User talk:Afrank99/Archive 1

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ELSA Revelator IR LCD Shutter Glasses.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality. _Fukutaro 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PixelView GeForce FX5900.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments some shade on the bottom of the card but high resolution and sharp --Ianare 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Siemens S65 AF.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments high resolution and sharp --Ianare 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Good, match the scope. Yann (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Black diamond character

Hi Afrank99; You seem to have inadvertently introduced an extraneous character, which displays as a black diamond in my browser, when you reformated QI yesterday.[1] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this sometimes happens when I use my mouse buttons to navigate back/forth in pages. It's a Firefox bug. Sorry for that. --afrank99 (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That would explain it. I spent some time yesterday to no avail trying to generate that character. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CompactFlash SecureDigital Adapter.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK for me. --Eusebius 10:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Transceiver 10Base2 CentreCom.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments sharp --Mbdortmund 10:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! M4 Inbusschraube focusstacked.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments great details --Ianare 11:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SgiOctaneOpenDoor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please use the standard information template. --Eusebius 21:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)  Done --Afrank99 08:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC) * Support I would've loved one of these back in the day ... and the quality is good ;-) --Ianare 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ethernet NIC 100Mbit PCI.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Richard Bartz 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver

As you may have noticed, indicating VI usage with a link to the toolserver is not always effective (it is down too often for my liking...). Please use links like you did for the de: sites. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I noticed that too late. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Please add usage. Lycaon (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It has been done. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 360° Staubern Rheintal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Info Good once you remove the blotches (sensor dust?) in the sky. --Afrank99 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)  Done --Böhringer 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Nice work. -- Keta 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Please add usage. Lycaon (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It has been done. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Difficult choice but for a scope for an organism I prefer a picture taken in the wild like this one. Lycaon (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that images from the wild are preferable, but the nominated image is so much better at illustrating the species in my opinion that it outweighs that it is a zoo-shot. --Slaunger (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Commodore 1541.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Neutral Scope too narrow. I don't think we should a distinct scope for each part of a computer. Yann (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Commodore 1541C (within Category Category:Commodore 1541) to Category:Commodore 1541 --Afrank99 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

 Comment I see that the scope for a special version of this drive is too narrow, but of course we need a scope for each part of a computer. Especially in this case, the 1541 is probably the most famous disk drives of all times and should have it's own scope. By the way, this picture has been grabbed from commons many times outside of wikipedia, so it seems valuable to some people at least. --Afrank99 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not really convinced, but I won't oppose. Let see what others say. Yann (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I am convinced! I agree with the nominator that this HDD is special and a scope for this model is relevant for Wikimedia projects. --Slaunger (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/13W3 Stecker.jpg

Hi Afrank99,

Did you see my comment on this, where I propose a more concise and short scope (i.e. drop the photograph of.. and consider using the full official name for this connector)? It is about to be closed as undecided. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Request Please geocode or provide a more thorough description of where this photo was taken. Preferably including links. --Slaunger (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done --Afrank99 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Actually, it is not the only image we have on Commons of him, he is in the background in this peculiar image. Anyway, the nominated image is certainly the best there is on Commons. I think the scope is relevant and it fulfills other criteria. --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
DB13W3.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment This is also what VI is about; taking the time to photograph everyday (boring) objects, which we take for granted, and which would never gain FP status due to lack of wow. I think the scope is relevant and it is an excellent illustration thereof. I am inclined to think, though, that the scope should be adjusted to DB13W3 (which is also the name of the en article the image appears in), as this seems to be the full, official name for this connector. I am not terribly knowledgeable of the subject though, so if it can be argued that 13W3 is a more commonly accepted name, I can accept that as well. --Slaunger (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from photo of a 13W3 connector to DB13W3 --Afrank99 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

 Done --Afrank99 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Scope issue resolved. --Slaunger (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe,,,

... that your voting against my images is more politically motivated than for other reasons, especially after I oppose the relicensing of images from GFDL to CC as an illegal act. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 17:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, Verfolgungswahn? Nein, ehrlich gesagt interessiert mich die Lizenzgeschichte überhaupt nicht, und deine Position dazu habe ich erst vor kurzem zufällig entdeckt, nachdem ich gegen eines deiner Bilder gestimmt habe. Damit hat das nichts zu tun. Da ich keinen einzigen der Fotografen auf Commons persönlich kenne, bewerte ich sämtliche Bilder völlig unabhängig von der Person. Dass du allerdings ziemlich kritikresistent bist, stinkt mir ehrlich gesagt. Wenn du mit der Kritik nicht klarkommst, warum nominierst du deine Bilder überhaupt auf QI? Mir wurden selbst auch schon genügend Bilder abgelehnt (auf QI und auf FP), aber ich nehme die Kritik lieber zum Anlass meine Fähigkeiten zu verbessern, statt rumzuschmollen. Wie gesagt, das ist nichts persönliches, und sobald du ein Bild nominierst, das die entsprechende Qualität aufweist, bekommst du auch von mir ein Promotion-Bapperl. --Afrank99 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with words like "Verfolgungswahn" or "paranoia", Mr. Psychologist. I'd consider such would-be diagnoses of self-established amateur psychologists as quite dorky. It's more than stupid to drag medical terms into everyday language as noone actually knows what they are really talking about. What drives me up the wall is the pixelpicking of some criticasters in photos for encyclopedic use as if these photos are candidates for an international prize in art photography and not simple documentary photos. This attitude seems to me somewhat snobbish. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 08:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what Quality Images is all about. I think you should calm down. --Afrank99 (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Afrank99!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 05:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Hannes Keller by Esther Keller.jpg is uncategorized since 18 July 2009.
• Image:Copris lunaris02.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

 Done --Afrank99 (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello i like your svg graphics :) Do you have Canon Powershot SX10 IS logo ?

File:Fastpass_peter_pan_2007.jpg

File:Fastpass_peter_pan_2007.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Powers (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Tartine_et_pot_de_Nutella.jpg

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

Kelly (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hessen Löwe.svg

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

Perhelion (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bildungnutzung

HIer http://www.gruenderszene.de/allgemein/technologien-generation-y wird eine Bildnutzung erwähnt; ich konnte es aber nicht identifizieren. --Túrelio (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Na, die Diskette :-) --Afrank99 (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Afrank99 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Afrank99 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Old Palfinger Marine Logo

Dear Afrank99,

you uploaded a PALFINGER MARINE Logo is old and not used any more. Though it is very prominent on the Google ranking. Is it possible to take the logo off the page, since this is not used any more??

Best Regards,

Marketing Palfinger Marine

Dear Marketing, I don't know what you are talking about. If you want me to do something, you should give me more details. --Afrank99 (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Afrank99 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Afrank99 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

File:KitKat chunky.jpg

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

Smial (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)