User talk:Sfu/2

Archive 1

Porządki

Dobra, miasta przeniesione, obecnie przenoszę wsie z Category:Villages in Poland by region do Category:Villages in Poland by voivodeship. Teraz trzeba przenosić miasta i wsie z Category:Cities in Poland i Category:Villages in Poland do podkategorii. Najlepiej będzie robić to porządnie, czyli:

1. od razu 2 kategorie: "cities/villages in (województwo)" oraz "powiat/gmina xxx"
2. chyba nie warto przenosić stron i grafik, lepiej zrobić kategorię i wtedy przenieść

Tak mi się wydaje, że będzie najlepiej. Yarl ✉ 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No właśnie, co z Category:Villages in powiat kościerski, jak dla mnie to zbędne. Yarl ✉ 19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

W sumie ponoć w Polsce jest ponad 40k wsi ([1]), wychodzi ponad 2,5k na województwo. Myślę, że jedna kategoria do tego starczy, jeszcze ktoś wpadnie na zrobienie kategorii "wsie w gminie xxx". Yarl ✉ 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Co do pozostałych pomysłów: myślę, że trzeba też uświadamiać, napisać co nieco na wiki, jak kategoryzujemy wsie i miasta. Możemy wpisać się do roboty bez laurów ([2]), może ktoś będzie do pomocy. Ja na bieżąco próbuję te gminy dodawać byleby cośtam w nich było. Puste mogą polecieć hurtem, tym bardziej że mają teraz nową zabawkę. Zresztą Polacy na Commons za dobrej opinii nie mają... A co do nazw: ja kategorię nazywam tak samo jak artykuł w wiki, wtedy nie ma wątpliwości o co chodzi. Yarl ✉ 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hej, czemu nie piszesz, że idziesz na admina? Daj info na pl.wiki. Yarl ✉ 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ja już tam swoje wiem :), do G to i tak dużo. W weekend też trochę poprzerzucam wiosek, na razie grzebię w wikisłowniku. W sumie też myślę o adminie, przydatna sprawa. Yarl ✉ 19:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Oppose for now I think more explanation is needed, at least for non-Polish speakers. I actually have no way of understanding when or why they lost their town privileges, if they had them once. I'm also disappointed by the png format, but it's no reason for rejection here, since it is a quite complex picture. --Eusebius (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  This could happend to small towns, where actualy most of dwelers where peasants. After en:January Uprising Russian goverment deprived many towns of its rights, as a punishment. Some of the towns were incorporated into other cities. It could have happend that after WWII town, that had f.e. 10.000 dwelers (before war), lost some 80% of them, and became to small, as well as lost its town functions. Changing town into village was decided very rare after 1940s, and happend last in 1973. Most of this changes happend in 19th century, and geographical distrubution shows that most towns lost its priviliages in part of Poland that was in borders of the Russian Empire. --Sfu (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty to copy-paste the explanation in the image page. If there are WP articles (in Polish, English or whatever) telling about that, it should be linked from the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Question I'd like to understand the map legend before reviewing. Would it be possible to have a translation of it? --Eusebius (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  I don't understand: legend is in both English and Polish. --Sfu (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for being so polite with me :-P --Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lament na Placu Konstytucji w Warszawie - Barbara Wrzesińska, Małgorzata Zawadzka, Katarzyna Maternowska.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Sfu, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
Giggy (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Admin! abf /talk to me/ 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Porządki c.d.

Myślę, że można zgrupować to w Category:Koło, chociaż są też inne wsie o tej nazwie. No ale w sumie to jest miasto, niech będzie się wyróżniać. Jak pojawią się zdjęcia z tych wsi to można dać {{seealso}}. Yarl ✉ 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha, większość z Category:Categories in Poland by voivodeship jest już przeniesiona, do końca tygodnia załatwię resztę. Yarl ✉ 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Przeniesiesz: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands? Yarl ✉ 19:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Co do Category:Buildings in Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship i podobnych: castles, churches i ruins też chyba wrzucamy na samą górę? Wtedy pod literami będą tylko "Buildings in xxx". Co o tym myślisz? Przy okazji: [3]. Yarl ✉ 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fajnie, każda pomoc się przyda. Yarl ✉ 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michal Ciundziewicki.jpg

