User:A.Savin/Archive/2012

Bildnutzung

Moin, das Support-Team hat heute nen Tipp bekommen, dass ein Blog Texte und Bilder ohne ausreichende Lizenzinfos nachnutzt. Es ist auch ein Bild von dir dabei (File:Christian lindner 2009.jpg auf [1]). Nur zur Info, falls du dich bei denen beschweren willst. Die restlichen falschen Nutzungen trage ich gleich in der WP in die Mängelliste ein. Grüße, XenonX3 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke. Immerhin haben sie "Quelle: Wikipedia" vermerkt, oft gibt es nichtmal das. A.Savin 17:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Не расставляйте самостоятельно шаблоны разрешений OTRS. Это должен делать агент OTRS либо участник, который отправил разрешение. Другие учатсники не знают, принято разрешение или нет, не знают, на какие фото было прислано разрешение, на какие — нет.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Я получал подтверждение от Butko User talk:Butko#OTRS Алдонина. И попрошу вас быть с кнопкой отката поосторожнее. - A.Savin 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

В OTRS у тикетов есть статусы: открыт, закрыт неуспешно, закрыт успешно. Хотя волонтёры не всегда правильно ставят статусы. Поэтому нужно смотреть на последнее письмо, если там написано, что разрешение получено и какой шаблон нужно поставить в описании, значит с тикетом все в порядке. Тогда нужно смотреть первые письма, где есть список фото, на которые нужно поставить шаблон и уже на эти фото его ставить.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Вопрос

Добрый день. Поясните пожалуйста почему удалили файл  ?--Ivengo(RUS) (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, Ivengo(RUS), файл по какой-то причине не отображался в категории и на странице описания, к тому же нигде не использовался, я думал, что вы его заменили на этот. Вы желаете восстановление? - A.Savin 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Да пожалуйста. Это была новогодняя версия :)--Ivengo(RUS) (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Категоризация фото RIAN

Здравствуйте. Я смотрю, вы активно занимаетесь категоризацией изображений РИА Новости. В связи с этим:

• во-первых, прошу вас проставлять подкатегории Category:Black and white photography by subject/Category:Black and white photography by subject, хоть сейчас и обсуждают Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Black and white photographs of people;
• во-вторых, предлагаю выработать пособие по категоризации некоторых типов изображений. Подробнее см. User:Ain92/Пособие по категоризации фото времён ВОВ;
• в-третьих, забыл, что ещё хотел сказать. =)

Ain92 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, Ain92. Спасибо за подсказку. При такой массе файлов, конечно, сложно учесть действительно всё, но я постараюсь по возможности. - A.Savin 13:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Вспомнил: пожалуйста, не убирайте прежде времени категорию Images from RIA Novosti needing categories, хотя бы для фото последней заливки. Спасибо. Ain92 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Выкладывание DjVu-книг

Добрый день! Подскажите, пожалуйста, можно ли размещать на складе DjVu-книги, опубликованные более 100 лет назад, автор которых умер более 100 лет назад, которые были отсканированы Google для проекта Google books, и выложенные на archive.org? Например. Поясню: я не собираюсь просто скачать оттуда DjVu-файл и поместить здесь. Я хочу взять там сканы страниц в формате .tif, очистить, ресемплировать, выровнять и т.д. и наконец собрать новую DjVu-книгу в новом, хорошем качестве (кстати при этом все логотипы гугла, если они там будут, отсекутся). Не может ли использование страниц, отсканированных гуглом и снабжённым их логотипом рассматриватся как нарушение какого-либо копирайта? Хотелось бы разъяснить этот вопрос сейчас, до начала работы над файлом. Заранее спасибо. --Kaidor (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Здравствуйте. К сожалению, не могу ничего сказать, так как сам никогда этим не занимался. Попробуйте спросить на форуме, а если там никто не ответит - на форуме авторского права в ВП. - A.Savin 18:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ajami3.JPG

Пожалуйста, удалите остальные файлы, упомянутые в запросе. Это же относится к Commons:Deletion requests/File:Academy at Sisters education.jpg и Commons:Deletion requests/File:200159 185590561485146 100001026119055 485618 1969619 n (1).jpg. Спасибо. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Хорошо, сейчас удалю. Но вообще советую для таких случаев делать массовый ЗУ на участника (по ссылке "Perform batch task" слева от страницы участника), чтобы сразу было видно, что надо удалять. - A.Savin 00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zergelin

Russia - Многие файлы являются архивом СССР, согласно лицензии Template:PD-RU-exempt and Template:PD-BY-exempt авторство на эти произведения не требуется, не нужно удалять, нужно изменить лицензию. Мне изменить лицензию и сохранить нашу историю ?
English - Many files are archives of the USSR, license Template:PD-RU-exempt and Template:PD-BY-exempt the authorship of these works is not required, no need to delete, edit Abcent18 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Там много фотографий, охраняющихся копирайтом, а шаблон PD-RU-Exempt действует только для значков, медалей, почтовых марок и пр. - A.Savin 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Эти 2 файла под подают под лицензию Template:PD-RU-exempt Ордена, и медали СССР. Изменить лицензию и оставить

• File:Medal 50 years of OBKhSS the Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del (MVD) USSR.jpg
• File:Medale of Voluntary People's Druzhina USSR.jpg
• Исторические документы СССР File:Direction at work from Komsomol, distribution to work after receiving the speciality.jpg под подают под лицензию Template:PD-RU-exempt
• сообщения о событиях и фактах, имеющие исключительно информационный характер: (прошол Всесоюзный съезд 1986 г.) File:Congress Of The Communist Party (1986).jpg, File:Congress Of The Communist Party The Soviet Union (1986).jpg под подают под лицензию Template:PD-RU-exempt - Abcent88 09:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Уважаемые администраторы, мы готовы материально отблагодарить за Ваши услуги и хлопоты если Вы возьмётесь подыскать нужные лицензии для сохранения и дальнейшей загрузки файлов СССР (фото плакатов, Пионерской организации, КПСС, Комсомола) , для сохранения нашей истории, которые мы можем потерять. Это не реклама, а благотвирительность с нашей стороны. Для связи E-mail: dsk163@mail.ru - Abcent88 09:20, 7 February 2012

Файлы плакатов СССР можно спасти по лицензии Союзной республики Украинской ССР Template:PD-Ukraine 50 лет - CPI-RUS (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Poster).jpg
• File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Poster 2).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trapiche emerald.jpg

Hello A.Savin, the copyrigth holder told me that she had sent the email to the OTRS, so couldn't you look there if you found it? Regards LZ6387 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am not an OTRS member, so please ask someone of them first, and let me know if they confirm that there is a ticket. - A.Savin 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write to you later again! --LZ6387 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, the OTRS member has restored the picture. --LZ6387 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Usercat

Я отменил вашу правку на категории Photos by PereslavlFoto, потому что это не пользовательская категория. Она создана не для удобства пользователя и построена не по нраву пользователя. Напротив, она собирает категории русского фотографа XXI века и поэтому включена в категорию Category:21st-century photographers from Russia. Пожалуйста, будьте аккуратнее. Если фотограф сам публикует свои фотоснимки под открытой лицензией, он не теряет профессию.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Я вас не понимаю, простите. Я — фотограф из России. Я работаю в XXI веке. Поэтому я и ставлю категорию Category:21st-century photographers from Russia, потому что мои работы должны быть видны в дереве работ других фотографов, наших современников. Вы хотите какое-то доказательство, что ли? Справку из загса о том, что я фотограф? Разве в России дают такие справки?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Вижу, что одна категория не скрывает другую, так что я оставляю оба варианта. Однако я постараюсь лучше разобраться, что такое user categories. Мне очень жаль, что вы не знакомы с вопросом и не даёте мне ссылку на описание таких категорий.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Судя по правилу COM:USER, все правы. Вы правильно отметили категорию как пользовательскую («user-specific categories»), а я правильно ввёл её в дерево категорий, означающих современных фотографов. Ошибка состояла в том, что вы попутно удалили тематическую категорию. Спасибо за повод обратиться к правилу!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

В этой категории - фотографы, не являющиеся участниками википроектов, а профессионально работающие в этом качестве для информагентств и СМИ. Если бы я был не прав, то в этой категории насчитывалось бы подкатегорий как минимум несколько тысяч. Если я на досуге подрабатываю игрой в порнофильмах, то это тоже не значит, что я могу свою страницу участника поместить в Category:Porn actors. Последний раз убираю категорию, продолжать войну правок не советую, вы уже знаете к чему это приводит. A.Savin 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Я профессионально работаю в этом качестве в СМИ. Справку вам принести, что ли, чтобы вы прекратили вашу войну правок?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Переименуйте учетную запись, работайте под настоящим именем, дабы каждый мог вас найти в Интернете и убедиться в правоте вышесказанного. Пока что у меня нет оснований верить тому, что Безымянный Ответ пришел из СМИ, а не из русской ВП, где неоднократно блокировался за абсурдные войны правок. A.Savin 11:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Как я понимаю, у вас есть основания лгать обо мне и приписывать мне чужие поступки? Будьте добры предъявить основания, чтобы мне не пришлось выносить вашу ложь на обсуждение участников викисклада.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Насчет лжи вам бы, живущему в стеклянном доме, не следовало камнями особо кидаться. Считаю разговор исчерпанным, где лежит книга жалоб, вам известно. - A.Savin 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо за совет, я обращусь в «книгу жалоб», как вы её называете. Хотя очень противно, честное слово!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:Stalin-grave.jpg

A.Savin 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Burgerszoo aquarium 1280.jpg

Dear A. Savin, You deleted this file, which was in use on nl.wikibooks. I can't find the deletion discussion on commons (google can't find it anyway) and the reason for deletion you gave in the summary is not clear to me. Can you please give me a link, so I can check why this file was deleted? Sincerely, KKoolstra (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The deletion request was the following: Commons:Deletion requests/Bad quality files with dubious reuse requirements by user:Norero. - Regards, A.Savin 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I understand correctly that contacting the uploader by e-mail has already been tried? KKoolstra (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I see, it was proposed by User:Saibo in the discussion, but I don't know if something has been done in this direction. It was a fairly old discussion that needed to get closed anyway. You may ask Saibo if she had sent a mail to the uploader, or do it yourself, because it is of course so that if there should be a statement by the uploader which would clarify the license question, the files may be undeleted. Regardless of that, you also can start an undeletion request. - A.Savin 22:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Сбитые категории

Расставляя категории по многим файлам, вы в двух местах по ошибке убрали категории, связанные с местом выступления людей. File:Dyma 1288.jpg‎ выступал в Смоленском, а File:Kulikov-2009-5383.jpg‎ выступал в Горках. Имейте в виду. Спасибо!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Я убрал несуществующие и некорректно названные категории. - A.Savin 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Вы предлагаете другие категории?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

О, большое спасибо!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Церковь Воскресения Христова в Шереметьеве.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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,--ArildV 09:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cha_Truong_Buu_Diep.jpg

Dear Savin, I expressed my opinion about the intention to delete this file, it's a real protest. But there are not any more comments since my opinion, so why would you proceed to delete it? Please give me an explanation. Thank you.--Tran The Vinh (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my user name is "A.Savin", not "Savin". The deletion based on this deletion request, apart from the comment by the initiator there was an objection by you which I cannot start with since I don't know Vietnamese. But it was a relatively old file, a fact which makes your authorship as stated in the description rather dubious, and since the same file appears on an external web site it makes sense to assume that you had copied the picture from there and uploaded it here on Commons, which is not allowed here (please read Commons:Copyright). Now, if you really are the copyright owner of this file, please send a confirmation to the OTRS team of Commons (how it works, you may read on COM:OTRS), otherwise you also have the possibility to let an other admin decide in this case; then, consider starting an undeletion request. A file which is deleted on Commons is not deleted ultimately, there is always a possibility to restore if the copyright status should get clarified. - A.Savin 22:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Носик

Приветствую! А зачем вы убрали категории из фотографий Носика? -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Потому что здание МИДа или Б.Дорогомиловскую там можно разглядеть разве что через лупу. - A.Savin 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Так кому-то может понадобиться именно фотография дальнего вида. -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  17:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Для этого существует category:Panoramic views of Moscow, не нужно засорять категории отдельных зданий изображениями, на которых их нет. A.Savin 17:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruslan Khasbulatov August 2011 Moscow.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

Template:Original description

Einmal ru bitte. :-) --Leyo 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

то, что не успел добавить Турелио

я думаю, можно удалять всё без разбора --Алый Король (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Новгород

Фотография Юрьева монастыря требует небольшой коррекции. По-моему, необходимо повернуть на 0.9 градуса по часовой. В любом случае, готов поддержать, красивое фото.
С уважением, Георгий -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Здравствуйте. Спасибо за подсказку, я файл совсем чуть-чуть повернул и теперь вроде бы все там прямо. - A.Savin 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! +1. С уважением, Георгий. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Novgorod - View on Yuriev Monastery from Volkhov 02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Novgorod - View on Yuriev Monastery from Volkhov 02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kashira 10-2011 Wooden architecture 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Coyau 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vidnoe LenKomsomola Street - Trolley04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 light and sharpness. Some (minor) CA to be corrected (wires)--Jebulon 00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

QI

Погодите-ка, это же получается второе дерево категорий внутри Quality images, которое принципиально повторяет первое, основное дерево категорий? Неужели так?!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blue veil

«The blue veil somehow does not impress». Там всё гораздо хуже — дом облицован бледно-голубой плиткой . Но, конечно, remarkable там ничего нету, это самый обычный дом. Я был сильно удивлён этой номинацией: в городе с населением менее 50 тысяч человек не может быть ничего remarkable или notable. Всё, что у нас было существенного, давно забрали и увезли столичные правители (это началось ещё в XVI веке). Поэтому провинциальный патриотизм такая сложная штука. На родине нечего любить, да вот надо, надо!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosneft-azs.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Coyau 18:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reinhold Messner in Koeln

Hi, I would like to nominate this photo of yours for VI but can you tell me where exactly in Cologne was this authograph session?--MrPanyGoff 09:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This was in Mayersche bookshop in Neumarkt Galerie (not sure though if this detail is really that important). Thanks a lot for your interest, - A.Savin 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Yes, this detail is important since Cologne is not a small town ;) I would like to ask you to include information like this in your photos or directly to add a camera location. Cheers.--MrPanyGoff 20:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I do it normally on landscape/architecture shots, but it's rather optional imho if you photograph a person (albeit it could be useful in certain cases indeed). - A.Savin 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ivan polzunov.jpeg

File:Ivan polzunov.jpeg 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!

