User talk:PetarM

English: Welcome to the Commons, PetarM!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, PetarM!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Hram v Omsk.JPG is uncategorized since 7 May 2009.
• Image:Carev Dvor.JPG was uncategorized on 19 August 2009.
• Image:ErmitageStairs.JPG was uncategorized on 1 September 2009.
• Image:Slava.JPG was uncategorized on 31 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Harkov vokzal.jpg was uncategorized on 11 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 70ee9ab13d36a5e07e1f7047eaa8d6b6

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 40c43b549376d30612877a113d499b4e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Monument to Soviet cosmonauts.JPG

File:Monument to Soviet cosmonauts.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 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!

--Justass (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Serbian cuisine.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Irtysh from air over Omsk.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality image

Privet George, image Seasquirt.jpg which You nominate as Quality image is already Feautered image. --Mile (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I know it. It are independent awards. Both awards FP and QI (or more) are correct result for one photo.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Irtish v Omsk.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good image of an impressive place. --Cayambe 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Hram v Omsk.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hram v Omsk.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Noise

Hello, of course one can always argue how much noise is tolerable in a Quality Image. But IMO an even slightly noisy sky can easily be fixed. Best regards --Pjt56 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Св Наум.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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.

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:
Irtysh River .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support For that heavily used river, I'd prefer an image with ships and/or hydroelectricity. But it seems there's none. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Pobebnik na Kalemegdanu 2.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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.

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:San Marco cathedral in Venice.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Marco cathedral in Venice.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Onion domes

Hello PetarM. No doubt for me, your Onion Domes of Omsk are OF COURSE a valued image, in real life. You are now, as I was last days, in the nets of an endless discussion about the "scope". As usual. Like me some days ago, it's visible that you're becoming a little bit ...nervous... Don't break down ! Good luck (but you will surely loose at the end, if there is an end). However, you're a good photographer, don't worry ! Friendly, --Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Onion domes" - adjusting the scope

Hello Mile/PetarM, Before nominating your own challenger, if you decided to do so, would you allow me a further recommandation about the scope wording? I would suggest a slight rewording, from "Russian onion domes" to "Onion domes in Russia". The reason is that with "Russian onion domes", any Russian Orthodox Church anywhere in the world falls within the scope (e.g. File:Whitestone Blue Onion jeh.JPGthat I've just picked up at random). Personnaly, I won't look over all images of Russian Orthodox churches in Commons to find a decent competitor, but be aware that a VI within this scope could be demoted some day by a picture taken in another country. If you feel like following this friendly advice, just change the wording in the scope field and in the present "VIC-scope-change" template (no need of a new one IMO). Furthermore, it would match the category—it's a good reason too. The exterior/interior subscopes question is of secondary importance. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Info I would just add to the reason given by the nominator that onion domes are the predominant form for church domes in Russia (see: en:Onion dome) and it deserves a scope.
•  Support Quite OK to me, illustrates the scope quite well, attractive. For me the most valuable of its category, that I have checked carefully. All criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'd still prefer File:Moscow, St.George in Pskov Hill (2).jpg, because it has both golden and couloured domes. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support File:Moscow, St.George in Pskov Hill (2).jpg has a lower left shadow that is unappealing to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Onion doomes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments nice --Pudelek 12:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Strange category. Nearly all members of Category:Churches in Russia have domes. And it is was in Category:Buildings in Russia. I'm afraid the word was a false friend to the creator.
• File:Erloeserkathedrale.jpg has more domes. :) However, this image shows that they aren't all golden. And it shows some details. ru:File:Омский Успенский собор1.jpg shows the same church more objectively. I  Support this. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment File:San Basilio Mosca.jpg, showing onion domes, is interesting too within this scope. --Myrabella (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment St. Basil's strikingly couloured and textured domes are the best known, but not the most common variant of Russian domes. That's why I refrained from suggesting it. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Myrabella 1st picture You give is badly croped, compostion underdone and noise high. However the second one is composition i would refer to in this scope. And its similar to my picture, but again badly croped, and monothone with red color. I saw many of them, and in Siberia they are most wonderfull (contrast, colors, build-up). So my scope is to be not for all church as much for top of it (i must put photo in that article You gave). en:File:Kazan_church.jpg from Siberia is good too, i even tried to fix it (bad crop, distortion), but its impossible due to small size and crop, otherwise picture is marvelous. So, its not just St. Basil. --Mile (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are very quick attrubuting something "bad" that you don't like. The composition of this photo was obviouly based on lack of a wide angle lens. But that doesn't count for VI. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral, found an even better one. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I know for that Gorsky photo, but as I said my scope is more on onion domes. That one is nice considering church as whole, but quality just cant be compared. Prokudin-Gorskys pic domes are monothone, no contrast. Please consider the scope. I dont know if it is good to narrowing my scope to "Russian onion domes rooftop arhitecture" or something to be straigth. --Mile (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Domes in Russia (exterior) to Russian onion Domes (exterior) --Mile (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (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".

