Teile des Fahrzeugs nicht mehr 100% scharf sind. Die umherfliegenden Steinchen und den Staub habe ich mit voller Absicht so deutlich herausgestellt und den etwas seltsamen Farbeindruck habe ich mit ein wenig Split-Toning gemacht. Am Vortag der Rallye hatte es noch geregnet, aber mitten im Juni 2017 hatte es dann am Renntag doch über 30 Grad und das sorgte dafür, daß es unter dem trockenen groben Schotter noch feucht war und die Bilder besonders dramatisch geworden sind. Eines davon hatte ich ja sogar erfolgreich als FP nominiert und evtl. nominiere ich auch noch ein paar weitere. Mal sehen, wie das so weitergeht mit den aus fadenscheinigen und vor allem von Ahnungslosigkeit geprägten Gründen abgelehnten Sportfotos. Vielleicht kann man mal eine andere Regel für die Begutachtung von Sportfotos etablieren - nicht ohne Grund quillt FP über vor Landschafts- und Architekturfotografie, die sich beliebig verbessern und reproduzieren läßt, wenn es nicht perfekt ist, aber die Sport-FPs kann man fast an einer Hand abzählen und die meisten sind 10 Jahre alt und älter.
Deine Fotos sind mir übrigens zum ersten mal bei dem November-Fotobewerb aufgefallen, als Du den Schädel vom Johannis-Friedhof eingestellt hattest. Ich finde das Foto klasse, aber auch damit kommen viele nicht so recht klar.
LG, Julia alias --Granada (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Und auch von mir ein Nachtrag: die Langläufer hatte ich damals noch mit Darktable (RAW-Converter für Linux) bearbeitet und das ist nicht so gut beim Entrauschen, deswegen sehen die weniger weichgespült aus als meine Fotos heute mit Lightroom. Der Herr Magnus Krog war sogar mal Foto des Monats in der französischen WP und an dem sieht man noch besser die harte Graduation: File:FIS WC NK Ramsau 20161218 DSC 8653.jpg. Ende Jänner werde ich erneut Langläufer und nordische Kombinierer fotografieren (in Seefeld beim Triple) und bin schon gespannt, wie die mit der upgedateten Ausrüstung auf allen Ebenen werden. :)

Guten Morgen Julia. Na dann kam das ja gut hin mit "muddy job" :) Nur mal was anderes, da es wie eine Graduation den wenigsten überhaupt auffällt. Ich komme zwar auch aus der IT, konnte aber mit Bildbearbeitung unter Linux nie was anfangen. Mein Assi stand mal auf Gimp (mehr wegen den Kosten von PS) da gab es den gleichen Effekt. Mit "weichgespült" (kann ich auch:) hat das weniger was zu tun, die RAW-Engine ist einfach noch sehr schlecht, noch schlechter ist die Kantenglättung und der Weißabgleich. Auch immer die Argumente mit LR versus PS habe ich nie kapiert, bzw. stimmt es technisch logisch einfach nicht. Es geht im großen und Ganzen einzig um die digitale Entwicklung und das ist ACR. Es hat seinen Grund warum adobe das so gut versteckt. Ich ändere ja oft absichtlich das setup der Kamera für den entsprechenden Stil, nur mit Gimp würde ich keine Zeit verschwenden, sieht man leider sofort und das hat dann was von Agfa-Colour. Mit Capture von Nikon kam ich auch nie zurecht, was ich mit einer D850 versuchen würde --> DxO

jpeg ist halt wie mp3 in der Musik, ein total überholtes und fehlerhaftes Format und leider kaum tot zu kriegen. Commons tut sich hier auch keinen Gefallen, wenn die Reviewer nicht mal sehen, was WAS ist. Aktuell ist halt wieder Nasenfaktor angesagt (der Russe ist wieder da) ist fast wie im Franzis-Verlag, daher tummeln sich hier auch so wenig Pro´s (Commons wird da kaum für Ernst genommen). Und damit meine ich nicht Sportfotos, ist für mich Reportage (nicht gerade mein Thema). Du bist mir halt aufgefallen, da Argumente mal stimmten und als eine der wenigen die erkannt haben, wann derjenige dies aus Absicht so macht und nicht aus reiner Zufälligkeit. Das geht hier total unter und ist oft peinlich. Das Limit hängt damit noch nicht einmal an einer nicht vorhandenen Bandbreite, es wird leider rein technisch und bedient einzig einen Stil, den der Schnappschnuss-Auslöser. Der Schädel ist da nur ein Beispiel davon, Kinder haben damit weniger ein Problem, daher glänzt er an der polierten Fläche so. Wenn die Kinder mit dem Unterkiefer spielen haben wir wieder ein Thema was man unter 2D nicht unterkriegt :)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Barn window 001 (Mittelfranken).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Putrid pumkins in cloister garden Abendberg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Conrads in Lumpini (BKK).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hotel Pyramide 001 (Fürth).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You advices in Quaity images listEdit

Dear Hans-Jürgen Neubert, thank you for your advaces in quality images list section. Your advice helped me to improve my photos initiatives. If you do not complicate, I would like you sometimes ask some questions about photos? In any case, thank you very much and sorry for my English.--Armenak Margarian (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolute not a big deal, don´t hesitate to ask. You are welcome - Hans-Jürgen

For me your best is still Khachkar Byurakan1.jpg

File:Brunnen Ramershoven.jpgEdit

 
File:Brunnen Ramershoven.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple IV.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality images discussionEdit

Hello Hans-Jürgen Neubert, for me it's very interesting your opinion but firtly I would like to tell you about photo that you liked. I did this photo another camera canon 6D (it's not my camera) and I think that my camera or lens is rather weak for the diffucult condition in a park where there are a lot of trees and shadows, that do you think about?

