Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). 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.
Please stop vandalizing QIC page like you did recently. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a personal attack because I did not vandalize and there was no edit conflict! Your next PA will be reoprted at vandalism report! Mariofan13 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Reverting other users' edits like you did in the nomination of this picture is vandalism. Please think better before going that way. Your recent block history doesn't help either! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know this picutre, I'v never seen that before! I think you're talking to the wrong user. I jstu nominated two pictures, and no edit conflict was shown. nominating QI candidates isn't vandalism! You're reproted at the vandalism repor.
Okay, I'm sorry. There was no edit conflict shwon after saving my edit. There was a bug but no vandalism. Where's your AGF? Mariofan13 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I believe in you. It was some kind of edit conflict, no big deal! But maybe you should cancel that post in the AN board. Admins don't like to feel that their time is being wasted... Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, do as all others do and re-try your edit if there was an edit conflict. Your edit is not more valuable than those done before yours. Thanks, Poco2 09:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the edit-conflict was nonsense because the only differnece was my comment. There weren't any other differecnes shown, so I saved my edit. I'll ask in the german forum for bugfixing Mariofan13 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What I see in the file history is not aligned with your statement . Please, be careful, last call. I cannot assume good faith if it happens again. Poco2 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The diff what was shown at the edit conflict page was nonsense, but there was a real edit conflict. I asked in our German forum  what the problem was. Especialli if there'S a known bug you should assume good faith. Mariofan13 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Support though it is a very tight crop, I think it can pass as QI --Cccefalon 07:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) CommentIt's not cropped, it's the original image ;) Mariofan13 13:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"crop" does not only refer to post-processing but also to choosing the frame before pressing the button --Kreuzschnabel 07:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
★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: Canis lupus lupus ( Eurasian wolf) head side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Question Can we have the name of the subspecies?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a european wolf, canis lupus lupus.188.8.131.52 05:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
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!
File:20150513 Sebastian Kodek Aufzug der Superzelle bei Graz.jpg
I hope you understand English. I had to change the description and categories on this image. There is no wall cloud in it (de:Mauerwolke). What can be seen is a self cloud (de:Arcus (Wolke)) ahead of the rain shaft under the thunderstorm, a common interpretation mistake. Futhermore, there is nothing to show that this is a supercell thunderstorm, it could as well show a multicellular or a squall line of thunderstorms (de:Gewitter#Multizellengewitter).
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There's a wallcloud right next to the precipitation core. It's maybe not easy to see, but there's one. I have another image of the supercell with stronger zoom:  and here's an image of the wall shot by another member of the chasing team: .
You should know, it was not easy to take photos because of the long exposure times and the strong anvil rain, so we had to place the cameras inside the car and shoot through the window.
The cell was a supercell embedded in an MCS which moved from Styria (where the supercell we chased developed) to northwest Rumania, crossing Slovenia and Hungary, without significant weakening. I also have a precipitation radar image, showing the supercell in Nagykanisza: .
I hope now you agree that the cell had a wallcloud and was a supercell ;) Yes, there was a shelf cloud too, but not a well developed one, so I thought it was not neccessary to set the category "shelf cloud". Sturmjäger (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the image must by itself must contains what the description says it contains very visibly. You cannot say in a description what you see in other images or radar displays. If you have another photo that shows the wall cloud, input it with that description. If you have a radar image showing a supercell, THEN this is the one to input with category:Supercells. As far as "File:20150513 Sebastian Kodek Aufzug der Superzelle bei Graz.jpg", nothing of the sort is visible. Furthermore, the category: Thunderstorms is redundant with Thunderstorms in Autria. Pierre cb (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I named the additional images to demonstrate that the storm on my uploaded photo is a supercell because you said it was no.
And in my picture "File:20150513 Sebastian Kodek Aufzug der Superzelle bei Graz.jpg" there is a wall cloud right next to the precipitation core, in the centre of the photography, so my description as a "supercell with a wall cloud" is correct. I'm surprised that a "meteorologist" like you doesn't see the wall cloud.
Apart form that, thanks for removing the cat "Thunderstorms".Sturmjäger (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If you talk about the lower cloud deck right of the rain shaft, it could be any low cloud part of the shelf that extend up to the front. No evidence of wall cloud there. Pierre cb (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it okay if I remove the wall cloud from the description?
Maybe the problem is because I know the supercell had a wall cloud it is clearly visible for me but you only have this one image and the wall cloud in this image can be any lowering cloud part, eg from the shelf. Sturmjäger (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This photo seems to be from one of your chase. You had a long time to see all the evolution and you had other instruments to corroborate your experience. However, the average viewer of this image does no have all those facts. Maybe you can give a longer description where to describe the evolution of the thunderstorm and mention that the wall cloud became more evident further in time and where it should be in the photo as you tried to describe it to me in this discussion. Pierre cb (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, the photo is from a chase. Is the new, longer description okay? Sturmjäger (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as Google translator can give me an idea of the meaning in English (my German is limited), the description is much better. I will take your word that the low cloud will develop into a wall cloud. Pierre cb (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
chromatic aberrations to be removed, otherwise good quality. Removed redundant category --A.Savin 00:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Comment Chromatic aberrations reduced, I hope it's okay now. ~~~~ OK acceptable --A.Savin 14:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)