---

• Sorry, now I have to  Oppose. In this view the tips of the onions aren'tvisible, so it can't illustrate onion domes. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Sorry ikar.us i dont understand You, 3 nice onion of roof arent visible to You ? Dont You get the scope ? Its about Onion doomes exterior arhitecture, close shot must be. Please be free to put the better photo in the scope, or reconsider Your vote. --Mile (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The view is too steep from below thew domes. They look exactly the same as plain spheroid domes with a cross on their top. What makes the onion an onion, isn't visible (except for the right one, but still not complete). --Ikar.us (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment about scope: the new scope proposed seems more suitable to me. Nevertheless, I think that a sub-scope (exterior) is not needed in that case. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Info about quality requirement: I haven't begun to check over Commons images within this new scope. However, I draw your attention to the fact that quality requirement isn'the same for VI as for QI or FP. For VI, see criterion 3: "For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. [...] Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view ; [...] The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image)"— that's all. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I would say subdivision exterior is necessary, since You have interior shots which ilustrate art (drawings of icons and similar) while in this scope focus is on more on shape with richness of colors which bring up atmosphere of Onion domes. P.S. For instance, i cant be in scope with something like File:St_Isaacs_Dome_Russia.jpg --Mile (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would agree with an "interior/exterior" sub-scopes for domes in general, but for this specific sort of dome? That's the question: are there specific elements making the inside of a onion dome recognizable among other kinds of domes? E.g. between image 1 and image 2, can we say at first sight which one is an onion dome and wich one is not, only looking at them? If such elements exist, the sub-scopes are useful; otherwise, "Russian onion domes" could be a suitable and sufficient scope IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I try to explain my opposition and specify what I require from an image for this scope.
  1. For the dome, it must be a real onion dome, i.e.
     1. the maximum diameter of the dome is bigger than the diameter of the tower, i.e. a significant part of the under hemisphere of the onion is present.
     2. the transition from convex to concave is at a relatevely low level, so that the onion tip is clearly present.
     3. Otherwise, it's rather a hemispherical dome with embellished junctions to tower and tip.
  2. For the image, the view must be nearly horicontal, so that the cross-section of the dome is projected in the image plane and is visible completely without distortion.
• In this candidate, neither the church nor the image complies with my requirements. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Good, You explained Your view, but if You cant bring appropriate picture for this scope You arent helpfull. This is not voting for QI. Simple, is this VI in the scope ? If not, which one is it ? --Mile (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Some specifications may ease the search. Is File:San_Basilio_Mosca.jpg complying with them? About the scope, I ask a question above. --Myrabella (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Myrabella does the searching... ;) Yes, while I objected St. Basil for domes in General, I support it for onion domes. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Myrabella, i saw that pic first time. In case it wouldnt be croped so badly (upper cut of tower), lowered noise and without shadow (second tower from left) this would be photo for VI. --Mile (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Info If was to know if it was that kind of pictures that Ikar.us had specified. I have begun to sort images in the newly created Category:Onion domes in Russia (work in progress).--Myrabella (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC).
  •  Done : I've supplemented Category:Onion domes in Russia. Nice tour, there is a marvellous variety of churches (and domes) in Russia ;-) The scope can be linked to this new category. --Myrabella (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• A suggestion: File:Moscow, St.George in Pskov Hill (2).jpg is the most appealing I've found yet. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've noticed too: File:Пятиглавая.jpg - File:Onion doomes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG - File:All Saints Church in Krasnoe Selo 15.jpg - File:Onion domes of Cerkov Mihaila Arhangela.JPG (some nice brand-new ones :-). --Myrabella (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good work, since first one is in the trees and 2 among them are mine, they were uploaded on Serbian Wiki for some time (months), I just didnt put them on Commons, so I did it now. but I still wouldnt contest them with my nominee. --Mile (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)¸
  • I saw who is the author ;-). By the way, why wouldn't you consider File:Onion doomes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG as a challenger ? It is valuable within the scope, and it depicts more clearly the onion shape than the nominated image. --Myrabella (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I migth do so, if You insist so much on well shaped onions, as Ikar.us does. I will also reconsider scope for this. I am sure it worth VI, after all it was picked up in Travell article for Russia. --Mile (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • To illustrate an "Onion domes" scope, a VI should preferably show well shaped onions, effectively :-) But your idea is good indeed (perhaps "Russian Revival domes" for this quite fine image?). That makes not one, but two potential VIs. --Myrabella (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Russian onion Domes (exterior) to Russian Revival domes in Russia --Mile (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (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".

