User talk:Albertus teolog/Archiwum1

Image:Lorenzo lauri.jpg

Image deletion warning

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 If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in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

--Polarlys 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Francesco Marmaggi.jpg

Image deletion warning

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 If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in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

--Polarlys 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Jacqueline pascal.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Polarlys 14:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC

Please have a look at our Image Guidelines before reviewing on FPC. Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leszek Biały Marcinkowo.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Technically very good, artistically a relevant angle. --B.navez 17:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paryż notre-dame portal.JPG

• 
  Original
• 
  Edited

I've made some changes to this image. I think it's an improvement. What do you think? J.smith (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued image candidate

Hey there. I have changed the scope of this VIC. For your vote to count, I need you to re-support the image. Thanks! Pbroks13 (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paryż notre-dame detal.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 detail, good image of the material --Mbdortmund 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued image candidate again

Hey, I changed the scope for the mouse one more time. Would you mind supporting again? Pbroks13 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paryż inwalidzi ludwik.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

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

review

 Oppose  Neutral - Sorry, but for such a known subject as this one the phtographic quality becomes an important choice factor, and this image doesn't resist a comparison with the best available. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment You show best available. What are photo? Albertus teolog (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment -- You almost have a point here, as the available photos of the Tour Eifell are not very good. But I found this one, which I believe has a better quality, despite the people in the foreground. Let's wait for other opinions!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your proposal is also bad angle. Yours! Albertus teolog (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, your angle is better. Well, I'm changing my vote to "neutral" (for now) and wait for other opinions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I went through the category and ended up hesitating between the two same photographs. I prefer the colours of the one proposed by Alvesgaspar, but the people in the foreground are distracting. Still thinking about it. --Eusebius (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment In Poland of that proposal say: the prospect of frog :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What? I don't get you. --Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about proposals Alvesgaspar. Albertus teolog (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support I prefer this one. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Could be done better, but it is best in class and meets all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 neutral

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 17 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:
Saint-Louis-des-Invalides (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info It is not the dome. Scope should be "Saint-Louis-des-Invalides", I guess, which is the name of this chapel, a part of the "Hôtel des Invalides". The dome is a part of the chapel and is not shown here. Here is the dome: inside, outside (not the best pics). --Eusebius (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your comments. I changed in scope. 1 Albertus teolog (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    •  Comment But you removed the "inside"? I think it is necessary here (otherwise people would expect to see the facade and the dome, I guess). --Eusebius (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    •  Info Improved :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Again, I don't like the interior/exterior thing, but I guess it's necessary if we want to have more than just facades for VIs. Criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hej hej. no cóż, moje umiejętności są, delikatnie mówiąc, nie za wysokie... raczej na pewno niższe niż Twoje, bo nie raz widziałem, że swobodnie piszesz po angielsku. najczęściej rozumiem co kto pisze, gdyż większość odpowiedzi dotyczy tych samych jasnych i prostych tematów, ale czasem wolę odpuścić. albo korzystać z translatora: http://www.translate.pl/pl.php4. ale w tym przypadku wychodzą niezłe jaja: Ma wy otrzymywaliście (dostał się) dodatek brać (przedsiębrać) obrazy wewnątrz muzeum , a drugi http://www.translatica.pl/ :Kazałeś zasiłkowi robić zdjęcia wewnątrz muzeum :D :D :D... nie no, raczej poprosiłbym o pomoc kogoś z polskich wikipedystów działających na commons a posługujących się angielskim. pozdrawiam --Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 3000WSP final 3.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

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

review

 Support - this one --Pudelek (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Paryż szkoła wojskowa.JPG: 0
2. Paryż szkoła wojskowa2.JPG: +1 <--
=>
Image:Paryż szkoła wojskowa.JPG: Declined.
Image:Paryż szkoła wojskowa2.JPG: Promoted. <--

--Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 2 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:
Steam locomotive Pacyfic (Les Ateliers métallurgiques, Nivelles).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I'm not sure the picture illustrates the scope well (the photograph is more about the vehicle than about the museum). If you can identify the locomotive precisely, I think it would be a far better scope. --Eusebius (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A real rarity is the Belgian locomotive made by Les Ateliers Metallurgiques Nivelles with the unique wheel arrangement 2-3-1 ("Pacific"), and the only one which has steam brakes. (1) Albertus teolog (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Scope changed Albertus teolog (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Is there a reason for the "y" in "Pacific"? Info: apparently the actual name of the maker is "La Métallurgique", situated in Nivelles, Belgium (current name: La Brugeoise et Nivelles SA). Categorization should be improved, if possible. --Eusebius (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • •  Info The official name of the manufacturer at that time was "Ateliers Métallurgiques de Nivelles". There where several "Ateliers Métallurgiques" at that time. --Foroa (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you sure about that? It is clearly written Les ateliers métallurgiques" on the plaque (with "Nivelles" on the following line). --Eusebius (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info The name comes from the description in the museum (white plate): "Parowóz z tendrem typu Pacyfic" ("Steam locomotive with tender, type Pacyfic"). Here is a more visible name of the factory. Categories are changed. Albertus teolog (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    •  Comment A last detail: I would put a coma before Nivelles (or remove it totally), since it is not the name of the manufacturer but its location. --Eusebius (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. I trust you. :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but I meant, in the scope! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Ech... :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looks ok to me (I've corrected french typography in the scope). --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

French crown

Hi. You've really motivated me with this nomination, and I've spent time on it in order to make the future set as valuable as possible. I hope I'm not too annoying with it! --Eusebius (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Krzysztof (I hope you don't mind me using your first name, and I hope I'm not mistaken), it's not finished yet (the Dauphin crown is still missing), but how do you like it so far? --Eusebius (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Krzysztof, I've made a version of the last crown today, and nominated the set. You may want to have a look at it! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Licheń bazylika 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great shot meets the criteria --CPacker 16:12, 18 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:
Basilica of Licheń Stary (outside).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question The name of the basilica should be stated. Would you care to make the scope "Sanctuary of Our Lady of Licheń", or do you prefer the Polish name? It would be justified, since it is the local proper noun of the place. Other criteria ok. --Eusebius (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment The basilica has a title: Sorrows of Our Lady Queen of Polish (pl: Bazylika Matki Boskiej Bolesnej Królowej Polski). The basilica is only one of the objects in the sanctuary. The basilica is not the sanctuary. That part of it. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, what about "Basilica Matki Boskiej Bolesnej Królowej Polski, Licheń Stary (outside)" then? Or maybe "Basilica of Licheń Stary (outside)" is simpler and better after all? (but I'd really say "of" instead of "in" here) --Eusebius (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Done :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support ok for me. --Eusebius (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mordo ty moja

Czym zasłużyłem aż na takie miłe zawołanie? :D :D :D Pudelek (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renal corpuscle.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Correct and good quality illustration. Lycaon 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Renal corpuscule

Hi Krzysztof, I don't want to force you about this scope change. I'm not fully convinced it is the better solution. I'd like to have other reviewers' opinion about it. Anyway, if you want to change the scope, please follow the guidelines, use the template and warn Lycaon. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (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:
Diagram of renal corpuscle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose for now. It is watermarked. Lycaon (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Question Is the problem is a signature the author? Albertus teolog (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Done Watermark removed. You may want to read Commons:Watermarks about watermarking on Commons. Not forbidden, but strongly discouraged and removed when possible. Here Lycaon strongly discourages and I remove :-) --Eusebius (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. Lycaon (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. Lycaon (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What would you think about the scope simply being "Renal corpuscle"? --Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And if someone will publish a photograph? Albertus teolog (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Then if my proposition is accepted they will both be in the same scope, and I think the diagram would win an MVR because it is more self-explanatory. However, it is true that having both a diagram and a photograph can be valuable as well. --Eusebius (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Renal corpuscle.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Renal corpuscle.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

POTY

bo to jest głosowanie za ubiegły rok. za ten będzie dopiero w przyszłym :) --Pudelek (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Paryż mur pokoju.JPG

File:Paryż mur pokoju.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Coyau (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Jak-18 Góraszka 2008 1.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jak-18 Góraszka 2008 1.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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! Szubin.ruiny3.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 for me --Pudelek 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bydgoszcz Przechodzacy.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Interesting subject. Could be better technically: some overexposure in the background, lighting is not ideal, would benefit from a shallower DOF. Excellent composition. A good presentation of the subject anyhow. --Siipikarja 10:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

re:

Jest napisane w powodzie usuniecia --Szczepan talk  19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

to tylko Twoje zdanie, niestety (dla Ciebie) bledne --Szczepan talk  20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not recreate deleted content

 

---

Your image or other content, File:Tysiaclatka.JPG, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not allowed, and doing so repeatedly may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Thank you for understanding.