Anton Chorny (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Названия месяцев

Привет! Не мог бы ты, как адмиристратор, создать несколько MediaWiki-страниц с творительным падежом названий месяцев? Это нужно для корректного отображения текстов шаблона {{Other date}} с параметром between. Привожу полный список со ссылками:

• MediaWiki:January-ins/ru январём
• MediaWiki:February-ins/ru февралём
• MediaWiki:March-ins/ru мартом
• MediaWiki:April-ins/ru апрелем
• MediaWiki:May-ins/ru маем
• MediaWiki:June-ins/ru июнем
• MediaWiki:July-ins/ru июлем
• MediaWiki:August-ins/ru августом
• MediaWiki:September-ins/ru сентябрём
• MediaWiki:October-ins/ru октябрём
• MediaWiki:November-ins/ru ноябрём
• MediaWiki:December-ins/ru декабрём
• Надеюсь на помощь. --Art-top (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Сделано. - A.Savin 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Большое спасибо! Только я сразу не сообразил, что {{Other date}} защищён. Не мог бы ты сразу поправить в этом шаблоне строку

• |ru=между {{ISOdate|1={{{2|}}}|2=ru|form=gen}} и {{ISOdate|1={{{3|}}}|2=ru|form=gen}} <!-- Need Genitive case -->

на строку

• |ru=между {{ISOdate|1={{{2|}}}|2=ru|form=ins}} и {{ISOdate|1={{{3|}}}|2=ru|form=ins}}

--Art-top (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Да, поправил. Надеюсь, все правильно. - A.Savin 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ещё раз спасибо! Примеры стали показываться корректно, значит всё правильно. --Art-top (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

University of Cologne VI nomination

Hi, there are some proposals in your nomination of University of Cologne. Maybe the scope should be extended to Main building of the University of Cologne (exterior) or Main building of the University of Cologne (main facade). The reviewers are waiting for you to decide. --MrPanyGoff 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vidnoe LenKomsomola Street - Trolley03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aachen 11-11 AlbertVahleHalle 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Perepechinskoe02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Notable perspective distortion. --Iifar 13:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Thx, have fixed that. - A.Savin 13:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC).  Support Looks good to me now. --Iifar 17:45, 14 March 2012 (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:
Exterior of Main building of the University of Cologne.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Question It seems that there are two faces to this building, each quite distinctive. Would it be suitable to have a VI for each side? If not, we need to consider which side is more recognizable and better-known. cmadler (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  This one is the front side with main entrance and also the Albertus Magnus monument at the left of it. - A.Savin 18:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Removable  Oppose for the moment. IMO, we should add "Main entrance", or, at least, "exterior" in the scope, like as for churches or other buildings.--Jebulon (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jebulon's remark, is legitimate and I will confirm my vote if the scope changes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Main building of the University of Cologne to Exterior of Main building of the University of Cologne by the nominator. --MrPanyGoff 12:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment OK, opposition removed, but IMO, the scope should be "Main building of the University of Cologne, exterior", as for other exteriors of buildings. So I do not oppose anymore, but I don't support.--Jebulon (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 23:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Blog Feature

Hello,

My name is Elaine and I'm a communications intern with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. We're starting a new feature on the Foundation blog to profile the photographers behind the beautiful photos that become Picture of the Day (POTD) on the Commons home page. Given that your photo is scheduled for 13 April 2012, we'd love to do a short interview with you either by phone, Skype, or email to discuss your work and your POTD.

If you're interested, please let me know by email at communicationsinternwikimedia.org.

Thanks,

Elaine CommIntern (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sleeptracker blue.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Saffron Blaze 13:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khmelnitsky-bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 view --Carschten 14:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg

Корпус объектива действительно такой жёлтый с кремовым оттенком? На образце и другом образце видно, что обычно у них корпус бесцветный.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

да - A.Savin 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Сама по себе фотография оставляет сильное ощущение увода в желтизну. Поэтому я и нашёл важным описать необычный цвет объектива. Надо иметь в виду, что на обычных фотографиях такого объектива он всегда показан с белым корпусом, и этим резко отличается от вашего экземпляра. Это одно, а теперь второе. Скажите пожалуйста, что такое Supported by Wikimedia Deutschland? В чём состоит поддержка? Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Я не использовал вспышку и корпус получился таким, каким его видят мои глаза. Объектив стоит около 2.000€, он мне не принадлежит, а был предоставлен Викимедией Германия на временный прокат. - A.Savin 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Вы написали, что корпус жёлтый с кремовым оттенком. Однако другой участник исказил фотографию, поменял цвет корпуса на белый цвет. Вы согласились с этой правкой и даже заменили свою фотографию его исправлением. Значит, корпус на самом деле белый, как он обычно бывает у таких объективов? Сужу по своему 70-200/4, который нисколько не жёлтый и не кремовый.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:Вид на центр горорда.jpg

And also:

• File:Нефтеюганский порт.jpg

Yours sincerely, Kobac (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

native speaker needed

Hallo A. Savin, ich weiß nicht, ob du es schon gesehen hattest, aber IP 91.122.163.67 hatte einige deiner DR-tags entfernt. Ich habe ihn revertiert bzw. sie wieder eingefügt. Er ist wohl kein einfacher Vandale, da er auch eine Menge offenbar korrekter Informationen hinzugefügt hat.
Könntest du dir - als Native-speaker - mal diese Uploads anschauen. Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Die IP ist der gesperrte Sockenspieler Фёдор Гусляров, der die ganzen Copyvio-Uploads beigesteuert hat. Hier hülfe wohl nur, die Anträge so schnell wie möglich abzuarbeiten, sonst kommt er noch auf die Idee, die aus der DR-Kandidatenseite zu entfernen, ohne dass es - wie so oft - jemandem auffällt. - A.Savin 11:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Der andere lädt Buchcover hoch, laut Inschrift auf den Covern und Beschreibung auf seiner Ru-Wiki-Seite sind es seine Bücher. Allerdings weiß man nicht, ob er der Rechteinhaber sowohl der Texte als auch der Coverillustrationen ist. Sieht auch nicht so gut aus. - A.Savin 11:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up

Just a quick heads up that I have suggested an amendment to the editing restriction on FtO, and have made a note of it here. I am advising you as you have provided an opinion in that thread, and may wish to take this into account if any concerns you may have raised are addressed with it. russavia (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SPB View on Fontanka Embankment.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Good qualityfor me. --Jkadavoor 05:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Óðinn 01:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)  CommentAn isolated version on white with higher contrast would even bei better ;) --Martin Kraft 09:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Moscow GUM Middle Line view from 2nd floor.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow GUM Middle Line view from 2nd floor.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

CA

Помню, вы советовали специальное ПО от Canon для борьбы с хроматическими аберрациями. К сожалению, я не смог найти на сайте Canon место, где это можно скачать. Они предлагают только обновления. Вы действительно имели в виду, что такое ПО существует? Или его нигде нельзя отыскать?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

CD диск в комплекте с каждым фотоаппаратом. - A.Savin 11:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Посредничество\перевод.

Добрый день.
У меня с одним голландским коллегой возникло некое недопонимание. Из-за моего почти нулевого владения английским, я не могу внятно объяснить ему свои соображения и не уверен, что правильно понимаю его. Не могли бы Вы рассудить нас, а заодно донести до него мои слова на грамотном, понятном инглише?
Короче, ситуация такая. Я загрузил на склад несколько изображения одного корабля, в своё время участвовавшего в научно-исследовательской экспедиции. Участник Stunteltje на днях создал Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) об этом корабле, что само по себе отлично, но при этом он включил эту категорию в две другие, на мой взгляд неверные. Category:United States Exploring Expedition там не к месту, так как «Пикок» был спущен на воду ещё за 10 лет до начала этой экспедиции и не факт, что все его изображения имеют к ней отношение. Другая категория Category:Twenty_years_before_the_mast_(1896)_by_Charles_Erskine была создана, чтобы собрать в ней иллюстрации к книге — "Пикок" там есть только на одной-единственной картинке. Когда же я попытался сделать вот это, то моя правка была откачена участником Stunteltje. По вышеуказанной ссылке он подробно объясняет почему.
Stunteltje считает (если я правильно перевёл его слова), что файлы, на которых изображены корабли, можно включать только в «корабельные» категории, а, например, «историческая» категория Category:Washington (state) in the 1840s должна быть убрана, так как «is not correct for all files in the ship-category», что вызывает у меня не доумение. А причём тут, простите, «все файлы»? Я-то ставлю категорию на конкретное изображение, мало ли что может быть изображено на соседних картинках. Может я его просто не правильно понял, тогда объясните, пожалуйста, что он хотел этим сказать? И вообще мне показалось, что коллега Stunteltje действует по принципу: «Чем меньше категорий у файла — тем лучше», с чем я категорически несогласен. ИМХО, чем больше корректно проставленных категорий, тем проще будет другим юзерам найти его в миллионах прочих изображений, тем выше вероятность, что его используют в как можно большем количестве статей и проектов.
Поэтому я хотел попросить Вас о нескольких вещах:
1. Объясните, пожалуйста, прав ли я в этом споре, и если нет, то в чём.
2. Если мои аргументы хотя бы частично верны, донесите их до него на его странице обсуждения, а то я чувствую от Google-translate больше вреда, чем пользы. К тому же вы админ, у ваших слов вес больше.
3. И ещё. Создайте, пожалуйста, внутри Category:United States Exploring Expedition две подкатегории: "Корабли этой самой экспедиции" и "Книги об этой самой эспедиции" (названия на английском конечно). Я в обсуждении писал зачем. Надеюсь это снимет большую часть разногласий. Я бы и сам мог, но боюсь наделать грамматических ошибок. :)
Заранее спасибо. --Kaidor (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Мне кажется, что тут уместно категоризировать как раз наоборот, т.е. категорию книги и категорию экспедиции в категорию корабля, т.к. оба предмета, насколько я понял, имеют к кораблю прямое отношение. Попробую обратиться к Stunteltje. - A.Savin 17:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Видети ли, в этой экспедиции участвовало 8 кораблей (например этот был флагманом) и о ней написаной около десятка книг многие из которых я планирую разместить в вики. Это уже не говоря о том, что будут ещё люди-участники и т.д. Так что главной, я уверен, должна быть категория об экспедиции.--Kaidor (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Я уже написал коллеге, почему я считаю неправильным в данном случае помещать категорию корабля в категорию экспедиции. А вот наоборот, по моему скромному мнению, это можно, причем вовсе не мешает сделать категорию экспедиции субкатегорией всех принимавших в ней участие кораблей. Но это только мое мнение как имеющего часто дело с категориями вообще, в то время как по кораблям и связанной с ними истории я ровным счетом ничего сказать не могу. - A.Savin 17:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Хотя... если, по вашей просьбе, создать category:Ships participated in United States Exploring Expedition и поместить туда Пикок и другие, это будет нормально. Но одно другому имхо не мешает... - A.Savin 17:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Не могу с вами согласиться. У Stunteltje вы написали, что без корабля не было бы ни экспедиции, ни книги. Поверьте, это не так. Там была очень большая ротация во время подготовки и если бы "Пикок" не успели подготовить, то заменили бы его другим. К тому же он погиб во время корбалекрушения и это не помешало экспедиции дойти до конца, а книге появиться на свет. Но дело даже не в этом. Видите ли, по Вашей логике получается, что, например, надо категорию "Вторая мирова война" включать в категорию "танк Т-34", а не наоборот, так как без него война была бы другой. А это согласитесь нелогично. Событие должно включать в себя его участников и использовавшуюся технику, а не наоборот. Разве нет?--Kaidor (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Вы ко мне обратились с просьбой убедить участника Stunteltje в том, что категория корабля не должна быть в категории экспедиции. Теперь вы утверждаете как раз обратное. Разумеется, мне никогда бы в голову не пришло включить Вторую мировую в Т-34, но я не уверен, что сравнение в данном случае уместно. Впрочем, повторяться не буду - я в кораблях полный неуч, и если вы ищете компетентного мнения, вам следует обратиться к другому участнику, имеющему к этой тематике отношение (и вовсе не обязательно админу). Считаю данную тему для себя исчерпанной. - A.Savin 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Я прошу прощения, если чем-то вас задел, но я с самого ХОТЕЛ, чтобы категория корабля была внутри категории экспедиции. Видимо по-русски я выражаю мысли ещё непонятнее, чем по-английски. Впрочем, воля ваша. Ещё раз извините, если что не так. --Kaidor (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:MoscowTVtower-2009-lift02.jpg

File:MoscowTVtower-2009-lift02.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!

89.169.233.209 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Crowded on Category:Musicians with synthesizers

Hi, A.Savin.

On Category:Musicians with synthesizers, almost same images on "Schallwelle 2012" are unnecessary crowded category. In this case, sub-categorization of these group of images is suitable for most people who does not interested on these almost same images.

Please consider sub-categorization of bulk-images to avoid crowding of category. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, sub-categorization should make sense for people who search files, and not be done just to have the superior category as empty as possible. The latter applies for Musicians with synthesizers on Schallwelle 2012. Otherwise, we could take e.g. this file and create several "very useful" specialities for it, like maybe the following: Category:People with guitars on Schallwelle 2012, Category:People using Apple Macintosh on Schallwelle 2012, Category:People from Norway on Schallwelle 2012, Category:People with blonde hair on Schallwelle 2012, etc. etc... - A.Savin 18:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kallmuth Aussicht mit Dorfkirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Vassil 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PereslavlF​oto

Доброго времени суток!
Я не думаю, что пользователь PereslavlF​oto в действительности хотел фальсифицировать Вашу реплику. Скорее всего, это просто нетерпеливость и неумение ждать. Буду рад, если Ваш с ним конфликт будет на этом исчеран. Рассмотрите, пожалуйста, возможность досрочного его разблокирования.
С уважением, Георгий --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

«...не думаю, что <...> в действительности хотел...» -> читайте форум (по желанию могу продемонстрировать еще несколько диффов) и не подобайтесь нерусскоязычным админам, закрывая глаза на явно деструктивное поведение. - A.Savin 19:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File deletion request

Hello A. Savin, sorry for bothering you, but can you delete the file File:Srao.jpg. I no longer want to have my picture onwiki, so can you please speedy delete it? I couldn't find a suitable reason in the Speedy deletion page on commons, and I noticed you were online, so I thought of asking you. (Note: The file is in use only on a private wiki, and I'll fix the red link there). Thanks! MikeLynch (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! MikeLynch (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ddf 11-2011 Kaufhof Hochhaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Yann 06:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhein und Promenade Koeln-Muelheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 good--Lmbuga 20:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krylatskoe-hills.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality for me--Lmbuga 20:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Peterhof Fountains 01 - Big Cascade 01.jpg

Hi A.Savin, Sorry for this file, I like the composition, but I know that the correction of CA is usually not simple. Happy Easter. --Moonik (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The same to you, - A.Savin 10:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rassudovo MZD rail platform.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. (sieht fast nach HDR aus???) --Ralf Roletschek 12:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zosimova Pustyn 02 Wall.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 colors and sharp, but a crop is needed (see note). Yann 08:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)  Done - A.Savin 11:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Good quality. --Yann 14:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vidnoe LenKomsomola Street.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like the composition, quality. QI for me.--JDP90 16:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ddf 11-2011 Pressehaus Rheinische Post.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I had crop a part of the useless foreground... OK - A.Savin 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC) QI to me. DimiTalen 08:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Meschenich-koelnberg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Fine! DimiTalen 15:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alexander Babakov IF MOW 07-11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

Verstaubte Kanadagans

Hi,

die Dinger rühren von Partikeln im Wasser. Sollten sie derart störend sein kann ich sie auch verschwinden lassen. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ja, das wäre besser, da man sie schon sehr leicht mit Sensordreck verwechseln kann! - A.Savin 10:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sind nun entfernt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aachen 11-11 Eupenerstrasse PiusGymnasium.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bf-b-albrechtshof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear A.Savin

Would you please change the image name FH Campus Bad Honnef to IUBH since the university does not use the term FH anymore.

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:
Bogdan Khmelnitsky Bridge in Moscow.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope, meets all criteria. Nice photo! cmadler (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

kannst du mal …

… kurz: Hier ist noch mind. eine Stimme nicht stimmberechtigt Kannst du die streichen, bitte? die AK ist ja in 50 Min. zu Ende. Danke. Ich guck noch mal weiter per Hand durch, der Bot scheint abwesend zu sein. Viele Grüße --Geitost ^diskusjon 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wieso soll ich das tun? Eigentlich ein Job für die Bürokraten, oder? - A.Savin 16:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Weil ich es besser finde, wenn man das vor dem Ende einer derart knappen Kandidatur sehen kann und ich keine Lust hab, da per IP oder so aufzuschlagen. Die Pros bin ich jetzt durch, scheint also zu klappen, wenn da nicht noch Socken oder Doppelstimmen drunter sind. Die Bürokraten können sich doch anschließend noch um den Rest kümmern, streichen kann jeder, der grad ungesperrt ist. ;-) Grüße --Geitost ^diskusjon 16:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Erledigt. - A.Savin 16:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dank dir, die Kontras bin ich nun auch durch. Dann bin ich mal gespannt, ob das nun das Ergebnis bleibt. --Geitost ^diskusjon 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nu isses durch. 184:90. Sollte mich wundern, wenn die Bürokraten da anders entscheiden sollten … --Geitost ^diskusjon 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So schnell war APPER wohl noch nie. ;-) --Geitost ^diskusjon 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Und hat sich in der Eile sogar vertippt und 194 geschrieben. ;-) --Geitost ^diskusjon 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Rhein und Promenade Koeln-Muelheim.jpg

I have uploaded a new version with contrast adjustment. Hope you dont mind... --Jovian Eye _storm 03:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me. - A.Savin 09:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koeln-Muelheim Rheinpromenade und Clemenskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments bit oversaturated but good for QI --Taxiarchos228 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rolf Hochhuth 2009 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Habbelrath-kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Montreal - Olympic Park panorama.jpg

Hi! I rearranged my nomination. The cropped version is the alt version now. I think that nominate is the one you would like to support. The original one will remain as it was, except for the removed plane. Just in case! Kind regards, --Paolo Costa (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Explain in German?