Maybe to begin, if you will agree to help me i would like once or twice a week you contact form mail to send you original version and edited version of my photo? Mabye I edit my photos very badly ? Whether you agree or not to contact me to email, thank you very much for you opinions. Sorry for my english and goodbye.  --Armenak Margarian (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Armenak (hope this is the first name), you have more then twice GI-starlets, then me, means normally you have to help me to understand what is a quality imgage here :) (joking) When You look to the fullframe Canon shot, you can recognise left side ist not sharp and right sight it´s overexposed. The imp. part (and main object) is in focus the rest can be count as fotographer´s work (maybee random, nobody here will proof it). If you don´t bother I will discuss your last ast picture at your page. Dont´let me misunderstood, I will not fingerpoint faults, I see it as a workout. One expample is "Mănăstirea Turnu 002 Romania.jpg", why nobody review it? Shocked about the ISO?, or trapped about visual trick with lines (I used a grid), the sense is to find right colour for the monument stone. It was a example for You, bcs. stones totally in shadow, remark the other ones, there was enough light. That´s cheap her. Your Sony have focus peaking, and can expose 3 (or 5) at one (like hdr) and my tip was using a flash (external, good advice with a box, that is not expensive), to seperate the background test a small tele lens. I give you a example what I wrote with red&blue canals: File:Zara Style.jpg taken with a really small cam, something private. An caucasian lady, sandstones (inner side of a bavarian castle), winter with snow. The white goes to blue(front), compare it with yours (the colour combination is something weired but funny, she have normally a really good style, here her sister said clown style:)). Don´t loose fun by loving pictures and ... Go Ahead, Hans-Jürgen

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mănăstirea Turnu 001 Romania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mănăstirea Turnu 003 Romania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mănăstirea Turnu 004 Romania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 1968 Ford Mustang coupe white 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 1968 Ford Mustang coupe white 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mănăstirea Turnu 002 Romania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stones Fagaras Mountains 002 (RO).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stones Fagaras Mountains 001 (RO).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg Hauptburg 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pleikershof Weiher 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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sibius Old Walls 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Male toilets (Asia 001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Flags of Aşgabat.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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Street Light Aşgabat.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mănăstirea Turnu 005 Romania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prada Tower (iniside 001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wooden Door in Sibiu, closely at Cafe Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz Venice 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prada Tower (outdoor 001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple VIII.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Taxi Race Circle in Bangok 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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple IX.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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hotel Pyramide 002 (Fürth).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz Venice 002.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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple VII.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Buddhist child monk in Wat Phou final.jpgEdit

 
File:Buddhist child monk in Wat Phou final.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Statue of Peter the Great along the Moskva River 01, Moscow.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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Male toilets (Asia 002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prada Tower (inside 002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XI.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple X.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prada Tower (inside 003).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prada Tower (inside 005).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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rotten pumpkins in cloister garden Abenberg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XVI.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XV.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XIV.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XIXI.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Love Paddlocks around the world (North Thailand 02).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Storchennest Schafflund 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (001) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Storchennest Schafflund 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Storchennest Schafflund 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Aetas Residenz View to Lumpini (01) BKK.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (006) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (004) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (002) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (003) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (007) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pleikershof (Missing Window) 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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alt Duvenstedt Hausnummer 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bauernhof in Alt Duvenstedt (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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XXII.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 1968 Ford Mustang coupe white 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

GrussEdit

Hi. Wieder da - das habe ich bei dir auch gedacht...

Stimmt, ich bin selten hier unterwegs. Habe kaum Zeit. Irgendwie war am Wochenende mal wieder ne Stunden drin, bissel was vom letzten China-Urlaub zu sortieren. Ist aber auch schon 2 Jahre her, der Trip. Habe mal ein Kamera-Upgrade gemacht. Am Donnerstag gehts auf nach Thailand.

Stimmt, das Bild war eng. Habe ich vor Ort nicht bedacht. War schon mein 10-18er Objektiv drauf. Dann noch bissel herumkorrigiert udn plötzlich war einfach nicht mehr da... Viele Grüße aus Cottbus. -- DerFussi 06:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ich bin in letzter Zeit auch mehr quer und hochkant in Deutschland unterwegs, statt Asien, denke aber oft an meinen Start bei QI und "White Temple" (selbst da bin ich nicht fertig, kassiere aber immer noch regelmäßig Prügel hier). Alles beim Alten.-) Denke aber zumindest der White Temple ist ganz gut festgehalten, im Gegensatz zu meinen tausend Buddhas auf Dia und bw-png (die werde ich nicht für Commons konvertieren).