–Tryphon^☂ 13:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry about your RfA. I understand if it made some emotional feelings to you. If you focus on the concerns in your RfA, maybe you'll make it next time? I'll be happy to help you around. P.S. don't be afraid to ask! Good luck, and best wishes. --Kanonkas_(talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:North American B-25 Mitchell Góraszka 2007.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:North American B-25 Mitchell Góraszka 2007.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szubin.Anna.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Albertus teolog!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 05:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Symbol katolicyzm.JPG is uncategorized since 8 May 2009.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zuch dziewczyna.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 bit noisy, but good photo --Pudelek 10:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Wojciech Kilar 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wojciech Kilar 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paw 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 --George Chernilevsky 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Wieża montparnasse.JPG

Hi, thank you for adding the location, but it seems that this is the location of the object shown (Montparnasse tower), however it should be the location where the camera was (apparently Tour d'Eiffel). -- H005 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paryż notre-dame rozeta.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 although I believe it could benefit from perspective correction. -- H005 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)  Support Great picture of this Rayonnant rose window. It is on its way to become featured picture on the Hebrew Wikipedia. MathKnight 17:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hupp53.png

File:Hupp53.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Herr Kriss (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Wieża_montparnasse.JPG

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

Eusebius (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gniezno Drzwi - modlitwa.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 little tilt but good for QI --Pudelek 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tum kolegiata 2.JPG

Hello, I menat this: en:Perspective control and this: en:Aberration_in_optical_systems#Distortion_of_the_image especially this: . I uploaded a corrected Version but it seems for me, that the picture needs even more correction of the barrel distortion. The two versions:

• 
• 

--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg

I have uploaded a new version of this picture! Maybe you would like to change your vote! --Simonizer (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Boeing

Mam lepsze zdjęcia w arsenale :) Ten Boeing jest, prawdę mówiąc, słaby. Airwolf (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On się nie unosi, on ląduje :) Airwolf (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Widzisz? Mówiłem, tę nominację równie dobrze można wycofać. Już większe szanse miałyby moje/nasze niektóre QI na medal na pl.wiki. Airwolf (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Moim zdaniem te mankamenty są duże. Dysponuję innym zdjęciem tej samej maszyny - File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings 2.JPG - z pewnością lepszym, ale czeka ono teraz na ewentualną poprawę techniczną. Jak chcesz, możesz w wolnej chwili wybrać coś do medalu na pl.wiki. Niemniej jednak cieszę się, że nasze zdjęcia przypadły ci do gustu. Airwolf (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (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:
Chalice of St. Adalbert.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Meets all criteria; high quality. -- JovanCormac 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Neutral I'm not sure if every object in a museum merits a separate scope. Moreover, criterion 6 (categorization) is not sufficiently met. Lycaon (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well it is not sight of the museum. Chalice of St. Adalbert is the most valuable and oldest monuments of the Polish state. The scope is appropriate. Albertus teolog (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done Categorization has been fixed. --Myrabella (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      •  acknowledged. Lycaon (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a pity I can't read Polish but nevertheless, the rough Google translation of the :pl:w page drives me to support this nomination. --Myrabella (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tum kolegiata 2-2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 06:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 2

Tym razem lepiej wybrałeś . Airwolf (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigdy w to nie wątpiłem . To teraz zgłoś coś na pl. ;) Airwolf (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (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:
Collegiate church in Tum, exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Ok IMO --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice photograph. Thanks for contributing it. --High Contrast (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rayonnant rose window

See my version, based on Chagler's, with better colors. MathKnight 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rozeta Paryż notre-dame chalger.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Excellent. --Cayambe 09:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:PZL-101_Gawron_Góraszka_2008.JPG

Hi, I think you should withdraw your {{Withdraw}} for Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:PZL-101_Gawron_Góraszka_2008.JPG and let the nomination run, it may not make it, but it does have a chance :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of making exceptions. There is no "rule" that defines a minimum resolution. There is a guideline for nominators that suggests that voters are unlikely to support images below some size. But a high quality image, that has already been recognized on other wikis, has a good chance of getting support. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A VI set for the three roses of Notre-Dame de Paris?