---

•  Support Difficult. Firstly, I know very few about Russian Revival style. However the Dormition Cathedral in Omsk had been built in the Russian Revival style, see en:Omsk#Culture and Points of Interest. Secondly, it seems that File:Омский Успенский собор1.jpg could be a new challenger within the scope. I tend to prefer the nominated image because I would say that it illustrates some tendencies of the style in a more close-up view, like decorative motifs, use of stucco (I'm not sure is the case here) and bricks, research of traditionnal shapes and adornments (after a too much quick look in this reference). To me is the most valuable of its category, even if this church has been demolished then rebuilt in the 2000s. --Myrabella (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the previous oppose maintened? (after a scope change, "an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".) --Myrabella (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    •  Neutral No, it isn't. No more onions required. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Scores:

1. File:Hram v Omsk.JPG: +1 <--
2. Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg: 0
=>
File:Hram v Omsk.JPG: Promoted. <--
File:Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg: Declined.

--Ikar.us (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Please look at Commons:Valued image scope: Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthold Werner (talk • contribs) 2010-03-30T20:02:55 (UTC)
  •  Comment A 500 year old church in a 1100 year old monastery, now being a tourist attraction, with articles in 9 wikipedias might be deemed exceptional enough. --Ikar.us (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The scope looks fine to me. I agree with Ikar.us. This one includes an identifiable individual with personality rights that may detract from its value, whereas the similar File:St. Naum Monastery 63.JPG does not. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This one is used in seven articles on seven projects. Only File:MonastryStNaum.JPG is used more and it is out of date and has bad shadows. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• @Berthold Werner : I am very surprised because of Your lack of knowledge, never judge too fast. So, church of Saint Naum is most important sacred place in Macedonia, dating to 9 century A.D. and one of the oldest churches in Europe. Inside is tomb of Saint Naum, student of famous brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius, who made Slavic nations of Balkan with bible in their own language. If You are German, let me make it easier to understand, this church is more than Aachen catherdal is to Germans and Martin Luther made some 6 centuries latter. Mr. Werner, there is no more suitable nomination norm than VI for such picture, i am pretty sure about that. OK, so here is implicated explanation why hard to capture without people. --Mile (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this explanation. Although interested in church I don't know evey meaningful church, for that reason I added a comment. (perhaps i would be better to mark it as  Question) And now I add  Support. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Misprint in a title

Hello Petar M, Congratulations for the double promotion of File:Onion doomes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG. I just wanted to point out to you a misprint in the title of your file: "doomes" instead of "domes". It would be worth to be renamed :-) Regards --Myrabella (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You can use the Template:Rename... or ask an admin ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Aligator

Thank you for the care you have been my skull to aligator. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Basilica Santo Antonio in Padova.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments QI --George Chernilevsky 06:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alsacian costumes

Thanks for supporting my set !--Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Pratto dela Valle in Padova.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Excellent composition, perhaps very slightly underexposed. QI to me. --Cayambe 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hram v Omsk.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Well done! -- George Chernilevsky 07:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Monastery Ravanica .JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Ok to me. --Cayambe 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support - wonderful picture, best in scope.--George M. (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Šumdaija sunflower fields.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments OK. Nice colors -- George Chernilevsky 11:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please use the correct date format