Wo geht´s genau hin? Thailand ist groß, ich mochte in meiner Arbeitszeit Cambodia, ich Narr hatte arbeitstechnisch leider nie Zeit Angkor Wat zu shooten. Jedenfalls einen schönen Frühling und gutes Lichtǃ Saludos, Hans-Jürgen
Danke. hihi.. Alles beim alten.. ja. Aber ein spezielle Freund von dir vom QI ist zumindest dort nicht mehr aktiv, glaube ich.... Ja Kambodscha werde ich nächstes Jahr auch wieder mal angehen - zumindest meine Freunde in Phnom Penh besuchen. Dieses Jahr mache ich eher auf Erholung. War viel Arbeitsstress, da werde ich mich auf die faule Haut hauen. Wir sind 4 Tage in Bangkok und 2 in Ayutthaya. Dann fliegen wir nach Krabi, bleiben dort 5 Tage und dann nach Ko Lanta. -- DerFussi 07:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
ː Da täuscht Du Dich leider ː) Mein spezieller Freund hat mir sogar wieder Bilder gelöscht. Sogar eines in Richtung fp, value. Der Witz dabei, es war die Uni in Asgabat, halt die alte Diskussion mit Panoramarecht, was nur im "weißen Gürtel" und gerade bei einem öffentlichem Gebäude nicht greift. Schade, hatte da genug Material und der Flughafen ist ein optisches Sahnestück. Ayutthaya habe ich komplett b/w, bis auf die Affen und den Affentempel. Krabi̥&Ko Lanta war ich nie, ist max. noch ein reiner Touri-Trip. Na dann, gute Erholungǃ
Ohhhh. Dann wird es dir hier bestimt nicht langweilig. Danke. Die Erholung werde ich bestimmt bekommen. -- DerFussi 11:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemaliger Bauernhof Seukendorf 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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemaliger Bauernhof Seukendorf 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Winter (002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Winter (001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Public Toilets at German Highway (002).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XXI.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! White Temple XX.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cadolto 001 Cadolzburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Winter (004).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alte Mühlenscheune (009) Schafflund Schleswig-Holstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gonnersdorf Hauptstraße.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bronnamberg, Adlerstraße 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemaliges Wirtshaus Bernbach 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Setcard ASB.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Setcard Shirin 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Summer (001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Main donau park 2 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schnackenhof Ashok Gangadean 2016 II.jpg 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sankt Nicolai bw002 (Rinteln).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lindemannsche Windmühle Exter 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Historischer Lastkran Weserbrücke Rinteln an der Weser.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Model at UF Baughman Center.jpgEdit

Thanks for the promotion. I am actually selling my Nikon 200 mm f/2 lens. Are you interested in buying one? Steevven1 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

NotificationEdit

Just FYI: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Hans-Jürgen_Neubert. --A.Savin 00:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC) THX for freetime and the documentation about ur only personal revange, Sheriffǃ Hans-Jürgen_Neubert

Please remain calm and collegialEdit

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Українська | +/−


 
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Toppelshaus 002 (Wertheim).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Toppelshaus 001 (Wertheim).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your account has been blockedEdit

This is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Yann (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2018 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And also:

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Setcard ASB 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Hotel Dracula at romanian Cemetery.jpgEdit

 
File:Hotel Dracula at romanian Cemetery.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

A.Savin 13:48, 26 March 2018 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A.Savin 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mirror, Stockings, Heels, the Flokati and.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons WinterSpring (005).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pfaffengreuth 1, Landsitz und Toreinfahrt, HaJN̠4858.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pfaffengreuth 1, Landsitz und Toreinfahrt, HaJN̠4869.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marktplatz 9a (Cadolzburg) HAJN 5508.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marktplatz 8 (Cadolzburg) HaJN 5506.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marktplatz 8 (Cadolzburg) HaJN 5503.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ensemble Weiler Sankt Kastl 5495.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Leichendorfer Mühle HaJN 4756.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg Schlossgarten HaJN 2018 5518.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Frühlingstraße 27, 83278 (Traunstein) HaJN 4781.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Frühlingstraße 27, 83278 (Traunstein) HaJN 4789.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ensemble Weiler Sankt Kastl 5431.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemalige Wassermühle (Bruckberg - Land - Mittelfranken)) HaJN 4844.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwielowsee 4962.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Alter Weserkran 001 HaJN 5331.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rathaus Rinteln (Landkreis Schaumburg) HaJN 5342.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cadolzburg Haferscheune 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ensemble Weiler Sankt Kastl 5438.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemalige Wassermühle (Bruckberg - Land - Mittelfranken)) HaJN 4845.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemalige Wassermühle (Bruckberg - Land - Mittelfranken)) HaJN 4849.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Two typosEdit

"Black Listed Peoble" should be "Blacklisted People". -- Tuválkin 19:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thumbs up for the hint. But still protects me not from destructive actions....Saludos and THX, Hans-Jürgen

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Haltepunkt Alte Veste Dambach HaJN 5587.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Aldringerstraße 20 Damch (Fürth) HaJN 5590.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwielowsee 4939.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rathaus Rinteln (Landkreis Schaumburg) HaJN 5346.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Hi Hans-Jürgen Neubert. You are continuing to create categories without content again and again, for example Category:Leichendorfer Mühle that you recreated several times. I have already explained why it is not being accepted, but you prefer to ignore the warnings. Also, you are continuing violating COM:OVERCAT policy with your new uploads, for example here, where there is already "Burg Cadolzburg" whereas the other categories ("Cultural heritage monuments in Cadolzburg", "Buildings in Cadolzburg") are obviously redundant. Please stop this. When you create new categories, do it in accordance with our guidelines. Otherwise, when you ignore all requests, your actions are to be considered as vandalism and a block of your account is likely. Thanks --A.Savin 10:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I recognise only additional provocations and threats. No objective facts.Edit
Constructing broken urls/links, delete content, fromm Commons to Wikipedia, making senseless loops, destroy from Wiki Commons autogenerated Categorys and playing only with Edit-War are not made from a trainee or amateur.

They are made from a person, called Alexander Savin, with knowledge of Wiki-Architecture and technical intelligence.

Not only one had classed this destructive intent. The Comparison between Editors are clear.
If someone erases categories in Wiki Commons without rebuilding the scat (pic-group-follower) in Wikipedia, how we wanna rate this?

