User talk:Ankara

There are archived discussions. Please see the archive.

---

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Härjångsfjället October 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Carschten 10:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stora Nyckelviken February 2011b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 08:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jarlaberg february 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The shadows could be slightly brightened, but QI nevertheless. --Cayambe 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! White arkitekter 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, although I think would rather like composition to bo more toward left. Now it's a little bit to central, as for me. --Sfu 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fladen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks nice --Jagro 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ms Lisen january 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lövsta February 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lentille verte du Puy.jpg

Hi Ankara, in your latest version of the image, the background is fine but the lentils seem to be even more yellow/greenish than they were in the first version. Maybe you reduced the yellow highlights only and left the midtones and shadows unaffected? If you want to, you can send me the original file (RAW or JPEG) and I can try to fix it and send it back to you. Just click on "E-Mail this user" and I'll send you my address. I think the image is QI once the tone problem is corrected.

Having said that, I think it's pretty difficult to "guess" the right white balance for this image. A good idea for shooting pictures like this (using artificial light sources) is to take a first test shot with a so-called "white card" so you can later use that one to tune the white balance. Best regards, --BennyJ (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will send you the orginal file now. Unfortunately, its not a very high resolution scan.--Ankara (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nacka kyrka 2011c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments snow blown out, a bit too many tees, but otherwise good --Carschten 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ystadsvägen april 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 10:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Villa Folkvang.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments house clearly tilted cw --Mbdortmund 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Clearly! New version uploaded. Thank you.--Ankara 10:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Good now --Mbdortmund 08:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sickla strand 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok now. --Cayambe 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skuru IK-s klubbhus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 now :-) --Cayambe 08:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Solsunda 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Carschten 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spökparken 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Carschten 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the perspective correction of File:Mladika palace, Ljubljana.jpg. Archaeodontosaurus okayed it now. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! regards--Ankara (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 now :-) --Cayambe 12:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Duvnäs övre gård.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 09:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nacka ström april 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 clone out the dust spots from the sky. Jovianeye 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Done Thank you.--Ankara 10:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) QI now. Jovianeye 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment bad white balance (too blue) and ccw tilted. Please fix it and I will support --Carschten 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for pointing it out. IIs it better now? But are you sure that the image is tilted, for me, all vertical lines looks straight.--Ankara 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I leaned the image 0.1 degrees clockwise.--Ankara 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC) better now?:)--Ankara 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)  Comment it's much better now. The only problem I still have the the snow looks blue-grey anymore. Maybe the snow had really thia color at that day? --Carschten 08:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) It was a gray morning and not really clear (haze / thin cloud cover). Most of the pictures in the category was taken one hour later when it had become clearer. Meantime I took the photos in Category:Hasseludden (same pale colors).--Ankara 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't there. If it's like reality, I believe you and  Support --Carschten 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Thorildsplan Metro station april 2011c.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:Thorildsplan Metro station april 2011b.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ABF-huset.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment the two buidlings are a bit overexposed, could you darken them/the image plaese? --Carschten 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) New version. Maybe to dark? --Ankara 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)  Support maybe, but it's much better now! QI imo --Carschten 08:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Villa Duvnäs april 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Spot in sky, over the roof. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)  Done thank you!--Ankara 15:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)  Comment good, but needs some contrast --Carschten 16:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC) New version uploaded.--Ankara 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) *  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 07:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Västra Orminge april 2011f.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  CommentSee image note. Jovianeye 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Why not? Actually I made ​​a crop even on the left side. The grass in the foreground is important, it is part of the area's architecture. But what is left should be enough. Thanks for your input, I think the picture turned out better now.--Ankara 22:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Better now! Jovianeye 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gillevägen april 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Globen sedd från Slakthusområdet.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment interesting and good, but please fix the dust --Carschten 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you. The problem here is I do not know how I can do to remove the dust without destroying the power line. It is located directly on the power line.--Ankara 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I think user:Pro2 (thanks!) have removed dust spot now.--Ankara 10:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)  Done I've removed another dust spot from the globe and I also edited the lighting (or the exposure) a little, if you don't mind. Please, revert if you don't like it! :) --Ximonic 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you very mutch for your help! Best regards--Ankara 09:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Winborg ättiksprit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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}}}