Hi PetarM,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you mentioned a date on File:Sinagoga u Novom Sadu.JPG. Please know that in order for dates to be automatically detected and translated into other languages it needs to be in the YYYY-MM-DD format (ie. 2013-01 for January 2013 or 2013-06-19 for 19 June 2013). Also, for other (less specific) dates use {{Other date}} for centuries, ranges, 'circa' etc. like this: {{other date|between|1899|1903}} for "between 1899 and 1903". This way the dates will be translated internally into the user's language preference. I've fixed it for you here. See for example the result in Serbian: here. Thanks again. –Krinkle^talk 18:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Pobednik.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Much better...now...Even if the person is still here. I agree with your ten-months-old arguments--Jebulon 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:A woman's eye.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kaymakchalan-Serbian-Chapel.JPG

Hi PetarM; I'm sorry that you are unhappy with Berthold Werner's review, but please make your points by discussing the image and its subject in your review comments. Attacking another user is often disruptive. Also, referring to certain indigenous peoples as "bushmen" may be pejorative and is best avoided. [1] My suggestion is to explain your "reason for nominating" the image at the time of the nomination (as you did for this image). That will help reviewers understand the significance of your work. If it isn't promoted, you might nominate it later with the scope "Battle of Kajmakchalan" or "Kajmakčalan". Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Muskrat

I believe, your muskrat is a nutria?! --Kürschner (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. To correct the name of a file, please use {{Rename}} (Commons:File renaming). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biberratte --Kürschner (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Nutria (Myocastor coypus).jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments QI for me --George Chernilevsky 10:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations too!--Kürschner (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sant Vasily cathedral in Moscow.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Nice, but needs perspective correction; left side tilts inward. Perhaps consider a tighter crop at left, and cloning away the lamppost intruding on the right edge. --Avenue 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Info Done. Croping wont be good, since church is almost to the left end, would cut it if so. That blue table is tilted in real. --PetarM 16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)very good now--Jebulon 18:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

{{PetarM/license}}

This template is not acceptable. All users of an image, both those inside the WMF projects and those outside, must be able to use an image without having to contact you. Rather than going through all the images that use it (see below) and removing it, I would appreciate it if you would simply change it, such as

"Please review the full license requirements carefully before using this image. Although it is not required, I would appreciate it if you would tell me of any use outside Wikipedia by sending an e-mail to petarslo@yahoo.com.

Thank you,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• File:A woman's eye.JPG
• File:After study desk-detail.JPG
• File:Ajdar Kadi.JPG
• File:Avtozavodskaja.JPG
• File:BitolaPanorama.jpg
• File:BitolaŠSokak.JPG
• File:Bitolj-srpsko vojno groblje.JPG
• File:BitolskiKorzo.JPG
• File:Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus) in fligth.JPG
• File:Boško Šiljegović - grob.JPG
• File:Brekinja.JPG
• File:Canon Powershot A590.JPG
• File:Čapljani.JPG
• File:Čaršija.JPG
• File:Church of the Epiphany (Yaroslavl) 04.jpg
• File:Čirilo i Metodije HDR.jpg
• File:CrkvaBair.JPG
• File:Domat.JPG
• File:Donji Hrastovac.JPG
• File:Faberge egg.JPG
• File:Gimnazija Bitolj.JPG
• File:Hotel Zepter - Kozarska Dubica.JPG
• File:Hram v Omsk.JPG
• File:Hrvatska Dubica.JPG
• File:Irtish v Omsk.JPG
• File:Jasenovčani.JPG
• File:Jevrejsko groblje.JPG
• File:Kozarska Dubica.JPG
• File:Manastir Moštanica I.JPG
• File:Manastir Moštanica.JPG
• File:Monastery Manasija - Serbia.JPG
• File:Monastery Ravanica .JPG
• File:Novigrad.JPG
• File:Nutria (Myocastor coypus).jpg
• File:Onion domes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG
• File:Pobednik.JPG
• File:Pobrđani.JPG
• File:Royal Flush.JPG
• File:Russian bride.jpg
• File:San Marco cathedral in Venice.JPG
• File:Sant Vasily cathedral in Moscow.JPG
• File:SarenaCesma.JPG
• File:Staza (opština Sunja).JPG
• File:Šumdaija sunflower fields.JPG
• File:Sunja (Croatia).JPG
• File:Sv. Kliment Ohridski.JPG
• File:Sveti Sava in Belgrade.JPG
• File:Time of harvest in village of Lug - Serbia.JPG
• File:Toshe-Proeski-grave.JPG
• File:Uspensky sobor.JPG
• File:Vedro Polje.JPG
• File:Volga river at Kazan.JPG
• File:White ushanka.JPG
• File:Yekaterinburg monument to all Russian fallen soliders.JPG
• File:Адмиралитет-Петроград.JPG
• File:Крккардаш - Битола.JPG
• File:Ниџе Планина.JPG
• File:Св Климент.JPG
• File:Св Наум.JPG