Recently I uploaded some images to a new gallery [2], and today ‎user:NeverDoING moved them all to Category:Celtic spirals. I left an explanation on NeverDoING's talk page [3] explaining why he/she should not have done that, but it seems that NeverDoING is a German speaker, and I am not sure the message will understood what I wrote. If you could help and convey the problem I would be very grateful. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for translating. But user:NeverDoING has now made a number of category moves that seem problematic. For instance he/she moved 'Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth to Category:Historic buildings in Texas' [4], when 'Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth' should have been made a sub-category of 'Category:Historic buildings in Texas' (if it was not already).

Would it be best if I took this problem with NeverDoING to one of the Commons noticeboards? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd try COM:ANU indeed, - A.Savin 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yakhroma-station.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. -- MJJR 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss Bornheim Jan2012 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ddf 11-2011 Media-Tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I would have chose a crop to eliminate some of the shadowed areas but still a nice image of the tower. --Saffron Blaze 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vidnoe Monastery 04 - Bell tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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... suggest FPC. --Saffron Blaze 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vidnoe Monastery 03 - Bell tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Also very nice. --Saffron Blaze 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Hi,

Could you please upload your correction to a separate file? I think it would be best nominated as an alternative. There are comments about the quality. If that could be corrected, it would be great. Best regards, Yann (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, reading the comments by both opposers I get the feeling that the original version would not be really better to them. But - OK, if you prefer it to be splitted into different files (I generally don't; but it's your image), just feel free to upload separately. Note that in my version, I have not only sharpened, but also reduced highlights a bit, and removed some black spots (birds?) in the sky. - A.Savin 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vidnoe Monastery 01 - Cathedral.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 21:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NaturGut Ophoven Dec2011 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit dull but OK. --Mattbuck 00:18, 25 April 2012 (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:
Hotel National (Moscow), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope, indeed.--MrPanyGoff 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olli Dittrich Kulturkirche-Nippes 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Yann 14:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Minsk National Library entrance inside.jpg

File:Minsk National Library entrance inside.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!

84.61.181.19 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Minsk National Library outside.jpg

File:Minsk National Library outside.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!

84.61.181.19 21:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Minsk National Library view deck 02.jpg

File:Minsk National Library view deck 02.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!

84.61.181.19 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Minsk National Library view deck 01.jpg

File:Minsk National Library view deck 01.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!

84.61.181.19 21:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olli Dittrich Kulturkirche-Nippes 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Troll-Abwahlaktion

Hallo,

nachdem nicht mal vor einem Jahr mein Bild vom Schloss Neuschwanstein mit rechtdeutlicher Mehrheit gewählt wurde, ist in einer Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion ohne vorherige Information an mich vor einigen Tagen diese Abwahl gestartet worden Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Hohenschwangau - Schloss Neuschwanstein1.jpg. Vielleicht willst Du dem entgegen treten. Viele Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FOP Russia

Hallo. Ich habe bemerkt, dass sich in letzter Zeit eine IP (ein alter Bekannter?) daran macht Löschanträge ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] usw.) auf allerhand Bilder wegen der nicht vorhandenen Panoramafreiheit in Russland zu stellen. Als ich hier dann weiter gestöbert habe ist mir aufgefallen, dass es noch weitere Nutzer wie Artem Karimov gibt, die produktiverweise zig Löschanträge wegen fehlender FOP stellen. Weist du vielleicht, ob man hier gelöschte Dateien die auf de eingebunden waren irgendwie listen kann, bzw. ob diese bereits irgendwo gelistet werden? Ich kann ja unmöglich alle Artikel die Russland betreffen auf meine BEO packen. Viele Grüße, --Paramecium (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nein sorry. Das weiß ich leider nicht (mit Ausnahme von U-Bahnbildern). Man behält vllt. den Überblick, wenn man die Beiträge des CommonsDelinker in Wikipedia regelmäßig überprüft. - A.Savin 10:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Schade. Aber gut, dann werde ich den Bot im Auge behalten. --Paramecium (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Plavsk Administration building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Imo you can add a bit more exposure. --Iifar 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Please check the new version - A.Savin 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC).  Support QI to me now. --Iifar 17:11, 4 May 2012 (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:
Bornheim Castle, exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kolomenskoe George Church with bell tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss Benrath Jan2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Файл:RU-WP-WikimediaCommons.ogg

Позволил себе нормализовать уровень звука в аудиофайле о Викискладе. А то слишком тихо было, на некоторых устройствах, вероятно, плохо слышно.

Скажите, а почему вы загружаете аудиофайлы в Русскую Википедию, а не на Викисклад? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Не думаю, что это где-либо кроме русской вики может пригодиться. А можно спросить, почему в новой версии появился сильный фоновый шум? - A.Savin 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Не совсем верно, что он появился, он был и в предыдущей вашей версии. Но. После нормализации (см. Audio_normalization) становятся громче и основной голос, и все шумы. Поэтому, если вы будете слушать тише (на хорошей аппаратуре), то разницы теоретически с предыдущей версией не должно быть. Нормализация нужна IMHO, для тихих ноутов или плееров, которые слушают на улице и тихого звука, который был изначально - скорее всего, недостаточно, как не увеличивай громкость.

>> "...где-либо кроме русской вики может пригодиться."

Аргументов веских не придумывается, единственно - наверное, лучше, чтобы всё было кучкой в одном месте. Сейчас большая часть английских, немецких и русский аудиостатей хранится на Викискладе (Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles by topic), поскольку так написано в правилах аудио-проектов. Но я не настаиваю. Настолько редко кто озвучивает, что лишь бы было - а уж как кто оформит и куда зальёт - дело десятое. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Понятно. А как можно избежать этого шума при записи (на домашнем компе, а не в профессиональной студии, разумеется)? - A.Savin 18:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Микрофон получше. Например, у меня гарнитура с одним наушником и неплохим микрофоном Sennheiser MB 25

Хорошая звуковая карта. У меня внешняя (E-MU 0202 USB), я её к ноуту через USB подключаю. И выбираю момент, когда у соседей нет ремонта :)

И еще вопрос. Среди аудиостатей в русской вики большинство - только введения в статью. Какой вы видите смысл в таких "озвучиваниях"? - A.Savin 18:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Очень хороший вопрос. Конечно, озвученная статья лучше чем только введение. Но, сами знаете - сколько это трудов. Поэтому "на безрыбье и рак - щука". Лучше введение, чем совсем ничего. Я стараюсь выбирать из введений статью с двумя условиями: избранная или хорошая + введение подлинее. Надеюсь, что будут находиться герои среди нас, которые будут хорошо озвучивать статьи целиком. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Huechelnkh.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversal of spam blacklist action

A.Savin, please see my recent comments in a couple of places referring to your Spam blacklist action here as "wrongful". I do believe that what you did was wrongful, and I do believe that the Commons community has weighed in extensively on the side of it being wrongful. However, I harbor no ill will toward you. I would just like you (or someone) to revert your wrongful decision. I'd prefer a note on my Talk page if you respond. Thanks. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you would continue editing Commons without giving my request even the courtesy of an up or down reply. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry. My answer ist: the blacklisting was a result of a discussion, not my standalone decision because I like or dislike some particular websites. Therefore, I see no reason to cancel it now. If I did something wrong, one of the remaining 265 sysops will surely correct it sooner or later. - A.Savin 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Могила Маршала Огаркова Н.В..JPG

File:Могила Маршала Огаркова Н.В..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!

PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NC patch cable yellow.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 -- Der Wolf im Wald 12:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gropius-passagen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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! --Florstein 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Вопрос логотип по лицензии CC BY-ND (удалено логотип компании)

Добрый день. Поясните пожалуйста почему удалили файл File:UCMS-Group-logo-official.png "UCMS-Group-logo-official.png". Файл удалён с Commons участником Fastily. Причина: Uploader requested deletion of unused file. Файл был удален без предупреждения, хотя я запросил обсуждени тегом "Обычное удаление", где подробно расписал почему файл загружен с лицензией CC BY-SA и почему проставлены теги не для свободного использования + критерии добросовестного использования.
((Несвободный файл | описание = UCMS Group Logo | источник = Official Website http://www.ucmsgroup.ru/ | время создания = 2011 | автор = UCMS Group ))

((Несвободный файл/ОДИ | статья = UCMS Group | цель = отображение официального логотипа компании UCMS Group | заменяемость = нет, уникальный | прочее = товарный знак,официальный логотип компании ))

CC BY-ND не доступен в вики, но это логотип компании UCMS GROUP было бы идеально прописать теже требования, что и на старом логотипе. Не могли бы вы помочь с загрузкой или аппрувом?
link with discuss http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:UCMS-Group-logo-official.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GerRove (talk • contribs)

Добрый день. По поводу удалённых изображений, почему бы вам не обратиться к администратору, осуществившему удаление. - A.Savin 12:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Добрый день. По поводу удалённых изображений, потому что я боюсь опять ошибиться в формулировке на английском языке и он удалит что-то еще) - GerRove

Invigorator Corset

You had delete the page Invigorator Corset, by that you deleted a important information for the pictures. And and made ​​a lot of dead links. haabet 10:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

QI категории

Вы добавляете категории Quality images для страны и для области. Как я понимаю, это hidden категории, то есть они не видны пользователям Commons. Их видят только зарегистрированные участники, которых намного меньше, чем обычных пользователей. Скажите пожалуйста, для чего нужно создавать такие hidden категории? Кому они помогают?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LEV-Steinbuechel Franziskuskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, but the perspective correction distorted the tops of the lamp posts, especially the left one. Any idea to avoid this ?--Jebulon 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Again: there was no persp. correction. - A.Savin 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Good. Mattbuck 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suedfriedhof Bonn - Grab Wessel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --kallerna 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Khodynka Field 2010 12.jpg

File:Khodynka Field 2010 12.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!

russavia (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schlebusch Evangelische Friedenskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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!! --Keymeulen 11:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LEV-Hitdorf Antoniuskapelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Carschten 11:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kerpen-Sindorf Church Maria Koenigin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LEV-Rheindorf Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 16:48, 18 May 2012 (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 Isidor's Church (Saint Petersburg), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buir Haus an der Kirchenstrasse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 photo. --Florstein 12:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schallwelle 2012 Img04 - Opening 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. JLPC 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stmichael-buir.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Ralf Roletschek 11:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Spring 2012 Tempelhofer Feld.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johannisfriedhof Bielefeld - Kapelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grabkerzenautomat Suedfriedhof Koeln.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buir Evangelische Kirche mit Turm.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, English description? --Moroder 09:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Партия жуликов и воров

I think, as there is meanwhile Category:Party of crooks and thieves protest which is an exact and English-language description of that aspect, the files from Category:Партия жуликов и воров should be moved there, and the remaining category deleted as empty. Do you accept. - A.Savin 07:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But I think it's better to maintain a category redirection instead of deleting the empty category. No need for you to do something, it would be easy for me to do it with Cat-a-Lot. Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:MGU-library.jpg

File:MGU-library.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schallwelle 2012 Img60 - Sonderpreis Schmoelling 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 Possibly some CA in the hair and a bit dark, but ok. --Mattbuck 15:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angels&Airwaves Hansaring 03 David Kennedy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schallwelle 2012 Img53 - Sonderpreis Brainwork 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LEV-Steinbuechel Matthiaskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 photo -- George Chernilevsky 19:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-garath.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JDP90 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Altenbergerdomstr Bergische Metzgerei.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal-Selbach Aussicht HDR.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I was worry about oversaturated colors first, but i think i was wrong. Good quality and interesting view otherwise.--ArildV 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Altenbergerdomstr Rathaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Iifar 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RheinEnergie Rhine Tunnel in Cologne.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Depth of field is not perfect but how could it be in a long, narrow tunnel. QI for me. -- Aisano 20:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laacher See vom Lydiaturm in Daemmerung.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like this lake. --Florstein 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koblenz Seilbahn Wagen mit Bodenfenster.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--ArildV 17:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wedding photography

hi A.Savin,

Would you please be kind enough not to remove the categories I chose for my pictures ? Yes, this one is a true wedding photograph, moreover, it is a photograph of a wedding photograph, if I may say.

at least, you could have ask me about that removal I find not very civil.

Regards, --Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jebulon, just take a look at other pictures of "category:Wedding photography". A couple which is more or less a random feature of the composition and besides hardly to see (donna know if you have eagle's eyes somewhat, I've not and needing a magnifying glass...), does not qualify the image for that rather complicated (I think) genre. Besides, Commons is a wiki project, and in a wiki, everyone may edit everything; so, why should I have asked you before? Sorry, if you disagree, maybe it's better to ask for a third opinion, I would say. - A.Savin 23:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries. The fact it is a wiki does not forbid contacts between us. You don't have to ask for any permission, I agree, but an information should have been appreciated. But no matter for any edit war, at the end I don't care. Have a nice day !--Jebulon (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LEV-Buerrig Petruskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 red, but ok. --Mattbuck 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angels&Airwaves Hansaring 04 Ilan Rubin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 portrait. --Cayambe 09:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 20:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Katharina Thalbach 04-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, especially from that distance and under artificial light. -- Aisano 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Evening view on Little Neva and Exchange Bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Freight trolley in 2nd depot at Arsenalnaya Street.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 16:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Saint Petersburg TV Tower

Hi,

habe gesehen, dass du kürzlich in St. Petersburg warst. Hast Du zufällig auch vom Fernsehturm einige Bilder gemacht? Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Zwar ist der Turm hier ein wenig zu sehen, aber Fotos sowjetischer und moderner Bauwerke mache ich aufgrund fehlender FOP in Russland und häufiger Löschanträge generell nicht mehr. - A.Savin 10:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Stimmt, daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht. Wobei Du die Bilder ja auch auf de.wiki mit entsprechendem Hinweis hochladen kannst, sie nicht auf commons zu verschieben. Das wird ebenso respektiert wie auch im Normalfall kein Löschantrag auf die Bilder gestellt wird. Siehe z.B. auch die Bilder in meinem Artikel Notre-Dame-du-Haut de Ronchamp. Die sind dort seit Jahren unbehelligt und auch ich habe bisher keine rechtliche Auseinandersetzung mit den Erben von Le Corbusier ausfechten müssen :-), was auch rechtlich sehr fragwürdig wäre. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wenn, dann in der russischen WP (wer mag, kann ja gerne übertragen). Diese Stadt zieht einen magisch an, eine nächste Gelegenheit Bilder zu machen kommt bestimmt. - A.Savin 11:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taldom 05-2012 railstation platform.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, very nice, could be a FPC --Taxiarchos228 20:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Evening MV Silver Whisper at English Embankment.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Park of 300 Years Spb - Baltic Beach 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 Teatralnaya Square Agricola Monument.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--Jebulon 10:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Park of 300 Years Spb - Baltic Beach 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 21:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 Korolenko Hotel Ship.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Carschten 11:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Architect

