User:A.Savin/Archive/2014/2

Request

hi, File:Mirzabeyghi.jpg Copyright infringement (1 and 2) --Kasir (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Категории вида Construction of Х (Moscow Metro)

Скажите, они создаются только для станций, которые в настоящий момент строятся? Я создал категорию Category:Construction of Bittsevsky Park (Moscow Metro) - это правильно или нет? --Michgrig (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

По мне, правильно. Не вижу проблем. --A.Savin 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ОК, спасибо. Просто я на Складе мало правлю, поэтому прежде чем делать довольно массовые правки, решил уточнить. --Michgrig (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Замена фотографии на странице Белый аист

Поясните, пожалуйста, почему Вы заменили фотографию на странице про белого аиста? https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82&diff=next&oldid=63368275 Michael L. Shapiro (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Из-за низкого качества предыдущей картинки, полагаю-с. --A.Savin 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Московская область по месяцам

Большое спасибо вам за правки, типа вот этой. Не зря значит, я подобные категории создал/создаю. --Brateevsky {talk} 19:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Дело одной минуты при сорока файлов. Вам Cat-a-lot не знаком? --A.Savin 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Заглянул в список наблюдения и получил ответ. Вы умный парень, вам лишний раз объяснять ничего не надо, в отличие от многих. Продолжайте в том же духе )) --A.Savin 20:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Boeing 777-2H6ER 9M-MRD Malaysian (6658105143).jpg

Hi, just wondering why you removed the category? AFAIK it's the aeroplane that crashed (according to en.wp). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@It Is Me Here: because it is a photo of the 9M-MRD (aircraft) and not of its crash. Category:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is a subcat of 9M-MRD (aircraft), and not vice versa. --A.Savin 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your vote

--Gustavo Girardelli (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:SSI of the Russian Orthodox Army.svg

Посмотрите, пожалуйста. Что-то не так либо с АП на этот флаг, либо с его описанием. Если это флаг организации, он должен быть вообще без копирайта и с источником это подтверждающим и с другим описанием авторства. Если же этот флаг не находится с свободном доступе как символика, а распространяется под CCA-SA3 и изначально придуман MrPenguin20, то ОРИССно описание изображения, поскольку я сомневаюсь, чтобы организация выбрала себе символом изображение с Викисклада. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Согласен. Выставить к удалению? --A.Savin 22:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Да, поступайте на ваше усмотрение. Я с процедурами местными не знаком, поэтому и обращаюсь к вам. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bild des Tages / "Historisches Holzhaus" Rybnoe

Hi Sascha

Kurze Nachfrage: das sieht für mich aus wie eine der in Russland heute so beliebten (modernen) Holzhaus-Repliken (aus dem Baukasten), Alter maximal 1-2 Jahre. Das Dinge wurde doch auf die grüne Wiese gestellt (keine Gartenanlage, Beete etc.). Dazu die beiden Überwachungskameras an der Ecke. Ist das nicht ne Millionärsdatscha neueren Datums? --87.162.61.187 11:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Символика от User:Artem Tkachenko

Простите, что нагружаю вас. Если вас не затруднит, посмотрите ещё два фото от User:Artem Tkachenko, там то же, о чем я говорил разделом выше (загрузка символики неформальных организаций под авторской свободной лицензией):

• File:East logo.png — тут явно видно, что эмблема выбита из фотографии плохого качества, так что вряд ли он автор лого;
• File:Coat of Arms of the Lugansk People's Republic.png — этот символ хорошего качества, но возникают большие сомнения в авторстве и проставленной лицензии: участник раньше рисованием таких качественных эмблем не отличался, а если это не его изображение, то правовой статус данного логотипа не ясен, поскольку нет документов, доказывающих возможность использования данного символа как гос. символики в PD. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (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:Grave-netto.jpg

And also:

• File:Grave-talkov.jpg
• File:Grave-yashin.jpg
• File:Grave-yesenin.jpg
• File:Vagankovo-map.jpg    FDMS  4    12:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

hi, [1] Copyright infringement (Image caption) --Kasir (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

hi, [2] Copyright infringement --Kasir (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

Hallo A.Savin,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

Category:International Delphic Council

Здравствуйте, A.Savin! Как администратор викисклада могли бы вы прояснить ситуацию с регулярным удалением файлов из данной категории. В бюро МДС на мой вопрос, заданный по телефону, мне ответили, что соответствующий запрос они направили (1 июля 2014 года) в администрацию викислада, откуда получили заверение что удалённые файлы будут возвращены. Но вместо обещанного возврата продолжается удаление. Спасибо за ответ, --DarDar (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@DarDar: я не совсем понял, о каких конкретно файлах речь; если о тех, что были 1 июля удалены Delinker'ом из статьи, то там действительно была внешняя ссылка (morethanart.de) и не было инфы о каком-либо разрешении; посему мне не понятно, на каком основании они должны быть восстановлены; для этого необходимо, чтобы автор отправил подтверждение на COM:OTRS (у меня нет доступа к тикетам, при необходимости обратитесь к Rubin16 или Butko). --A.Savin 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Я во всём этом мало что смыслю. Просто слежу за данной категорией, поскольку использую файлы в разных статьях. В этой категории их было больше 100 (примерно до марта 2014), вчера оставалось 30, сегодня - 29. От администрации викисклада в бюро МДС получены ЦУ, так мне показалось по ходу телефонного разговора. --DarDar (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Непонятки

Здесь видны удалённые со склада фотографии, например, в галерее "Международные встречи". А здесь в галерее "Международные встречи в Берлине (1996 — 2007)" те же самые фотографии исчезли.

