User talk:Ankara/Archive

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ankara!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour 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 irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). 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 graphic 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 without embedding the image, type: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, which produces: `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?)

Strandvägenvinter

Good morning,

Very beautiful picture!

Sincerely

Jpbazard, France

Thank You! (sorry i didnt see you message before). Best Regards, --Ankara (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello Ankara/Archive!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Slottsbacken.JPG is uncategorized since 4 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Karta.jpg is uncategorized since 18 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Trygghuset.jpg is uncategorized since 22 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tyre2009b.JPG is uncategorized since 27 May 2009.
Image:Karlaplan4.JPG was uncategorized on 30 August 2009.
Image:Skutan10.JPG was uncategorized on 9 September 2009.
Image:FjärderholmarnafrånDuvnäs.JPG was uncategorized on 20 September 2009.
Image:Erikdahlbergsgatan.JPG was uncategorized on 27 September 2009.

File:Hasselbygard.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 informations 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 (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoteldesuede6.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Hoteldesuede6.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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parkeringshus Dockan.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 13:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fasaddetalj.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 15:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License

It has been found that Image:Bohlin high.tiff has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:FitzRoyfromtheroad.JPG

Hello Ankara. I just wanted to say that this is a good photo, in both edits, but with a small camera you will almost never achieve a photo sharp enough for Featured Picture. The lens is not sharp enough. Also, you should always use a photo-editor on your images to ensure you have the full range of black to white (use the histogram), to ensure you obtain the colors you want, and to sharpen the image. I sympathize because I had a small camera and I was always frustrated by the quality. Downtowngal (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Bohlin.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bohlin.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

→Na gy 15:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Que? I have provided a " link to an appropriate webpage with license information".--Ankara (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alvikstorg.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ST ERIk 1.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 A bit dark and soft, but overall very nice and aesthetic. QI --George Chernilevsky 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Djurgårdsbrunnsviken.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 Comment The buildings near the right edge are tilted to the left. Can you fix that? Otherwise a very nice panorama. - Till.niermann 19:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) CommentThank you! I hope I've fixed it now (i will add the notes to the photo again when finised).--Ankara 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I gladly Support. - Till.niermann 14:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tack you

Tack för nomineringarna av bilderna inifrån Vasa. Dom är ju rätt unika men jag trodde inte att dom skulle betraktas som tillräckligt intressanta för QI.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jag råkade titta på bilderna du tagit från Vasa, vilket arbete du lade ned med att ta och ladda upp alla dessa bilder! Jag tycker kvalitén är imponerande, i synnerhet med tanke på kameran och förhållandena. Kul att de klarade bedömningen. --Ankara (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för uppskattningen. Jag gick, satt, klättrade och krälade runt i nästan två timmar för att få dom där bilderna. Kul men rätt ansträngande.

Intressanta kanske var fel ord när jag tänker efter eftersom det är väldigt intressant med fria bilder inifrån Vasa. Snarare var jag övertygad om att den tekniska kvaliteten skulle underkänna dom oavsett hur unika dom var; jag är inte någon stjärnfotograf, min kamera är rätt kackig och jag är inte särskilt kunnig vad gäller att bedöma hur bra ett foto är. Det finns ju i så fall fler bilder som jag tog som skulle kunna vara rätt intressanta. Jag tänker främst på bilderna på ankarbetingen (anchor bitts) och från hålskeppet (hold).

Fast med tanke på hur lite jag kan om bildbedömning så tänker jag nog undvika att nominera något på egen hand...

Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PuntaTombo2007c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. Please add geocode. --Cayambe 11:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Geocode added. --Ankara 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosenborgshuset.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! AlbergetPanorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Ikar.us 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kvarteret Gråmunkeholmen

Hej Jag hittade en tom kategori som du skapade. Har kategorin råkat tömmas av misstag, eller är det en överbliven kategori som kan anmälas till snabbradering? /Ö 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Det är en felaktig namngiven kategori som jag skapade av misstag och missat att lägga in begäran om snabbradering på. --Ankara (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! FishinginSarıyer3.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Looks like far off-shore.And very concentrated. --Ikar.us 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kanlica.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 Sky a bit overexposed, but QI nevertheless. --Cayambe 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hammarbysjöstadpanorama2010.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 The towers on the left lean slightly outward. (I do not mind the chimney crossing the picture. This is inevitable and does not spoil the composition for me.) The picture looks downscaled and I would have preferred full resolution. This would not necessarily increase file size as the current resolution can be saved (e.g. with gimp) at about 1/4 of the current file size without visible quality loss. However, no reason against marking already the current version as QI. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mårtendal.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Djurgårdsvarvet2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy versus Bad Name on Categori:Lindgården

By the way, I really like the panorama at the top of User:Ankara -- we've been to Stockholm twice and it's fun to see a different view. I also like File:Djurgårdsvarvet2010.jpg -- we've been there, by water, but not in winter....

I've made the same sort of mistake several times, so I learned the hard way -- please use {{bad name|Category:Lindgården}} when you need a naming mistake deleted. It saves the new page patroller (me, in this case) and the admin who does the deletion from having to figure out what happened.