Hello Albertus,
Would you try to set up a VI set for the three roses of Notre-Dame de Paris, as suggested in the VIC review for the north one? I think they worth it :-)
Best regards, --Myrabella (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for having nominated a set. It needs you yet: some geocoded data are missing and there is a proposition about the south rose. Could you please say if you agree with it? See Commons:Valued image candidates/Rose windows of cathedral Notre Dame de Paris. Best regards, --Myrabella (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

FPC

Prośba: jak dodajesz assessments do strony pliku, to zamknij też głosowanie (czyli potwierdź wyniki). Dzięki z góry. Wolf (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FPC

Ciekawe, kiedy ktoś powie, że jesteś moją pacynką do zgłaszania kandydatów :) Wolf (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued image set promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: The rose windows of cathedral Notre Dame de Paris.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
The rose windows of cathedral Notre Dame de Paris.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Best regards, --Myrabella (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

• File:Extraomnes.jpg

BotMultichillT 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Extraomnes.jpg

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

--Common Good (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the month on :en:Portal:Scouting for March

Hello Albertus teolog,
I am pleased to inform you that I had nominated your image File:Zuch dziewczyna.JPG to illustrate en:Portal:Scouting and it has been chosen: it is the picture of the month for March. Best regards, --Myrabella (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wielkie Księstwo

Witam. Dzięki za miłe słowa i za głos. Na dobrą sprawę nie wiem, czemu zacząłem od głosowania tutaj. Jak się tylko skończy, to startuję na pl wiki. Pozdrawiam. Avalokitesvara (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Witam ponownie. Wielkie dzięki za przyczynienie się do wyróżnienia mojego herbu. Zgodnie z Twoją sugestią, zgłosiłem go też u nas. Pozdrawiam. Avalokitesvara (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kozanow

Dzieki :) Te z soboty robilem niemalze w tym czasie jak woda dopiero naplywala, to znajac osiedle wiedzialem gdzie moza sie ustawic. Te z niedzieli juz tylko z obwodu kaluzy, bo wlasnie nie mialem kaloszy :) Masur (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Strzyzawa 2010 (3).JPG

Hej. Użyj opcji "dodaj notatkę" do pokazania koryta... Te drzewka na środku - przy drodze, czy w polach? Przykuta → [edit] 08:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A, już zauważyłem na drugiej focie - thx. Przykuta → [edit] 08:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jelonek

Dzięki :) Udało się, wyszedłem z samochodu, rzuciłem okiem i widzę jak płynie w stronę brzegu... Szybka akcja i zdążyłem niemalże w ostatniej chwili :) pjahr @ 12:47, 26 May 2010 (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:
Michał Heller.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Not high quality picture, but good now for VI, best in scope without microphon...--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Albertus Teolog the Great !
I'm sorry I put a notice on your pic of the Lithuanian church in QIC. There is something strange near the yellow flowers below. Friendly from Paris,--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello (bis)

I'm back ! Dear Albertus Teolog, I'm afraid you have a problem with perspective distortion/correction. Your pics are good and very interesting to me, but I'm not sure they will be promoted if verticals are not verticals ! May I help you ? You may download the tool "The GIMP" (free) and try to use it for perspective corrections. Here is an example of what can be done, very easily. Look at the file, how it was, first ! (I choose a religious subject with my own patron saint especially for you !!). Same thing is possible for buildings, of course. You were wrong to withdraw your pic of the church door, it could be improvable, as your very nice Wilno cathedral and many of your building pictures. Well, if you need help (in bad english !) please feel free to ask for it, it would be a real pleasure ! Even if I can do this with "my" Gimp for you !!--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• PS: I tried something for your Casimir's church, and reverted to your file. Please have a look on the file page, and feel free to use it if you think it's better. Friendly from Paris, my polish friend !--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unlucky Albertus Teolog ! I'm not Ignace, but Xavier !!! lol :))
  • comments on your Cathedral will come soon, no time now. --Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I have a small time for you now.

About "Your" Cathedral (are you a bishop ? ;). Funny comments of others. 1)Ankara says, as me, that it needs a perspective correction left. 2)you corrected it, left. 3)The second reviewer says it needs still a correction, but right, now !
They are right both. Because when you correct the perspective left, all the pic "follows", strongly at left (that's what you want), but a little at right too (that's what you wont !!). Then, you have to correct the correction , a little bit, right.
See: in the first version, the dome was good. Now, it is leaning a bit at left (a very little, but it is visible. Eye (in fact, brain) is pitiless...). So you have to adjust, and adjust, and adjust.
In the GIMP, there is a grid you may configurate as you like. It is very useful to see verticallity (and horizontality, tilt). Use it for control of your adjustments. Problem: if you adjust verticallity, you will loose a small part of your image, out of frame. Nothing to do I'm afraid, only think of it when taking a picture. Other problem: adjusting verticallity will make your image strange in proportions (obese ?). Solution: Then, you can stretch it in height with the scale tool.
I am very sorry for my bad english, but I don't know nothing in polish. I hope you will understand me.
Don't worry about the use of GIMP. It looks hard at first time, but in fact it is very easy. Just try, and try again. At the end, it is a funny game. I know now how to use correctly the perspective correction, but I have just discovered the color tools, a few days ago, with the help of another friend (Johannes Robalotoff). It is very interesting too, now I understand how to change the tone of only some parts of my pictures.
Well, by the way, with your first correction, "your" Cathedral is going to be promotted as QI ! Congratulations, Monsignore !!--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. Thanks for message.