Positive, constructive-minded, surely not. Faulty Design? Like the actual wrong MEZ time-stamp in Commons (this is a real only-technical issue) here I feel stalked. I can not believe in positive and open-minded results from your side and I don´t trust anymore and future times.

Again, stop hovering! I ignore your person (and mind setup, of course) overall.

To utter a threat again, shows Characteristic.
Feel free to check out the amount of nervous/abuzz edits, mails and comments, reviews only the last days and continous nuisance from beginning.

''Dir muss ja echt langweilig sein, mir ständig auf den Fersen zu sein. Ich will mit Dir nichts zu tun haben und lasse mich auch nicht mehr provozieren. Einmal wieder das alte Spiel "zu wenig Kategorien, dann wieder zu viele", je nach Deiner einzigen subjektiven Laune. Ich will Abstand von Dir, in der Form einer geblockten Person. Du löscht Kategorien die automatisert von Wiki Commons generiert werden, was soll das? Du zerstörst Spenden damit Werte und Zusammenhänge und Bildergalerien. Es gibt genug die objektiver arbeiten (wenn auch das nicht immer nachvollziehbar sein muss) vor allem positiver und konstruktiv (Du bist für mich das Gegenteil), lass´ andere das machen und halte Dich fern. Ich mache auch genug Fehler, wie Tippfehler, die nachträglich korrirgiert werden (sollten). Das wurde von Deiner Seite nie getan, einzig allein negative Arbeit.

In Deinem Fall will ich keine weiteren Belästigungen, Provokationen, Drohungen und sonstigen Vandalismus.

Ich will meine Ruhe, gerade vor Dirǃ

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans-Jürgen Neubert (talk • contribs)
Immer wieder faszinierend, wie tief man doch sinken kann. Noch einmal: Ihre Beleidigungen (ausgenommen rassistische) und Unterstellungen und "Hausverbote" sind mir ziemlich egal. Ich bin Administrator des Projekts, sehr viel länger dabei als Sie, sehr viel mehr Inhalte hochgeladen. Es ist also mein gutes Recht hier zu schreiben, gerade wenn mit Ihren Bearbeitungen was nicht stimmt. Es tut mir leid, dass Sie das nicht mögen. Und Sie liegen eindeutig falsch, wenn Sie behaupten, alle Ihre Fehler müssten dauerhaft von Anderen nachkorrigiert werden. Bei einem Neuling werden gerne Fehler behoben und es wird ihm geholfen (sofern er das wünscht und sich im Rahmen der Wikiquette benimmt). Aber es wird nicht ewig so getan, und davon ausgegangen, dass er mit der Zeit was dazu lernt. Geschieht dies nicht und der User macht über Monate und Jahre immer die gleichen Fehler (egal ob aus Dummheit, Besserwisserei oder gezielter Provokation), ist es irgendwann genug und er wird gesperrt. Wenn Sie mich so sehr verachten, dass Sie kein Wort glauben wegen der Überkategorisierung und Anderem -- na dann fragen Sie doch andere deutsche Admins, die Kategorien kennen, etwa Srittau oder Leit, nur um ein paar zu nennen. Lesen Sie sich in die Policy ein und hören Sie endlich mit Ihrem "Alles-Geisterfahrer"-Gehabe auf. Betrachten Sie es als die letzte Warnung. Ich habe AGF (was Sie ebenfalls Anderen gegenüber haben sollten, einschließlich mir), aber es ist nicht unendlich. Danke. --A.Savin 12:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Ui, hier scheint ja einiges an gemeinsamer Historie vorzuliegen, darum gehe ich jetzt mal nur auf die inhaltlichen Anmerkungen von Alexander ein. Soweit ich das verstehe, geht es hauptsächlich um zwei Dinge:
  1. Überkategorisierung (leider nur auf Englisch gut beschrieben) wird auf Commons in der Tat nicht akzeptiert. D.h. eine Datei sollte nur in die jeweils spezifischten Kategorien einsortiert werden. Ich sehe z.B. oft neue Benutzer, die ein Bild in Category:Berliner Fernsehturm, Category:Berlin-Mitte und Category:Berlin einsortieren, wahrscheinlich weil sie von anderen Seiten ein flaches "Tag"-System gewohnt sind. Auf Commons haben wir aber ein hierarchisches Kategoriensystem.
  2. Das Anlegen leerer Kategorien: Ich persönlich fände es nicht schlimm oder sogar hilfreich, bestimmte Kategorien "auf Vorrat" anzulegen, wenn zu erwarten ist, dass sie in Zukunft Dateien enthalten werden. Aber: Dies widerspricht dem aktuellen Konsens, der besagt, dass leere Kategorien (abgesehen von Ausnahmefällen) unerwünscht sind. Deswegen gibt sogar ein eigenes Schnelllöschkriterium, dass das Löschen solcher Kategorien erlaubt, sodass A.Savin hier vollkommen den Richtlinien entsprechend gehandelt hat. Ein Wiederanlegen einer solchen Kategorie ist daher nicht akzeptabel! Solltest du der Meinung sein, dass wir unsere Richtlinien in diesem Bereich überarbeiten sollten, kannst du das gerne auf COM:VPP (höflich!) vorschlagen. Meine Unterstützung hättest du und ich habe das Gefühl, dass sich der Konsens zum Thema leere Kategorien sowieso gerade etwas ändert. Aber bis dahin, lege bitte Kategorien erst an, wenn du Dateien für diese existieren.
Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