Мне переслали из бюро МДС полученный ими (15.07.2014) номер тикета:

Von: Permissions Commons de

Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Juli 2014 14:16

An: IDC - Head Office - Berlin / Germany

Betreff: [Ticket#2014071510012198]

Eingangsbestätigung (Re: OTRS)

Это может прояснить ситуацию? Надо ли мне с этим обращаться к Rubin16? Спасибо за ответ, --DarDar (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Обратился к немецкоязычному OTRS активисту на User talk:AFBorchert. --A.Savin 20:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Огромное СПАСИБО! --DarDar (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Процесс пошёл!

Вижу, что файлы начали вновь появляться! Фантастика! Надо было мне ещё в марте лично к Вам обратиться, не пришлось бы в облысевших статьях прибегать к шаблону "Внешние изображения". Попутно благодарю Вас за добавление высококачественных фотографий в статьи, связанные с берлинской тематикой! --DarDar (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Но буксует на цифре 31... --DarDar (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

За советом!

В категории появляются новые фотки, но из удалённых файлов восстановлено только два . У меня вопрос, могли бы вы лично вернуть 10 явно беспроблемных файлов:

1) Olympic & delphic.jpg

2) Delphiki idea.jpg

3) Kirschindelphi.jpg

4) Founding1994.jpg

5) Karan_Singh_IDC.jpg

6) Christodoulos_Yiallouridis_03.jpg

7) Kirsch_mit_Bengu.jpg

8) Band improvisation.jpg

9) IDC Berlin information to UNESCO Authorities-001.png

10) IDC Berlin information to UNESCO Authorities-002.png

Образец восстановления я вижу здесь. Или мне лучше обратиться у администратору Rubin16. Спасибо за ответ, --DarDar (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Я не могу видеть тикет ОТРС, поэтому для меня файлы не "явно беспроблемные". Я не знаю, почему Krd прекратил восстановление, но, как известно, мы все волонтёры и делаем только то, к чему душа лежит. Можете, конечно, попробовать и к Рубину обратиться, но так как тикет, насколько я понял, на немецком языке, то вряд ли он сможет вам помочь. --A.Savin 10:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Загляните сюда, пожалуйста. --DarDar (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Один из списка удалённых файлов вернули. Если Вы этому содействовали, спасибо! --DarDar (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

постановка на удаление

поставили на удаление мои фото: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Miruva?uselang=ru как я понял, надо ждать 70 лет со дня смерти скульптора, да? только тогда изображения станут свободными?

Ну, если ранее не примут свободу панорамы для скульптур, то да. Для отдельных изображений есть еще возможность получить разрешение от автора (или наследников), но это скорее в теории. --A.Savin 21:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Поставить в этих статьях ссылки на внешние изображения?

Crimea

Hi Alexander, I am 200% with and I often think of the Ukrainian people. My country and the UE would do better to take care of it own business rather than to subsidize the Ukrainian state what contributes to the suffering of the common people and to throw some oil on fires. And with my money in more!! So yes, the marigolds that a man has for to organize his exits photos are not very mattering compared with the suffering of the other people. Thank you for having put it forward. And me too I do not dare to imagine in which state would be the Crimea if it was not Russian at present. I am so sorry for these people who suffer that we are in Europe so few to think of it. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This issue is a bit offtopic, but yes, definitely. Thenks for pointing it out. Any mature Wikim(/p)edian should be able to think different than the masses do (as for me, it is perhaps because I threw away my last TV six years ago and since then never bought any again, nor plan to ever do). Btw, since no one did it so far, I'm going to ask Butko how he is. --A.Savin 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Kolomna 04-2014 img11 Skating arena.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kolomna 04-2014 img11 Skating arena.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bockwindmuehle B-Gatow 06-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 -- Spurzem 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin War Cemetery 06-2014 img1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 19:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renaissance-Theater Berlin 06-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 23:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Kolomna 04-2014 img11 Skating arena.jpg

File:Kolomna 04-2014 img11 Skating arena.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!

Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Udomlya Pesvo Lake 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 Good quality. --JLPC 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin War Cemetery 06-2014 img2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 14:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dornsife Gap

I'm surprised that the halos got worse when you reduced sharpening. Are you editing from raw, or is this a jpg already massaged in camera? I see you cropped a bit and rotated a bit, the image is improved, except for the halos. Generic1139 (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And if you want to add a camera location, it looks like you were at 40.730753, -76.791945, more or less. Generic1139 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you mean this image, I didn't do anything with it. -A.Savin 04:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, sent to wrong user. --Generic1139 (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! In den Kisseln Friedhofskapelle 06-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 13:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Udomlya Kalinin AES.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 13:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 (except a small part at the bottom where sharpness is fading away due to lense limitations. Could be cropped, but it's not a must for QI status). --Cccefalon 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heinrichplatz Kreuzberg Berlin 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Дискуссия о официальных документах международных организаций в Template:PD-RU-exempt

Александр, рекомендовали пригласить вас поучаствовать в дискуссии Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Official documents of international organizations in Template:PD-RU-exempt. Alex Spade (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Illegal deleting of files!!

