User talk:Sfu/3

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parysów kościół parafialny.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Cayambe 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sobolew nowy kościół.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good--Rünno 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parysow kaplica cmentarna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Cayambe 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Borowie stary kościół.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice place --Pudelek 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Borowie2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good, just the cables are pity. -- H005 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chęciny krzyż.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Łąka (Krynica-Zdrój).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Sharpness could be better (flowers). -- JovanCormac 15:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)  Support very good for me --George Chernilevsky 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stężyca kościół św. Marcina 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. Comments Good. -- Smial 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Widok Wieprza z mostu w Bobrownikach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 07:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goląb kościół 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 06:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gołąb domek loretański 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 06:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stężyca panorama kościoła św. Marcina.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. There is no real problem with this image. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wieprz2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. Some minor CA in the trees, but not distracting for me. --Relic38 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

prośba

Mógłbyś to załatwić? Będę bardzo wdzięczny. Vearthy (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Metropolitan 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 11:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chotynia dwór 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice stitching job! Yerpo 08:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Dom pod Orłami 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ładne zdjęcie --Pudelek 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Pałac Kultury i Nauki 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 11:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Skany

Witam. Mam jedno pytanko. Jeśli samodzielnie narysowałem postać z filmu, który ma swoją licencję i prawa autorskie (konkretnie Sknerus McKwacz) to, kiedy wrzucę skan tego rysunku na Wikipedię będzie to uznane za złamanie praw autorskich i zostanie usunięty, czy będzie to jako moja praca?

Duble

Witam. Zdublowałem przypadkowo stronę pod różnymi nazwami. W związku z tym mam pytanie; czy w przypadku prośby o usunięcie takiej strony, obowiązuje zasada jak w przypadku prośby o usunięcie pliku?

Strony w osobistej galerii, w której zostałem poproszony o podzielenie na mniejsze części.

Dotyczy:

• Strona poprawna
• Strona do skasowania, (Obecnie pusta)

Pozdrawiam, --Albertyanks (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stężyca kościół filialny.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. Yarl 14:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panorama Mochnaczki Niżnej 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kossakowskich.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Something wrong in the perspective, the line above is not straight.--Jebulon 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)  Done--Sfu 08:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Much better now. I support.--Jebulon 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa bazylika św. Krzyża 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yungang1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hall of Supreme Harmony 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit unsharp and noisy, the light comes from wrong direction, but still ok to be QI IMO. --kallerna 13:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yungang2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--Lmbuga 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Seul Plaza 2010.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seul Plaza 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A good composition. The shadow masks the unimportant areas. Unfortunately it looks (perspective-)overcorrected. I'd cut the tower on the right too. Otherwise QI. --Ikiwaner 14:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)  Comment Very nice image. Perspective seems overcorrected indeed. Curiously enough, on closer examination it turns out that all the vertical lines are perfectly vertical and that there is no distortion at all! The distortion is an optical effect... So: changing the perspective is not necessary IMO. Apart from that, I agree with Ikiwaner about the tower on the right, which is barely visible: it's better to crop it. -- MJJR 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)  Info Croped version uploaded --Sfu 20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)  SupportQualifies IMO --Nevit 10:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! COEX as seen from Bongeunsa temple.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --Pudelek 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków kościół św. Wojciecha nocą.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Carschten 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC) despite a probable dust spot in the sky (please see annotation)--Jebulon 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Joście 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments wonderful composition --Carschten 11:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ile Saint Louis 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Carschten 12:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jardin du Luxembourg 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-François Xavier 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. -- MJJR 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yungang10 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good to me.--Jebulon 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Burrow Mump ruins

Hi, you commented on a couple of images I nominated at Commons:Quality images candidates, commented that the perspective needed to be corrected, can you explain what you mean by that / how that can be achieved? Harrias (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be honest; I can see your issue, and I can see how to fix it, but I don't actually see a problem with the image myself: that is how it looks, so that is how it is. If the perspective is off and it can't be a quality image, then I suppose that is that, but personally I'm not going to start changing things to the impossible. Harrias (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yungang11 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good to me--Lmbuga 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Much chiński 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

prośba

Mógłbyś przemianować nazwę tego pliku na "Braxton Bragg.jpg"? Coś dziwnego się stało, bo jestem w 100% pewien, że wpisałem odpowiednią nazwę. Dzięki. Vearthy (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paris Pantheon ceiling 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paris Pantheon sculpture 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Could do with some perspective correction, but overall good. Mattbuck 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mick_Jones.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Mick_Jones.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ajanta cave9 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Qi to me, in spite of the signboard--Lmbuga 23:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe a FP ?--Jebulon 11:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khajuraho Dulhadeo 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good--Lmbuga 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khajuraho Chaturbhuja Temple.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good to me--Jebulon 10:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khajuraho Jeveri Temple 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Jovianeye 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khajuraho Vaman Temple 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Certainly QI. -- MJJR 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jama Masjid 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --Jovianeye 22:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Qutb Minar 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good.--Jebulon 01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salim Chishti Tomb window 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Wow ! Very impressive and pinsharp at high resolution --Jebulon 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Idgah Agra Street.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Not so glamour as the Taj-Mahal, but good --Jebulon 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jaipur evening kites 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments That is an impressively messy sky, but good quality. Mattbuck 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

prośba

Jest taka sytuacja: mamy oryginalny plik (1), z którego ktoś pozbył się wypalonej daty (2). Chciałbym by nie były mnożone niepotrzebnie zdjęcia. Czy mógłbyś usunąć drugi plik, a w pierwszym załadować wersję z drugiego (jako ten, kto przerabiał) lub coś podobnego? Bo próbuję, ale nie jestem w stanie niczego zmienić, bo ciągle mnie cofa do pierwszej strony przesyłania plików. Z góry dzięki za pomoc i odpowiedź. Vearthy (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dzięki ;) Vearthy (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wół w Bombaju.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Carschten 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Delhi Connaught Place.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok to me now. --Cayambe 12:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)