Możesz zobaczyć tę stronę? Opis licencji wydaje mi się wątpliwy. Nie działam na Commons, nie wiem, co się dalej z tym robi. Bocianski (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tylko że ja nie chciałem zgłaszać jej do usunięcia, tylko wyjaśnić sprawę bez tego kroku, ale widocznie nie ma takich praktyk. Bocianski (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Napisałem autorowi, że zdjęcie zostało usunięte. On odpisał, że to zdjęcie jego przodka, z albumu rodzinnego. Może spróbujesz go jakoś pokierować, co ma robić, żeby opisy i licencje były OK? Szkoda zrażać użytkownika, musi mu być przykro. A zdjęcie zrobione w 1863 roku będzie przecież na PD. Wygląda na to, że to jest właśnie to zdjęcie, za które młody człowiek usłyszał zarzut i między innymi za nie został stracony (opisane w haśle). Naprawdę szkoda tej sprawy. Bocianski (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kościół św. Kazimierza na Rynku Nowego Miasta w Warszawie.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Lestath 22:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa kościół pokarmelicki.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 It's OK. --Lestath 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa plac Kasińskich.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 It's good --Pudelek 11:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdańsk Zielona Brama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Lestath 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bydgoszcz banki.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 picture of this amazing building. --B.navez 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdańsk ratusz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Possibly could use a bit of sharpening, and I'm not sure if the tower is tilted or just gets bigger at the top, but no major issues, and a good composition. Mattbuck 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bydgoszcz opera.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Lovely image. Mattbuck 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdańsk Długi Targ 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdańsk kamienice przy Długim Targu.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The trees in the foreground are a bit distracting, but the depth of field and perspective are good and overall the image is good enough for QI imo. --PieCam 14:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdańsk Wielki Młyn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Lestath 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Really valuable --Twdragon (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree. I might have preferred a good diagram over a photograph, but there are no serious candidates and I like the visual impact of this one. --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, valuable. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question I cannot understand the scope. It is about the city hall itself? Does this one has a special name, or is it the generic name in Polish? (criteria ok) --Eusebius (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  I should have comment this before. Well, I had some problems with translating it correctly into english. It means Main Town's Town Hall, but that seems to sound strange. So I decided to use Polish name. Althou it was shure there will be problems with this. Name used in enwiki article about Gdańsk is Main Town Hall and it's the name used in the page of museum located in the building. Therefore I'm changing the scope. --Sfu (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Actually I have no problem with the Polish name if it is a proper noun. I just wanted to understand it. You can choose the most appropriate, I'd maintain my support. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment The tree is distracting, it hides the windows on the roof, which seem to be quite specific. --Eusebius (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Awesome house. -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:File:Buddhist temple in Qibao, China.PNG

Hi, I have reverted your reversion of this file. The OTRS is invalid, as the author of the OTRS was untruthful in his claims. Please read Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Require immediate attention, Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Lavelk from Photobucket, all the threads linked within them, and go through User talk:Nyo for the history. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

CC demands for the correct attribution of author, i.e. one should not claim that the work belongs to him or her when it is by another. Images are to be properly attributed here. Since you are disputing this, I am bringing this image to Deletion Requests. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree; however, the filename is in the PNG format. The original is in JPG. There is something wrong here if we use the PNG for the original work. As you can see, they are of two different sizes (in terms of file sizes for equal resolution). Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bydgoszcz poczta główna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 It's fine. --Lestath 11:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

image deletion?

I'm confused at the deletion of File:Darth Maul's lightsabre.jpg. You referred to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darth Maul.jpg in your edit/deletion summary, but the deleted image isn't listed therein. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa plac Trzech Krzyży.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Pudelek 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cities in Silesia