thank you for your review, some more words about Klausenturm

Hello Ankara,
thank you very much for reviewing my picture Klausenturm Treppenhaus. My D700 is still new to me and I have to learn using this great camera. So for sure, you are right: my actual pictures are far away from possibilities of this equipment. You are right, with the statement about ISO performance of the D700, even I have used it till now not very often. The shoot of staircase was taken on a busy day (Muttertag). I decided to use my camera in program mode to catch a moment without any persons in the stair case. And unfortunately the program mode does not float the ISO, that is the reason, why the photo of staircase is taken with big aperture. When I checked the result on cameras display, it looked fine to me (sharp enough), so I went away from the crowded look-out tower without doing more shoots playing with ISO. When I ever will visit this tower again, I will try to do more shoots with different aperture / ISO, but I think, even my actual shoot meets wikipedia QI. Don't you think?
The difference in handling to my old Nikon D70 is very big and I need to practice much more with my new D700. A look to your great shoots here in Commons shows, you are a user of an analog Nikon camera. Before digital SLR I used a Nikon F50. May I ask, how you do the very high quality scans of your analog shoots (which equipment (scanner) do you use, do you use negativ- or slide-film)? Looking forward to your answers and to all your interesting reviews,
regards from Germany --J. Lunau (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello J Lunau,

You're most welcome.

All my analog pictures are developed and scanned by local photo lab in Stockholm. It is not too expensive, around the 10-15 euros (standard full-length roll) roll for processing and scanning. The equipment used seems to be SP300 (File:Ms Lisen january 2011.jpg, ) or more expensive Noritsu QSS 30 (file:Havrekvarnen_2011.jpg). Hopefully I'll soon have the opportunity to test a professional scanner, and scan in some negatives.

I've looked at the picture again, and I would agree that it meets the criteria. And I really like the composition. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fredriksdal april 2011d.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Ximonic 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! STF Mountain station Helags in April 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and good coversion. --Jovianeye 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Helags panorama April 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A very good panorama. Perfect brightness. --Fandecaisses 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Capella2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Harrison49 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kornhamnstorg 53.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me.--Jebulon 17:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clipper Adventure December 2007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Harrison49 01:56, 17 June 2011 (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:
Clipper Adventurer (ship, 1975).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Eurocon 2011

Wow, thx for the photos from Eurocon. Could you write a short news (in Wikinews). Best regards. Przykuta → [edit] 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will upload more pictures later in the week. I'm not sure if I have time for Wikinews, and have never used Wikinews. If you wish, you may add a photo to pl:Eurocon. Best regards --Ankara (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Smakfråga

Hej! Snygga analoga bilder (givetvis de digitala också, men... :-))du får till! Nu till mitt ämne En liten smakfråga, som jag tror du är bra på att avgöra. Bör jag beskära bort det utfrätta på himlen i File:Mellansjön 02.jpg? Det blir väl en ny bild, eftersom båda i så fall bör behållas, då det nog mest handlar om smak. Allt gott /V-wolf (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hej och tack! Det är en vacker bild med fina färger. Jag tycker inte att du bara ska beskära himlen, det blir först riktigt störande om man laddar ned bilden och tittar på den i full storlek och det håller inte bilden för ändå (vilket inte är ditt fel, jag antar att du inte hade stativet med dig när jag ser på bländare och exponering). Redan nu utgör himlen mindre än en tredjedel av bilden (en:Rule_of_thirds). En beskärning som däremot går att gör är att beskära på alla sidor och sen justera så att den horisonten kommer rätt, jag prövade att beskära bilden till ungefär 3600x2400 och behålla mittdelen. Då kommer den delen av stenstranden som är sticker ut längst i vattnet med, skuggan från träden hamnar i blickfånget till höger (där linjerna möts) och man får med sjömärkerna/pinnarna som sticker upp ur vattnet. Allt gott!--Ankara (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Det stämmer, jag var på scouthajk och hade därför inte stativet med. Dina råd låter bra. Jag brukar ofta använda 4*6-ram när jag beskär, jag ska prova de mått du angav. Tack! V-wolf (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kan det här vara något? File:Mellansjön 02 cropped.jpg? Glad midsommar! V-wolf (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ser mycket bra ut. Glad midsommar!--Ankara (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alcro-BeckersHQ.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Sfu 10:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lumafabriken november 2010c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks boring, but OK. --Ikar.us 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Duomo Firenze in QIC

Hi Ankara.
Thanks for review.
You were right.
I've corrected the perspective and I think I was a bit careless in this case !
It's much better now.
Thanks for the hint.
--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome!

I have promoted the images now.