Why are you deleting my images?? Am I have no right to upload my images to here? what is the problem? for 2 times now you are illegally deleting my images [3] Orgio89 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained this at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Illegal_sabotaging_of_my_files_by_one_admin. INeverCry 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now put in place a short block of this user. INeverCry 05:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 16:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kolomna 04-2014 img11 Skating arena.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Llez 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ellington-Hotel NuernbergerStr Berlin 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gutschmidtstr Britz-Sued Depot 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 16:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Сотрудничество по использованию материалов

Добрый день,

Обращаюсь к Вам от имени Еврейского музея и Центра Толерантности (Москва). Хотим предложить Вам сотрудничество. Подробное письмо послали Вам на e-mail. Заранее благодарим за ответ.

С уважением, Анна, архивный консультант

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 15:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadtbad B-Neukoelln 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --DXR 12:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Landwehrkanal in B-Kreuzberg 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wittenbergplatz Berlin Aussicht 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --DXR 14:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! WilsnackerStr B-Tiergarten Amtsgericht 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 14:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tobias Wendl 2014-08 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jaczo Denkmal am Schildhorn 07-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Spiegelturm B-Stresow.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 13:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ludwigkirchplatz Berlin 08-14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Livioandronico2013 13:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Cccefalon 13:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin War Cemetery 06-2014 img3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI imo. Crop could've been a bit less tight though --Lewis Hulbert 14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Herzberge Krankenhaus B-Lichtenberg 08-14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 08:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Rjcastillo 14:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pierre-Laurent Aimard 2014-09 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 Good quality. It's not architecture, however, I think that it was common sense to get obvious background verticals rectilinear. --Cccefalon 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

POTD Visitation Order Church

Hi! The image File:Warsaw 07-13 img27 Visitation Order Church.jpg you created is scheduled to appear on main page as POTD. Am not much good with photography. But I am seeing that the church is not in the center, has more space left on right and it tilted to left a bit. None of the reviewers at FPC mentioned it and I think that's not a big issue then. But don't we expect such images to be orthographically right? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is the only crop I have, and by taking the upper part as reference the verticals aren't tilted. --A.Savin 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Hello A.Savin, Why did you do this edit? Are you part of the Russian team? Romaine (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Romaine: I'm not. But as far as I know there was no Russian WLM scheduled for this year, which I checked again yesterday but didn't found anything. The page you linked to does not exist either, the flag btw was wrong. Please do not add anything without a valid reference. --A.Savin 08:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the country to the list as they start 1 October. This information I received directly from the Russian team. As I am the main organizer for Wiki Loves Monuments this year, I know what I am doing. Romaine (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's really sad news. Same "team" as always, same faults as always (presumably). And you may guess who will have to categorize all the mess. --A.Savin 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Romaine. Last year, the organizers for Russia run an unprepared contest and refused to work with pictures. As a result, we had 20K pictures in the main category (Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia), which were not categorized in any other way, and not included in any articles or lists. When we drew attention of organizers to this fact, they basically responded that they believe it is not their problem. We had an open discussion here on Commons and the consensus was that User:Lvova and User:Putnik, the main organizers of the last year, are not welcome to organize WLM again, certainly not with the same attitude. This was made public and is still available in the archives. This year, from what I know, the team changed, but User:Putnik is still on the team, the contest is not really prepared, and the attitude is still the same. They did not even bother to announce on Commons or on the Russian Wikipedia that they are going to run WLM. Last year, four people, including A.Savin and myself, had to spend all our free time in September to categorize images, delete obvious junk, rename inappropriately named images and do similar maintenance work, which the organizers basically refused to do. This time, I would say, may be let us give them a chance, but if after two days we will be in the same situation, with couple of hundred photos in limbo and organizers not willing to respond to queries, I may take down the Russian upload wizard. We are here to build a repository of free images, not to create damage. I would also appreciate if you, as the main organizer, could make clear to them what their responsibilities are with respect to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tobias Arlt 2014-08 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 Looks ok to me. Mattbuck 16:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Westfassade Basler Münster

Hi,

na klar sind nicht alle Senkrechten senkrecht und nicht alle waagerechten Linien exakt waagerecht. Aus dem Grund weil in der Version davor die Korrektur als zu unnatürlich angesehen wurde. Das war hier der Zweck der Übrung. Beide Positionen lassen sich nicht unter einen Hut bekommen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ist wohl Geschmackssache. Ich finde die Perspektive auf der vorherigen Version völlig korrekt, dafür stören mich die Stürzenden Linien auf der jetzigen. --A.Savin 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe mal eine komplett neue Version angefertigt, die sich mehr an der 1. Version anlehnt aber auch versucht, die Bedenken die andere mit dieser Version hatten, zu berücksichtigen. Wie findest du die? --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Es gibt im unteren Bereich starke Neigung nach rechts. Ich favorisiere nach wie vor die erste Version. --A.Savin 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Teatro Municipal de São Paulo 8.jpg

