User:A.Savin/Archive/2016/3
Требуется помощь
Добрый день,Александр!Подскажите пожалуйста,как изменить мою старую регистрацию на вики(Miksam69) на новую-"Максим Шанин"?И возможно ли,чтобы старые фотографии сохранялись уже под моим новым ником-Максим Шанин?Заранее спасибо! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksam69 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 02 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Miksam69: Запросите переименование учётной записи на мета-вики, meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Технически, в журнале загрузок, старые фотграфии будут под новым именем, но заменить старое на новое имя в описании файлов придётся самостоятельно, но процесс можно автоматизировать с помощью VisualFileChange. --A.Savin 19:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Einladung zur Teilnahme an Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland
Hallo A.Savin!
Du erhältst diese Nachricht, weil du bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 teilgenommen hast.
Auch in diesem Jahr beteiligt sich Deutschland wieder am internationalen Fotowettbewerb rund um Bau- und Kulturdenkmale. Bisher wurden bereits mehr als 18.000 Bilder hochgeladen – und wir würden uns sehr über weitere Bilder von Dir freuen. Noch bis zum 30. September 2016 kannst Du Deine Bilder hochladen. Alles Wissenswerte erfährst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.
Außerdem möchten wir Dich einladen, ab 12. September 2016 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese sichtet und bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland.
Für Rückfragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite oder unter info
wikilovesmonuments.de zur Verfügung.
Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams
(DCB, 18:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
Merchandise Giveaway Nomination - Successful
Hey A.Savin
You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!
Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.
Thanks! Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Heligoland photos
Hi, A.Savin. I'm enjoying looking at your Heligoland photos at QIC. So far, I like this one best, and this one is quite good, too. I think both can be good FP candidates, but just a touch more denoising could be helpful.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, this was my thought too to nominate #15 some day. I think there is everything fine with the noise. The other one, maybe later I'll do some other version, but at the moment I have to get in time the WLM uploads (no time for other uploads). Thanks --A.Savin 08:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course. All in due time. And meanwhile, I'm seeing some other featurable pictures of Heligoland in your latest QI nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
FoP-Russia
Hi A.Savin-
By your mass changes in my recently uploaded files I can see that there must be something I am missing about when to use FoP-Russia... What have I done wrong? Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Godot13: It is just that the template {{FoP-Russia}} (+Category:FoP-Russia) only making sense for contemporary architecture, whereas anything built in Russia before 1918 or where the architect has been dead for 70 or more years is Public domain anyway. (I did not remove the template from Krestovsky Stadium, for example.) --A.Savin 21:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Block NeverDoing
Hi Alexander! I should have talked to you first before reverting your block. Frankly, that wasn't my best idea. Sorry. 
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Upsampled
Здравствуйте. Я на счет QI. В общем понимаю, о чем речь, хоть и не знакомо слово «upsampled». Вас насторожило, что мегапикселей больше чем в самом фотоаппарате? Я могу объяснить. Каждая фотография склеена из двух частей. Одна даже из трех. Я могу продемонстрировать исходные. В чем моя ошибка?--Aeou 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Если вы не помечаете файл шаблоном {{Panorama}}, то откуда мне знать, что это склеенная панорама? Возьмём File:1 Stryiska Street, Lviv (03).jpg - 4438x4459 пикселей, а макс. разрешение камеры - 4928x3264, к тому же, в полном разрешении там всё нерезко, небо всё в пикселях. Для меня не качественное фото. Вообще не вижу смысла тут делать панораму (ваши несклеенные фото обычно куда лучшего качества), но если уж делать, то профессионально. --A.Savin 10:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Titanic II.jpg
Здравствуйте, Александр! Не могли бы вы проверить этот файл (или подсказать к кому обратиться по данному вопросу)? Бот FlickreviewR не подтвердил, что данное изображение лицензировано в соответствии с условиями cc-by-2.0, т.к. не смог определить его правовой статус. Если не ошибаюсь, это могло произойти из-за того, что я поспешил с использованием CropTool, не дождавшись проверки ботом. С уважением, Александр Танчугин (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo28.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo04 Water 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.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo06 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo17 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo24 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo30 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo02 Karl-Olfers-Platz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo09 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo11 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo22 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo29 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo03 Hermine.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo10 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo19 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! North Sea watercraft between Heligoland and CUX - photo1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! North Sea watercraft between Heligoland and CUX - photo2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! North Sea watercraft between Heligoland and CUX - photo3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! North Sea watercraft between Heligoland and CUX - photo4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! North Sea watercraft between Heligoland and CUX - photo5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo01 Haus Marienstr50.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo32 railway 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo18 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo15 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Категоризация