I have been searching the internet for the architect, using the old Finnish and Swedish names. I think the house is described here (unfortunately in Swedish), and the architect was Carl Eduard Dippel when the building was rebuilt in 1897. The article mentions the address Severnyval 3 and the old finish name for the square (Swedish/Finish Torkel Knutsons torg/Torkkeli Knuutinpojan torilla). The old name of the building was Weckrothska huset (English "the Weckroth building"). Regards --ArildV (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And even here http://www.virtuaaliviipuri.tamk.fi/picture.php?lang=en&picture_id=52 .--ArildV (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks a lot. At Yandex maps, the adress is the same indeed. Then, I'm going to make a category for this Eduard Dippell (sic). Really wondering why I have not found this object in the Russian monuments' database. - A.Savin 12:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Straussenfarm Gemarkenhof 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 14:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Umbrella vending machine at Potemkinskaya.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 09:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 House at Ratushnaya Square.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 and nice photo.did you know the architect?--ArildV 11:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you, the architect I cannot name, but it seems that this building is not listed (otherwise I'd saved the photo for WLM) - A.Savin 11:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 19:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bonn Altstadt Old Post Office.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JDP90 18:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Park of 300 Years Spb - Baltic Beach 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Iifar 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

Удаление без обсуждения

"Тут так принято" удалять без обсуждения? --cаша (krassotkin) 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Если две дублирующиеся категории - да, жаловаться можете на COM:ANU. - A.Savin 11:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Т. е. Вы даже не допускаете мысли, что можете ошибаться? Уж не вспомню где, когда и на какую мозоль я Вам наступил, если был неправ, извините, но Ваше пристальное внимание тут, как мне кажется, движимо не пользой проекту, а какими-то другими мотивами, поэтому иногда, IMHO, не совсем идёт на пользу Викискладу. Мне так действительно мешает. По существу, однозначного понятия Бородино в природе не существует, как далее станет понятно, данная категория не более чем плод плохого знания предмета. Есть сотни, порой абсолютно несвязанных полных омонимов и объектов, включающих данное слово и подразумеваемое под ним. Причём, зачастую не связанных вовсе или связываемых ошибочно. Одних только населённых пунктов с названием Бородино в разных странах сотни (включая города). Но даже если мы возьмём очень узкую область того, что известно обывателям и относится к Бородинскому сражению отражённому, в частности в Бородинской панораме, то и тут всё слишком многозначно. У Новой Смоленской дороги встретим деревню Бородино, в котором размещена Бородинская церковь, ранее располагался императорский дворец (всё имеет обширный исторический материал) и в которой к 200-летию возводится огромный комплекс построек (в том числе и музейного предназначения), которые наверняка будут отражены в изображениях. Южнее деревни, через реку Колочь, начинается Бородинское поле, на котором размещены посёлок Бородинское Поле, посёлок Бородинского музея, собственно главное здание Бородинского музей и огромный военно-исторический заповедник Бородино с несчётным количеством объектов для отражения; непосредственно там же, на поле расположены другие деревни и посёлки с разными названиями, Бородинский монастырь и т. п. С юга от поля, у Старой Смоленской дороги размещён не связанный с предыдущими объектами посёлок Бородино со станцией Бородино. И так далее, при рассмотрении даже конкретного, хотя и огромного пространства. Ко всем выделенным жирным объектам существуют тысячи исторических фотографий, картин, книг и видеороликов. Их отдельная независимая значимость предполагает появление уникального материала в изрядном количестве и в будущем. Поэтому, без обсуждения мне не понятно, к какому из выделенных жирным объектов является дубликатом категория Borodino (village) (кроме как деревни Бородино - совершенно отдельному уникальному объекту существующего с XVI века, обладающего своей историей и богатым её отражением в исторических материалах, содержащей объекты, которые заслуживают своих субкатегорий, например, Бородинская церковь и т. п.). Буду благодарен, если Вы рассмотрите эти аргументы предметно и взвешенно, безотносительно моей персоны. --cаша (krassotkin) 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Мне проблема понятна, не первый день на свете живу, так что можно было и покороче. Если деревня Бородино находится в одном месте, станция в другом, поле в третьем, а музей - в четвертом (или примерно так), то мне понятно ваше намерение создать для каждого из перечисленных объектов отдельную категорию без иерархической связи с другими. Но тогда, опять-таки, непонятно, для чего их нужно объединять в общую категорию Borodino, если такого вот единого георафического образования не существует вообще. Тогда давайте создадим отдельные категории, а на месте Borodino просто поставим дизамбиг, вот и весь секрет. - A.Savin 13:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Да, к этому и вёл (к дизамбигу), но не успел аккуратно разнести существующий материал по субкатегориям, да и опыта тут маловато, не быстро получается. Если Вы сделаете так как предложили, буду благодарен, ну или сам потихоньку доковыряюсь. --cаша (krassotkin) 13:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) PS На Borodino (village) стоит ссылка из карточки рувики, хотелось бы её в первую очередь восстановить. --cаша (krassotkin) 13:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb June 2012 Views from Smolny Bell towers 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 and useful!--ArildV 17:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marek Janowski 04-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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! ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 photo, even despite the weather.  Support --Brateevsky 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Views from Isaac Cathedral May2012 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Sharpness could be better, but the composition and beauty compensates it Poco a poco 14:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

LargePNG

Зачем удалять? Это не повреждённый файл, и не в неразрешённом формате. Это оригинал, для него даже шаблоны есть. --AVRS (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 08:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BGladbach-Heidkamp Kirche StJoseph.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Spb June 2012 Views from Smolny Bell towers

Lieber A.Savin, betreffend Deine Spb June 2012 Views from Smolny Bell towers Fotos. Wenn Du die Fotos exakt von derselben Position aufgenommen hättest, könnte man die wunderbar zu Panoramabildern zusammenbauen. Mit den aktuellen Fotos, z.B. Nummern 6 und 7, riskiert man das sichtbare Auftreten von Parallaxe. Grüße -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ja, das Problem ist mir bekannt, und zum Panoramamachen war es mir diesmal ein bissl too much. - A.Savin 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Im Falle jener Fotos war ich bereit, das selbst zu machen, vorher kam aber mein prüfender Blick von wegen Parallaxe.--KlausFoehl (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Views from Isaac Cathedral May2012 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 wunderschön, wie ein Gemälde. --Ralf Roletschek 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Horizon slightly distorted? QI though. -- MJJR 21:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Ralf Roletschek 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb June 2012 Views from Smolny Bell towers 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--ArildV 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb June 2012 Views from Smolny Bell towers 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--ArildV 12:58, 28 June 2012 (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 Saint Nicholas in Schepy, Moscow, exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please justify this building-specific scope. The guideline is at Commons:VISC#Buildings. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think it meets the criteria.--MrPanyGoff 05:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb June 2012 Views from Smolny Bell towers 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Iifar 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 Petrovsky Bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

письмо

Здравствуйте. Можно попросить восстановить файл? как я понял, нарушения не было, просто Стручков не проставил лицензию. Там должно быть что-то вроде PD-Text --Алый Король (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Сделано - A.Savin 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Straussenfarm Gemarkenhof 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 16:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Straussenfarm Gemarkenhof 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 16:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 Old Sorvali Cemetery 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Views from Isaac Cathedral May2012 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 11:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Views from Isaac Cathedral May2012 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 11:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Moskovskiy, 197x. Building of 25, 26, 28 apartment buildings.jpg

Привет. Нужна помощь в восстановлении этого файла. Фотограф, являющийся моим дедом, умер 12 лет назад, так что разрешение на публикацию получить у него лично невозможно. Serguei S. Dukachev (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Кто обратился к нотариусу и юридически получил наследство? Этот человек и может давать разрешение.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Хорошо. В какой форме нужно разрешение? Serguei S. Dukachev (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Serguei S. Dukachev: Если вы являетесь правообладателем изображения, то обратитесь в службу OTRS, направив туда сообщение по приведённой на вышеуказанной странице форме. - A.Savin 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Спасибо. Serguei S. Dukachev (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:PD-Russia

Уважаемый администратор, помогите, пожалуйста, разобрать данную категорию (практически все файлы вынесены на удаление). См. также User talk:Russavia#Template:PD-Russia. Alex Spade (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Хорошо, когда появится снова время на подведение итогов - обязательно посмотрю. - A.Savin 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Tharvesinata.pdf

Hallo. Könntest du diese Datei gelegentlich bezüglich Lizenzierung und Kategorisierung anschauen? Danke. --Leyo 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ich vermute, das ist Bulgarisch ( = kann ich nicht), und ansonsten kann ich keine Indizien für eine URV sehen. - A.Savin 17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ich dachte es sei Russisch… In den PDF-Dokumenteigenschaften ist als Autor „Stefka“ angegeben. Kommt das mit dem Benutzernamen hin? --Leyo 21:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nein, der Benutzername klingt anders. - A.Savin 21:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ich hab's mal mit einem Eintrag unter Commons:Разговори#File:Tharvesinata.pdf versucht, aber da herrscht nicht viel Verkehr. --Leyo 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg June2012 Old Sorvali Cemetery 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schallwelle 2012 Img57 - Sonderpreis Schmoelling 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 Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taldom 05-2012 pharmacy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Florstein 12:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schallwelle 2012 Img32 - Kategorie Kuenstler international.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. King of Hearts 00:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 06.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 06.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 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Fontanka Embankment near Belinsky Bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Ага, так гораздо лучше. Much better. --Florstein 17:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb Views from Isaac Cathedral May2012 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. Could it be lighten a bit? --JDP90 10:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, done. - A.Savin 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Korzhev Geliy.jpg

Добрый день! Взгляните, пожалуйста, на эту претензию. С уважением, Sealle (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Удалил файл. - A.Savin 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Возможный обход блокировки

Святонич продолжает дело User:Актоний Загруженные под этой учёткой фото пошли в те же статьи рувики. Sealle (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Удалил оба файла. - A.Savin 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Domodedovo Cemetery Aug12 img10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JDP90 12:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow Museon Bookcase Aug12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JDP90 12:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yegorievsk Aug12 various 01 - train station.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Fine with me. --Iifar 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yegorievsk Aug12 various 02 - railstation square.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 to me. --Iifar 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yegorievsk Aug12 various 05 - authority.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Iifar 12:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

QI tags

Hi. An admin put those tags on the images. I though he knew what he was doing. Thanks for help anyway.  Daniel  Message  10:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't wait for the checkuser report. When you make such an accusation, please come with strong proofs. By the way, Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on these projects.  Daniel  Message  11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

An account with nearly 20 edits and a couple of QIC promotions, all of which were by random your nominations... Too much for AGF, too few for CU I'm afraid. - A.Savin 21:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then make a checkuser request and stop throwing with unproved accusations! This is degrading for an admin.  Daniel  Message  11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not a kid nor stupid to make an account, upload photos and promote QI images for myself. (What's that big deal with QI after all? It doesn't make you a better person.) If your intention was to shoo me away from Commons, I must tell you that you won! After WLM is over, you won't see me again around here. Best wishes.  Daniel  Message  11:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a wrong assumption about my intentions (I noticed you first time yesterday). But the Right to leave you have of course. - A.Savin 12:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:QI templates

Hi A.Savin,
thanks for spotting this; I didn't actually read the guidelines before adding those templates there, and was influenced by the fact that those candidacies had a green border (which suggested they were promoted at that time). I did read the guidelines afterwards and also did refrain from processing other images after seeing that the bot is responsible for adding the templates.

On the other hand, I reckon that some of those images will be promoted anyway, so I don't think I've done much harm, but I apologise for giving you the unneccesary work in any case. odder (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Domodedovo Cemetery Aug12 img02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Ralf Roletschek 11:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Domodedovo Cemetery Aug12 img09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, interesting and sharp despite a discussable crop, and a saturation maybe a bit too strong. QI anyway.--Jebulon 13:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WLM

Большое спасибо за категоризацию, надеюсь, до конца месяца сможем продержаться.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

И вам прежде всего! Отрадно, что этим вообще хоть кто-то занимается. - A.Savin 09:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Если я подключусь, вы будете обвинять меня в карьеризме? - PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiederherstellung von Bildern

Hallo Alex. Könntest du mir bitte:

• File:TrubnayaStation1.JPG (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Trubnaya)
• File:Barrikadnaya-mm.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barrikadnaya)
• File:Rizhskaya-mm.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rizhskaya)
• File:Varshavskaya station.JPG (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Varshavskaya)
• File:Novogireevo 2010.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Novogireyevo (Moscow Metro station))
• File:Pushkinskaya-mm.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pushkinskaya (Moscow Metro))

für den Export nach de:wiki kurzzeitig wiederherstellen. Falls ich das heute nicht mehr schaffe, würde ich die Bilder morgen Abend auf de hochladen. Ich würde mich dann melden, wenn ich fertig bin. Viele Grüße, --Paramecium (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Kümmert sich dort zwar eh niemand mehr um russische U-Bahnen, aber wie du meinst. - A.Savin 18:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ja, sowohl bei der Überprüfung neuer Artikel als auch bei der Aktualisierung und Pflege des Bestandes kommen wir (Amga und ich) absolut nicht mehr hinterher. Das wäre selbst als Vollzeitjob nicht möglich. Komplett aufgeben möchte ich aber auch nicht.

Die ersten fünf Dateien habe ich exportiert. Novogireevo ist anscheinend ein Redirect. Könntest du die passende Datei wiederherstellen? --Paramecium (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Achso, klar. Sorry.

Autorenmangel dort, wo überzeugte Autorenmobber administrativ protegiert und mit Publikumsapplaus zu Schiedsrichtern oder Projektbudgetfunktionären gewählt werden? Welch eine Überraschung... - A.Savin 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Naja, ich weiß nicht so recht, ob die von dir genannten Gründe wirklich der Hauptgrund für den Autorenmangel sind. In deinem Fall und bei einigen anderen jahrelang aktiven "Power-Usern" sicher schon. Das man reine Diskussionsaccounts oder Leute die andauernd mit PAs um sich werfen und so das Klima vergiften nicht abklemmt nervt mich auch. Selbst wenn dann Accounts gesperrt werden, kommen sie unter neuem Namen wieder (siehe aktuell auch wieder Benutzer Fernrohr/Allesmüller, der übrigens nicht wie mancherorts behauptet wird weiblich ist). Ich denke aber, dass sich 90% der Autoren gar nicht für den Meta-Quatsch (nicht legitimiertes Schiedsgericht, Projektbudget, VM ect.) interessieren und einfach nur in ihrem Themenfeld arbeiten. Das Problem ist halt, dass die alten Autoren peu à peu (aus verschiedenen Gründen) die Lust verlieren und es für neue Autoren schwerer als früher ist einzusteigen, auch weil viele Mainstream-Themenfelder abgegrast sind.

Die letzte Datei habe ich hochgeladen. Sie kann also wieder gelöscht werden. --Paramecium (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yegorievsk Aug12 various 04 - Soviet Street.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Almost the half below part is useless and should be cropped away, IMO--Jebulon 15:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)  Done - A.Savin 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC) A higher DOF might have been better, but ok. Mattbuck 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 07.jpg

Вы уверены, что это Спасо-Преображенский собор? И по нашим категориям, и по sobory.ru получается, что Спасо-Преображенский собор на другой Вашей фотографии, а тут Петропавловская Кирха.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Кстати, поздравляю с изображением дня.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Вы правы. Сорри. С копипастом что ли перестарался? ;) - A.Savin 18:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with uploading an image

Здравствуйте! У меня возникли проблемы с обновлением изображения http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugresha_Wall.jpg В последние три раза, когда я пытался загрузить обновленную версию этой панорамки (с исправленными ошибками склейки), версия изображения после загрузки совпадала с самой первой версией файла, а не с загруженной версией. (Самая первая версия самая плохая.) Не понимаю, почему так получается. Я проверял, что загружаю именно исправленное изображение. Не могли бы вы обновить файл http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugresha_Wall.jpg используя изображение, которое я выложил по этой ссылке?