Thanks for your review, I uploaded another version fixing your notes except the beggar, the beggar is reality and delete would be disrespectful to our humanity, cover the reality will not change. It is like thinking to look at a different side to think that is not there. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img12.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img12.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates

Can you look at this [4] picture again? I different develop raw file. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

October 1 and Russian FOP

Dear Admin Savin,

Will this map here on European FOP be changed to show that Russia allows images of buildings starting on Wednesday, October 1...and will images of buildings in Russia be undeleted? Just curious, that's all. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

yes --A.Savin 09:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I haven't heard anyone talk about the October 1 change recently. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  We are on the running start.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, that's good to know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FP withdraws

Hi Alexander, I sometimes help to close FP nominations after the term. When a nomination is withdrawed, what is the procedure? only to delete it from the list? if yes, have I the right to do that? -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is to move to the log by hand; the bot doesn't process withdrawals for some reason. --A.Savin 18:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ПЕАР

Тут один товарищ Anton.vaganov (talk · contribs) решил немного попиарить себя и свой сайт, выкладывая сюда (и, соответственно, в статьи вики) фотографии в размере спичечного коробка, но зато снабжённые ссылкой не его сайт. Как-то раздражает (в том числе и потому, что фотки весьма неплохие, а я так не умею). Можно ему внушить, что место сие немного не для того предназначено? --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Сделано. --A.Savin 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Спасибо, Саш! --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Фото Петербурга

Александр, приветствую. Благодарю за оперативную реакцию.

Не нашел способа ответить ни на ваше сообщение, ни на топик "ПЕАР", поэтому пишу напрямую здесь. Формулировку претензии я понял - однако не могу не озвучить, как и почему свои фотографии подгрузил. Не оправдываюсь - однако хочу, чтобы понятна была логика моих действий.

В статье об СПб увидел работу моего знакомого фотографа, и удивился - поскольку свободным распространением он не занимается. Обратил внимание на размер - 600 пикселей по длинной. Полистал прочие статьи, и там нашел ещё несколько подобных примеров. Со ссылкой на сайт.

Далее написал одному из участников сообщества, которого нашел в правках статьи об СПб, уточнил этично ли подобное - использование изображений низкого разрешения для иллюстрации статей. Получил утвердительный ответ.

В статьях Вики увы, достойных фотографий немного. И мотивация моя - не столько собственный пиар, сколько поиск компромисса между тем, чтобы добавить хороших иллюстраций в проект и себя не обидеть. Процесс добавления фото, как вы знаете, не особо шустрый - если делать всё по уму. Добавить описание на двух языках, указать категории и геолокацию плюс нормально вставить карточку в статью - это отнимает прилично времени.

Сам я работаю фотографом, снимаю для прессы в основном. В связи с этим не имею возможности добавлять полноразмерные и даже 1200 по длинной стороне картинки - свободное распространение для коммерческого использования мне пока совсем не по душе. Указание же ссылки на сайт в описании картинки на сайте википедии топорно не смотрится - эксперементируя, проверил это. Описание выплывает только если зритель жмет на кнопку или листает страницу вниз.

Если при таких исходных мне с Вики в самом деле не по пути - прошу извинить за вторжение. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.vaganov (talk • contribs)

@Anton.vaganov: Если вы желаете помочь Викискладу в распространении свободного и качественного фотоматериала, то я, в отличие от вас, не вижу, чем загрузка фотографий более высокого разрешения может помешать их коммерческому распространению. Насколько я понимаю тонкости авторского права, разница тут в основном в том, что при индивидуальной продаже фотографий вы даете покупателю эксклюзивную лицензию, где использование контента уже не завязано на условиях свободной лицензии. И бОльшая часть таких покупателей платит деньги именно за это право, а не за высокое разрешение. Но в конечном итоге вам решать, что вы хотите, и суть моего обращения остается в силе. --A.Savin 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anton.vaganov: Дорогой друг, пока что пропорция желания помочь проекту, и желания себя не обидеть складывается не в пользу первого. Викисклад получил пробники, годные лишь для того, чтобы сидеть в теле статьи в размере 200х100. Да, википедии сильно не хватает хороших иллюстраций, но качество складывается (энциклопедическая ценность) в том числе из размера снимка (чтобы увеличить и разглядеть можно было, иначе говоря). Иван Смелов, которого помянули выше, и не занимался свободным распространением: те же самые пробники, как на фотостоках, с явной рекламой своего блога. Ни о какой благотворительности речи не идёт - лишь шкурный интерес. А то, что Вы получили утвердительный ответ на вопрос об этичности мелких картинок, то это вот и есть одна из проблем википедии: мало кого заботит графическая составляющая статей, по умолчанию она формируется по принципу "и так сойдёт". Человек заблуждается, бывает. Так что, простите меня, циника и мизантропа, не верю я в Ваше стремление кому-то помочь, кроме себя. На двух стульях сидеть сложно. --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Подсказали бы хоть, как отвечать здесь в ветке обсуждения) Так и не нашел волшебной кнопки.