Здравствуйте! Подскажите, пожалуйста, на Складе есть правило, что файл/категория не должен быть одновременно размещен в категории и ее родительской? Конкретная ситуация. В категории Category:Moscow_Central_Ring_Railway есть ряд старых станций МКЖД. На их основе были построены новые платформы МЦК, категории по которым входят в категории по старым станциям. Также категории по новым платформам (многие, но вроде бы не все) были включены в указанную головную категорию. Я прошелся и удалил эту избыточную категоризацию (см. здесь по слову HotCat), основываясь на том, что такое правило есть в руВП, а потом засомневался. --Michgrig (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Michgrig: Это правило - COM:OVERCAT. Что касается конкретно станций МЦК, то категории по типу Category:Likhobory (Moscow Little Ring Railway station) на данный момент это правило не нарушают. Тем не менее, чтобы насколько возможно избежать путаницы, я бы тут работал несколько иначе. Для старых, недействующих станций - общая категория типа "Historical stations of Moscow (Little) Ring Railway". Для новых ОП - "Stations of Moscow Central Circle". Обе поместить в категорию "Stations of Moscow Ring Railway", а вторую - ещё и в "Moscow Central Circle", являющуюся подкатегорией "Moscow Ring Railway". Ещё есть вариант не морочиться особо с двумя параллельными категориями, а сделать всё на основе MCC, а всё что на кольце было ранее - в подкатегорию первого уровня "History of Moscow Central Circle". Лично я именно такой вариант предпочёл бы, но раз в русской википедии это разделение с двумя отдельными статьями считают принципиально важным, то ничего не попишешь, скорее всего придётся так оставить. --A.Savin 21:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Спасибо. Я примерно так и сделал. Категорию, включающую новые станции, переименовал в Category:Stations of Moscow Central Circle и создал новую категорию Category:Historical stations of Moscow Little Ring Railway. --Michgrig (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo08 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo05 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo14 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo16 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo28 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo07 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo12 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo20 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo26 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo27 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Reg. Chromatic Aberration
Hello and good day! You found some Chromatic Aberrations in the pic
. Can you please provide an annotation at the places where the you have observed the CAs? Thanks in advance! Nikhil (talk)
- @Nikhilb239: You can see some CA on the stones on top and edges. It is very easy to remove them from RAW data using Lightroom or the camera's converter. --A.Savin 15:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: Tried fixing CAs. Can you please check? Thanks. Nikhil (talk)
@A.Savin: Sorry for bothering you. I uploaded an improved version with a slight increase in contrast. Can you please check? Thanks. Nikhil (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Heligoland 07-2016 photo25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo13 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo21 port area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo23 Kugelbake.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo25 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo31 Outer Elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
DRs
Hi A.Savin, I wasn't aware lthe user requested to be indeffed but was it really a good idea to delete all of their files ?, They could've served a purpose here and atleast to me they've been wiped all because they've had a 5 minute tantrum,
I really don't mean to make a mountain of a molehill but IMHO they shouldn't of been wiped at all,
I'm not dragging you to any board none of that crap - I just disagree with the deletions,
Thanks and have a great weekend, –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- This was COM:Courtesy deletion, none of the files was used anywhere (I checked), none was in any category. If you think they're still in COM:SCOPE, you are free to request undeletion at COM:UDEL. --A.Savin 18:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I could've swore they were used elsewhere but maybe I misread something, I was just worried we had lost something useful but it'd seem stupid to go through undelete just to find out they could well be of no use here, As I said I have no idea of the subject so they me useless here, Ah well thanks for replying anyway :), Have a great weekend. –Davey2010Talk 19:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Block
Was two different admins saying you were out of line not clear enough? Reventtalk 00:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Both INC and Jacek Halicki stated themselves about disability. I really don't know what's wrong here, I didn't intend to offend anyone. --A.Savin 00:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- You have the right to defend yourself and you were right at the beginning, but IMO you were too far. Many time several administrators said you to calm down, you were not able to do so. As a friend I am clearly sad, but as an administrator I support the block. Christian Ferrer (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot be a friend, as I don't know you. Again: Both INC and Jacek Halicki stated on their user page or a discussion page that they have some diseases. So, this is a public information. INC himself even stated that the sysop bit is a problem for his health. What's wrong? --A.Savin 00:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am just passing by and not really interested in all this drama, but I tried to find which comment by Alexander could trigger such a reaction, and I did not see any. It would be good if block actions are supported by clear evidence. Otherwise, it looks