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9VJxTxbn17hc0ItYk9lN21lNGc

Может, у вас загрузится правильно... Heuschrecke (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, Heuschrecke! У меня с этим тоже было немало проблем, поэтому сомневаюсь, что это поможет. Лучше просто загрузите файл под другим именем. - A.Savin 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• А как быть с тем, что этот файл я номинировал на QI? На него уже написали рецензию (нейтральную, с просьбой убрать лажу). Еще этот файл стал использоваться в http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cloisters_of_Moscow, но там можно будет просто изменить ссылку, да? Я в википедии недавно, поэтому не очень в этом разбираюсь. Heuschrecke (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Да не проблема, просто измените ссылку на QI и в английском шаблоне. А когда все будет готово, дайте знать, я старый файл удалю. - A.Savin 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Сделано. Новый файл http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_panrm_1_edt3.jpg Старый файл http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugresha_Wall.jpg (на удаление). Новому файлу я забыл дать адекватное название. После удаления старого файла вы сможете новому файлу дать название старого, Ugresha_Wall? А если нет, то переименовать в Ugresha_Wall_Panoram? Ссылки я еще не менял. Heuschrecke (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • Удалил старый и переместил новый на Ugresha_Wall.jpg. Проверьте, отображается ли там теперь нужная версия. - A.Savin 19:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • Все равно отображалась старая версия. Еще раз загрузил новую версию с хорошим названием http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugresha_Wall_Panoram.jpg и переставил на нее все ссылки. Вам осталось убить http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugresha_Wall.jpg. Спасибо за помощь и всего хорошего!

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JDP90 18:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isabelle Faust B 09-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 18:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Domodedovo Cemetery Aug12 img04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

N-mar

Зачем вы испортили год работы, своими дурацкими правками? Да, всё было заявлено как собственная работа, а иначе эта система все равно удаляет файлы. При всём при этом, мои собственные фотографии тоже удалены. А как ставить лицензии на файл который сам отсканировал из личного альбома знакомых? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_N-mar

На вашу реплику я могу разве что ответить сразу несколькими вопросами. 1) Почему мои правки дурацкие? 2) Почему вы не высказались в то время, когда обсуждение по удалению было открытым? 3) Если вы не согласны с результатом, почему обращаетесь ко мне, а не на COM:UNDEL? И наконец 4) С чего вы взяли, что если вы отсканировали фотографию из личного альбома знакомых, вы автоматически являетесь правообладателем исходного изображения? - A.Savin 19:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ну во первых, раз и все коту под хвост, во вторых когда было время обсуждения? В третьих все грохнули по вашей рекомендации, а с английским у меня проблемы кому там подавать апелляцию? В четвёртых, как ставить лицензию, если фото принадлежит Васе Пупкину? И в пятых, помогите пожалйста восстановить изображения.

{{Date}}

The changes I was making here were related to request for Slovenian language, but I thought they also made sense for other Slavic languages (they seem to have very similar grammar). Can you elaborate on what was wrong in Russian, so we can evaluate if the we have the same issue in other languages? --Jarekt (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Images which have, for example, "2012-08-28" in the description, had become the Russian translation "28 август 2012", whereas the correct translation is "28 августа 2012" using genitive. - A.Savin 19:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Which file was it? I am curious if it was called through {{ISOdate}}, {{Other date}}, or some other function. --Jarekt (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I noticed on one of my recent uploads. I checked some other files with creation date in August, and there was the same issue. - A.Savin 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:TarasovVI.JPG

Уважаемый АСавин! Просьба востановить фотографию моего деда. Эта фото скан семейной фотографии. Василий Евгеньевич Тарасов http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/~tarasov/

Если есть вопросы напишите v.e.tarasov@mail.ru

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Domodedovo Cemetery Aug12 img05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality for me. --Barras 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Mitte Aussicht von Zionskirche auf Zionskirchstr.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Colours look unnatural (esp. roofs), try to lower saturation and increase contrast instead --Kreuzschnabel 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)  Done Check new version pls. - A.Savin 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC) It's ok, could do with being brighter. Mattbuck 11:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Files in Category:Wiki Loves Monuments

I'd probably add the {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|xx}} template to them when suitable. Platonides (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the exact rules. If you know better, do it. - A.Savin 20:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Не ожидал

С чего бы это вы поудаляли мои номинации на Вики Лавс Монументы, даже те, в которых слово "монумент" входит в название файла.Не говоря уж о том, что и по смыслу объект таковым и является.Возможно, есть на это причины, но так, без обсуждения и объяснения посупать - невежливо (До выяснения мотивации вашего поступка можно использовать предварительно такое выражение). Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 11:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Для участия существует шаблон {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|ru}}, {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|de}} и др. Я спрашивал по этому поводу на СО конкурса, если вы не согласны, выскажитесь там. - A.Savin 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grunewald Tower Havel view Sep12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--JLPC 09:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alexanderplatz

Hi,

habe hier File:Berlin - Alexanderplatz1.jpg das fehlende Bein der Dame und die halbseidene Frau am U-Bahn-Zugang retouchiert. Aber scheinbar hat die Software ein Problem die neue Version darzustellen. Da hilft auch kein purgen ... Komisch. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Kommt vor, da hilft nur, unter neuem Namen hochzuladen. - A.Savin 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Просьба

Не удаляйте, пожалуйста, фотографию со страницы А.М. Васильева (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87), другой, нормальной, нет.

(Конфликт редактирования) Читайте COM:Copyright, и воздержитесь от повторной загрузки файла, который уже был удалён по результатам обсуждения, для этого существует запрос на восстановление. - A.Savin 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Category:Alexey Vasilyev (scientist)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Зачем на странице Васильева фото трио с Лавровым посередине?

Сделайте кроп--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Я нашел исходник и снова загрузил, exif есть, прошу Вас проверьте и не делайте откат. Зачем мне делать кроп, Васильев там не фокусе.

Зачем Вы ставите не качественное изображение, это что принцип такой?

Вените мою фотографию Васильева

Кроп сделан и помещен в русскую статью, на сём дискуссию позволю себе счесть закрытой. Объяснять, почему ваш файл сюда грузить нельзя, не буду, ибо отсылки к COM:Copyright считаю достаточной, а если вы официальную политику Викисклада не желаете соблюдать - это ваша проблема. И спасибо огромное за бесчисленные конфликты редактирования. - A.Savin 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Послушайте, я соблюдаю лицензию, это мой файл, и я указал на это, когда мне указали что нет exif, я нашел исходник и залил на вики, Вы снова его удалил, в чем проблема-то, что Вам нужно поставить какой-то не качественный кроп. И мне не понятно, почему Вы мне угрожаете блокировкой при очередном аплоаде. Будьте добры объясните, в чем собственно проблема, в том, что это не Ваше фото? Мне кажется, что Вы подменяете политику викисклада своей собственной.

Никакой это не ваш файл, вы его просто взяли отсюда. Знаем уже эти фокусы, сотни раз проходили. - A.Savin 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ну это ни в какие рамки не лезет, я создатель и модератор сайта Института Африки РАН, его научный сотрудник и т.д. Хотите докажу и поставлю туда ваш кроп? Мало того, большинство фотографий этого сайта мои личные. http://www.inafran.ru/node/120 Не знаю, про какие фокусы Вы говорите, верните пожалуйста мою фотографию А.М. Васильева.

Не надо доказывать вашу принадлежность к сайту, это для правового статуса изображения не важно. Вы можете загружать это изображение только в том случае, если обладаете авторским правом на него. Доказать это можете, выслав мыло на OTRS. Как это делается - написано по-русски (!) в Commons:OTRS/ru. Там много русскоязычных операторов, они ваш запрос обработают. Я к OTRS не имею никакого отношения. Оставьте меня, наконец, в покое! - A.Savin 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Не надо меня обвинять в воровстве, я соблюдал инструкции по заливке фото и оно там висело, пока не появились Вы, и именно Вы начали удалять эту фотография и менять на некачественный кроп, огульно называя меня вором и угрожая блокировкой, это по-крайней мере оскорбительно. И теперь предлагаете отправлять запрос в OTRS, где необходимо указать url, какой, если все фото удалены?

Если бы вы действительно прочли Commons:OTRS/ru, то знали бы, что указать надо местонахождение оригинального файла, а вовсе не удалённой загрузки на Викискладе. Но поскольку вы, вместо того чтобы последовать совету опытного участника, похоже, предпочитаете обвинять меня в каких-то высказываниях, мною никогда в жизни не сделанных, я тем паче всякую дальнейшую дискуссию с вами считаю бесполезной, а так как вы с этой страницы, похоже, до морковкина заговения не уйдёте, на сём закрываю её для редактирования. Всю дальнейшую коммуникацию поддерживайте с членами OTRS (если, конечно, хотите-таки, чтобы ваш файл был восстановлен). Всего доброго - A.Savin 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 15:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 15:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clou TXL aircraft 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 QI --NorbertNagel 15:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Comfortune

Здравствуйте. Обратите, пожалуйста, внимание на вклад данного участника. Сочетается ли с указанной лицензией такой способ защиты изображений? Sealle (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Нет, не сказал бы. - A.Savin 18:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо. Sealle (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Вопросы

Здравствуйте. Вы номинировали мои фотографии на удаление с мотивировкой "Photo of 1966. Unlikely by uploader, obviously not PD. No infos on author/permission". К сожалению, об этом мне стало известно лишь сегодня, когда файлы были уже удалены. После драки махать кулаками не приходится, но хотелось бы понять на будущее. Поэтому, если Вас не слишком затруднит, ответьте, пожалуйста, на вопросы:

• Что означает аббревиатура "PD"?
• Если я ещё загружу свои фотографии столь же древние, как и предыдущие, то, как и чем я смогу опровергнуть возникшие у кого-либо сомнения в моём авторстве? В частности, в том случае, когда негативы не сохранились, а имеются лишь плохонькие отпечатки.
• И совсем, вероятно, простой вопрос на всякий случай. Всё ли правильно я оформил в связи с этим "Гольховой Владимир Михайлович.jpg", например, рисунком? Или там чего-то не хватает?

Спасибо. --VladVD (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

PD = Public Domain = общественное достояние. 70 лет спустя после смерти автора его работы (в т. ч. фотографии) туда переходят и могут свободно загружаться. А что касается вашего заявляемого авторства... Скорее всего, вы имеете в виду, что вы сканировали снимок из какой-то газеты и этот факт уже делает вас автором, но в этом случае это только производная работа и прав на размещение под лицензией CC-BY-SA вам не даёт. Если же вы и в самом деле в 1966 г. снимали, то вряд ли можете называть в качестве даты создания 2012 год, как это сделали с файлом Башмакова. Если вы это утверждаете, напишите запрос на OTRS, в этом случае файлы будут восстановлены и вся ответственность за правдивость информации переходит к вам. К файлу Гольховой у меня лично претензий нет. - A.Savin 17:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Не сканировал. 2012 год, как дата создания, это, надо полагать, мой "ляп". Спасибо за ответ. --VladVD (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! B-Steglitz Okt12 Kreisel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 20:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Re:COM:QIC

I don't know what I do. If I can repair it, I will... (poor english)

• Sorry, can you help me. I can't understand what I have done. --Miguel Bugallo 21:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't understand how I could do it. I have used the bot to propose images. Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 21:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I just had the same problem. I have deleted text without wanting to delete anything. I do not understand. I have reverted the changes I made. See this--Miguel Bugallo 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, no idea how it comes. Perhaps you should check the changes button (to the right of the preview button) before saving the page, anyway. - A.Savin 22:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Lost data on Quality images candidate list

Any idea what's going on in last two days? History page shows, that we had it many times already. --Ivar (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Asked at Commons:Village_pump#Edit_conflict_issues -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) See also the section just above; sadly, I have no idea what's going on. Maybe a question to Dschwen, but will be ignored probably. - A.Savin 11:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (stroke last sentence, as the problem seems not QIC specific - A.Savin 11:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! B-Steglitz Okt12 Bierpinsel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! B-Steglitz Okt12 Rathaus Detail.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe a little ccw tilt to be corrected, otherwise obvious QI to me.--Jebulon 09:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! B-Steglitz Okt12 Schlossparktheater.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 16:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear A.Savin/Archive, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 20:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Du hast gewonnen!

Du bist Gewinner im Fotowettbewerb
Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Liebe_r A.Savin,

Herzlichen Glückwunsch! Dein Bild ist eines der besten hundert Fotos von Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Deutschland!

Wir freuen uns Dir mitzuteilen, dass eines Deiner Bilder am 20. Oktober 2012 auf der WLM-Jury-Sitzung in Nürnberg als Preisträger ausgewählt wurde. Wir sind begeistert über die Qualität, die Vielfalt und die Schönheit der zahlreichen eingesendeten Fotos – vielen Dank für Deinen Beitrag!

Anlässlich der Preisverleihung und der Abschlussveranstaltung des diesjährigen Wettbewerbs für Deutschland lädt Dich die WMDE herzlich zur Europäischen Denkmal-Messe am 22. November 2012 in Leipzig ein (Weitere Informationen findest Du hier). Wir würden uns freuen, Dich dort begrüßen zu können und Dir Deinen Preis persönlich zu überreichen. Für einen Reisekostenzuschuss und weitere Informationen kannst du dich (bitte möglichst bald) bei community@wikimedia.de melden.

Im Namen der WLM-Deutschland-Jury --Atamari (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WLM-Publikumspreise 2012

WLM-Kalender 2013 mit den 100 preisgekrönten Fotos von WLM-de-2012

Hallo A.Savin,

wie du sicherlich schon mitbekommen hast, hat die deutsche Jury des Fotowettbewerbs Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 ihre Arbeit abgeschlossen und 100 Bildpreise sowie 5 Fleißpreise vergeben. Die preisgekrönten Fotos kannst du dir hier auf Commons gerne als Diashow ansehen. Du findest sie auch im nebenstehenden Kalender für 2013, den du dir gerne im Format A1 (oder auch kleiner) ausdrucken kannst.

Darüber hinaus hat die Jury angeregt, die Community einzuladen zusätzlich 5 Publikumspreise zu vergeben, was durch das Sponsoring von 5 Jahresabos der Zeitschrift Monumente der Deutschen Stiftung Denkmalschutz möglich wurde.

Die über 34.000 Fotos zu Kulturdenkmalen in Deutschland, die die Jury auch nur arbeitsteilig in der kurzen Zeit bewältigen konnte, beinhalten recht viele "Kostbarkeiten". Gerade Dich als einer der Preisträger möchten wir herzlich einladen, selbst "Juror" zu sein für diesen Publikumspreis, in dem du vielleicht Dein "Lieblingsfoto" Deiner Region oder Deines Bundeslandes in den kommenden 2 Wochen nominierst bzw. den auf der Projektseite bereits nominierten Fotos eine deiner 3 Stimmen gibst.

Wir würden uns darüber sehr freuen und sind gespannt auf das Ergebnis, welches wir zusammen mit den genannten Preisen auf der Europäischen Denkmalmesse in Leipzig am 22.11. der Öffentlichkeit präsentieren möchten.