ːˑ Hallo Sebastian, alles sehr sachlich. Nur darum geht es Alexander Savin doch gar nicht. Chronologisch gab es vor langer Zeit eine Kritik an einer nachlässig gemachten Aufnahme, seitdem, exakt seit dem, werde ich gestalked. Er betreibt hier allein einen persönlichen Rachfeldzug. Dazu kommt das kognitiv eine signifikante Differenz zwischen Realität und dem Geschriebenen vorliegt. Wir sind beiden keine Sockenpuppen und beide Menschen wurden real begutachtet, daher gibt es eine offizielle und öffentlich differente Meinung dazu. Fakten sindː Ich höre oft Gestöhne über die unfreundliche und negative Art von A.Savin. Ich sehe es zwar sportlich und auch erheiternd, aber so leidensfähig sind nicht alle. Ergebnisː Drei Fotografen, ein Denkmalschützer, ein Restaurator und ein Nachwuchs tun sich das nicht an (Ich habe mich auch mit teils sehr bekannten Commonern über diesen unproduktiven und destruktiven Personenkreis ausgetauscht) Es ist subjektiv und sicher nicht der Sache gedient. Krassestes Beispielː Eine Stiftung erwägte eine Spende und hat es aufgrund der Anonymität und fehlenden Objektivität zurückgezogen. Ist leider nachvollziehbar, bzw. kann ich keine Gegenargumente aufbringen. Einer der Gründe warum Wikipedia immer noch nicht zitatfähig ist. Weiterhin sehe ich bei A.Savin keinen einzigen positiven Beitrag oder konstruktive Änderung in meinem Fall. Nicht einmal einen kausalen Zusammenhang, nur gegenstandslose Begründungen. Er ist, wie ich, in Deutschland aufgewachsen, was soll der Nonsense mit Xenophobie bzw. Rassismus? Auch das ist allein seine subjektive Sichtweise, der kaum einer folgen kann. Meine Kritik liegt an seinem Wesen (Charakterzügen), was keinerlei Zusammenhang mit irgend einer Abstammung hat. Alleine die aktuellen QI-Reviews, nur destruktiv und personenbezogen. Zeige mir jemand eine, eine einzige Änderung, die ich am Content von genannten Personenkreis seit Frühling 2018 getroffen habeǃ

Ich distanziere mich öffentlich von den sogenannten und lange bekannten Ein-Prozenternǃ

- Jetzt kommen wir zu einer technischen Abfolge (müsste Logik enthalten)ː A.Savin löscht Kategorien die automatisiert von Commons gemacht werden, zB "Buildings in xxx" & "Cultural heritage monuments in XXX"

Frageː a) Warum werden diese im WLM 2018 automatisch hinzugefügt?

b) Warum verhalten sich andere Editoren anders und zwar konstruktiv?

A.Savin löscht Kategorien, die nicht nur mehrere Bilder bereits lange enthalten, sondern zerstört bewusst den Comscat, sprich "Weitere Bilder" mit bereits vorhandenen Inhalt und Eintrag (Beschreibung) in Wikipedia. Er prüft ergo nicht den technischen Bezug von Commons zu Wikipedia und das mit vollem Wissen und technischem Verständnis. Ergebnisː Edit-War und broken urls, was einzig Vandalismus gleichkommt. Oder wie darf das Ergebnis anders gewertet werden? daher eine logische Frageː a) Was soll das bringen? b) Ist das nachhaltig, übersichtlich, oder resourcenschonend? ç) Warum ändert er keine einzige Cat sinnvoll (auf Commons und zugleich Wikipedia) und zeigt wie es funktionieren soll?

Ein normaler Anwender sucht über Google und Wikipedia, nicht Commons. Hier mit "Liste der Baudenkmäler in XXX" Viele Besucher fahren die Lokation via Google Maps an. Die Leichendorfer Mühle ist dabei ein abgesetzter Ortsteil von Zirndorf und selbst in Leichendorf "versteckt", das kennen nur Camper. Das Objekt hat zwei Scheunen, die eigentliche Mühle und eine Sandsteinmauer mit Eingang. Macht min. 6 Bilder unter einer einzelnen Denkmal-IDː D-5-73-134-60 was mit vorhandener "|Commonscat= Leichendorfer Mühle" vorhanden war. Eben keine leere Kategorie ("Aber bis dahin, lege bitte Kategorien erst an, wenn du Dateien für diese existieren."), mit "more pictures" / Weitere Bilder eigentlich nicht erklärt werden muss/sollte. (Vergangenheit, vorhanden, Mehrzahl)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Leichendorfer_Mühle

A.Savin generiert einzig eine broken url, zerstört damit den Bezug zu den Bildern der ID und schiebt content in´s unerreichbare oder Unsichtbare. Aus Anwendersicht hat in Wikipedia das alles schon funktioniert, seit A.Savin nicht mehr. Das ist purer Vandalismus, nichts anderes. Es wurde eine Kategorie die es vorher bereits mit Inhalt und Angaben gab, zerstört, mehrfach.

Ergebnisː Die Bilderlieferanten hassen es. Und wir wissen alle, es gibt Fehler in den Beschreibungen der Denkmalämter, den GPS-Daten, den Kategorien gerade am Anfang einer neu bebilderten Lokation und allein Unterschiede in den Bundesländern nur in der BRD. A.Savin löscht dabei bereits alte (zT Monate und Jahre) Zusammenhänge von zukünftigen unmöglichen Erweiterungen rede ich hier noch gar nicht.

Die Ironie, bzw. der Sarkasmus liegt doch darin, das ein Fehlerbild bereits zukünftig sehr oft von mir beschrieben wurde und eben darauf nachträglich "eingedroschen" wird, wieder destruktiv, da eben rein charakterlich bezogen, ohne jeglichen sachlichen Bezug (siehe Volvo B20/File:Volvo_B20_HaJN_5572.jpg). Er behindert damit auch zukünftige Erweiterungen zu Objekten und das im vollem Bewußtsein.