like you and some other sysops simply use all possible tools for defending their ill-behaving friend and playing some political games. --Alexander (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Revision of User talk:INeverCry says it better than I can. I would have reverted you the first time, if he had not done it first, for exactly that reason. If you think we should get serious about showing respect to people with mental health issues, then you should figure out what really is hurtful. Reventtalk 00:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: What's wrong? is that you use that. Also you contributed widely to escalate conflict. Despite several warnings for not to do so. That alone justify the block. Christian Ferrer (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: In this diff link, INC just says I would "joke" about someone's disablities, which is not true (what a surprise). The disputed comment is this one, but there are only things said that already known to public (epilepsy, bi-polar, and panic disorder,) and there was no intention to offend INC or anyone else. The offences by INC against me tonight were much more heavy. --A.Savin 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Atsirlin: Of course it is a purely punitive block, as I haven't done any damage to anything nor anyone, but just said something which was known anyway. But nevermind. I have already uploaded all I wanted to upload to WLM. A block yesterday or last week would have caused much more damage. --A.Savin 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The relevant work is 'taunt', and that's exactly how I took it the first time you said it, before INC said anything. You used a mental issue as a 'weapon' against him after he had already apologized and asked to resign, stating mental health issues as a reason. If you did not realize what you were doing, then you need to learn a lot more about how to deal with people with mental health problems before you try to tell others how to do so. Reventtalk 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I pondered how to explain this for a bit, and there are two different ways.
- INC said, at ANU, that he would stay away from you if you left him alone. You response was to say that he 'simply cannot let it be', and accused him of 'wikihounding' you. You then followed him to BN, to respond in a thread where you were not mentioned, to comment on him. You then followed him to his talk page.
- If a person with admitted mental health problems makes a statement about the severity of those problems, and how they are making him feel incapable, the last thing you do is say 'yeah, you're really messed up', or anything similar. When you see that person, immediately afterward, say that they think you were 'taunting them' or 'joking about their disabilities', (especially if two different people agree that you were out of line the first time), you definitely don't say something that questions the validity of those feelings, in front of them. You either sincerely apologize, or you shut up and go the hell somewhere else.
You say that people with mental health problems are welcome, and I'm pretty sure you actually mean it, but you were acting in exactly the wrong way to make that accurate. This block isn't punitive, it's to make you stay away from him, and you can be unblocked if you either agree to do so, or make it clear that you now understand what the problem is and sincerely apologize. Reventtalk 02:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've just now seen the last comment you made on INC's talk (less than a minute before I blocked you, wonderful timing) and his acceptance of it. I'm going to unblock you based on that, since it's apparently not needed to keep you apart, but I hope you'll seriously consider what I said. Reventtalk 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment I've cold and too tired to edit; but had noticed this unfortunate incident in the morning (here). From Taivo's comment, I guess Alex's oppose vote is related to Crimea issue, one I'm well aware of. I've not much knowledge about what had happened in de wiki; but I know Alex was very badly attacked several times. Without knowing actual reasons, there is no meaning in questioning why he oppose DE users (if true). Here in this case, INC mis-predict the reason and ended up in a dispute/edit-war. My suggestion to INC to avoid over-guessing and avoid demanding too much explanations, especially in matters related to off-Commons. And my suggestion to Alex is to avoid edit-war on matters directly related to him and leave it to others. Jee 10:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- My vote was related to several issues. They all regarding Krassotkin and his activities, not INC and not German sysops. --A.Savin 11:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear oversighters Odder, PierreSelim, and Rama. I hereby kindly request you to hide this block from my block log. The fact is, that I was blocked for harassment, but I didn't harass anyone, nor did I have any intention to do. All is described in this section above. I was harassed by an other user and sysop last night, so I occasionally used some harsh statements, maybe I shouldn't have done t, but that's all. I have been user for ten years and sysop for nine years here, never blocked previously. Dubious "Intimidation/harassment" entries are evil for me, as I am using my real name here. Thank you. --A.Savin 11:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- [1], [2], [3] Battle low-level but certainly not the acts of a gentleman. This is clearly aggressive and in order to be unpleasant, what can we call that? harassment? maybe you will say it's me who harass you, yes indeed, but it will be hard for me to go so far as you, as you pushed out INC...Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Christian Ferrer, I sincerely think that today it is you who harassing me. Yesterday it was INC because he actually started all that shit for reasons known only to him, and today it is you. Please leave me alone finally, you are not wanted on this page. --A.Savin 14:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Mosque