Viele Grüße von Brücke-Osteuropa (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC) (Mitglied der Jury WLM-de-2012)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koeln-Raderberg Aussicht Ortskern mit Kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! B-Steglitz Okt12 Matthaeuskirche Turm Detail.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 19:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 winners

It's a gallery, please don't move it to another namespace. Multichill (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

QICbot

Good afternoon! Я вижу, ты сегодня разгребал результаты недоделанной работы QICbot. Боюсь, завтра будет то же самое - такая ситуация уже была в этом году. Это происходит из-за переполнения страницы, на которой бот и виснет. В прошлый раз это была страница Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Man made structures (размер был 334 860 байт), её просто переместили в другое место, всё "починилось". Сейчас бот повис на странице Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2012, размер которой 743 281 байт. Может быть, не дожидаясь завтрашнего сбоя, заранее заархивировать страницу? --Art-top (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Привет! Да, пожалуй, ты прав. А открыть октябрьский архив пробовал? Я что-то боюсь туда нажимать - а ну как систему парализует ;) - A.Savin 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Пробовал, но открытия не дождался, минут пять ждал... Но у меня инет не ахти. --Art-top (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Вот линк сразу на правку, он не так тормозит, у меня быстро открылся, поскольку картинки не грузятся. --Art-top (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Сделано, надеюсь, что этого хватит на оставшиеся два дня месяца. - A.Savin 19:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Я тоже надеюсь :) Спасибо! --Art-top (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Всё-таки повис... --Art-top (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Шляпа, а не бот. Ну, да теперь и до 1.11 можно перетерпеть (имо)... - A.Savin 12:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Угу. Я сейчас очистил почти всю страницу, 1 ноября будет проще восстановить удалённое, чем опять откатывать правки этого бота. --Art-top (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (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:
Konstantino-Yeleninskaya Tower of Moscow Kremlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Agree with A.Savin. Yann (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I find this one a bit oversaturated. The lamp pole is too prominent.--Jebulon (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support This image is obviously better represent the subject (I guess). Higher resolution, increased clarity and good lighting does matter. --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Scores:
1. Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 15.jpg: +2
2. Konstantino-Eleninskaya tower - Moscow Kremlin.jpg: +1
=>
File:Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 15.jpg: Promoted.

File:Konstantino-Eleninskaya tower - Moscow Kremlin.jpg: Declined.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Pankow Hadlichstr Garbaty.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 14:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neuhardenberg Castle 04-12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 14:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pankow Prenzlauerpromenade Heinersdorf S-Bahn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pankow Wollankstr S-Bahnhof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Long not been there - very nice picture, QI for me -- Achim Raschka 14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Maybe a bit too much foreground ?--Jebulon 14:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC) OK New crop - A.Savin 16:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Much better, IMO, thanks.--Jebulon 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pankow Goerschstr Gymnasium.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe some red CA between pilasters of the pediment at right to be corrected.--Jebulon 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC) OK Removed (at least the most prominent ones). - A.Savin 16:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Thank you, it is good for QI--Jebulon 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirche StClemens Koeln-Muelheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turm Lutherkirche Koeln-Muelheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 but please remove CA on the bell tower, see notes.No geocode --Selbymay 12:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I don't see any CA (color edges) where you placed the notes. - A.Savin 13:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirche StAntonius Koeln-Muelheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Selbymay 12:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:OTRS pending as of 23 September 2012

Добрый день! Не мог бы ты разобраться с этой категорией? Там просроченные файлы, ситуация такая: в них есть шаблон {{MaksymDragunov}}, в котором, как я понимаю, предполагалось разместить OTRS разрешение. Но разрешение не было получено, они "валялись" в Category:OTRS pending - No timestamp given. Я просмотрел все, проставил {{OTRS pending}} с датами. После этого FSIII (насколько я понимаю бот), заменил "OTRS pending" на "no permission since|month=October|day=19|year=2012" и последние три дня каждый день продлевает эту дату. Файлы лежат уже два месяца без разрешения и, если не разобраться, будут лежать ещё до морковкина заговения. --Art-top (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Всё удалил. Только когда же ты станешь наконец админом и будешь сам всё удалять, а не приставать к другим? Не, ну правда ;-) A.Savin 09:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Вот вы предлагаете участнику Art-top заняться карьеризмом. А меня вы в этом подозревали с упрёками. Странно...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Судя по всему этот вопрос становится риторическим :) --Art-top (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

И всё же? - A.Savin 09:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

У меня нет уверенности, что я хотя бы в течении пары недель (сколько там длится обсуждение?) смогу хотя бы на час-другой заходить на Викисклад в спокойном, не дёрганом, режиме. Я могу пропасть на несколько дней, или заходить на пару минут - такой график при обсуждении моей номинации будет неуважением к высказывающимся. Это одна из причин, есть и другие - например, после получения статуса администратора в Википедии я там задержался недолго; сейчас бываю только набегами в связи с Викискладом. Не получилась бы такая же ситуация здесь. --Art-top (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

О май гад... мне бы твои проблемы :)) A.Savin 12:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC) ЗЫ. Обсуждение RFA продолжается неделю, никто никого там не принуждает каждый божий день появляться. ЗЗЫ. Последний русскоязычный админ был избран, кажется, года полтора-два назад, а с тех пор еще и Trycatch ушёл. Единственные два на данный момент приемлемых кандидата не хотят-с. Кто виноват & что делать? - A.Savin 12:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kunstsalon Koeln in Raderberg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Mattbuck 08:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Mitte 10-2012 View from Panorama Point img01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Mitte 10-2012 View from Panorama Point img03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 04.JPG

Hallo A. Savin! Ich habe eine neue Version dieser Datei hochgeladen, bin ich mir aber nicht ganz sicher ob ich damit das Problem beseitigt habe, da ich es ahne aber nicht wirklich sehe. Ich kann mir kaum vorstellen, dass sich um ein Kompressionsproblem bei der Umwandlung der RAW-Datei in JPEG handelt, aber vielleicht eine Einstellung für die Reduktion von Geräusch. Was ich dennoch definitiv vorhabe, ist mir einen neuen Bildschirm zuzulegen, habe dennoch noch klares Bild welches, kennst du dich damit aus? viele Grüsse aus Polen, Poco a poco (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, ja die zweite Version sieht besser aus (insb. etwa am oberen Kreuz sehe ich weniger Artefakte). Am Himmel sehe ich die Störungen weiterhin, obwohl sie jetzt weniger auffällig sind. Ich kann auch nicht genau bestimmen was das ist, aber wenn das nichts mit der Kompression zu tun hat, dann kommt es vielleicht vom Nachschärfen (z.B. "unscharf maskieren" im Photoshop). Dass es mit der Rauschunterdrückung zu tun hat denke ich nicht. Zum Bearbeiten von RAW benutze ich die mitgelieferte Canon-Software und dort stelle ich die Rauschunterdrückung immer fast auf das Minimum, und dennoch kann ich bei meinen Bildern sowas nicht feststellen. Ich würde hier also eher aufs Nachschärfen tippen, zumal die Fassade ja tatsächlich so ausschaut als hätte man sie nachgeschärft. Wenn ich im Photoshop aufs Nachschärfen zurückgreife, setze ich meist folgende Werte: Stärke 100 %, Radius 1,5 px, Schwellenwert 5 Stufen. Ansonsten weiß ich auch nicht viel mehr, kannst evtl. mal bei der Diskussion über Bilder auf deutscher Wikipedia nachfragen. Mit Monitoren kenne ich mich leider nicht aus. - A.Savin 13:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Eine der Änderungen war nähmlich weniger Nachschräfen, ansonsten wende ich immer Rauschreduktion an und das war´s. Ich erzeuge die JPEG mit Adobe 1998 Farbskala und 10/12 Qualität (ansonsten werden die Dateigrössen übertrieben gross). Das Ganze mache ich mit ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), Anpassungen mit Photoshop oder gimp mache ich eher selten. Die Canon-SW habe ich nie benutzt grundsätzlich deswegen, weil man mich davon abgeraten hat, aber ich habe selbst keine Meinung dazu. Danke für deine ausführliche Antwort und viele Grüsse, Poco a poco (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Na ja - zu der von dir genannten Software kann ich recht wenig sagen, aber mit der meinen bin ich eigentlich ganz zufrieden, obwohl es sich beim "Photoshop" in Wirklichkeit nur um "Photoshop Elements" handelt ;-) A.Savin 16:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 winners

Hello A.Savin,

thanks for your kind message! I'm glad to see you're also a winner in your country with your nice picture :) As you, I'm a bit surprised by the discretion of these results. I only learn it from twitter and haven't received any news from wikimedia but I'm sure it will come soon. Good luck for the international contest to you too, and let's continue our work on commons!
Best regards,
--Selbymay (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Nevertheless, as skilled contributor to Commons I like the choice of the French jury much more than of several other ones including the Russian (even despite the fact that a file of mine has won too), so, we'll see the international results, but I see your photo clearly as one of the hot favorites ;-) A.Savin 14:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My congratulations to both of you! Poco a poco (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm late, however congrats for your win --PierreSelim (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - A.Savin 09:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Wedding Virchow-Klinikum 04 Kesselhaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Too much street up front, I'd like a better crop --Moroder 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC) OK New version uploaded, please check. - A.Savin 19:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Good quality. --Moroder 21:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Bolshoi after renewal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --Rjcastillo 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 StBasilCathedral.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Impressive shot, QI to me --DKrieger 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Neuhardenberg Castle 04-12.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neuhardenberg Castle 04-12.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Lustgarten 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 12:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Mokhovaya 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Iifar 12:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pankow Goerschstr Algerische Botschaft.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Mattbuck 12:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koeln-Niehl AltStKatharina.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Kadellar 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Prechistenka 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit tight crop, but still QI --Smial 10:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Prechistenka 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Prechistenka 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 10:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Prechistenka 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Smial 10:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Mokhovaya 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Iifar 14:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Mokhovaya 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 14:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Volkhonka 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Случай Agent001

Скажите пожалуйста, как Agent001'у следовало бы поступать, когда ему угрожают сначала Ymblanter, потом вы? Он ведь пытается разобраться в деле, а в ответ ему угрожают те участники ВикиСклада, которые по сути в деле не разбираются. (Я понимаю, что Agent001 нарывается невежливыми фразами, однако спрашиваю вас не про его хамство.)--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Prechistenka 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Bersenevskaya RedOctober.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Ralf Roletschek 14:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 PertsovaHouse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Ortszentrum Pfarrhaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 22:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Schloss Strauweiler aus Richtung Altenberg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Good quality. --JLPC 13:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Altenberg Hotel Altenberger Hof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Rjcastillo 13:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Altenberg Kuechenhof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 22:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me, well done --Wilfredor 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 12:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 12:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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! --Iifar 13:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Ortszentrum Hotel Zur Post.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odenthal Ortszentrum Pankratiuskirche Turm.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Perspective distorsion --Wilfredor 18:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Not really. - A.Savin 20:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC) I have given a second closer look and I can conclude that I was wrong, I'm sorry --Wilfredor 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Mokhovaya 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Qi for me. --JLPC 17:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Weissensee Parkstr Grundschule.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 18:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Weissensee Gartenstr Neuapostolische Kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 03:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Weissensee Berliner Allee Apotheke.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Weissensee Bethanienturm from Pistoriusplatz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 picture! --Florstein 18:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Year X in Country Y

Hi mate, just in relation to comments at User_talk:Odder#category_removing, I do feel that calling such edits vandalism was a step too far, and I recognise that you have apologised for what even I saw as too harsh a comment to make. I know that some editors use the "Year X in Country Y" categories as being useful, whilst others do not -- I for one do find them useful to some extent -- moreso for event and "uber" categories over individual images. You suggested that perhaps this could be discussed somewhere; would you like to open such a discussion somewhere and drop me a line if you do so, as it would be interesting to see what consensus of the community is able to come to on such things. Cheers, russavia (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to say that it is possible to open a discussion with the toolbox link "nominate category for discussion", which is (I think) similar to a deletion or rename request. And, since I find these categories generally useful (esp. in cases where the image depicts sth. like a cityscape, a street scene, or a building in a certain condition, or an event), I would not nominate them myself of course. - A.Savin 09:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Iifar 12:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FPC new version

Hi! I have just uploaded a new version of my FPC, I tried to solve the noise problem. I couldn't do it sooner. I hope it is better. Would you have another look now, please? Thank you. --Kadellar (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Marguerite de Navarre.jpg

Добрый день, уважаемый коллега. Посмотрите, пожалуйста. Судя по описанию файла, его заголовок и использование в статьях являются ошибочным. Получается, на картине не Маргарита Наваррская, а её родители. По датам тоже так выходит (см. СО файла). Sealle (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

К сожалению, я не знаю французского, но по категории действительно не та персона выходит. - A.Savin 08:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Что посоветуете? Sealle (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Сейчас переименую файл. Из статей, где он используется и подписан как Маргарита Наваррская, его, конечно, желательно удалить (по крайней мере, из русской и английской, все остальные мне лично пофиг). - A.Savin 10:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо! Sealle (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Описание переводится как "Шарль Ангулемский и Луиза Савойская играют в шахматы"--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 10:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 A view from Summer Garden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

fixed the ca issue. Never noticed that myself :)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Beloselsky Palace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Chesme Palace 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit too oversaturated but good to go --Poco a poco 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Apraksin Dvor 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JDP90 04:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Apraksin Dvor 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JDP90 04:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Apraksin Dvor 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 13:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Iifar 09:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Iifar 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice! --Iifar 14:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 14:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --NorbertNagel 19:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 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 The building seems to be CCW tilted, very good otherwise. --Selbymay 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)  Done New version, pls. check. - A.Savin 18:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Better now. --Selbymay 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 10.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 10.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Вопросы по изображениям, номинированным на удаление

Здравствуйте, коллега. У меня есть несколько вопросов по изображениям:

1) По какой причине вы удалили фото Геннадия Краузе (Krauze_portret.JPG) загруженное мной с сайта правительства Москвы. Согласно условиям использования информации портала правительства Москвы все материалы портала могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Обьясните, почему выбранная мной лицензия, не подходила в данном случае, и какая лицензия подойдёт в данном случае?

2) Вы номинировали на удаление два моих файла 1 и 2, также бы хотелось получить развернутый ответ о причинах номинации на удаление? Первое изображение практически полностью мной перерисованно, и с изначальным оригиналом мало совпадает. Второе же изображение, с определенной долей вероятности, сделано фотографом, репрессированным в 1939 году. В ГААО есть некая информация о нём, но очень спутанная.

Заранее спасибо за вразумительную консультацию и грамотные ответы. --IgorEK II (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Правообладатель допускает неограниченное использование изображения в СМИ и в Интернете. Это не является свободной лицензией согласно политике Викисклада, ибо таковая должна допускать воспроизведение любыми способами и для любой (в т. ч. коммерческой) цели.

Насчёт файлов к удалению вы лучше аргументируйте непосредственно на странице обсуждения. В случае с первым файлом это вряд ли поможет (зарисовка -> производная работа -> для лицензирования под CC требует разрешения автора оригинала), а в случае второго - можете сослаться на источник, где утверждается или "с большой долей вероятности" предполагается, что фотограф умер в 1939. - A.Savin 23:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Elagin Palace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 crop and quality. --Selbymay 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 English Embankment 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice. --Selbymay 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rheinbach - Kirche in Wormersdorf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 13:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bensberg Castle front side 06-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Qi for me. --JLPC 13:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 English Embankment 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 18:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality--Jebulon 17:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WLM

Thank you! 5 out of 9 was because the contest in Estonia was announced only in the second half of august. But I was running on the last year WLM boost and started already in the second half of april. So, I had too much advantage in time and I'm not very happy with it. Anyway, it was one of the most interesting years of my life. I saw many beautiful places, where I have never been before and probably will never be again. I drove over 2500 km on my bicycle and many more with trains. Congrats on your victory in WLM Russian contest! Best regards, --Ivar (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and let's hope for a better organization of WLM next year. - A.Savin 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Statue of Lille on place de la Concorde 001.jpg

Hi, thank you very much for review of this file. I've uploaded new version with some jpeg artifacts improvements. Could you suggest me it's ok now, or require more improvements? --Moonik (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better than the previous version, although in the left part there are still some kind of artifacts. Maybe a reprocess of RAW file would do it better. But anyway it's a great shot and already in the current version a good FP candidate. - A.Savin 11:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Fontanka various 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, although the sky colors could be a bit oversaturated --Poco a poco 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Griboedov Canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Moonik 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 13:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 19:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Iifar 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Fontanka various 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments IMHO QI for me --Wilfredor 20:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 14:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 There are some artifacts Poco a poco 14:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC) It's not artifacts, it's because of a sloppy retouche of some leaves, now just have uploaded original version without retouche. - A.Savin 16:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Good quality. --Poco a poco 01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Rzuwig 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --ArildV 20:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 18:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Fontanka various 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment It has some room for exposure. --Iifar 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks, is it better now? - A.Savin 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 06:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MosKremlin 05-2012 Beklemishev Tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Tip-top --Vamps 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, you can increase slightly more exposure compensation. --Vamps 12:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

QI

Вопрос: [14], ответ: [15]. Имейте это в виду, у вас часто бывает проблема с неправильными цветами, когда вы фотографируете в солнечную погоду.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Kirianovo 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice composition. QI --Rjcastillo 13:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Moonik 11:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kerpen Schloss Loersfeld Wasserburg 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 13:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Inside the Passage.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Underexposed? --Esquilo 19:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)  Info Just made a brighter version out of the RAW file, should be OK now. Pls. check - A.Savin 22:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Could do with some more sharpening but still definitely QI for me --Kreuzschnabel 18:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Прошу восстановить фото

Здравствуйте! Извините пожалуйста, что отнимаю Ваше время.

