User talk:JJLudemann

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JJLudemann!


File:Rabbit 46mo.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Rabbit 46mo.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!

--Teofilo (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old car[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your identification of File:LakesideMAStuffedAnimalCar.jpg. Yes, the body does look like Model A Fordoor. The radiator however doesn't look like any Fords of that era I've seen. Maybe it is a replacement? Thoughts? Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! From the radiator I think an Oakland from c. 1929-30 is the prime candidate. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MilfordSoundStirlingFalls_gobeirne_EDIT.jpg[edit]

Good work on this image but can you upload a version with a minimal compression rate because as it is now, heavy compression artefacts ruin the whole image? Imo the digital grain is also much more visible but I don't know if it's due to these artefacts or to the post-processing you applied.
About my first edit, I made it “lighter”, trying to preserve the general mood and tone of the original with a more natural colour, but your edit is also pretty interesting. Sting (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've made an edit close to your version and uploaded it with a low compression rate.
Yes, the place is incredible, amazing, and the picture itself is also pretty good regarding the type of camera used. Sting (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts on the colour balance - the edited versions do look obviously better. It's just after being used to the "blue" version, the new edits looked almost black and white and took a little getting used to. However, I like them now! Cheers :) - gobeirne (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

MonoLake2007.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MonoLake2007.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 Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The horizon seems to be slightly inclined clockwise. --Siipikarja 10:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rotated 0.9 deg. CCW. --James J. Ludemann 12:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely better now. Passes for me. --Siipikarja 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
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:


Yours sincerely Vera (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]