Logische Aufgabenstellungː Wie soll in Commons ein Bilderlieferant zu einem Thema (das weder gut beschrieben, noch gut katalogisiert ist) bereits wissen, wie in Zukunft die Kategorien dazu aussehen sollen? Wie soll er wissen, was Vandalisten wie A.Savin wieder einfällt und die Kategorie/CAT entzogen wird? Dafür gab es zu viele Änderungen, die so sicher niemand vollständig nachvollziehen will. Bei File:Stadtförsterei Heilstättenstrasse 130 (Fürth-Unterführberg) HaJN 5873.jpg lasse ich es, dabei ist diese aktuell in Sanierung. Ich vergleiche das auch mit Google und den teils vierstelligen Hits, die mir maps, Google oder die Besitzer melden... Die meisten hier sind ja Freiwillige (Amateure), der Großteil hat noch nie ein Bild vermarktet oder ausgestellt. Die Anzahl an gewerblichen Fotografen ist entweder erschreckend, oder bezeichnend, gering.


Fazitː Jeder darf mich verbessern. uA A.Savin interessiert mich komplett nicht (ignore), dafür ist zu viel in der Vergangenheit passiert, er ist für mich rein und einzig negativ behaftet, zumindest meiner Person gegenüber. Seine gegenstandslose Argumentation nervt nicht nur mich. Andere machen es wesentlich besser und nicht polemisch und personenbezogen. Warum kritisiert hier einzig und allein ein Stalker? Gibt es nur den Einen? Den Copiloten, den Sheriff, den Blockwart of Commons? Was ist so schwierig daran, persöhnliche Unbehaglichkeiten objektiv von anderen erledigen zu lassen? Er soll mir meine Ruhe lassen und Abstand halten, was ist daran, sogar juristisch, so schwer zu verstehen? Ich halte mich schon länger daran.

Mir bleibt an dieser Stelle nichts anderes, als meinen Beitrag von vorhin zu wiederholen. --A.Savin 10:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. Hinsicchtlich dessen, wo ich aufgewachsen bin, irren Sie sich. --A.Savin 10:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Kann ja alles sein, ist nur wieder gegenstandslos. Re­pa­rie­re den von Dir verursachten Schadenǃ Materiell und monetär geht das gar nicht mehr. Wir bleiben hier allein sachlich. Was vorher ging, wurde von Dir zerstört.

Eine Verknüpfung bedingt einer Struktur und ist in sich logisch. Die Verknüpfungen sind seit der A.Savin Bearbeitung broken links, demnach Vandalismusǃ (zum x-ten Mal)

Reparieren kann man nur, wenn was kaputt ist. Hier ist aber nichts kaputt. Es sind Sie, der dauernd gegen die Commons-Regeln verstößt: legt inhaltslose Kategorien an, fügt überflüssige Kategorien zu Dateien hinzu. Ja nicht einmal Ihre eigenen Kommentare signieren sind Sie offenbar in der Lage, wo es doch so einfach ist mit den vier Tilden. Und der große Vandale soll trotzdem ich sein, armselig. --A.Savin 16:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Täglich grüßt das Murmeltier ː-D Ich darf darum bitten einfach logisch zu bleiben, wenn schon sachlich nicht möglich ist. Ein Einlieferer (Bildmaterial) spendet, er bringt, er nimmt nicht. Eine Verknüpfung beinhaltet neben der Logik ebenfalls eine gewisse Abfolge und Struktur (was es einfach macht). Die Verknüpfung "More Pictures" / "Weitere Bilder" besagt daher, das erstens das Material bereist exisitiert (eschoda;-) es ist vorhanden, liegt vor) und zwar in einer Mehrzahlǃ (pictures Weitere...) "inhaltlos" macht alleine daher schon keinen Sinn.
Zweitens, für eine Bildergalerie braucht es nun mal eine Kategorie und jetzt betrachten wir, was vorher bereits funktionierte und durch Ihre "Arbeit", sprich Vandalismus, nicht mehr. Die allein technische Lüge "no content" ist dadurch allein logisch widerlegt und gar nicht machbar. Weiterhin muss einer eben anfangen, ein neu bebildertes Objekt, wird daher immer vom Pioneer kategorisiert, er ist der Erste und am Anfang der einzige Autor, was ja chronologisch ebenfalls nicht anders machbar ist.
Er macht die Vorarbeit und erstellt eine Einladung für andere user sich zu beteiligen.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Leichendorfer_Mühle Ich zähle nicht mit, aber wer kennt das nicht? Wer dreimal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht. Daher wird es mit uns beiden nichts mehr. Noch Fragen? Bitte nicht... ː-) HaJN

Ich darf klarstellen: ich werde Sie nun auf Ihrer Diskussionsseite, wie Sie wünschen, in Ruhe lassen. Das bedeutet allerdings nur, dass ich nicht mehr versuchen werde, Ihnen irgend etwas zu erklären. Macht ja eh keinen Sinn, da Sie keine Hilfe wollen (auch als Srittau dankenswerterweise eingesprungen und alles erklärt hat, haben Sie alle seine Ratschläge sogleich runtergespült). Jedoch werde ich, sollte ich von Ihnen erneut ein Vorgehen nicht in Konformität mit den Commons-Regeln sehen, Sie ohne weitere Vorwarnung sperren. Die Sperre wird eskalierend sein, d.h. das erste Mal für 1 Tag, bei weiterem Verstoß 3 Tage, dann 7, 14, 30 Tage, 3, 6, 12 Monate und schließlich unbeschränkt. Die früheren Konflikte mit Ihnen wegen Ihrer QIC-Nominationen sind dabei irrelevant. Sperre wird allein aufgrund von Vandalismus sein. Danke. --A.Savin 09:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kriegerdenkmal WWII 0001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwielowsee 4970.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:Lemur_cattaEdit