Несколько дней назад Вы удалили загруженные мной изображения, из-за допущенных ошибок в лицензировании. Очень прошу Вас восстановить эти файлы и дать мне буквально 5 дней для исправление. Загружал файлы достаточно давно и к сожалению несвоевременно заметил, что они готовятся к быстрому удалению, не успел исправить. Вот ссылка на страницу, где перечислены удаленные Вами файлы: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:V_timm

С уважением,

--V timm (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Вы утверждаете на своей странице обсуждения, что все эти изображения находятся в ОД и это по ним явно видно. С этим позволю себе не согласиться. Например, фотография сабли явно из современных, взято с сайта музея, и авторские права принадлежат фотографу. С групповым снимком 1925 г. тоже не всё ясно. Вовсе не факт, что он в ОД. После 1918 г. авторское право в России (СССР) защищалось, а фотограф вполне мог умереть менее 70 лет назад. - A.Savin 17:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Касательно фотографии сабли, то это не просто сабля, а наградное Георгиевское оружие, на него распространется лицензия {PD-RU-exempt}, тоже самое относится к полковому знаку Клястицкого гусарского полка. Посмотрите пожалуйста аналоги: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StAndrew_All.jpg?uselang=ru или http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Badge_to_Order_St_George_4.jpg?uselang=ru . Касательно снимков 1920-х годов, то они не имеют отношени к РСФСР и СССР, так как они сделаны фотографами Белой эмиграции в Югославии, которая никогда не признавала существования РСФСР и СССР. Формально, авторское право на на эти снимки могло бы действовать в Российской империи, но такого государства не существует, так же как и его правоприемников. Я считаю, что установка шаблона{PD-Old-80} вполне оправдана и нарушения авторских прав нет и быт не может. Возможно я неправильно заполнил шаблоны лицензирования. Дайте пожалуйста возможность исправить ошибки.--V timm (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Насчёт наградного оружия вы так и не сказали, почему я должен предполагать, что это ОД. Повторяю: сама фотография может защищаться авторским правом фотографа, в независимости от того, что на ней изображено, защищается ли изображённый объект сам по себе авторским правом или перешёл в ОД. Файл Раевский.JPG: не в России ли сделано фото? - A.Savin 19:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Из действующего законодательства Российской Федерации следует иное. Извините пожалуйста, но я вынжден привести выдержки из законодательства которые написаны специфическим языком. Гражданский кодекс РФ имеет следующее положение: "Не являются объектами авторских прав: 2) государственные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и тому подобное), а также символы и знаки муниципальных образований; (п.6 ст. 1259 ГК РФ). Постатейный комментарий к этой статье разъясняет о чем идет речь: "Подобные результаты интеллектуальной деятельности не охраняются авторским правом, поскольку оно направлено на охрану формы, в которой произведение выражено вовне, а творческий характер перечисленных выше результатов и их ценность заключаются в их внутреннем содержании и не зависят от внешней формы." Говоря простым, не юридическим языком, если фотограф сделает снимок ордена, указа президента, государтвенного флага, он не может прядъявить свои авторские права на фотографию. Если сомневаетесь, проконсультируйтесь пожалуйста у юристов или прочитайте подробнее сами: http://base.garant.ru/10164072/70/#412593. Файл Раевский.JPG сделан в Чехословакии в 20-х годах, на груди у Раевского можно разглядеть маленький крестик, это фрачный знак Галлиполийского креста - белоэмигрантской награды, в РСФСР и СССР за такое репессировали. В любом случае прошу Вас восстановить хотя бы часть фотографий, которая не вызывает у Вас сомнения. --V timm (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Конечно же фотограф может предъявить свои авторские права и на такую фотографию, потому что это он снимал. Если я, к примеру, сфотографирую развевающийся над каким-нибудь административным зданием российский флаг, навряд ли вы можете прийти и заставить отдать фотографию в ОД под предлогом того, что сам-де флаг подпадает под ст. 1259. Точно также вы не заставите меня и отдать в ОД, к примеру, фотографию собора Василия Блаженного, ссылаясь на то, что само здание в ОД. Если сомневаетесь, спросите на форуме. - A.Savin 20:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Остальные фотографии восстановлю. Имейте в виду: впредь ни в коем случае не удаляйте при загрузке шаблон {{Uncategorized}}. Или (что предпочтительно) расставляйте категории сразу сами, или будьте так добры оставить шаблон, дабы файл сохранил шанс рано или поздно кем-то быть категоризованным. - A.Savin 20:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо большое за восстановление и извините, что отнял у Вас кучу времени. Посмотрел файлы, пожалуй имеет смысл удалить файл File:Щеголев.JPG он не был эмигрантом, был гражданином СССР, портрет в Русском музее и кто его фотографировал я не знаю, это моя ошибка, этот файл был удален правильно. Васстановите пожалуйста файл Раевский.JPG, вероятно Вы его пропустили, с ним все чисто. Посмотрите пожалуйста, подойдет ли такое заполнение поля "Рermission" http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%97%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_14_05_25.jpg . Если годится, с Вашего позволения удалю шаблон {no permission since|month=November|day=15|year=2012}. По поводу ст. 1259 ГК РФ, то увы, если Вы сфотографируете только сам флаг, орден и т.п., то будете оставаться владельцем фотографии до первой публикации, пока его никто не увидит и не сможет распространять. Потом Вы конечно имеете право подать в суд за рапространение, но дело проиграете в соответствии с приведенной статей 1259 ГК РФ. Разумеется положения этой статьи не распространяются на все произведения находящиеся в общественном достоянии, а только на те, которые оговорены в самой статье. В этой связи прошу Вас восстановить файл File:Золотое георгиевское оружие.jpg. --V timm (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Long Pier, Pondicherry.jpg

Hello, thanks for your question and review of this QI candidate. The black spot was a small flying bird. I have fixed it now and have uploaded a new version of the same file. I would be glad if you can take a re-look. Thanks. --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests/FoP Italy

Hi A.Savin. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. After this request of deletion I decided to occupy my time to list the files with the same problem. I drew up a list of many files to delete. The problem is "no FoP in Italy". Could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! --Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The reasons look OK. I hope you don't expect from me to check every of the files if there's really an FoP issue? ;) A.Savin 22:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

All those files have already a FoP-Italy issue, but maybe anyone could not cover by the no-Fop. Alternatively, you'd know who should I contact to revise those files? --Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I simply would check the files whether some might pass de minimis and then open the DR's. If there are several deletion candidates in a particular category, I would use the "perform batch task" link from the toolbox. I'm afraid, I hardly know any users specializing on files from Italy. - A.Savin 23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I already check the images whether some might pass de minimis. Don't worry, you've already helped me. This list is incomplete and every day I add more. I think that within a month I will propose that page in DR. ;) Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Iifar 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 13:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Some purple CA (notes added), otherwise good. --Iifar 16:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)  Done CA has been removed. - A.Savin 16:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 17:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Good quality. --JDP90 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cj.samson 14:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Spb 06-2012 English Embankment 01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spb 06-2012 English Embankment 01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

COM:MOP

Looks like you made it, congrats. Better start working on a profile! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep it in sight, thanks. - A.Savin 09:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 MichaelPalace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 16:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 13:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained oppose vote

Hi A.Savin. An RFA oppose vote with no explanation from an experienced admin seems quite strange. Can you add a reason for the oppose to clarify? INeverCry 20:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed in the past, I rarely trust someone from Deutsche Wikipedia. Being a member of arbcom there is an even further reason to distrust for me. I don't want to elaborate why it is so, in order not to cause bad blood. - A.Savin 21:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have valid reasons why Krd is unfit for adminship, I think your oppose vote is inappropriate and prejudicial. The vote of an admin in an RFA is a serious thing, and should be based on the individual merit of the nominee, not on some vague dislike of de.wiki. I think you should remove that vote or that we should bring this to ANI to discuss it, as I see this as a serious problem. INeverCry 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's really sad that you will report me on COM:ANU because of a vote in an RfA, and a dangerous tendency for the democratic functionality of Commons. But feel free to do it. I will not remove my vote. - A.Savin 23:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually think what's really sad here is the fact that you voted oppose in this person's RFA based on your own personal prejudice against de.wiki users, rather than on his qualifications. You really think that's an appropriate thing for an administrator like yourself to do? Also, why are you afraid to post the reason for your vote out in the open at the RFA? If you stand by your vote you should do it out in the open, rather than leaving a blank oppose vote with no reason. INeverCry 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

AN

I've brought the subject of your oppose vote and explanation to AN: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Questionable RFA vote by User:A.Savin. INeverCry 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Moika various 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Moika various 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 09:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Moika various 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JDP90 13:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Made two notes about CA. -Barras 15:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Very minor CA, however I've fixed it. - A.Savin 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)  Support Good quality, for me --Dey.sandip 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nørre Vorupør Coast 2012-11-18.jpg

Hi, I've brought up an issue regarding possible ambiguity in FPC closing rules at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria for selecting version?, having to do with one of your closes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for selecting between several promotable versions of an FPC

Hi A. Savin,

Thank you for taking your time to close the FPC for my nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nørre Vorupør Coast 2012-11-18.jpg. A question has been raised about the criteria you used for selecting which version to promote at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria for selecting version?. You might want to voice your opinion there. Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not seen that King of hearts had notified you already. Sorry about the double post. --Slaunger (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Has a slight HDR look, but I like it that way. Good quality. --Tuxyso 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very sharp, good quality --Tuxyso 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 - no doubts. Even the difficult white area of the tower is not washed out. --Tuxyso 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Nevsky various 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, but for me the sky is too blue. In addition the blue of the sky is irregular - did you use a polarzing filter in cominbation with wide-angle lens? --Tuxyso 11:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) 60° north, it's a normal sky there, no filter - A.Savin 11:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Selbymay 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 19:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vyborg 06-2012 various listed 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 21:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kerpen Schloss Loersfeld Wasserburg 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Iifar 19:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Tilt corrected

Hi!, I have corrected tilt problem in this Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#November_26.2C_2012 photo, could you review it anothertime? Thanks in advance, --Elisardojm (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Kirianovo 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 20:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! B-Tempelhof 10-2012 - Teltowkanal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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! --Moroder 13:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kudamm Leibnizstr listed residence.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Coyau 12:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Удалён файл "Река Узола в половодье"

Почему удалён этот файл? Какая-то ошибка в лицензировании? Я лично это снимал и лично размещал. Был бы рад, если б вы его восстановили и объяснили причину такого. Вы удалили и другие файлы, думаю, что вы поторопились.--mr. Анатолий (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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, but why do you not use Template:Panorama to indicate that it is an HDR consisting of multiple images. --Tuxyso 13:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--ArildV 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Вопросы после удаления

Здравствуйте! Я обнаружил, что на странице в Википедии "Зотиков, Владимир Евгеньевич" удалены фотографии. Пройдя по ссылке, понял, что Вы номинировали их к удалению. Мне не совсем понятны мотивы Вашего решения. Так например,File:Zotikov family.jpg и File:EV Zotikov.jpg содержат портретное изображение Евгения Викторовича Зотикова (1853-1913). Я не знаю точно дату фотоснимков, но ясно, что это было до 1913 года. Другие фотографии хранятся у меня в семейном архиве, я их отсканировал и разместил в Википедии, никого не ограничивая в правах на их использование. Дайте совет, что я должен был указать при загрузке, чтобы не возникало желание их удалить. Я полностью согласен с Вашим заключением, что фотографировал не я. Но должен ли я искать тех фотографов в московских фотосалонах, которые сделали снимки в 40-50-е годы, чтобы получить у них разрешение? И являются ли они правообладателями? Их работа была оплачена. Заранее благодарен за разъяснения. С уважением, Opera412

Извините, что недосмотрел с двумя файлами. Я их восстановил и поместил там шаблон лицензии {{PD-old}}. Насчёт фотографий тридцатых-сороковых не соглашусь. Со дня смерти их фотографа вряд ли прошло 70 лет, а это значит, что снимки не в общественном достоянии и для того, чтобы их отсканировать и загрузить здесь под лицензией Creative Commons, требуется разрешение наследника. => Commons:Лицензирование#Материалы_в_общественном_достоянии. - A.Savin 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо за восстановление двух файлов. Насчет фотографий 40-ых годов. Есть фотографии и фотографии. Естественно, я не спорю в отношении авторских работ. Но когда речь идет о походе в "Фотографию" (фотосалон, фотоателье), где Вы фотографируетесь на документ или просите сделать Ваш портрет, фотографируетесь на память, один или с близкими людьми, получаете квитанцию, а потом забираете отпечатанные фото, кто тогда правообладатель? Фотограф? Ведь оформляя квитанцию Вы заключаете договор.Это одна из разновидностей гражданско-правового договора на производство работ и оказание услуг. Услуга оказана, работа оплачена. В квитанции не указывается фамилия фотографа. Указания на то, что права на снимок остаются за фотографом, также отсутствуют. Продукт получен, оплачен, и права собственности на него переходят новому владельцу одновременно с оплатой. Срок хранения негативов в "Фотографии" (40-е годы) давно истек, и они уничтожены. Я в прошлые годы как-то попытался обратиться с просьбой сделать отпечатки с негативов 10-летней давности (я думал, что они еще хранятся): на меня посмотрели как на сумасшедшего. Думаю, Вам понятны мои аргументы, наверное, нет смысла приводить еще и другие. Что касается фотографий File:Prof VE Zotikov.jpg. и File:Zotikov.jpg., они не раз размещались в 50-80 годы в многотиражной печати и в специализированных журналах (в том числе и за границей), просто по решению редакций. Без указания авторов снимков (да они и неизвестны). Никто не возражал, снимки де-факто стали общественным достоянием. А предложение начать поиск наследников фотографа 40-х годов одного из десятков, если не сотен московских фотосалонов, вызывает у меня восхищенную дрожь. Извините за иронию. Благодарен Вам, что Вы дочитали мой опус до конца. Восстановите файлы. В конце-концов, это на благо Википедии: больше информации, в том числе визуальной, только содействует ее совершенству. С уважением, Opera412

Мне кажется, вы просто не знакомы с политикой Викисклада по авторскому праву. Цель Викисклада - сбор контента, являющегося гарантированно свободным. То есть такого, где реально было разрешение правообладателя и всё юридически чисто. А вот с картинками из фотоателье далеко не так всё ясно. Фактически вероятность того, что кто-нибудь по истечении 60 лет придёт и заявит свои права, конечно, крайне мала. Но и для таких случаев действует превентивный принцип. Оно, собственно, вполне логично. Никто не может знать, существеют ли где-нибудь какие-нибудь наследнички, которые не прочь подсадить на бабки существующий исключительно за счёт частных пожертвований проект. Не обессудьте - правила Викисклада придумал не я. --A.Savin 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо.