Entschuldigung, wenn ich das falsch interpretiert habe. Aus der Beschreibung habe ich entnommen, dass es eine Grabstätte ist. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Cccefalon: I'm sorry for confusion. Because of that edit by User:Elkost, I thought it is also a mosque. But now I tend to think that Elkost added that category just because the building looked like a mosque to them. I am going to correct the categories. --A.Savin 13:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, that sometimes it is not immediately clear, what is the meaning of an islam religious building. At least, in my experience from Malaysia, I never noticed, that religious or political leaders were buried inside the mosque (which was quite in use in Europe over centuries). Sometimes - for example in Kota Kinabalu - a mausoleum is close to the mosque and important people were buried in the mausoleum. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Гелиос
Я вижу, вы гелиосом снимали. Можно посмотреть на результат? Какие у вас вообще впечатления от этого стеклянного гроба, который сам себя вытягивает из байонета и даёт чудовищно мыльную картинку, столь милую винтажникам? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Taken with Helios 40-2. Этот объектив я продал в ебае, так как не могу с ним работать из-за невозможности корректно поставить фокус при ручной фокусировке, и неудовлетворительно резкости (не знаю, впрочем, какая там резкость, если фокус таки рассчитан с точностью до миллиметра). --A.Savin 04:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Спасибо! Вижу, мой фокусируется так же. У него это называется «сфокусировался хорошо». А нас такое не устраивает, ибо мы развращены современными объективами. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Ioanno-Predtechensky Convent 08-2016 img5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Rozhdestvenskaya Street and pier 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Nikolskaya Street wooden house1 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Horseyard 08-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Uspensky Monastery 08-2016 img4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Glavny Station 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Ascension Cathedral 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Officers House 07-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyProspekt trolley 07-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kanash railway station 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kanash wooden house at railway 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Pravaya Ob platform 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Zapadny railway station 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk ANevsky Cathedral 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Metro Oktyabrskaya station 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Chelyuskintsev residential building 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Trade House 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Metro train interior 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt Azimut Hotel 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Ioanno-Predtechensky Convent 08-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Rozhdestvenskaya Square buildings 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Rozhdestvenskaya Street and pier 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Uspensky Monastery 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk State Circus 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Metro PlMarksa pavilion 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr residential building 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt wooden house 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Rechnoy Vokzal platform 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk View from Petropavlovskaya Sloboda 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Glavny Station 07-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Military Staff building 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt Post Office 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Metro Bridge 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! LDPR Mikhail Degtyarev MoscowTass 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Askar Akaev MoscowRia 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Handball Anna Vyakhireva MoscowTass 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yulia Efimova MoscowTass 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Officers House 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Metro Zaeltsovskaya station 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyProspekt bus 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt DK Revolyutsii 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Museum of Arts 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Chelyuskintsev KFC 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Tsentr platform 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Opera Theatre 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo02 railway 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo05 School Nr9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo01 mosque.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo10 Marbum factory.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo14 Marbum dining hall.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Renaming of files
Hi, A.Savin, this file needs to be renamed because of #2. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you for your time. 