This [1] is the original file....can be useful? Thanks --Architas (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Architas - too keep objective, I need DNG (digital Raw format with data from sensor and lens) NOT jpg.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html just a free PS plugin....issue is upload space. But step by step Saludos, Hans-Jürgen

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg Schlossgarten HaJN 2933.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St.-Nikolai-Kirche (Rinteln) Eingang HaJn 5354.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ensemble Weiler Sankt Kastl 5436.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a duration of 1 dayEdit

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: repeated creation of orphaned categories despite several requests not to do it (Category:Ensemble Rondel Dambach (Fürth)); violation of COM:OVERCAT despite several requests not to do it.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.


Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

As announced, because you are continuing exactly the same way. Next block will be then 3 days. --A.Savin 08:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Weiherhofer Straße 50 (Fürth Dambach) HaJN 5827.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Volvo B20 HaJN 5572.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 47 001 (Cadolzburg).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chevrolet Corvette C3 HaJN 5920.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Saturnus H4@ Volvo B20 HaJN 5598.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kloster Marienthal 001 (Dernau).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Dreiseithof Leichendorf 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Industriedenkmal Dampfbäckerei (Schleifweg) Nürnberg HaJN 5534.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chevrolet Corvette C3 HaJN 5919.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemaliges Forsthaus Fürther Straße (Keidenzell) 3296 HaJN.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bibertbahntrasse HaJN 6074.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a duration of 3 daysEdit

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: repeated creation of orphaned categories despite several requests not to do it (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Haaghof&oldid=321379772); violation of COM:OVERCAT despite several requests not to do it (File:Langenmühle (Rothenburg o.d.T.) HaJN 6405.jpg et al.).

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.


Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

As announced, because you are continuing exactly the same way. Next block will be then 7 days. --A.Savin 14:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Langenmühle (Rothenburg o.d.T.) HaJN 6405.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Langenmühle HajN 6371.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Speisekarpfen Haagenhof HaJN 6479.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pfarrhaus, Hauptstraße 2 (Markt Erlbach) HaJN 6421.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

NotificationEdit

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 monthEdit

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: reasons given here.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.


Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg Schlossgarten HaJN 6691.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg Schlossgarten HaJN 6699.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwadermühle (Cadolzburg( HaJN 6865.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg Cadolzburg Schlossgarten HaJN 6675.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Vorm Würzburger Tor (Rothenburg ob der Tauber) HaJN 6304.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 9 (Cadolzburg) 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Vorm Würzburger Tor (Rothenburg ob der Tauber) HaJN 6234.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Skeleton Model 5579 HaJN.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Autum HaJN7271 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Autum HaJN 7237.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Johannes Nürnberg Bronzeguss. 7289.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Johannes Friedhof Grabplatte HaJN 7315.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nürnberg Westfriedhof 7408.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwielowsee 4964.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nürnberg Westfriedhof HaJN 7430.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwadermühle (Cadolzburg( HaJN 6849.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 1 (Cadolzburg) 6717.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Autumn 6813.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Uhr der fließenden Zeit HaJN 7542.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Uhr der fließenden Zeit HaJN 7548.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schwielowsee 4950.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hotel Bristol (Berlin Kurfürstendamm Charlottenburg) HaJN 7484.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Park Ventures HotelEdit

Oben links ist Himmel geklont, hast du ein Ufo wegretuschiert? --Ralf Roleček   18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

    • Seltsam! Links habe ich eigentlich nix gemacht, da sind auch keine Wolken gestempelt. Ich hatte unten oder viel mehr rechts unten die Baustelle und die Metro ausgeblendet...(das Bild war stark auf blau gedroschen, war sogar echt bzw. realistisch) habe danach noch eine Jazz-Band geshooted. Deine BEA ist auch eigen, aber mal anders (geht hier bei commons leider unter). Ist halt doof, mit der D700 kann ich noch an der Farbtemperatur "drehen", was ich gerade bei Haut brauche. Ich mag einfach so Kommentare, wie von Dir, da echt. ist ja heute auch Biedermeier, oder total daneben ;-) Ein Monat Sperre von A.Savin, wo bin ich hier eigentlich? Denke mir hier leider zu oft, es bräuchte in commons so was wie den "Dünnsten Kommentar der Woche", es treffen echt Welten aufeinander, liegt vermutlich an, na egal;-) Keep shooting! Saludos----Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned categoriesEdit

You are continuing creating orphaned categories (just recently Category:Hotel Sporcher Nest (Cadolzburg), Category:Château de Caputh, Category:Park Hyatt Bangkok). In the past, people requested you several times not to do it, and to mind the policy when you wish to create categories yourself, otherwise not to create categories at all. You had been blocked for this approach. I urgently request you to stop creating inappropriate categories. This is the last try, really. --A.Savin 01:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Anan! You lost again?--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sundown Cimitrul Corabia (Romania) 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Löffelholzstraße 17a (Cadolzburg) HaJN 6199.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Kilian Kirche (Markt Erlbach) HaJN 6579.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Hans-Jürgen, thank you very much i think your version is the best. Тhanks again you are a very good person and an excellent photographer --Armenak Margarian (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prada Tower View to Lumpini BKK 1297.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Diskussion Nominierung X3 vom 1. Dezember 2018Edit