WLM

Скажите пожалуйста, зачем надо участвовать в конкурсе «Wiki Loves Monuments»? Ведь фотографии можно публиковать и без конкурса?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Йес, при таких результатах Роисся бы лучше вообще не участвовала, а подождала, пока, по крайней мере, Бразилия не выиграет ЧМ по хоккею. А если в общем, с риторическими и прочими вопросами по поводу конкурса обращайтесь не ко мне, а к организаторам оного. - A.Savin 18:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Я обратился с вопросом к вам, потому что вы были участником. Значит, вы знаете причину для участия, ведь вас что-то заставило отложить публикацию фотографий до времени конкурса. Ну, а результаты вполне нормальные при той, прости господи, мотивации, которая есть у русских участников. Меня-то интересует не результат, а причины для участия.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Я в фотоконкурсах никогда доселе не участвовал, и шанс достойно представить Россию на международном конкурсе какой-либо из своих работ - вполне достаточное основание для участия. --A.Savin 19:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Pantaleon Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--ArildV 12:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Nevsky various 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 12:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Novodevichy 27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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! Prenn 12:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Isaac Square 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pixellisation in the sky of File:Torre del Oro flag Seville Spain.jpg

Hi A.Savin.

First of all, many thanks for your so nice pictures of Saint-Petersburg and Moscow. I know Moscow a little, but not SP, and thanks to you (and Florstein, too), I think it will be my next trip choice, even if there is now no more nice building to be photographied, because of your work ! !

Second, I thank you for your review of my "Torre del oro" of Seville in FPC. I've tried to reduce the pixellisation of the sky, it was hard because I did not want to lose some details of the clouds.

Anyway, do you think it is better now ?

Would you be kind enough to have another look ? Thanks again and in advance.

Yours friendly, --Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jebulon, thanks for your comment, and efforts to improve the image. No idea where that pixelisation could come from, but anyway, with the current retouche the image looks fine now AFAICS, so that it's a good choice for the FP gallery.

Glad to see that some of images of mine + Florstein may improve the Russian statistics on QI + FP. Still, Moscow & Spb have significantly less of assessed images on Commons than Paris (for instance), so feel free to make your contribution too ;-) A.Savin 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Selbymay 12:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Moonik 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very sharp, QI for sure. --Tuxyso 16:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

CA

Вы, должно быть, заметили: я пишу о хроматических аберрациях не на всех фотоснимках кремлёвских башен, а только на тех, где эти аберрации хорошо заметны. Мои примечания нужны для того, чтобы сразу показать вам, где именно есть проблема (а судя по тому, что снимков с ХА у вас немного, вы легко исправляете эту проблему!). Поэтому ваше обвинение не имеет оснований.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit of File:Burg-Anholt-Ostfassade-2012.jpg

Hey Savin! Thanks for editing, I think your your edits are good improvements, but I am unhappy with two facts:

1. File:Burg-Anholt-Ostfassade-2012.jpg is not yet in my file list thus it is a FP of you and not of mine. Maybe it is a bit of vanity :)
2. Editing is OK, exactly for that is Creative Commons. But especially with an FP candidate it would be fine to be informed of edits (e.g. via discussion page) and not only via version log.

Do you see a solution especially to my first point? Easiest (but formally not correct): I reupload your version to make it again "mine". --Tuxyso (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Deutsch als Muttersprache. Dito! Ich hoffe ich konnte dir meinen Punkt auch auf Englisch nahebringen. Ich finde es prinzipiell unschön, dass Mediawiki durch den Upload einer neuen Dateiversion, die Datei aus der Dateiliste des eigentlichen Urhebers verschwinden lässt und dann jemand anderem zuschreibt. Genau das ist bei deiner (wie ich finde durchaus sinnvollen) Editierung passiert. Gerade weil es sich ja jetzt um ein FP handelt, sollte ich mich durchaus mit den Lohrbeeren schmücken dürfen und das Foto "mein FP" nennen dürfen :) Das meinte ich oben mit "bit of vanity". Bei allem Respekt vor deiner Bildbearbeitung würde ich allerdings behaupten, dass ich doch den Großteil zu dem Foto beigetragen habe. Oder denke ich gerade schlicht zu eng und ist das, was du im Falle der schönen Burg Anholt gemacht hast, an der Tagesordnung? --Tuxyso (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

German is not my native language, you seem to have confused something. And I have nothing to do with User:Savin.

Naja, in der Language-Box steht zumindest "Dieser Benutzer hat mit einem Muttersprachler vergleichbare Deutschkenntnisse.". Es hätte ja z.B. sein können, dass du zweisprachig aufgewachsen bist. Ich habe dich auch nicht mit einem anderen Benutzer aus der deutschen WP verwechselt, es geht hier um den Benutzer A.Savin, der auch regelmäßig Bilder auf QI hochlädt.

Zweitens, ich bitte um Verzeihung, dass ich grds. aufs Duzen wenig bekannter Benutzer verzichte, da mich das viel zu sehr an die Deutsche Wikipedia erinnert, wo diese Umgangsform nicht unmaßgeblich zu jenem respektlosen Umgang der User untereinander beigetragen haben dürfte, wegen dem kaum noch seriöse Autoren vorhanden sind. --A.Savin 23:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suum cuique. Es widerspricht zumindest meinem Sprachgefühl und dem von einer Wikipedia-Gemeinschaft deswegen siehe es mir nach, dass ich beim Du bleibe, weil alles andere vollkommen gekünstelt ist. Die Tatsache, dass du Administrator bist, ändert, zumindest für mich, an dem egalitären Grundsatz der WP auch nichts. Seit meiner Registrierung in der deutschen WP habe ich die "Sie"-Form tatsächlich noch nirgendwo gefunden. Selbst die deutsche Wikimedia Foundation dutzt die Wikipedianer. Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum du mich direkt mit dem latenten Vorwurf des "respektlosen Umgangs" konfrontierst. Ja, ich bin noch relativ neu auf Commons und ja, mich nervt es (unabhängig von deiner Editierung), dass Dateien aus meiner Dateiliste verschwinden. Du hast ja unten eine gute Lsg. mit Kategorien vorgeschlagen. Genau das war der Hintergrund meiner Anfrage an dich. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Zu Ihrer Frage: Legen Sie sich einfach, wie viele andere hier tun, jeweils eine eigene Benutzer-Kategorie für QI/FP an. Da Commons auf Wikiprinzip basiert, wird es auch in Zukunft nicht zu verhindern sein, dass jemand Ihre Uploads nachbearbeitet und neu lädt. Ich persönlich habe übrigens kein Problem damit, wenn jemand meine Dateien verbessert und mir ist es relativ egal, ob sie dann noch in den Beiträgen auftauchen. Zumal ich eh meine Benutzer-Kategorien habe, die ich auf dem Laufenden halte. --A.Savin 23:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe auch kein Problem damit, im Gegenteil. Ich finde aber, dass es guter Stil ist, gerade wenn eine FP-Kandidatur läuft, den betreffenden Nutzer wenigstens kurz darüber zu informieren. Von deiner Editierung hat das Bild profitiert, es hätte aber auch umgekehrt sein können. Im Worst-Case hätte ich es zu spät bemerkt und die FP-Kandidatur wäre gescheitert.

Gibt es einen Standard zu Benamung von Benutzerkategorien? Mir wäre es wichtig, dass die Kategorien versteckt sind. Würde ich diese dann z.B. FPs of Tuxyso und QIs of Tuxyso nennen? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Случаи CA в обсуждаемых снимках

• File:Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 12.jpg — давайте я тут расскажу, потому что тут можно по-русски. Буду глядеть сверху вниз и слева направо. Фиолетовый оттенок на трубах можно пропустить. Однако на голубом здании между зелёными водостоками вокруг бюстов заметны purple контуры. Там, где белые колонны бросают тень на зелёное здание, в тени ясно виден цветовой шум. Справа на зелёном здании опять зелёные контуры на бюстах, зелёный контур на водосточной трубе. Окно справа между двумя скульптурами имеет по вертикали контуры зелёного и purple цвета. На улице в самом правом краю на светлом автомобиле есть зелёный контур. Вообще говоря, при 160 мм фокусного таких штук быть не должно, однако почему-то возникли. Я тоже удивлён. (А глаз у меня набит на ХА, потому что когда снимаешь широкоугольным шифтом, они становятся чудовищной проблемой. Приходится делать два-три варианта, чтобы убрать ХА слева, в центре и справа, а потом собирать из них одну картинку. Это просто беда.)--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Теперь про File:Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 11.jpg. Посмотрите на ласточкины хвосты слева на стене. По горизонтальным белым подоконникам видны жёлто-зелёные и purple контуры. Это же передний план, вот оно и бросается в глаза. А что W like wiki говорит про пересвет, так я не вижу там никакого пересвета, он что-то преувеличивает. Но в тенях можно убрать шум какой-нибудь шумодавкой, если уж совсем превосходное делать, и потом добавить резкости через high pass. Мне кажется, вы недооцениваете эту штуку, а она здорово помогает на архитектуре.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• На самом деле, может быть, вы опишете свою технологию подготовки фотоснимков? Я прочту и поучусь, или напишу в ответ мою технологию, чтобы учесть плюсы той и другой. Тем паче что у вас и у меня тамрон 17—50 с его чудовищными ХА на широком конце, поэтому находки будут полезны и вам и мне. Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 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 Good quality.--ArildV 17:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MosOblast 05-2012 Prozorovo Nicholas Church 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice shot, but a bit red CA on the top of the church. Can you fix this? --Moonik 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Yes,  Done, hopefully I haven't overlooked something. --A.Savin 20:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Good Quality. --Moonik 08:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Coyau 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Coyau 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Coyau 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 12.jpg

Sorry again. I think it is good now, the "weight" seems to be relevant ! Should be promoted quickly now, as PereslavlFoto removed his opposition.........--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I find the new version very good. --A.Savin 18:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you please explain us the way you improved the image? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your message in my talk

I only saw it now, since i didnt come on yesterday. So, from all the ones your reviewed, any of then was wrong? I closed something wrong A. Savin? Béria Lima ^msg 23:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was wrong. Featured picture candidatures have to run 9 days. If there are at least 10 support votes and no oppose votes, they may be promoted after 5 days. If there are no support votes (excluding the one by the nominator), they may be closed as failed after 5 days. FPC candidatures never may be closed earlier than 5 days after starting, unless they have been withdrawn by the nominator. --A.Savin 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good for QI--Jebulon 16:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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! Moscow 08-2012 Petrovsko-Razumovskoe img02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Ajepbah 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

Hello, A.Savin/Archive. You have new messages at Rd232's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Euston station MMB 30 390026 43062 390010 221116.jpg

Hi. You opposed this image at QI discuss on grounds of CA. I have corrected this, and was wondering if you'd take another look. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Удаленные фотографии

Добрый день! Вы поставили на удаление иллюстрации к моей статье [16]: [17] К сожалению, я поздно узнал об этом и они уже удалены. Фотографии отсканированы мною из семейного альбома, принадлежащего родственникам героя статьи, естественно, с их одобрения. Чтобы корректно их восстановить — я должен указать какую-то другую лицензию, или требуются дополнительные действия? Kulberg (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Отправьте, пожалуйста, в службу поддержки подтверждение, что вам принадлежит право публиковать эти файлы под свободной лицензией, переданное вам наследниками автора. Как это делать, написано там: COM:OTRS/ru. --A.Savin 13:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Тарасов, Василий Иванович

Вы удалили фотографию General_T.V.I.jpg Возмущению нет предела. Вы удаляете личные фотографии из семейного альбома. Прекращайте заниматься вандализмом. It is not "Old photo declared as "own work", probably a newspaper scan." It is a scan of family photo of my dad. If you can see on the wiki article I have a scanned copy of self biography of my dad. It is not newspaper scan it is old photo. Please stop you hypothesis and fantasy.

Уважаемый участник "Baz.77.243.99.32", если вы и далее упорно будете игнорировать то, что я вам написал на вашей странице обсуждения, мы с вами согласия не достигнем, и ваши изображения всё равно будут с Викисклада удалены - если не мной, то кем-нибудь ещё. --A.Savin 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Park of 300 Years Spb - Baltic Beach 03.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Park of 300 Years Spb - Baltic Beach 03.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Russian immigrant home, N.Y. (LOC).jpg

Здравствуйте, коллега. Взгляните, пожалуйста, FlickreviewR там чего-то нужного ему не нашёл; может быть, Вы поправите. C уважением, Sealle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

На фликровской странице стоит, что правовой статус изображения не известен. В америкосовом АП я не очень разбираюсь. У них тоже 70 лет со смерти автора? Если так, то фото 1915 г. теоретически ещё может оставаться закопирайченым -A.Savin 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Нет, там написано: No known restrictions on publication = Нет ни одного известного ограничения на публикацию и FlickreviewR это уже превратил в шаблон {{PD-Bain}}, а проблема у него возникла с каким-то размером: см. size_not_found в описании правки. Sealle (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Thank you. Sealle (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, hast du etwas dagegen, wenn ich die Neujahrsartikelliste übernehme? Es wäre schade, wenn sie gelöscht bleiben würde. Gruß und schöne Feiertage wünscht -- Inkowik 20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ne, nix dagegen. Meinetwegen kann sie auch ohne Wiederherstellng von versionen komplett neu angelegt werden. Aber bitte unter neuem Usernamen und ohne Redirect vom alten --A.Savin 20:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ich hab die Seite jetzt zu mir übernommen. Gruß, -- Inkowik 12:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spb 06-2012 Sampsonievsky Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 oversaturated, IMO.--Jebulon 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I've reduced the saturation. --A.Savin 10:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very very happy new year. -- Joydeep _Talk 18:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Joydeep! Of course you have also my best wishes. --A.Savin 18:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Вы сделали очень красивую фотографию, которую разместили в статье, большое вам спасибо! А не хотите сделать аналогичное фото, только с другой стороны? наподобие этой (это уменьшенная фотография с мобильника). Я конечно могу заснять; но у меня характеристики фотоаппарата хуже, да и загружен я (зачётная неделя) в ближайшее время. --Brateevsky (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Если в РФ введут свободу панорамы, то я с удовольствием вернусь к этому вопросу. Пока что - только в русскую ВП и ровно столько, сколько условия файрюза позволяют. --A.Savin 15:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nicht einverstanden mit Decline von File:Strasse-Menschenrechte-Nuernberg-2012.jpg

Ich bin mit dem Decline von Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Strasse-Menschenrechte-Nuernberg-2012.jpg nicht einverstanden. Das Bild ist erst 6 Tage im Review Prozess, bisher gibt es nur eine einzige Meinung. Die ursprüngliche Kritik ist ausgeräumt (Tilt), zudem ich Moroder-Kritik für völlig unberechtigt halte. Ich habe das "Declined" wieder zurückgenommen und würde gerne die volle Zeit warten, zumindest auf eine weitere Meinung. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Вопрос после удаления фото

Здравствуйте. Я обнаружила, что все изображения на странице, которую я сделала удалены Вами. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Быструшкин,_Бронислав_Дмитриевич Возможно я сама допустила ошибку. Что я делаю не так?... Объясните, пожалуйста... Я хочу чтобы страница была иллюстрирована. Это страница моего отца. Я сделала её в память о нём. Я хочу чтобы люди знали какой он был талантливый человек. Я являюсь собственником его работ. Все фото его работ я сделала сама, фото папы я сама просканировала, взяв их из семейного альбома. В чём моя ошибка?..

WLM Barnstar

My image got nominated for the international finals of Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, the world's largest photo contest!

Mensage send using Lucia Bot 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)