Lotje (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done --A.Savin 10:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, A.Savin, I noticed your comments on this userpage. It is sad, very sad, this user hardly ever answers to questions other users put forward. I cannot acgree more with you that old images should be replaced by better quality ones and that watermarking on images should be removed. Imo watermarking is purely and simply a hidden form of advertising! I also make use of this opportunity to apology for the sometimes unacceptable behavior of Brimz. I do not think he is a sysop as you mentioned in your comments on his userpage. But if he is, it is even more sad, because that would mean sysops are allowed to do anything. Don't loose interest in the project and thank you for your contributions. Lotje (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Lotje Hi, and Thanks a lot for important moral support. I would add the following: Yes, Brimz is not sysop, I had just wrongly assumed it after I saw a deletion in their log (which is, however, apparently an overwrite available not exclusively to sysops). You may also have noticed that the user MoiraMoira, who actually started all this disgusting campaign yesterday (see [4] (this link even including clear vandalism, since also perfectly uncontroversal edits like geocoding was removed), [5], and [6]), is very well a sysop. Also, the user Mbch331 who supported Moira, is obviously sysop. Well, needless to say that this campaign, which obviously includes full lack of AGF regarding myself, is unbecoming especially of a sysop, but of course also of a usual, experienced editor. Sometimes it seems that they all have something personal against me (if I only knew what...), and benefit from the fact that I'm not Dutch speaker and so cannot do anything against abuse in NL wiki. As I am intended to continue replacing poor quality images, I assume that sooner or later they will block me on NL wiki, so my next step then will be a complaint on Meta/WMF regarding sysop abuse, even though it's of course sad that I have to waste my time, which I could have used for productive work instead, with such a bullshit... --A.Savin 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind, not being a Dutch speaker may not be a reason for you to quit the project. If need be, I'll translate for you! Cordially Lotje (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I must admit that my comment was purely based on the thumbnails I saw in the infobox. After I saw Natuur12's comment I checked both images and it was infact an improvement. Mbch331 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Mbch331, that's of course fair enough --A.Savin 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi A.Savin, going forward.... in order to avoid any reverts (and unnessery timewasting) with replacing (improving) images on the nl.wikipedia (where lots of people sometimes have very long toes...) , I will, as MoiraMoira suggests here and here, and on your userpage make a motivated suggestion on the talkpage of the article and await the comment, if nobody reacts, I'll take the image can be replaced without a problem. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. I'll be hanging around. Lotje (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi A.Savin, I was wondering if you could take a look at this and give your opinion about the suggestions I made for replacement of the image in the infobox. The image without caption is added by Brimz. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Lotje, I'm not sure what should I comment for, in your opinion. The few comment on that talk page are in Dutch, which I don't understand, and GoogleTranslate does not reliably work for Dutch. I still assume that the picture currently included in the infobox is clearly inferior to both taken by me, and the second one is also matching the infobox dimensions as well as the current one. That's all I have to say; if you have any different idea, feel free to implement it, I surely can live with. --A.Savin 20:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Savin, I'll translate it for your:
- Lotje, I'm not sure what should I comment for, in your opinion. The few comment on that talk page are in Dutch, which I don't understand, and GoogleTranslate does not reliably work for Dutch. I still assume that the picture currently included in the infobox is clearly inferior to both taken by me, and the second one is also matching the infobox dimensions as well as the current one. That's all I have to say; if you have any different idea, feel free to implement it, I surely can live with. --A.Savin 20:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi A.Savin, I was wondering if you could take a look at this and give your opinion about the suggestions I made for replacement of the image in the infobox. The image without caption is added by Brimz. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi A.Savin, going forward.... in order to avoid any reverts (and unnessery timewasting) with replacing (improving) images on the nl.wikipedia (where lots of people sometimes have very long toes...) , I will, as MoiraMoira suggests here and here, and on your userpage make a motivated suggestion on the talkpage of the article and await the comment, if nobody reacts, I'll take the image can be replaced without a problem. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. I'll be hanging around.
- Thanks Mbch331, that's of course fair enough --A.Savin 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I must admit that my comment was purely based on the thumbnails I saw in the infobox. After I saw Natuur12's comment I checked both images and it was infact an improvement. Mbch331 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind, not being a Dutch speaker may not be a reason for you to quit the project. If need be, I'll translate for you! Cordially
Herhaald is nu zomaar zonder uitleg een op zich prima afbeelding vervangen door een ander. Dit betreft drie accounts. Wilt u dit doen doe dat dan gemotiveerd en overleg hier eerst over wat de beste is. Symbole-faune.png MoiraMoira overleg 17 okt 2016 18:22 (CEST)
MoiraMoira (talk · contribs) repeates (in Dutch) what she/he mentiond on your : You replace without good reason standing good images with others you made yourself. Please do not do so but confer first with contributors to the article here on the talk page of the article and only act when consensus is there. Thank you for your understanding
Lotje (talk · contribs) writes:
Voorstel: de afbeelding in de infobox te vervangen omdat: de voertuigen en electriciteitskabels imo storende elementen zijn, en omdat de kerk (de essentie van het lemma) niet tot recht komt.
- in English: Proposal: replace the image in the infobox because: the vehicles and the power cables imo are disturbin elements, and because the church (the essence of the article) is not show to full advantage.
Brimz replies by adding an image without text.
In the meantime I contacted RomkeHoekstra on her userpage explaining the situation and asking for her opinion. A brief look on the userpage of this user tells me this user lost her motivation to further contribute to the Dutch wikipedia. Sadly, this is not the first negative comment I read on users doing fine jobs being pestered (?) away. 