Hallo Hans-Jürgen Neubert,

Danke fürs Kommentieren, sogar in Deutsch, das finde ich etwas griffiger, da ich kein englisch-native speaker bin. Das Bild war/ ist meine erste Nominierung, weil ich's einfach klasse fand (und finde). Schon erstaunlich, worauf man alles achten kann. Ich habe mich auch schon gewundert, mit welchen Einwänden Du Dich so rumschlägst. Da das Gebiet hier für mich, obgleich ich selbst auch noch mit KB fotografiert habe, neu ist, möchte ich bzgl. der Kritik am Horizont beim X3 nachfragen: Meinst Du die ansteigende Brücke? Freu mich über eine Erläuterung. Vielen Dank vorab. --Wikisympathisant (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Es gibt in dem Bild wirklich viel zu kritisieren, was einem sofort auffällt, aber das soll mal egal sein. Erstmal soll es Spaß machen und zweitens ist Commons, kein Gral der technischen Wahrheit, auch bei QI nicht - und Du hast sicher noch Welpenschutz.-) Bei Commons sind unter geschätzten 3 Prozent Semi-Profis oder haben ein Gewerbe, die wenigsten haben veröffentlicht, publiziert oder ähnliches. Bei den Kommentaren zieht es mir oft die Schuhe aus, gerade da eine technische Umsetzung so gut wie nie erkannt wird und technische Mängel entweder Pixelschubserei oder an den nicht vorhanden Haaren herbei gezogen wird. Ich finde die meisten Auto-Fotos grausig (but that´s not my cup of tea), da zahlt keine Argentur auch nur einen cent..Ok, wie hilft Dir das weiter? - Jede Optik, (das Glas) hat eine gewisse Art abzubilden und damit muss man sich erst einmal als Fotograf auseinandersetzen, sonst ist man nicht mehr als ein Snapper, ein Schnappschusser. Wenn das sofort sichtbar wird, schlecht. Wenn Du damit gestaltest - vielleicht gutǃ Gerade WW (bei Vollformat alles unter 30mm) kippt und verzerrt sehr schnell. Was bei Sachfotografie/Stills ein totales No-Go ist. Tipː Versuche mal mit einem Weitwinkel Deine Frau/Freundin abzulichten (ist schon nicht echt, sobald ihr das Bild gefällt, da es gefällig ist), vllt gefällt ihr mehr Brust, solange Du die Kartoffelnase nicht erwähnst.-) In dem Fall mit den SUV´s, einfach mal 2-5 Schritte zurück, selbst mit einem Zoom, gehen und Proportionen vergleichen, auch ein Auschnitt macht das Bild nicht schlechter, solange die Proportionen stimmig sind. Schärfe kommt dann oft allein (Hyperfokale Distanz) und Kontrast stimmt meist auch. Horizonte Ausrichtung (der Horizont) ist leider ein Thema für sich, aber der BMW steht weder auf einem Hügel, noch ist er so groß wie ein Haus. Das wird Dir sehr deutlich bei Architektur werden. Schöne Woche, einen fröhlichen ersten Advent und es ist noch kein Meister vom Himmel gefallen ;-)--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jüdische Grabsteine (Emden) HaJN 5005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rothenmoor 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pisendelplatz 3 (Cadolzburg) HaJN 6176.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Vorm Würzburger Tor, Ziehbrunnen (Rothenburg ob der Tauber) HaJN 6292.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 31 (Cadolzburg) 002 HaJN 7696.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 10 HaJN 7660 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sporcher Nest 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7050.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße 21 (Cadolzburg) HaJN 7680.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7093 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7084 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Salix alba 4 seasons Autum HaJN 6777 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rodenstock RX900 Autorefractor HaJN 4415.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7114.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Johannes Friedhof Grabplatte HaJN 5066.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Portrait of old Gypsie (RO) HAJN 4431 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Johanniter Hilfsprojekte Gypsy HajN 4687.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7021 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.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7021 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Johanniter Hilfsprojekte Gypsy HajN 4778.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puchtastraße (Cadolzburg) 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz (Bromberg Polen) unweit vom Marktplatz HaJN 3993.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz HaJN 3999.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7021 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gypsy Village Romania 001 HaJN.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7035.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fürth Neuer Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 7063.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ehemaliges Wirtshaus Bernbach 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Veitsquelle (Veitsbronn) HaJN 4632.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gerhard Spitzer (MA der Volkshilfe Wien) HaJN 4822.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Georgensgmünd Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 3815.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Georgensgmünd Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 3729.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Georgensgmünd Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 3763.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Georgensgmünd Jüdischer Friedhof HaJN 3767.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz HaJN 3975.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz HaJN 3905.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz HaJN 3980.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jüdischer Friedhof (Georgensgmünd) HaJN 3787 bw.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Johanniter Hilfsprojekte Gypsy HajN 4677.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bydgoszcz Worldwar II Memorial HaJN 3988.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2019! ;-)Edit

    * Happy Holidays 2019, Hans-Jürgen Neubert! *
  • Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
  • Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
  • Frohe Weihnachten! Glückliches Neues Jahr!
  • Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!
  • ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo!
  • Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!

-- XRay talk 06:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Vorab...Edit

Hallo! Vorab zur Info: Die letzten Einträge auf deiner Seite sehen so komisch aus, weil es der hiesige Parser nicht mehr schafft. Kurzum: Deine Diskussionsseite ist zu voll. Archiviere oder lösch einfach mal ältere Einträge. Grüße vom Mathematiker und (!) ITler. --XRay talk 17:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Hans-Jürgen Neubert".