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sunja (Croatia).JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments  Support --Carschten 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi PetarM. Unfortunately, I've closed your RfA as unsuccessful based on the community's view that you aren't quite ready to take on the role of an admin. I'm sure in six months everyone would be happy to reevaluate. Best regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Dutch army Pzh-2000 firing on Taliban in Chura. June 16, 2007. Photo by David Axe.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch army Pzh-2000 firing on Taliban in Chura. June 16, 2007. Photo by David Axe.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Stara Ljubljana.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good. A geocode would be interesting.--Jebulon 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)  Done --PetarM 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Grafiti v Ljubljani.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments good --Carschten 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment - What about this image? ;) --MrPanyGoff 07:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I prefer darker colors at such spots (ambient depicted somehow), as for other concentracion camps...that one is too lively, and too close shot (also tigth crop). --Mile (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comment - I would also suggest for the scope name Jasenovac Monument as in Wikipedia.--MrPanyGoff 15:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Its same, wouldnt change much, since there is just a museum near, which has "ongoing work" some 20 years and Croats never opened it since end of Yugoslavia. --Mile (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support better --Tomer T (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support IMHO that place was choise for this view (water and monument with black hole) Przykuta → [edit] 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Logor Jasenovac.JPG: +2
2. KZ-Jasenovac-Denkmal-Seitenansicht.JPG: +1 
=>
File:Logor Jasenovac.JPG: Promoted.
File:KZ-Jasenovac-Denkmal-Seitenansicht.JPG: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 09:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Serbian chapel

Hi PetarM

as I'm very interessed by the history of WW 1, I've translated in french the caption of your picture of the foggy chapel on the peak. I' seen you asked Myrabella for that, I hope it is not a problem! Anyway, it is  Done now. Very nice picture, with a high educational and historical value.--Jebulon (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment - Geotag?--MrPanyGoff 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) How could i forgot, but now its done. --Mile (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)  Support All criteria met now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Izabrana slika

Vidim da mi je poznata slika na Glavnoj strani, a onda se setih da je tvoja. Čestitam :) mickit 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:D-gorki-dom-4942.jpg

I think your changes are too strong, though useful. Could you please instruct me about what changes you applied, so I could fix the original file and re-upload it? BTW, it would be much better not to overwrite the image with your version but to upload a separate fork version. Anyway, this is useless now because I'd like to use your luminosity method and then reupload my retouched image :-).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You say: "lower ligthness and change color tonality". How did you lower the lightness? Did you use levels, with what settings of white, gamma, black? Or did you use curves, with what settings of input and output? How did you change color tonality, with selective colors? Or with levels by separate channels? With what settings? By the way, I found the white windows in the result become yellow.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparing two variants of the photo I can catch your idea and will improve the image, and upload the fine version tomorrow. Thank you for the idea.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Mountain biking .jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 17:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:US_Declaration_of_Independence_us0036_03.jpg

Hello Petar, For Your information, this kind of image is allowed in the VI project, there is even a specific gallery for them: Commons:Valued images by topic/Historical/Documents. The exclusion is only for .pdf files like this, I think. --Myrabella (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

VI

there is a problem with your nomination in VI. Have you not put an extra space before the file name when you've created? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Electric locomotive ChS2.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Comment Good but: Notes on the image, could be removed. Geocoding the location of the shooting seems useful and should not be a problem. There is no direct link with the image, you have to go to vote by the redirection. It will probably be a problem for the BOT must assign the label. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)  Comment Geocoding done, some wierd notations removed, since some dont distinguish between dustspot and bird. Other will be removed when off of IQ nominee. --Mile (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Electric locomotive ChS2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

File:Slovenian_Parliament.JPG

File:Slovenian_Parliament.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 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!

Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Maximarket.tif

File:Maximarket.tif 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 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!

84.61.170.156 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Mihailovsky sobor.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

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:
Kharkiv Metro.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Info refined categories.  Support, good representation. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tvoja slika

Naleteo sam na ovaj članak, na kome su objavili dosta slika sa Commonsa. Na jednoj kao potpis stoji PetarM, pa rekoh da ti javim ako nisi video. Pozdrav! --Lošmi (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened to rotation ?!