By the way, if you straight the tower, don't forget the flag mast ! It is leaning too !!
Your ("our" ?) Casimir church is not promotted, because of the problem mentionned above: with the perspective correction, we lose a par of the sky above, the it looks a bit to tight now, and the compo is not very good. Nevertheless, it was a good example, wasn't it ?
As you can see with my last contribution, I have to work and work again with the GIMP too !! This kind of picture is my next challenge, because I have a lot of historical busts like this one (almost a half dozen) to upload after "treatment", all taken in the castle of Vaux-le-Vicomte, and the original background is ugly a lot. The next one will be Emperor Diocletian, not a great friend of early Christians I'm afraid  !! Vale, Albertus Teolog !--Jebulon (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hello, Albertus Teolog.

Thanks for using my Jesuits ! I feel proud ! But this pic is very noisy... It was just an exeample for showing you what a perspective correction can do. By the way : on your "Userpage", the tower of the Basilica of Lichen Stary (wonderful picture with a very good light, IMhO) is leaning a little, isn't it ? Maybe a little use of "the GIMP" couls improve... ;)
Cicero : you are kidding, my friend, nothing here to be admirative ! I'll withdraw this nomination, because the criticisms are right, and I have to improve it a lot. I found french tutorials on the web, and I understand now what is wrong. I'm going to improve it a much.
I like your lithuanian flag very much.
Kind regards from Paris.--Jebulon (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilno - katedra.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Yes, a little perspective correction can be done but in the right part I think. The Dome and the lines in the right are not vertical. So, with this correction, I find the photo very informative and useful.--MrPanyGoff 11:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Prosby

1. Watpliwosci licencyjne to akurat mozna miec do pierwszego;
2. Drugie jest ok. Duza rozdzialka, podpisane ze wlasne, etc. Wywalilem podpis. Masur (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Wilno - pomnik Giedymina.JPG

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilno - pomnik Giedymina.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 for me --Pudelek 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Wilno_-_pomnik_Giedymina.JPG

File:Wilno_-_pomnik_Giedymina.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Lycaon (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pomnik

Litewskie prawo wyraznie mowi, ze prace pochodne takich pomnikow nie moga byc wykorzystywane komercyjnie, zatem twoje zdjecie nie moze. A wszystkie pliki w Commons musza miec ta mozliwosc. Plik skasowalem zgodnie z zasadami projektu. Masur (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cmentarz na Rossie 6.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Cayambe 08:23, 20 September 2010 (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:
Reliquary of the martyrs of Vilnius.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question I miss a hint about the scale. Are there three complete bodies in this chest? Visible under the glass? --Ikar.us (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not know the exact dimensions of the box. In my opinion, the dimensions are 1,5 x 2 m. In the glass you can see the canvas. Bones can not see. (Compare: File:Wilno - cerkiew Sw. Ducha 2.JPG File:Wilno - relikwie meczennikow wilenskich 2.JPG) Albertus teolog (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, best view of this object. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilno - kosciol sw. Kazimierza.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, with some minor chromatic aberration (green fringe).

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wigry - eremy 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good to me.--Jebulon 21:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chalice Pizino MBA Lyon L689.jpg