Разница не в эксклюзивности прав. В плане городских картинок договор обычно идет об ограниченных во времени правах на публикацию\печать фото.

В условиях лицензии CC меня смутил именно пункт о разрешении на коммерческое использование изображений без уведомления автора. Печатники неприхотливы, даже 1200px могут растянуть и на плакат, и на баннер. Были случаи. Что уж говорить о полноразмерах.

На других площадках вроде профильных фотосайтов или соцсетей такого нет - и к недобросовестной компании всегда можно обратиться с претензией. Здесь такого пути нет - фотография с викисклада, насколько я понимаю, может быть использована как угодно и где угодно.

Именно это и имеет значение - права на коммерческое использование. Против некоммерческого с указанием авторства я не имею ничего против. Это нормально и правильно. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.vaganov (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 сентября 2014‎ (UTC)

:@Anton.vaganov: Здесь нет никаких волшебных кнопок. Просто щелкаете на ссылке «править», ставите на одно двоеточие больше чем в предыдущей и пишете ответ. По существу же реплики могу сказать, что то, что для вас является нормальным и правильным, для Фонда Викимедиа является неприемлемым: лицензия CC-BY-SA-NC, под которой вы бы хотели публиковать свои изображения, запрещена во всех проектах Фонда. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Russia Barnstar of National Merit
		It's great to see this change in Russian FoP law, which I've been waiting for ever since Lvova mentioned it a while back. Your updating of the Russian FoP entry and your instruction page for undeletions and license tagging are very much appreciated. INeverCry 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Restorations

I noticed your comment on AN, but I can't respond there due to a Lua script error ([d728eafc] 2014-10-01 20:22:58: Fatal exception of type Scribunto_LuaInterpreterNotFoundError). I've found some of these untagged/kept restorations too, and I've added {{FoP-Russia}} and done other needed fixes, like switching to /undeleted on the Russian FoP category. We'll get all these handled properly eventually. I just wonder how many DRs there are that weren't tagged with a Russian FoP/deleted category? Probably quite a few. I'll have to try finding them later. Anyways, I've done a couple hundred proper restorations, and I'll be working on this until we get everything restored that fits {{FoP-Russia}}. I'll continue to clean up and add tags/cats where needed when I see errors. INeverCry 20:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks a lot (I just wonder a bit, as Ymblanter normally does his work conscientially). --A.Savin 20:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I was checking that the license is ok but I did not specifically add {{FoP-Russia}}. I will check now whether it is needed to be added to the files I already undeleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Moscow State University.jpg

Is there a particular reason you deleted the original and added a replacement? That is a wildly incorrect way of going about things for numerous reasons. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see now it's more complicated than that. The original was deleted, then another uploaded, which you moved, and you deleted the redirect. Then you uploaded a cropped version of the original, but didn't restore the original. You can understand my confusion, I hope. Anyway, the original should have been restored... Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. But I'm curious why aren't the categories visible now? --A.Savin 10:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The nowiki tag was not closed, I fixed it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

...And guess whose fault it was. Thanks Yaroslav. --A.Savin 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Русскоустьинский_погост.jpg

I see that you have restored this out of process. As you certainly know, normally, restorations require an UnDR so that the community can comment on the action. Since this image is said to be from a private collection and there is no evidence that it was actually published before November 1917 as required for {{PD-RusEmpire}}, your action seems at best high-handed and at worst simply wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I came to this one by undeletions of the FoP cases, because Commons:Deletion requests/File:Русскоустьинский погост.jpg was for unknown reasons in Category:Russian FOP cases despite having nothing to do with FoP. I saw from the file description that the date of creation is 1912 and applied {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Where's the problem? --A.Savin 11:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian FOP cases are, of course, an exception to the UnDR rule, but, as you say, this was in there as a mistake. I am by no means expert in {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but it clearly says that the image must have been published in the Russian Empire before November 1917. Since the source is "private collection", there is no evidence that it was ever published anywhere and I don't think you can use {{PD-RusEmpire}}. It certainly needs an UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this up. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ältere russ. Fotos

Hi A. Savin, könntest du mal nach den 2 russ. Fotos von Sergey ivanov 1988 (talk · contribs) schauen. Könnten die schon PD sein? --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Leogorgon

Could you please have a conversation with User:Leogorgon about what he's doing wrong? I don't think he even understands why the file was nominated for deletion, let alone that he shouldn't remove the deletion tags. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blanking other's comments at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat)

[5]

No. We just never do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Could you pls. explain what is helpful on that comment? Assumed that all those voted w/o an additional comment are accountable before community (which is standalone nonsense), so why this are only user who voted "keep" and not also those voted "remove"? I doubt that removing is self-evident in this case. --A.Savin 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as a particularly helpful comment as it polarises people into "supporters" and "enemies". A similar comment to yours might be made (and was made by Russavia) about Carrite's snark about "right to stalk". However what is very clear is that Commons has clear and narrow restrictions on refactoring other editor's comments in talk: spaces. We just don't do this sort of thing and we don't do for comments like these, even if we disagree with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please note Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Repeated_blanking_of_editor_comments_by_A.Savin_as_Commons:Bureaucrats.2FRequests.2FOdder_.28de-bureaucrat.29