Witam. tutaj ciężko mówić o POVie, bo przecież taki region istnieje, a nie jest np. moim wymysłem. Zostawiłbym tą kategorię z dwóch powodów: przede wszystkim jest to kategoria ponadpaństwowa, skupiająca śląskie miasta z Polski i Czech (według niektórych podziałów również ze skrawka Niemiec) i dzięki temu można od razu zobaczyć, że jest to jeden region, przekraczający granice państwowe.. Ani np. Mazowsze ani Podlasie nie wykraczają poza granice Polski. po drugie podział tylko według województw sprawia, że nie tylko w Polsce ale i za granicą wszystkim się wydaje, że jak coś leży w województwie ślaskim to automatycznie jest to Śląsk! czas z tym skończyć i właśnie kategoria tego typu ma dodatkową wartość edukacyjną. poza tym istnieją np. kategorie typu Category:Cities by the Vistula lub według innych kryteriów. zauważ zresztą, że na wikipedii jest taka kategoria (zresztą w 4 wersjach językowych), zbierająca miasta polskie i czeskie, są kategorie typu Pałace Śląska, odpowiednie szablony i temu podobne rzeczy. tak więc w przypadku akurat tego regionu, leżącego w 4 województwach i 2 (lub 3) krajach ponad administracyjna kategoria wydaje mi się rozsądna. pozdrawiam Pudelek (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

no, z tym brakiem granic to przesada - poza dyskusją czy dawny powiat łużycki należy przypisać do Śląska czy nie to są one jasno określone. jeśli są dyskusyjne w stosunku np. do Rusi to nie powinno mieć związku ze Śląskiem. w ten sposób można by de facto usunąć całą kategorię Silesia albo np. Spisz czy inne regionalne... Łatwo jest sprawdzić w jakiej gminie leży dana wieś, ale w regionie — często nie da się tego określić. no i właśnie dlatego w tym przypadku taka kategoria jest potrzebna. bo sugerując się zdjęciami z kategorii województwa śląskiego w jakimś artykule pojawi się informacja, że leży on na Śląsku. i właśnie argument, że mamy do czynienia z szerszym zagadnieniem, wykraczającym poza granicę jednego kraju, należałoby się tutaj zastanowić. sugeruję też zasięgnąć opinii jeszcze jakiś osób --Pudelek (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ale dlaczego niby nie będzie kompletna? miast śląskich nie jest nieskończenie dużo, jest to ograniczona liczba. podobnie nie bardzo rozumiem argument typu, że ponieważ ktoś nie chce pracować nad inną kategorią, to tej też nie może być... przecież fakt istnienia jednej kategorii nie może zależeć od tego, czy podobna kategoria jest zaniedbana czy też "aktywna"... --Pudelek (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

co do wsi to taka kategoria istnieje :) wojny toczyć o to nie zamierzam, po prostu, według mnie oczywiście, taka kategoria ma merytoryczne uzasadnienie. I nie chodzi tutaj o jakieś propagowanie śląskości, bo fakt istnienia Śląska raczej nie jest przez nikogo negowany, ale pewną formę uporządkowania (niezależną od innych kategorii). co do kuriozalności sytuacji, że jeden region jest lepiej rozbudowany a drugi mniej to jest to chyba też wskazówka z której części Polski ludzie najbardziej się angażują w pracę (bo jakoś tak wychodzi, że z reguły ludzie pracują bardzo ochotnie przy kategoriach im bliskich, z innymi róznie ;D) z galeryjką jest ten problem, że żeby przejść od jednego zdjęcia do innych to czasem też trzeba trochę czasu, jeśli jest tylko jedno zdjęcie reprezentatywne. co do dyskusji to rzeczywiście muszę zarchiwizować, bo i mnie się już tnie... --Pudelek (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gończyce stara plebania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. Is this a stitched pano? Why? ---donald- 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Just copy&paste from another picture. Sfu 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gończyce kośćiół 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 looks good --Pudelek 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Podzamcze ruiny baszty.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 10:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maciejowice ratusz 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 The cars and the rubble are not very aesthetical, but QI though. -- MJJR 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Category:History of Poland by year

Hej, ciachniesz kategorię? Yarl ✉ 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Gmina Słubice

