User talk:Afrank99

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Supertalent USB-Stick.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Commons:Valued image candidates/13W3 Stecker.jpg

Hi Afrank99,

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

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

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

review

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

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

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

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

review

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

[edit] I believe,,,

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

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

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

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

[edit] Please link images

BotMultichillT 05:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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