We don't blank like this, we certainly don't edit-war to repeatedly blank. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Rules, rules, rules... Well, I knew that you would want to inflame. No further comments from me then. --A.Savin 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of my comments

Please do not remove my good faith contributions to a discussion as you did at [6]. I was not casting aspirations or assigning responsibility to or on anyone, and I ask that you withdraw that accusation. I was asking those who contributed a vote without expressing any reasoning why they hold the opinion they do. That all those who contributed without giving insight into their reasoning voted keep is coincidental and irrelevant. If Odder is to get a fair hearing and we are to avoid this sort of drama in future, and I sincerely hope that you want to see these too, then it is in everybody's interests to understand why people find the actions acceptable or unacceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

See the thread just above + ANU. No further comments from my side here, it's just getting boring. --A.Savin 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Дайте совет по загрузке изображений

Я загрузил файл Чорба Геннадий Павлович.jpg , но вечером получил сообщение, что файл ставится на удаление. Изменились правила или что? Метаданные есть, фото делал я давно, поставил под свободной лицензией, сейчас просто решил залить, в чем проблема или не так оформил я? --Kodru (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Я не знаю, что думал поставивший шаблон участник, описание вроде выглядит ОК, убрал шаблон. --A.Savin 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Спасибо, большое, а то я подумал, что пропустил что-то в правилах новое) --Kodru (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Дворец Земледельцев (Казань).JPG

Здравствуйте. Я вот тут нашёл одну симпатичную фотографию здания в Казани. Вынес её кандидатом в Хорошие изображения, но уже после вынесения увидел, что левый и правый края здания на фото немного «падают вовнутрь». Это и заметил оценивающий участник фото. У меня в принципе есть одна программка, которая может с перспективой поработать, но тогда она убьёт качество фотографии в целом. В связи с этим просьба: вы не поможете в устранении недостатка на фотографии (может, есть какое-то ПО, которое сможет выровнять края, не повредив фотографию в целом)? В целом-то фотография не такая плохая, освещение подобрано удачно, думаю. --Brateevsky {talk} 17:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brateevsky {talk}. К сожалению, "чудодейственного" ПО для этой цели не знаю. Работаю только с фотошопом, но при столь сильных искажениях это до уровня QI не доведет. К тому же, у этой фотки проблемы с резкостью и с избыточным освещением левой части здания. --A.Savin 19:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Все равно спасибо. Да, проблемы у фотографии есть; не повезло фотке. Резкость ещё ладно, но левая часть фото действительно белесая. Попробую может в Ценные иллюстрации выставить (там так одним образом не слишком сильное технически фото получило статус VI). --Brateevsky {talk} 15:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hurghada Boats

I couldn't understand why you delete the category Hurghada Boats ?? Hatem Moushir (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it was empty at that time. If you want creating new categories, read Help:Categories first. (The correct category here would be Category:Boats in Hurghada as part of Category:Boats in Egypt and Category:Hurghada.) --A.Savin 09:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--ArildV 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 photo01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Park of 300 Years Spb - Main avenue.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --ArildV 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lubyanka Building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alma-Atinskaja 20121224 small vestibule.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 10:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Hubertl 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Hubertl 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --ArildV 15:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

File:19 декабря (4197986888).jpg

Could you consider passing or failing this borderline image? Its in Ukraine. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help here. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dorfkirche B-Schoeneberg 10-2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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.--Famberhorst 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Christian Ferrer 17:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 17:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 photo02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 17:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Livioandronico2013

While I agree that many of Livioandronico2013's images are not QI, there is no need to call them a "grave digger". Please be respectful of others, especially when you disagree with them. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo02 pond.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 and very nice -- Spurzem 16:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo08 Malus sieversii.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 -- Spurzem 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo22 Ginkgo biloba.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 -- Spurzem 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo09 Malus tschonoskii.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. I really like your work! --Hubertl 13:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo01 pond.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 13:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo19 alley.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 13:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Botanischer Garten

I prefer to talk here and not give problems to other people. However for me the picture on the right is out of focus, now ... if you did a crop I withdraw my decline. If you think it's fine so I stand by my idea, and if others put positive I'll have clear my conscience and you a promotion for your picture. As you prefer .Regards --LivioAndronico talk 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Cropped. --A.Savin 21:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo03 Catalpa bignonioides.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo06 Taxodium distichum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 17:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo11 Malus mandshurica.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo23 Ipomoea tricolor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Florstein 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo04 pond.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 17:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo15 Daphne altaica.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo05 footbridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo10 Malus toringoides.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 12:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo12 Stranvaesia davidiana.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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  OpposeToo blurred on the right,see note --Livioandronico2013 14:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) It is not possible to have every corner in focus. What should be sharp here, is sharp. --A.Savin 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) How is impossible? For the other is,please don't revert the note of other. If you can ask discuss you can free,but is possible in this way --Livioandronico2013 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Because every picture has its focal point, an area close to the focal point, and areas far from the focal point. Pictures where everything has identical high sharpness are only to manage via focus stacking which is not necessary in this case. Your image note I have acknowledged, no need to leave it there permanently --A.Savin 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Was more simple do a crop of the blurred point,so how you prefer,regards. --Livioandronico2013 16:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)  Support Ok Now --Livioandronico2013 22:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo25 Echinops sphaerocephalus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. Focus on the right place. --Villy Fink Isaksen 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo07 pavilion.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --JLPC 16:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo13 Parrotia persica.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 and nice. --Livioandronico2013 14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo24 Carpinus betulus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo26 Themeda triandra.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Город - 062.jpg & File:Город - 061.jpg

