User talk:Elrond

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Elrond!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Logotag.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Logotag.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elrond (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

.

File:Logotag.JPG

File:Logotag.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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elrond (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

.

File:Logotag.JPG

File:Logotag.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!

Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elrond (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weibliche Zapfen der Edeltanne (Abies procera)02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please resolve the redlink. --Cccefalon 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)  Comment done --Elrond 14:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Kriterien QI

Es geht darum, qualitativ gute Bilder von den "schlechten" zu sortieren. Auf deiner Benutzerseite vermerkst du, daß du keine Personen abbilden möchtest. Aber es gibt Situationen, wo gerade das sinnvoll ist. Ein marcusplatz ohne Menschen mag reizvoll sein aber wenig sinnvoll, da sind nunmal immer Menschen. Ebenso beim Badesee, da gehören Menschen dazu. Bei QI wird Qualität bewertet, nur selten Inhalt. Ich habe hier auch jahrelang versucht, Straßenszenen ohne menschen zu erwischen aber ich bin davon mittlerweile abgekommen, denn die Abbildung der Wirklichkeit ist anders. Solange die Personen Beiwerk im rechtlichen Sinne sind, ist das ok. --Ralf Roleček 19:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ralf Roletschek Da hast Du etwas falsch verstanden. Ich photographiere sehr viel Menschen, weit mehr als die Hälfte meiner Bilder entstehen so, ich veröffentliche sie aber nicht hier. Das hat den Grund in der offenen Lizenz und ohne die Einwilligung der Abgebildeten erscheinen keine Bilder von ihnen hier. Auf anderen Plattformen veröffentliche ich Portraits, Konzertbilder und auch Aktbilder durchaus. Prinzipiell hab ich überhauopt nichts gegen Menschenbilder. Das von mir kritisierte Bild halte ich schlicht für nichtssagend, ein schnödes Bildchen ohne irgendwelche Besonderheiten oder gar ein Qualitätsbild, wie immer man die auch definieren mag. Warum hier einige sich jetzt so an dieser Bemerkung 'mit Familie' hochziehen, ist mir nicht so ganz klar, es sollte den Urlaubscharakter betonen. Ich kann mich aber des Gefühls nicht erwehren, daß sich einige auf den Schlips getreten fühlen, warum auch immer. Aber damit kann ich leben. --Elrond (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elrond (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Digger ruts.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ermell 08:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rotkohl (Brassica oleracea convar).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - September - Fountains and wells

I'm afraid I had to remove one or more photos you submitted to this challenge. This particular photo challenge contained the restriction that images must have been taken in September 2015. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Colin this was what I read, after I send my pictures; no problem --Elrond (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elrond (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Klippen von Handa Island.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Acceptable technical quality, and the photo is just fascinating to look at! Dllu 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Messingplatten mit dem Signum Karls des Großen in Aachen 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Emblem des Jakobsweges in Lüttich.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ermell 08:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint Malo Denkmal bei La Corbière (Jersey).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 A bit underexposed IMHO. --C messier 09:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)  Comment this was the light situation/impression and the underexposing was my intention --Elrond 10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Good quality. Denis Barthel 09:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bronzeplatte mit dem Signum Karls des Großen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hubertl 06:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Remembers me something...Are you sure about the color balance ?--Jebulon 19:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Info @Jebulon there are some variations --Elrond 11:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Der goldene Engel auf der 'Zitronenpresse' (Glaskuppel der Hochschulde für bildende Künste) in Dresden 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Notre-Dame du Kreisker, saint-pol-de-Lèon.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Much better now, it doesn't look perfectly straight, but I guess that that building is not really straight after reviewing the verticals and horizontals --Poco a poco 18:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kathedrale von Saint Pol de Lèon.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Untilting leftover bottom left, elsewhere good. --Cccefalon 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)  Info @Cccefalon fixed --Elrond 18:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)  Support --Cccefalon 10:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Felsnadel auf Handa Island.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Cccefalon 15:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phare de Trezien, Plouarzel, Frankreich02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Question why you doubt about? Certainly the lighthouse is vertical! --Elrond 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Support OK for me.--Jebulon 21:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow Bike in York.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MG 0266 beschnitten.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Code 18:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brutschutzgebiet Handa Island.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Medium69 23:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinselohrschwein im Durrell Wildlife Park.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Jean11 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schopfaffe bei Durrell.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Medium69 19:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes

Hello, I reverted your edit [1], because there is already a gallery for the Charadriiiformes. Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer Sorry it is the first time I do this. I want to create a Category for the Great skua, ( Grand Labbe ) could you please assist me! --Elrond (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why to do this? this galery page is for the featured pictures and there is currently no images with a featured statut in the category you added, this category is empty...why to keep this section? we will add the section when we will have an image to put in it, I'm going to delete. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer but which Category I should use for the Nomination for a Picture, when there is no one for this object? --Elrond (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• oh, I understand, no need to create first the category at this level. If you want to nominate an image, just use "Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes", and if the image is promoted the BOT will place the image in the unsorted section at the bottom of the page and we/you will create the good section at this time. Nominate first the image with one of the existing galleries. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Don't forget to put your nomination in the Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, if you want it will be visible for others, I did it for you. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer Oh, thank you very much! Very kind of you! Merry Christmas! And a happy new year --Elrond (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I wish you the same good things :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

★ 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:
Lemur catta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:55, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (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:
Phoenicopterus chilensis heads (captive).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope must be connected to an image category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, we must add a geocoding. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Elrond (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - December - Red and white

I'm sorry but I had to remove, from the challenge, some photos of yours since they were uploaded before the challenge month. The Photo Challenge is only for newly uploaded images (and in some months, also requires newly taken images also). -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Benzofuran.jpg

File:Benzofuran.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!

Leyo 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you have created a lot of chemical images, for which there are already many as-good or better files. You can probably save yourself some time by looking in Category:Amino acids (or more specifically, Category:Alpha-amino acids) to find all the standard (and many non-standard) ones already. No real harm if you like to draw your own though:) But if you do, please place them in the specific category for each. For example, you tagged both File:D-Glutaminsäure.png and File:4-Aminobenzoesäure.png as Category:Amino acids, but we have existing Category:4-aminobenzoic acid and Category:Glutamine. Putting things in the most specific available cat helps everyone find the files easily. Let me know if you have any questions or need help finding anything. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure File:Benzofuran.png is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure File:Benzofuran.png you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Files in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the file talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the file to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --DMacks (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

File:D-Alanin.png

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

Leyo 23:54, 8 March 2016 (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:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE Außenseite von oben.JPG

And also:

• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE Außenseite von unten.JPG
• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE im Gasometer Oberhausen.Innenraum1.JPG
• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE im Gasometer Oberhausen.Innenraum2.JPG
• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE Seitendwand des Ballons.JPG
• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE Spitze des Ballons von unten Detail.JPG
• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE Spitze des Ballons von unten1.JPG
• File:Christos BIG AIR PACKAGE Spitze des Ballons von unten2.JPG

Yours sincerely, Gestumblindi (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Einladung zur Teilnahme an Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland

Hallo Elrond!

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 infowikilovesmonuments.de zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams
(DCB, 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

File:ABS-Polymer Schema.svg

File:ABS-Polymer Schema.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!

Leyo 09:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

File:4-Chlor-2-nitrophenol.pdf

File:4-Chlor-2-nitrophenol.pdf 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!

Wostr (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Tennessee-Eastman-Essigsäureanhydrid-Prozess-2.png

File:Tennessee-Eastman-Essigsäureanhydrid-Prozess-2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Leyo 11:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)