[Moved from Commons:Contact us.]
Suddelny some of my photos which were made in portrait mode are wrong rotated, but if You click on them they are fine. Also they were OK orientated...till few days ago. What happened !?

Like this : case 1

Now, if i ask for rotation, then original in full size migth show up wrong. --Mile (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is about a software update, which started using the en:Exif orientation tag in images. Many images have been rotated with software that do not change the tag after rotation and thus instructs the software to rotate them ones more. You should find lots of discussion with a small search on the site. See e.g. Commons:Rotation. --LPfi (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Cross-country skiing.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:History of photography.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments It's abit darkish, but nevertheless QI to me. --Iifar 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerogram.jpg

File:Aerogram.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Android DarkyRom.png

File:Android DarkyRom.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Sreejith K (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Assessments/translate/sr

Hi, do you think you can translate this template? Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Tasa i karte.JPG

File:Tasa i karte.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 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!

sугсго 15:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Harkov vokzal.jpg

File:Harkov vokzal.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 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!

Anatoliy (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 124675d342fad3c2b5e00390589aa5dd

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Featured image

I have nominated one of your great images for featured status. Just to let you know. Bravo, sjajne su... :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ljubljanjski zmaj.JPG

File:Ljubljanjski zmaj.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

And also:

• File:Zmajski most 2.JPG

Yours sincerely Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Ljubljanska katedrala - porta.JPG

Yours sincerely Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

File:National Geographic december 1983.jpg

File:National Geographic december 1983.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 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!

Smooth_O (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File:National Geographic december 1983.jpg

File:National Geographic december 1983.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Ljubljanjski zmaj.JPG

Eleassar (t/p) 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Zmajski most 2.JPG

File:Zmajski most 2.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File:James Bond Mail art.jpg

You've uploaded a derivative work

We're sorry, but File:James Bond Mail art.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative of a non-free work, please explain why on the file description page. In case the file has already been deleted, you may contact the administrator who deleted it or make an undeletion request.

Denniss (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Zmajski most.JPG

Yours sincerely Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Cveti 4.JPG

And also:

• File:Kupola crkve.JPG
• File:SRB cerkev v Ljubljani.jpg
• File:SRBCrkva 2.JPEG
• File:SRBCrkva 3.JPEG
• File:SRBCrkva.JPEG
• File:SRBCrkva.JPG
• File:Sv Ćirilo i Metodije u Ljubljani.JPG
• File:Čirilo i Metodije HDR.jpg
• File:Арханђел Гаврило.jpg
• File:Хорос.JPG Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Stara Ljubljana.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Stara Ljubljana.JPG, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Stara Ljubljana.JPG

File:Stara Ljubljana.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 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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Štepanjsko naselje - Angelce Ocepkove.JPG

And also:

• File:Štepanjsko naselje - Ob sotočju.JPG
• File:Štepanjsko naselje - Skopska ulica.JPG
• File:Štepanjsko naselje.JPG

Yours sincerely Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Mesarski most - Prometej.JPG

File:Mesarski most - Prometej.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

And also:

• File:Mesarski most-Ljubljana.TIF Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Sveti Urh.jpg

You've uploaded a derivative work

We're sorry, but File:Sveti Urh.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative of a non-free work, please explain why on the file description page. In case the file has already been deleted, you may contact the administrator who deleted it or make an undeletion request.

Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Fužinski most.JPG

Eleassar (t/p) 10:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:NLB & Iskra.jpg

Eleassar (t/p) 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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:Russian chapel on Vršič pass.JPG

Eleassar (t/p) 15:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

2013!

		* * * 2013 !!! * * *
		Hi Petar! Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Yours faithfully, George -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Traveling Russia.jpg

File:Traveling Russia.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Psychonaut (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Postcard of Serbia.jpg

File:Postcard of Serbia.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Psychonaut (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg

File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Psychonaut (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Pismo iz Rusije.jpg

File:Pismo iz Rusije.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Psychonaut (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Транс Сибир конверт.jpg

File:Транс Сибир конверт.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Psychonaut (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg

File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.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 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!

Yann (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Транс Сибир конверт.jpg

File:Транс Сибир конверт.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 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!

Yann (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Postcard of Serbia.jpg

File:Postcard of Serbia.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 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!

Yann (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Yann (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Света Ана.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Света Ана.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)