Please come back and have a look at the alternates I added, thank you! --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rossa - Lelewel.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Needs a perspective correction IMO--Jebulon 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)  Done Albertus teolog 13:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Good now --Jebulon 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Troki - zamek.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Sky slightly overexposed, but QI to me. --Cayambe 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cmentarz na Rossie 7.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, despite the background...--Jebulon 22:41, 1 October 2010 (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:
Church of Ascension in Vilnius (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Not a so easy choice. The road signs are a bit distracting, and because of the (horizontal?) perspective correction, the central round part with columns look twisted and rather odd. The right tower has not the same perspective as the left one (we can see the side) wich is disturbing because the image is presented as a frontal view. File:Missionaries Church Vilnius.JPG has no road signs and a better lighting, but it is a bit cropped at the bottom and would need perspective correction. --Myrabella (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The camera was placed in front of the left tower, the view is towards the center of the facade. I see the perspective as natural for this configuration. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support OK to me then, best image of its category for the scope. --Myrabella (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with Myrabella's first comment. The perspective correction make the façade as "flat", and parallel to the camera, like a frontal central view, and it is not in fact. A bit disturbing IMO, but not enough to oppose.--Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:49, 4 October 2010 (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:
Vilnius Cathedral (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Neutral I didn't include this because the crop on the bottom is very tight, and the light had deteriorated in the two minutes between the shots. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The tower seems here a bit less twisted and in a more faithful position than in the other similar candidate; moreover, the cathedral is free of scaffolds. The most valuable to me. --Myrabella (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support If not too late, I wish to promote this one--Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Wilno - katedra.JPG: -1 
2. Vilnius cathedral.jpg: 0
3. Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: 0
4. Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: 2 <--
=>
File:Wilno - katedra.JPG: Declined.
File:Vilnius cathedral.jpg: Declined.
File:Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: Declined.
File:Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: Promoted. <--

--Myrabella (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilno -katedra - sw. Helena.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 some small chromatic aberrations, a bit noisy sky, but otherwise good --Carschten 11:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Przełęcz Karkonoska - panorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 po lewej jest potrzebny minimalny crop - widać tam niewielki czarny pasek, powstały pewno przy składaniu panoramki --Pudelek 11:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)  Done zrobione :-) Albertus teolog 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Teraz dobrze. --Alchemist-hp 19:24, 12 October 2010 (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:
Przełęcz Karkonoska.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope, geocoded --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Przełęcz Karkonoska - panorama.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Przełęcz Karkonoska - panorama.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:GDJ2010.19.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:GDJ2010.17.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Plik:Greg5pope.jpg

Cześć! Zobacz może z łaski swojej na stronę mojej dyskusji i jeśli możesz coś zrobić w sprawie przywrócenia tak bzdurnie skasowanej ilustracji to będzie miło. Ja przy takiej argumentacji jaka się pojawiła wymiękam :). Pozdrawiam Klondek (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dzięki. Rozmawiałem z jedną administratorką i stwierdziłem, że szkoda czasu. Progi są tak wysokie, że co mnie żuczkowi podnosić łeb. Pozdrawiam Klondek (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Rossa - Lelewel.JPG

Witam pozwoliłem sobie wprowadzić drobne ale cholernie czasochłonne korekty do w/w pliku. Jeśli Ci się podoba, zostaw, jeśli nie powróć do swojej wersji. Uzasadniłem na stronie z nominacją pozdrawiam Wuhazet (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:GDJ2010.19.JPG

Witaj, nic się nie stało; przepraszam, że teraz odpisuję, ale dziś pierwszy raz od listopada zalogowałem się i zobaczyłem nową wiadomość, pozdr. --Witold1977 (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Paryż_etienne_katechetyczna.JPG

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

Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ilustracja

Hi! Dorzuciłam do utworzonej przez Ciebie kategorii File:Beatification of John Paul II (6).jpg, które MSZ dobrze ilustruje udział wiernych w uroczystości. Pozdrawiam Quantité négligeable (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kcynia - Kalwaria 6.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Wilno

Bardzo ładne miasto, choć moim zdaniem Tallinn i Ryga ładniejsze, ale to w sumie inny styl zabudowy - tutaj króluje barok, tam hanzeatycki gotyk i średniowiecze.

No, a katedrę zrobić bardzo ciężko - przez wielkość tej wieży! Męczyłem się przy tym zdjęciu (czy właściwie panoramie, bo to kilka zdjęć), a i tak tutaj się ciągle coś wychyla. Ale udało mi się z małą ilością ludzi zrobić --Pudelek (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

nie przesadzajmy z tymi wypocinami i z tą sztuką - to raczej ciągła walka ze sprzętem :P niestety, przydałoby się zamienić na coś lepszego, ale póki co jestem skazany na to co mam, co już siłą rzeczy sprawia, że człowiek jest daleko w tyle od większości fotografów na commons --Pudelek (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A hello from France

Hello Albertus, I've seen that you visited France this summer, I hope your trip was pleasant! It's a real pleasure to meet you again in Commons. Best wishes, --Myrabella (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jaszczurka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 a QI for me, thank you -- Achim Raschka 07:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)