Regards --Ankara (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bogserbåten Björnen juni 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 08:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Petersenska huset.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 20:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Tiger June 2011a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Danviksbron June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Minor (fat?) spot in the sky above the bridge's head, othervise very nice imho.--V-wolf 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I removed the spot.--Ankara 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC) "Green" now, what I can see. --V-wolf 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bondeska palatset June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 09:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riksdagen June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rotate

Hi,

Thnks for the note, its done now [1] Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jewel of the Seas in Stockholm June 2011b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments New version here also, but I'm not sure about the result. --Ankara 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I would be very grateful for comments on the new versions, are they better and/or there is more to improve?--Ankara 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Why withdraw? This one is good IMO. --Ikar.us 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I was worry about the colours, maybe i was wrong.--Ankara 06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)  Support --Ikar.us 21:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Operan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 09:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Inre delning.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment The isolation is great except that pole is a distraction. I'd also edit out the people in the background as their bright clothing is also a distraction. Saffron Blaze 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, I dont know how to remove the pole and the people.--Ankara 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)  Support I do not see as much of an issue with the pole, and none at all with the people. Sharpness at the lower end of the stone is more a problem, but overall it's still acceptable. -- H005 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC) --H005 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Masthamnen June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment please see annotations. The WB seems a bit too cyan, too. --Carschten 12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Done.--Ankara 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)  Support good now (maybe a bit extreme WB correction though) --Carschten 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Emilie.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments WB corrected.--Ankara 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)  Support nice --Pudelek 09:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Svalbard June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stockholm Central Station June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Södertörn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, nice sky --Carschten 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Castella july 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good quality. Would be even better if you would correct the perspective distortion. --Carschten 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)  Done thanks you.--Ankara 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brottö July 2011b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brottö July 2011a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blasieholmstorg July 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment nice and good quality, but I don't like the crop at bottom and the shadows are a bit harsh IMO. I uploaded a new version in the file history. Maybe it's better? --Carschten 13:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I like your new version. Thanks!--Ankara 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)  Support no problem! QI to me (now) --Carschten 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oberon - Eric Grate.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice DOF --Carschten 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stockholm Ström 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment dust spot --Carschten 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Dust spot removed.--Ankara 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Good now -- MJJR 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ljungris August 2011b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me--Lmbuga 21:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ljungris August 2011d.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality for me--Lmbuga 08:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cirsium helenioides (Ljungdalen)b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments DOF is a tad low, but nice composition and background make up for it. --Quartl 07:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torkilstöten August 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I think it's good --Ximonic 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Betula pubescens Ljungdalen August 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The white fringes probably strengthened by sharpening could be fixed in photoshop (if you just have). Using some darkening brush with the sky color would most probably do the trick. Yet good otherwise in my opinion. --Ximonic 18:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ljusnedals kyrka August 2011b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 09:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jan Inghe-Hagströms torg July 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Andrei Stroe 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ljusnan in Ljusnedal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, but the bridge is not perfectly horizontal. Slight clockwise tilt maybe ?--Jebulon 09:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you. New version uploaded.--Ankara 10:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Good now, IMO.--Jebulon 08:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ljungris August 2011c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sorry, for me the description is not clear, I don't understand what is this tool looking like a guillotine :)--Jebulon 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC) It's actually a guillotine. It was built in the 1700s by French emigrants who came to Ljungdalen to start a revolution. There is a forgotten and unknown part of European history, ignored by both the French and Swedish historians. I really do not know, probably it is a ramp used to load the reindeer in a truck (if they are off to slaughter) --Ankara 10:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Thank you for historical explanations (I love history!)... But no need of guillotine nor revolution in Sweden: 1)choose a napoleonic marshal, 2)make him king. A good recipe too ! ;) By the way: it is a QI--Jebulon 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gröndörrsstöten August 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and lovely.--Jebulon 22:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Mysing 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 22:54, 26 August 2011 (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:
Nationalmuseum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Best quality, best resolution, but geocodage in file needed.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  Comment I dont understand geocodage in file here. Its is geocoded (camera location). Could you please explain what is missing? Best regards --Ankara (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Support (I had not seen, sorry) Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Birger Jarl.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Please geotag. --Cayambe 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)  DoneThank you.--Ankara 10:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nationalmuseum July 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Berthold Werner 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Sveriges Riksdag.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Sveriges Riksdag.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Well done! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Ankara (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eric Grates park July 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Statens bakteriologiska laboratorium July 2011f.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Please add a descr. in English and a geotag. --Cayambe 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)  Done. Thank you.--Ankara 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Ankara!