Hi, fällt das in Russland unter Gebäude oder Skulptur? --Túrelio (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Skulptur --A.Savin 18:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo14 Juglans microcarpa.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Bgag 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo18 Astragalus creticus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Livioandronico2013 17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo16 Datisca cannabina.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 --Christian Ferrer 05:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo21 Arundo donax.jpg

Hi Alexander, I uploaded a version of your file without the purple fringe, I also decreased a very little bit the saturation of the sky, revert if you don't like it, or if you want I can upload a version without the fringe but with your orgininal sky. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 13:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 18:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo21 Arundo donax.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

Удаление шаблонов о вынесении к удалению

Добрый день! Обратите внимание, пожалуйста, на массовое удаление участником Qweasdqwe шаблонов из вынесенных к удалению файлов: [7], [8] и т. д. Участник неоднократно предупреждался и блокировался за нарушения лицензирования изображений, однако продолжает массовые загрузки файлов, нарушающих правила. Спасибо, Sealle (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Перенос файлов с Викисклада в Рувики

Добрый день. Я приступил к переносу загруженных изображений в рувики под теми же именами. Надеюсь, Вы мне поможете их удалить отсюда, но так, чтобы бот не убрал изображения из статей. Вот здесь находится список загруженных мной файлов, который я для удобства разбил по разделам. Уже можно удалять по списку изображения до Кунцевского кладбища включительно (Троекуровское и далее пока не трогайте). --SerSem (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

И ещё - нельзя ли на время восстановить эти файлы, чтобы их тоже вывести в рувики, в моём архиве придётся полдня копаться, чтобы найти конкретно эти фото. --SerSem (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Выгрузил Троекуровское, можете удалять по тому же списку изображения (Рогожское и далее не трогайте пока). Довыгрузил до Чижовского кладбища Минска включительно, можете удалять до туда (Восточное и далее пока не трогайте). --SerSem (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@SerSem: Спасибо за работу, но вряд ли имеет смысл вручную и поштучно удалять фотки из списка. Полуавтоматически я это могу сделать с помощью VisualFileChange. выставив содержимое категории или ваш технический вклад. Но это желательно делать, когда всё уже перенесено в ВП. Вообще, быстро удалять по несвободе панорамы некорректно. Вдруг да введут когда-нибудь СП, где тогда искать ранее удалённые файлы? --A.Savin 18:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

А, ну раз так - давайте я всё перенесу, и отпишусь. А файлы в данном случае известно где искать - если когда-нибудь свобода панорамы будет введена на мемориальные доски и надгробия, то я с удовольствием перенесу их обратно на Викисклад при помощи той же программы. Но если это принципиально, вынесите на местное КУ сначала все файлы. :) --SerSem (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bell tower Vologda.jpg

Добрый вечер! Помогите мне, пожалуйста, с этой фотографией. Там на фотографии были сделаны две отметки о каких-то двух пятнах. При этом, когда я смотрю на фотографию в 100% масштабе, я этих двух пятен что-то не замечаю, они сливаются с фоном. Собственно, вопрос: что это за пятна и возможно ли их устранить (и как?) или не имеет смысла с ними бороться, т.к. они еле видны? Спасибо. --Brateevsky {talk} 14:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brateevsky: . Честно говоря, я тоже не совсем понимаю, что за пятна. Классная фотка. --A.Savin 19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brateevsky: Там не пятна, там left-over from cloning-out operation. Остатки от ретуширующих заплаток. Если были ретуширующие заплатки, надо долечить их через healing brush. И имеет смысл проверить яркие места, нет ли пересветов. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

А вот оно что, спасибо за разъяснение, PereslavlFoto! А с помошью какой программы оно может быть "вылечено" (я просто вижу термины типа healing brush, не очень знаком с ними)? --Brateevsky {talk} 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brateevsky: . Никаких ярко выраженных заплаток там нет. Если что и было, то сливается с фоном и практически незаметно. Healing brush = восстанавливающая кисть в фотошопе, используется для ретуши пятен, мелкого сора и пр.. --A.Savin 19:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Каляев

Прошу вас, стирайте тёмную недоделанную фотографию Каляева без лицензии. Я ведь добавил хорошую, светлую QI версию этого снимка. Спасибо! --PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Должно быть, я случайно попал мышью в [-] и убрал категорию ненарочно. Спасибо за откат. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/D.Lysenko