Categorizing images
Hi, A.Savin, thank you for reviewing my nomination of ,_Liefdefjord,_Svalbard.jpg){kind=small}
iceberg picture. I am copying cart on this issue as she has been of great help for me so far. You have indicated that my categorizations often are erroneous or insufficient. Let me please leave the notion that - for a newbie at commons - finding the right categories is a pain in the neck. Depending on where you start, you always land at very different final categories. And there you may find maybe only one photo though you know there is a plethora of comparable images on commons. As an example: the iceberg was shot on Svalbard (as many of my arctic images); hence I looked for the appropriate category. Starting at "Iceberg" you don't find anything. You need to know that commons only uses the plural -"icebergs"- in this case. Strange. Then, when you know, you are digging deeper. And if you finally find the "icebergs by location"; you spot the category "icebergs off Svalbard". ??"OFF"?? I was looking for "of" or "on" or something but not "off" which means "outside of" or "at a distance to". And there is only one Iceberg in that category, though one knows several Svalbard iceberg images on commons. Hence this category maybe wrong for my little iceberg. But there is no such "icebergs of svalbard" category. Annoying. Looking for alternatives, I finally landed - don't ask me how, at something like "icebergs in Kongsfjord". as the only sub-location on Spitsbergen. What should I do? Move my iceberg to Kongsfjord? That's cheating, the geocode says Liefdefjord. Shall I open a new category? Never done that; mind you I am a rookie. So I am looking for something entirely different. And here it is: "Toppling icebergs"! That fits! However, it is a real pity I could not assign a geographic category. Can you please explain, how one finds the appropriate category in this djungle; and how to find it in less than 24hrs? Thank you for your consideration. Cheers --AWeith (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC).
Lurking for a while in the categories using "HotCat" or so, I got entirely confused: I found a category "Icebergs IN svalbard" (and there is only ten images in there, i.e. the kongsfjord icebergs in the above-mentioned category). What is the difference between "IN" and "OFF" in the context of commons, please?? Appreciate your help...--AWeith (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
...And even further: do I have to be exhaustive in categorizing the images? I was astonished to note that one very nice and helpful persons had complemented the categories on another image. However, I was surprised to find a category like "photographs taken on ...(the date)". That doesn's tell me anything plus I would not have found this cat. --AWeith (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- AWeith, Hi, and dankeschön for your interest. The category system on Commons is an important part of the project, and a very much more intelligent approach than for example Flickr tags. But it is only useful when as many users as possible know and apply the system well, because only the logical connections betweeen topics - mostly in the appearance of "parent" and "sub"categories - does give this all its meaning.
- HotCat is indeed an extremely useful tool, albeit not for mass changes (for them, there is another tool, Cat-a-lot, which is quite a different topic and rather something for advanced users). It is rather useful when you want to add and/or modify categories in one or some more files, but maybe not sure which ones exactly are appropriate. As for this, you might have noticed the (++) symbol at the very left of the category line, when HotCat is active. This "button" is useful in most of the cases you use HotCat, because 1) it allows you to add/modify more than one category in one edit, 2) after clicking on it you can "simulate" any change of category/-ies without saving it (to save, you have then to click on the "save" button appeared instead of the (++) symbol, and then confirm the edit by clicking on "save changes" as usual). This all has also the advantage that you can easily search for the proper category without saving the changes and even without clicking on each category on the way; because HotCat, as you might have noticed too, has also that up-and-down-arrows you can click on and go through the entire category tree without clicking on categories. You can also add any arbitrary category you like (remember, it's not saved yet, just simulated) and then use the arrows to browse through categories. As you may guess, this entire system can only work well when all the necessary logical connections have been applied, so for example the Category:Eiffel Tower is included in the Category:Towers in Paris (amongst many others). This also means that when you failed to find either a particular category you consider useful, or a certain logical connection, this does not automatically mean that this category is not "relevant" or so. In nearly all cases, this just means that the category has not been created yet, or that someone has forgotten (or simply is not as familiar with the system to know it) to add an important parent category. As wikipedia, Commons is a community of unpaid unprofessional volunteers, and not every topic has active users who watch it regularly and do all the necessary maintenance.
- I think the best way for you is to make yourself familiar with HotCat in the way I described above. I would just add something regarding this particular image, as a possible example of how to work with categories correctly. Here the task is quite simple, as the photo shows an iceberg and nothing more; this means that when finding correct categories we can concentrate merely on the subject (i.e. the iceberg) and the location. The location is always a mandatory part of categorization, especially when a landmark or a geographical object is visible. It is also important to find the most specific category amongst those available, so that in the optimal case you maybe need only one category which nonetheless describes all what the picture says. For example, as you wrote here, here we have a photo of an iceberg (subject) shot in Svalbard (location), so the optimal category presumably would be "Icebergs in Svalbard". If there is no such category yet (as I already said, not because there should not be such category, but probably because there were not enough photos on Commons showing icebergs in Svalbard, or simply not enough category enthusiasts to create this particular one), the optimal approach would then be, to create this category; but it should be applied correctly with all necessary partent categories, so IMO also rather something for advanced users. Another way which is OK as well but somewhat more simple, is then to add existing, less specific categories to describe the subject and the location, so for example "Icebergs in Norway", and "Svalbard". It is also important not to overcategorize, which means that the categories you add to a particular image should not repeat themselves: this would be the case if you added the category "Norway" in addition to "Icebergs in Norway", or - as it was the case with some of your photos too - the category "Arctic" in addition to "Svalbard". The categories should not repeat themselves, and if you choose one amongst several, you have to choose the most specific one, and "Icebergs in Norway" is obviously pretty much more specific than "Norway" (just as an example).