Cześć. Dlaczego przeniosłeś to pod "Category:Gmina Słubice (powiat słubicki)". Przede wszystkim kategoria na Commons powinna odpowiadać tej z Wikipedii. Na Wikipedii uznano, że Słubice to w domyśle te z Lubuskiego. Jest o wiele bardziej znana od tej pod Płockiem i pisząc o Słubicach na z dużą dozą prawdopodobieństwa chodzi o Słubice w Lubuskiem. Na Wiki ani gmina ani samo miasto nie mają dodatków w tytule. A nawet jeśli ktoś wpadłby na mało inteligentny pomysł, by rozgraniczyć te 2 gminy uzupełnieniem nazw kategorii, to dlaczego błędne włączenie powiatów do nazw gmin? W pierszej kolejności konkretyzuje się przytoczeniem województwa w nawiasie, a dopiero gdy w danym województwie są conajmniej 2 gminy/ miejscowości o tej samej nazwie to schodzi się do poziomu powiatu. Popraw to po sobie, bo w tej chwili nazewnictwo kategorii jest błędne. Pozdrawiam Cybinka (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chodzi o kompletny brak konsekwencji. Na Wikipedii jest artykuł "Słubice" a nie "Słubice (powiat słubicki)" czy "Słubice (województwo lubuskie)" a w tytule gminy nawias dziwnym trafem się pojawia - błędnie zarówno na Wikipedii jak i Commons, to fakt. Tak jak już powiedziałem - jeśli już to w nawiasie powinno być województwo lubuskie a nie powiat słubicki, więc po co przywracasz błędna wersję? Zapytaj kogoś, kto zajmuje się tytulaturą artykułów o miejscowościach na polskiej Wikipedii, bodajże Lajsikonika. On powinien potwierdzić, że mam rację co do poprawności uściślania (najpierw województwo, a w drugiej kolejności powiat). Cybinka (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Ochota burza.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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!  Support --George Chernilevsky 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploadtext

Hej, przerzucisz Commons:Centrum koordynacji tłumaczeń/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/pl do MediaWiki:Uploadtext/pl. Przy okazji rzuć okiem, czy wszystko jest OK. Yarl ✉ 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Assessments/pl

Szablon nie do przetłumaczenia? Nie ma takiej rury na świecie... :). Trzeba tylko zrobić polską wersję {{Language}}, a to jest trochę roboty. Yarl ✉ 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin plac Zamkowy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good work --Mbdortmund 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin panorama 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 and detailed view. --Marcok 11:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin Trybunał Koronny.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Light is rather harsh, but good image though. -- MJJR 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin zamek 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 Rather small, but good image though: interesting subject, good composition. -- MJJR 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin Rynek 11-13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin Nowy Ratusz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Mbdortmund 09:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Kategoryzacja

O to "czyszczenie w j. polskim, prosił mnie jeden z Administratorów z Wikimediów.

dziękuję za zainteresowanie uporządkowaniem kategorii. Można by jednak Twoje działania ulepszyć i tak np. zdjęć pana Grzegorza Woźniaka jest na tyle dużo, że może mieć on własną kategorię. Co więcej kategoria ta powinna znajdować się także w:
    * 1968 births (bo wtedy się urodził)
   * Members of Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (bo jest politykiem tej partii, ta kategoria zastępuje politicians of Poland, oraz Prawo i Sprawiedliowść
   * Powiat garwoliński (ponieważ działa na terenie tego powiatu).
Kontynując ten przykład, to zjdęcie G. Woźniaka z biskupem, powinno trafić do kategorii biskupów oraz do kategorii miejca jego wykonania (Miętne należy do gminy Garwolin).

A kto to jest Grzegorz Woźniak? Rozumie, że jest to lokalny polityk. Czyli powinien być lokalnie w danej gminie i w danej partii, to wszystko. Inaczej tworzymy setki tysięcy polityków lokalnych w kategoriach które przystaną być czytelne. Dojdziemy do tego, że kilka milionów ludzi w Polsce coś działało politycznie i tworzymy kategorie zaśmiecone. Tym bardziej, ze nazwy poszczególnych zdjęć też w wiekszości nie są informatywne. Swoja droga to tylko on tam był wpisany przez omyłkę.

Jeśli trafisz na zdjęcie kościoła w kategorii województw (np. mazowieckiego) to nie wrzucasz go z tamtąd, tylko dodajesz to kategorii churches in Masovian Voivodehsip. 
Tak samo galerie ze zdjęciami wsi mają pewne prawo być w kategoriach villages in ... voivodeship.

To jest dublowanie w kategoriach, jeżeli dane zdjęcie jest już w jakiejś gminie a ta gmina w danym województwie, W ten sposób to możemy umieszczać każde zdjęcie w kategorii wsi, dalej w gminie w której jest ta wies, w powiecie, w województwie, państwie i tak dalej.

