User talk:Wilfredor/Archive 21

File:Bur Al Arab at Night (7250747504).jpg

File:Bur Al Arab at Night (7250747504).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!

Ras67 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell (de-adminship)

Hi The Photographer, you participated in an edit war (1, 2, 3, 4). Please do not continue this. Instead of edit-warring, it would be preferable to discuss this at COM:AN/U or at the corresponding talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Yes, thanks. I already stoped it a time ago --The Photographer (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. AFBorchert (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth

...It was an honest mistake. I don't have anything against you personally and I honestly thought you were the one who leaked the OTRS wiki discussion. But that's no excuse. I was wrong, and I'm sorry. You might not believe me, you might not care, but I wanted to say it for whatever it's worth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It would have been much better than you would have written this here in the beginning, however, this is the last place where you decided write and this apology message seems to be more directed to others can read it. Your ego and pride would not let you and you decided to ignore the matter and then you came to apologize adding new accusations baseless. You also used to your English Wikipedia friends to force the de-adminship voting, besides being a cynical and deceitful person. Anyway, I really wish you well and Thanks for taking the act of writing here, however, do not insult my intelligence coming here again to write hypocrites messages. I hope you have a good day. --The Photographer (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was meant sincerely and without any ulterior motive, but of course it's unlikely to change your opinion of me even if you believe me. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Paris 2008 (2845020487).jpg

File:Paris 2008 (2845020487).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!

Civa (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

File:(NFFBFFF) What? (14125020270).jpg

File:(NFFBFFF) What? (14125020270).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!

Riley Huntley (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Nueva Versión

Gracias Wilfredo!! un abrazo!!--Ezarateesteban 12:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Carregamento

Ou Wilfredo, meu caro! Por favor, carregue esta aqui para que eu possa nomeá-la. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:San Carlos de la Barra Fort, Isla de San Carlos, Estado Zulia, Venezuela.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlos de la Barra Fort, Isla de San Carlos, Estado Zulia, Venezuela.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint!

I did´nt expected really to nominate this image. So I was a bit sloppy. --Hubertl 11:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Np, You are welcome, now look better. --The Photographer (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Minolta X-370 (6062649872).jpg

---

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Minolta X-370 (6062649872).jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

Elisfkc (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Carregamento

Olá Wilf. Queria também que você carregasse essa para que eu possa nomear. Valeu chapa!!!!! ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oi o/, eu tenho subido outras fotos que você poderia nomenar. Pelo momento eu acho, na mea humilde opinão que esa imagem não e FP, Qué acha você @Rodrigo Argenton:  ? --The Photographer (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Essa também. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! São Paulo Museum of Sacred Art.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathedral of Petrópolis, Brazil.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Jacek Halicki 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Loja de Sapateiro Aquarela Jac by Jean-Baptiste Debret 1820-1830.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Merci pour le message ! J'apprends de mauvaises nouvelles du Vénézuéla, j'espère que ça va s'améliorer. Bon courage !--Jebulon (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Merci pour votre aimable compréhension et message de soutien --The Photographer (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FP

Estou sentindo um cheiro forte de FP aqui e aqui. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

cheiro e beijo? --The Photographer (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

O que você acha delas? Eu posso nomear a Catedral de Petrópolis se você quiser. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Vou concertar esta primero :D --The Photographer (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Acho que o ruído não tem como consertar. Mas ainda ok para mim. Eu ainda prefiro a vista exterior, pois as nuvens e a igreja dão uma atmosfera sensacional a foto. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

E aí? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Não se, seria melhor perguntar para Colin antes, você que acha? --The Photographer (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pode ser. Vou perguntar para Poco a poco também. Eu o considero um talentoso fotógrafo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Muito lindo, agora troco me por Poco a poco, kkk, estou brincando.--The Photographer (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kkk Mas as fotos dele são impressionantes. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Aprovado por Poco a poco. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrt to this photo, I think it may struggle at FP, but it's always a gamble. On the plus side, it has plenty wow and that might carry it. There's a good combination of darkness and light, and a great sky. I can see why it would do well on Flickr. But Commons isn't Flickr. On a technical side. It is a fairly lowly 8MP and very soft at 100% with very little detail in the church spire. The clouds show chroma noise, probably because of the extensive adjustment to highlights and shadows. If one compares to some of the night photos by User:Code it doesn't do well. Consider his File:Berliner Dom, Nacht, 160316, ako.jpg which got quite a lot of criticism at FP yet is technically wonderful. I think sometimes, one should be happy to take/make a great image even if it doesn't have all the qualities to be judged FP. Oh, and why on earth is this saved with Pro PhotoRGB colour profile? Please, everyone with a mobile browser will see a purple spire rather than blue. sRGB is the only internet standard. -- Colin (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Really nice comment, maybe my old broken D300 or the lens quality are making some CA overthere. The Composition is fine, however, tecnical details is making my pictures more and more hard to become FP. sRGB you are right, I was finding how save more information in a jpg. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Vamos ver o que outros acham. Eu irei nomeá-la e vejamos o que acontece. Não desista Wilfredo. Você tem todo o potencial! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lembra que minha camara tem mais de 10 anos, não consigo competir --The Photographer (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sugiro carregar para ver o que acontece. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sphere lamp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe more black background than necessary, but a nice sharp photo of the lamp. -- Ikan Kekek 21:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Passage du Château Frontenac.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)