- As I have seen now, however, we already have on Commons the Category:Icebergs in Svalbard, so if you mean that this iceberg is "in" and not "off" (I also not sure what the colleagues meant by creating the "off" category, but I'm not an expert regarding Arctic), it is only correct to add this category to your photo. Here some other specific categories have been added, but this is actually not an issue for you. Categories on the date, timestamp and such things are rather something for advanced users and IMO not mandatory (except for old pictures, say, 1990ies and earlier, because we have on Commons not many photos from pre-digital era, as you may guess, and some people may be interested in old photos of a particular subject and browse through categories by date). "Blue and white" is also a nice-to-have but not mandatory. To resume, please keep in mind that the subject (all important parts of the composition) and the location is the essence, and that is also what I usually expect from a photo nominated for QI (though the category systerm is indispensable for all images on Commons, regardless of quality or not).
,_Liefdefjord,_Svalbard.jpg&diff=210220209&oldid=210217245){kind=link}
- Hope it helps a bit, but don't hesitate to ask if something is unclear. All the best, --A.Savin 13:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. You're welcome, it was a pleasure to spent one hour writing the above response. --A.Savin 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- AWeith, regarding Category:Icebergs off Svalbard vs. Category:Icebergs in Svalbard, my guess is that "in" is for icebergs in fjords within Svalbard, and "off" is for those in the surroundings of the islands. Ideally, there should be a category description that explains the intended use. Both categories were created by User:Reykholt, so you may ask her for her intentions. As Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Icebergs off Chile shows, you are not the only one who has questions about this. --Sitacuisses (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- A.Savin and Sitacuisses, thanks very much for your time and the clear explanations. I will certainly try to clarify the IN and OFF issue; at least for myself, as I still have a number of icy photos to upload. Just one more question: I guess that - if I deemed necessary - there may be more than just one specific category. As an example, if I presented a photograph of a bird in my garden that is rather rare in my location, I would take the latin species as one category; but then (to show the unusual occurrence of this bird in my location) I would also add a location category, if it exists. Or: if I presented (as I've done here) Icebergs from Svalbard that are in the process off capsizing, I would select two categories, right?: "Icebergs in Svalbard" and "Toppling icebergs". --AWeith (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- yes, you may add several categories of different hierarchies, if they are relevant for the subject. --A.Savin 10:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Zapsibzoloto 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyProspekt trolley 07-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt Central Okrug building 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Ioanno-Predtechensky Convent 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Annunciation Church site 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Alexandrovskaya Street wooden house 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Uspensky Monastery 08-2016 img5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Glavny Station 07-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Trade House 07-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Metro PMarksa station 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Ascension Cathedral 07-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk KrasnyProspekt trolley 07-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt residential building 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Your request for oversight
Hi A.Savin,
I'm sorry to hear that you think your request for oversight has been ignored so far. As an oversighter of over four-and-a-half years, I can assure you that I know of no situation where either myself or any of my colleagues on the oversight team have knowingly not responded to a request for oversight (in any medium — on-wiki, via IRC or e-mail). If you could perhaps point us again to your request or, better still, contact us off-wiki at oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org, then we can look at your request again as soon as possible. Thanks, odder (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Odder: I really wonder if the ping did not worked for all three of you, but in case you really missed it, here's my request: [7]. Nothing has changed since then. In case you're interested in knowing all the issue, you may also read Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_60#User:INeverCry to see who actually was harassing whom. No need to discuss it via e-mail, as everyone who watching this page already known the whole issue (say thankyou to INC and Revent). My request is merely about preventing future damage. The damage already caused, is unfortunately not repairable. --A.Savin 20:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: Oh, I remember it now. I actually did get the notification, but before I could do anything, you had already archived your talk page and removed it, so I thought it wasn't valid anymore. I will bring this to the attention of the rest of the team to get their thoughts on your request and will contact you back, most likely via e-mail. Stay tuned, odder (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Odder: I really wonder if the ping did not worked for all three of you, but in case you really missed it, here's my request: [7]. Nothing has changed since then. In case you're interested in knowing all the issue, you may also read Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_60#User:INeverCry to see who actually was harassing whom. No need to discuss it via e-mail, as everyone who watching this page already known the whole issue (say thankyou to INC and Revent). My request is merely about preventing future damage. The damage already caused, is unfortunately not repairable. --A.Savin 20:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Alexander and @Odder: , FWIW I am aware of the situation and I have no objection for this request, everyone was let go, and nothing irreparable has been committed, the situation was complex. With a friendly advice to my colleague not to get carried away and do a little more attention to diplomacy whatever his interlocutor and whatever the situation. Valuable advice for everyone of course, me included. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I wrote my previous comment before to have read this, I just saw, once again FWIW. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- As long as there is no apology and dissociation from INC's trolling, you are not welcome on my talk page. For ever and ever. Any comment of yours except an apology, will be immediately reverted from this page in future. Please finally accept it, or we can move on on COM:ANU. Thanks --A.Savin 20:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Ioanno-Predtechensky Convent 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Troitskaya Street building 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Rozhdestvenskaya Street and pier 08-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Horseyard 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk View from Petropavlovskaya Sloboda 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Moskovskaya Street building 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Uspenskaya Street wooden house 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Uspensky Monastery 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo04 StNicholas 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo06 Culture 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo08 Marbum 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo09 residential 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo11 park entrance.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo03 railway 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo07 Pyaterochka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo12 Local museum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo13 hospital 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MariEl Volzhsk 08-2016 photo15 School Nr3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Ioanno-Predtechensky Convent 08-2016 img4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Constantine and Helena Church 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Приветствую! Обнаружил тут, что есть два разных файла с разными картинками - название отличается последней буквой А: в одном случае она кириллическая, в другом - латинская, картинка тоже разная. По примеру таких же картинок с 8А заменил сабжевый файл редиректом на второй, но при этом изображение, его история загрузок и ссылки на использование все равно показывается на странице. ЧЯДНТ? --Michgrig (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Michgrig: К сожалению, не знаю. Я как-то тоже исходил из того, что при файловой ссылке на редирект автоматически включается целевой файл; почему в данном случае это не так — сказать не могу, так как мои технические знания в медиавики сильно ограничены. --A.Savin 15:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Help:File redirect#In-depth notes about the operation of file redirects: this only works where there is no file of that name (if there is a file, any uses of the redirect show the redirect's file, and not the target file - Bugzilla:14928). Sealle (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Если просить об удалении, чтобы создать редирект на пустом месте, ссылки из проектов вычистит Delinker. Есть ещё [совсем кривой] костыль для файлмуверов: [8] 1) переименовать файл с неправильным названием в любое другое имя: e. g., pleasedeletemerightnow.jpg, сняв галочку с Try to replace usage immediately using your user account; 2) Срочно отменить свою правку на СО Delinker'a с просьбой об изменении ссылок; 3) в получившемся редиректе исправить имя целевого файла на нужное; 4) вынести ненужный файл на быстрое удаление; 5) option: ждать, когда админ спросит: WTFAYDH? Sealle (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NN Trade Fair 08-2016 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NN Rozhdestvenskaya Street 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NN Kremlin 08-2016 img4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NN BolPokrovskaya Street 08-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! NN-Bor Volga Cableway 08-2016 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk LeninaSt Metlin House 07-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk ANevsky Cathedral 07-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Novosibirsk Park Railway 07-2016 img5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Ponte Pietra
Благодарю Вас за предложение помощи по файлу Ponte Pietra and San Giorgio in Braida. Verona, Italy (Quality images candidates/candidate list 26.10.2016). Я охотно ею воспользуюсь, если Вы сообщите, как переслать RAW (или где разместить). С уважением --Ввласенко (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Opera Theatre 07-2016.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Opera Theatre 07-2016.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Rozhdestvenskaya Square buildings 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Nikolskaya Street wooden house2 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk History Museum 08-2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Horseyard 08-2016 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sviyazhsk Uspensky Monastery 08-2016 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Raifsky Monastery 08-2016 photo7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Удалить картинку
Здравствуйте. Известно, что на Викискладе довольно жесткий подход к АП. Чтобы я остался чистым, вы могли бы удалить файл File:Geologická (tram stop).JPG? См. поле author - я вписал туда имя подруги. Не знаю, как здесь создаются rfd или ку, да и нет желания участвовать в обсуждениях. Спасибо. The-city-not-present (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}