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Rhodondendron lapponicum.JPG was uncategorized on 25 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

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

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ID of your photographs File:Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ljungdalen 20101001.jpg and File:Majviva2.JPG

Hi Ankara, I just moved your photograph File:Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ljungdalen 20101001.jpg to Category:Vaccinium vitis-idaea and corrected the description accordingly. Arctostaphylos has got its calyx at the base of the fruit, not on top of the fruit (as in your image). In addition Vaccinium vitis-idaea has got leaf edges, which are more strongly rolled downwards than those of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi and usually a slightly different leaf shape. But the calyx is most easily recognizable on photographs. These are typical images of the two plants:

• 
  Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
• 
  Vaccinium vitis-idaea

In addition, I moved your beautiful photograph of violets in bloom, File:Majviva2.JPG, from the obviously wrong Category:Primula farinosa to Category:Unidentified Viola. These violets could be Viola tricolor or possibly some subspecies or microspecies of Viola arvensis. In my opinion these species are rather troublesome to tell apart, but I won't object if anyone thinks that he or she knows better and can give your plant its correct name. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good morning,

Thanks for your help. Im sorry. I'll try to be even more careful next time. I changed the name of the first image. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the flowers are discussed here. I think I forgot to update the picture page. They suggested Viola tricolor.--Ankara (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Judging by the stipules, which are spreading and with a linear central lobe, this is plausible. I changed the category to Category:Viola tricolor. By the way, this category contains lots of misidentified violets, mostly from gardens, which are certainly not Viola tricolor. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ankara. You have new messages at Stefan4's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Graphics lab

Your dated submission to the Graphics lab has had a reply. Please take the time to reply. --Vera (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Mohammad Al-Amin Mosque.JPG

And also:

• File:Mohammad Al-Amin Mosque2009b.JPG —Wuzur 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Hanna Wagenius (beskuren).jpg

Hello! The OTRS-ticket on this image only grants permission for the original image, File:Hanna_Wagenius.jpg. If I understand correctly, it is you yourself who are the creator of the cropped and derived work. Therefore it is you who must decide under which licence you want to release it. The original image's license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} would certainly be compatible. Would you be so kind as to add that license to the image page (so it is clear that's what you want) and remove the OTRS-links? --Bensin (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hej,

Tack för att du uppmärksammade det. Märkligt, normalt brukar man få med sig licensen när man laddar upp en bearbetad version. Jag lägger dit {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Angående OTRS-länken har jag ingen aning om vad som är praxis där, om du bedömer att den bör tas bort så gör gärna det--Ankara (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fint! Nu är det fixat. :-) --Bensin (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Mladika palace, Ljubljana.jpg

Eleassar (t/p) 21:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:AleppoCitadel.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:AleppoCitadel.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

–⁠moogsi (blah) 06:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Taynal Mosque2009b.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Taynal Mosque2009b.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Taynal Mosque2009a.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Taynal Mosque2009a.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Skansbacken november 2010d.jpg

File:Skansbacken november 2010d.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!

Jcb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

September är nästan slut: missa inte Wiki Loves Monuments 2019!

Hej,

Du får det här meddelandet då du tidigare bidragit med bilder till den svenska deltävlingen av Wiki Loves Monuments, och jag hoppas att du vill vara med i år också. Kategorierna är som vanligt byggnadsminnen, fornminnen, K-märkta fartyg och arbetslivsmuseer, och du är välkommen att bidra med bilder hela september. Om du varit ute i världen och rest kan du även se om resorna sammanfaller med övriga internationella deltävlingar, och i så fall vara med och tävla även där.

Välkommen till tävlingen, och lycka till! /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nu är det dags för Wiki Loves Monuments 2020!

Vinnarbilden i Wiki Loves Earth!

Hej!

(For information in English, see Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Sweden or other participating countries.)

Du får det här meddelandet då du tidigare har deltagit i de svenska deltävlingarna av Wiki Loves Monuments eller Wiki Loves Earth! För någon vecka sedan blev det klart vem som tog hem förstapriset i Wiki Loves Earth 2020 – stort grattis till Brydand100 och hans fotografi av Röttlefallet! Alla vinnare kan du se här – tack alla deltagare för fina bidrag!

Den 1 september inleds 2020 års svenska deltävling av Wiki Loves Monuments, där det skulle vara väldigt roligt om du ville vara med och delta! Målet med Wiki Loves Monuments är att fotografera svenska kulturarvsmonument. De kategorier som ingår är byggnadsminnen, fornminnen, K-märkta fartyg och arbetslivsmuseer – och du är välkommen att bidra med bilder hela september.

Välkommen till tävlingen, och lycka till! /Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Fil-Sotck2b.jpg

File:Fil-Sotck2b.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyrighted image. Previously deleted in 2012 as File:Sotck2.jpg This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.stockholmsfoto.se/index.php?katID=1463&imageID=118511&easysearch=flygfoto&index=193&nr_img_show=80 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Tooga~commonswiki (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Sotck2b.jpg

File:Sotck2b.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyrighted image. Previously deleted in 2012 as File:Sotck2.jpg This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.stockholmsfoto.se/index.php?katID=1463&imageID=118511&easysearch=flygfoto&index=193&nr_img_show=80 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Tooga~commonswiki (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Sankt Annæ Pladsb.JPG

File:Sankt Annæ Pladsb.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)