Proszę sobie to przemyśleć.--WlaKom (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

    1)Twój argument o setkach tysięcy polityków jest nie słuszny. To jeden z nielicznych politików który ma aż 4 zdjęcia. 4 zdjęcia to dość, żeby mieć kategorię. Każde z tych zdjęć może być na commons, więc trzeba je po prostu uporządkować.

Ja nie neguję, że ma mieć swoją kategorię. Z tym się zgadzam. Nazwisko -> Miejsce gdzie działa. I to wszystko. Może jeszcze w w swojej kategorii partyjnej, ale tego też nie jestem pewien. Ale nie mogę zrozumieć sensu w dopisywaniu go i jemu podobnych, do gigantycznych "śmietników", takich jak "rok urodzenia" czy "wszyscy politycy". Uważam, że powinno to być karane :-). Tego nikt nie jest w stanie przejrzeć. Chyba, że ze snobizmu, mogę się pochwalić, że jestem wpisany w dziesiątkach nieistotnych kategoriach. IMHO, tworzenie podkategorii ma wtedy sens jedli trzymamy się tego sztywno i nie wkładamy hasła we wszystkie kategorie jakie są na Wikipedii, tylko w najbardziej sensowne i czytelne. Jeżeli ja interesuję się politykiem Woźniakiem, to będę go szukał TYLKO w jego rejonie i tam tylko powinien być. Co daje, że jego zdjęcia są wpisane w kategorii "rok urodzenia"? Nic. Chyba, że ma jakieś dokonania na skalę światową lub państwową.--WlaKom (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Powstaje śmietnik w postaci kategorii urodzeni w 1962 r., owszem, ale albo cała kategoria będzie usunięta, albo będziemy się trzymać jeden z podstawowych zasad wiki. --sfu (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No właśnie. Czy nie powinno się tej kategorii "urodzeni w ..." usunąć? Wczoraj zauważyłem, przenosząc zdjęcia gminne/wiejskie, że wiele kategorii się dubluje, nazwy po polsku, spolszczone lub angielskie. "Gminy" "gminas", "powiaty", "powiats", "Powiats in Masovian Voivodeship", "Masovian Voivodeship" itd. Czy nie lepiej jakoś to usystematyzować. 1. Nazwy po polsku czy po angielsku. 2. Ujednolicić podkategorie i poprzenosić do najniższej podkategorii, a zbędne usunąć, aby ludzie widzieli jasną i logiczna strukturę. Kolega chciał dołożyć zdjęcie ale się poddał ze względu na kategorie. Ja osobiście mogę trochę w tym pomóc, jeśli chodzi o miejscowości. Np. wrzucając do najniższej podkategorii "gmina .." dla ułatwienia, a później można byłoby już pozdzelić na poszczególne miasta lub wsie.--WlaKom (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin Donżon 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 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa kościół św. Trójcy 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 very good --George Chernilevsky 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin Krakowskie Przedmieście 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 05:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin kamienica Klonowica.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 colours and details --Mbdortmund 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa pałac Potockich 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 composition, even if some cropping could help to remove dark areas and concentrate the attention to the main subject. --Marcok 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa dom bez kantów 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 Balanced composition, good light, leaves in the upper left corner are not disturbing IMO. -- MJJR 18:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa pałac Czapskich 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. --Jcart1534 02:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin Donżon i dziedziniec zamku.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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  SupportOk. Maedin 14:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, encyclopedic imagery of architecture should not be distorted, unless with a clear and explained purpose. This image has me wondering if the tower top is really slanted or if it's an optical effect - hence the oppose. --Vladanr 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) True indeed. New version uploaded. --Sfu 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)  Support Good enough for me. You should perhaps see if it works with the shadow cropped out but that's nitpicking. --Vladanr 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Centrum Królewska 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  Comment Looks tilted to me. And then I look again and it seems like the building is tilted and not the photo. --Korall 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC) While trying to straight this up I get a nice piece of the deconstructivism architecture ;). --Sfu 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)  Support Looks fine with me. -- H005 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa pałac Blanka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Marcok 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa dawny Dom Partii.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Shadows could be brightend up a bit, apart from that good. -- Smial 20:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa północna pierzeja placu Teatralnego.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. -Jcart1534 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Teatr Wielki 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Górzno spichrz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa PAST 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. --H005 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa Prudential 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 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warszawa biurowiec przy rondzie Jazdy Polskiej.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 quality --George Chernilevsky 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)