Добрый день! прошу обратить внимание на вклад участника. В рувики его загрузки массово снесены, флаг загружающего я снял. Выдаёт за свои снимки с десятков сайтов, включая офсайт Siemens: см. [9] и File:Siemens SX1 GPS Tourguide 01.jpg. Начал было выносить по одному, но имхо нет смысла возиться. Необходимость блокировки аккаунта — на Ваше усмотрение. C уважением, Sealle (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Московский международный деловой центр «Москва-Сити» 14.07.2014.jpg

Добрый день/вечер! Нужна консультация по фотографии. Я её выдвинул сегодня кандидатом в QI; но оказалось, что у неё есть недостатки. Насчёт пятен и того, что верх одной из башен почти совпадает с краем фото, — понял. А вот про перспективу не очень понятно. Не могли бы вы пояснить, в чём недостаток с перспективой на данном фото более понятным языком? Спасибо. --Brateevsky {talk} 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Alex, I would like to say thanks for your wonder yet silent contributions at COM:FPC. I remember the days we worked hard together on those pages without expecting any rewards. It was a wonderful experience to me, and learned a lot. Wish you a merry Christmas prosperous New Year! Jee 03:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jee, many thanks. Wish you merry Christmas and Happy New Year, too :)) --A.Savin 07:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Eristalinus June 2014-1.jpg

Sorry Savin, but your rational is ... irrational. This is just a fly and a flower and there is nothing in the image related or invoking the village of Porto Covo. Users looking for FPs of the place do not expect to find images of flowers and insects! We could create a category "Featured pictures taken in Porto Covo", but that is not the case here. Please reconsider. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No Alves. See Category:Featured pictures of Kerala, Category:Quality images of Kerala and Category:Valued images of Kerala. We expect all types of subjects from that places. That's why we prefer to geo-code all pictures of organisms. The locality is very important for researchers. Jee 10:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree (again, thanks Jee!), the "category:Quality images of xxx" may contain images of buildings, sculptures, natural objects, people, plants, animals,..., just anything photographed in xxx. Besides, why don't you put a more appropriate (in your opinion) QI/FP category to your (!) file, and also, why do you call me Savin? But OK, just to let you know that the whole job normally was done by User:Thierry Caro who seems not to be active here any longer. So, feel free to do the rest of the job on FP categories yourself, as I neither have the time nor desire anymore, especially when I have to expect immediate reverts and disruption by people like yours. --A.Savin 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Alexander. Sorry for calling you Savin having known you for so long. But it is the first time I come here to your talk page and was not aware of your given name. I don't wnat to disrupt anything, just to be correct. And this kind of categorization is just wrong. As I have written in here, the repeated making of a mistake doesn't make it right, at least in Commons. If you have new arguments on this, please participate in the discussion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still here and support an inclusive categorization. I will be back to categorizing featured pictures as soon as my holidays end! Thierry Caro (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What I did was usual practice with any country's or any city's FP for years, and I cannot imagine where should be the appropriate borderline if we would say "pictures of Porto Covo = only those representative for Porto Covo" or so, like you suggest. I'm not going to participate on that discussion on FPC. I'm sick of that endless disuccions, I'm sick of whole Commons and I have no time to watch project talkpages, and it is useless whatsoever because you are obviously continuing with removals of FP categories without any consensus. However, if you want my opinion, I don't care the exact name; I just consider it important that such categories by country / by city exist, with any photos taken in that place, no matter what thgey show (or non-photographic media related to that place). I mean both FP and QI categories. --A.Savin 00:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:OB from Moskva River 01.jpg

Вот эта фотография с поверхности Москвы-реки снята, как я понимаю (мне всё-таки казалось, с противоположного берега — поэтому я и уточнил координаты, ибо знаю место хорошо)? А по поводу камеры — она сама определяет, в каком месте снято (хочется тоже настроить свою, если это так)? --Brateevsky {talk} 07:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

я не знаю, как с камерой. Координаты нужно добавлять в формате градусы-минуты-секунды (использую geolocator). Фото снято с теплохода. --A.Savin 14:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Спасибо за инструмент, не знал раньше про такой (пользовался по старинке вставкой координат из Яндекса). Круто (про теплоход)! --Brateevsky {talk} 14:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Xmas and happy new year

Merry Xmas and happy new year --LivioAndronico talk 11:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.png

Category:Timber framing in Odenthal

Hallo Alexander, bei Kategorien wie "Timber framing in ...", bei denen das Fachwerk an sich kategorisiert ist, sollte dieses Fachwerk schon sichtbar sein. Eine Alternative, die mir aber mitten in der Nacht nicht eingefallen war, ist, die Fachwerkgebäude zu kategorisieren. Siehe z.B. Category:Timber framed buildings in Wuppertal. Die Bilder, die jetzt in Category:Timber framing in Odenthal stehen gehören also besser in Category:Timber framed buildings in Odenthal. Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ies:

Hi, danke, für die Info. Die Oberkategorie sollte mMn nicht vollständig verworfen werden, damit jemand, der die entspr. Unterkategorie mal erstellt, die Dateien direkt finden kann. --A.Savin 19:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{PD-RusEmpire}} DR

Can you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ойген Вильгельм Пфиценмайер и Берёзовский мамонт.jpg if you have time? There's a question of burden of proof concerning the license's publication/30 day re-publication clause that I would think pertains to all 34,000 images hosted under that license. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 01:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)