You might also ask for autopatroller status on Commons. It does nothing for you, but saves others from having to patrol your work on Commons. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and advice. Next time I will use Template:bad name. I have asked for autopatroller status. Best Regards, --Ankara (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the template documentation says "This template should only be used for files" and the instructions in the template is specifically about files (CheckUsage and {{Universal replace}} does not work for non-files). /Ö 20:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as a practical matter it works fine for all Commons space, although it does render the name of the gallery or category a little strangely. I probably should have added that it should be used only when you have just created a badly named file, category, or gallery, realized it, and want to get rid of it quickly -- in that case (CheckUsage and {{Universal replace}} aren't needed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Taynal mosque, Tripoli, Lebanon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Comment by Ottava Rima

If you try to re add a spoof comment to the top of that proposal, you will most likely be blocked. You do not have the right to add statements pretending to be Jimbo nor do you have the right to make such statements that are out of policy and bounds. Jimbo has the right to put forth such things with WMF approval, and you do not have the right to make attacks on it in such a manner. If you do not like it, complain on the talk page and do not stoop to vandalism, attacks, and now an attempt to edit war your attacks back in. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Que? --Ankara (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ankara's signature is now appended to the comment. Which is entirely factual, as there is no consensus for the actions Jimbo is taking. Take your hyperbole elsewhere. Roux (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't matter to be blunt (even though there is strong consensus and has been for a long time) - the core policies are determined by the WMF, and this is one of their actions. Posting your personal opinion on that page is the definition of vandalism. Remove it yourself or you will go the way of the last two people who tried to use the page for their political statements. This is highly inappropriate action. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You treat a user with 17 000 edits on the Wikimedia projects as a vandal. You are terribly arrogant and rude and spreading false claims about me, I have never pretending to be Jimbo and i have never add a spoof comment. It is typical that you can not even distinguish the guidelines from and Jimbo. I did not edited in a text by Jimbo, but in a policy that everyone has the right to edit.--Ankara (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ankara is clearly not a vandal; but a highly-trusted contributor. Please don't berate Commons editors this way. –SJ + 09:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intresting to read this Edit Counter for Ottava Rima, Total editcount: 124. --Ankara (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative insults seem to be flung around very easily in emotional situations. Labeling others is something all people should strive to do conservatively if it be necessary at all. Ty (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kategoeriseringar

Tack för att du har hjälpt mig att kategorisera "mina" bilder. /Fluff (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Det var så lite så. Det här är förresten en mycket fin bild File:100502_Göteborgshjulet1.jpg.--Ankara (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Helags2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Järnia.JPG

File:Järnia.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 18:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MS Polar Star1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK --Tasto 00:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Helags mountain, Sweden.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Storskär2010d.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok to me. --Cayambe 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nordiskamuseet.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 A bit flat, but I like it --Carschten 17:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hägerstensåsen2010d.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good -George Chernilevsky 19:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hägerstensåsen2010e.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --George Chernilevsky 19:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Körsnär

I am waiting for a picture of a Swedish furrier's shop? ;-)
Do you have one for me? Maybe we can exchange, something from Düsseldorf to you ;-)

Greetings from Germany, the --Kürschner (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find someone in Stockholm. There are not many left, animal rights activists make life hard for them. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long live Wikipedia - thank you (you must document them, before the last one is mobbed. We come back again - sometime... [1] see here)!--Kürschner (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Degeln 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aspel3-5.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danebrog and swedish orders

Thank you for answering. I hereby dedicate the following award to you for your kind explanation.--Jebulon (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Ankara (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PanoramafromTorkilstötenJune2010.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 Nice panorama. Trace 11:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Utö kyrka 2010e.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 A bit noisy, but OK. Rama 01:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Utö kyrka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

File:Vålåsjön2010.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 08:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Hagakyrkan 2010e.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Hagakyrkan 2010.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Göteborgs domkyrkan.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Staty Victor Hasseblad.JPG

Hello. As you can see, I've promoted your photo of the statue in QIC. I'm happy of that. This is only to make you notice a mistake in the name of your file. It is "HasseLblad", as you know, and not "Hasseblad" without L. It could be a problem for a future use (search by name ?) of this picture in projects...
Kind regards from Paris
--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks! I have asked for rename. Best Regards from Stockholm.--Ankara (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue of Victor Hasselblad.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 Could be crop right and left IMO...--Jebulon 22:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Crop done.--Ankara 11:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I find it much better. Thanks !--Jebulon 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Göteborgs domkyrkan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok --Pudelek 11:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stigbergsliden september 2010d.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Helags october 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --Carschten 12:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amerikahuset september 2010b.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stigbergsliden september 2010b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stigbergsliden september 2010.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 Also good. --Cayambe 09:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nösund september 2010b.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 07:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kvarteret Dihlströms september 2010.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 12:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eriksberg september 2010b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 08:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Thamska huset.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sjömanskyrkan.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 Also good. --Cayambe 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sahlgrenska huset september 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good -- Albertus teolog 10:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

review

Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The criteria is extremely clear: All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so. The picture was taken in a private home and is a obvious case of non-place-related shots and in criterion 5 Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots. Also: Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field. There is a geographic description of where the berries are coming from. Keep in mind that Commons is a collaborative project, and tell me what is missing instead of sending a nonsense messag! What is lacking is not included in the criterion.--Ankara (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an explanation on the picture page on why the image is not geocoded. Anyway, it is unfortunate that there is no information in the criteria that you have to justify why the image is not geocoded. The link provided above does not contain the information, which is frustrating because it is not clear what you have done wrong. This is in my opinion, an obvious case.--Ankara (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was solved - I remove my vote. Sorry if my comment was not clear enough (although I believe it was) --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it difficult to identify without ambiguity. May I suggest, if it is possible, to re-shot it with a specimen of the fruit nearby? --Myrabella (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt is too late in the season for fresh berries. Possibly you can buy frozen. But I'm not sure I understand your point, the photo should show a typical example of cloudberry jam. A fresh berries adds nothing of value for that purpose.--Ankara (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for me, I prefer images of jam with fruits (example). More seriously, it could add value for users who didn't know what cloudberries are ('plaquebière' in French, as I've learnt tonight). --Myrabella (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please take care: Myrabella is the champion about cooking, cheese, oysters, and so on... I like this example of Myrabella's jam, very funny !!! By the way, many thanks for the translation, Myrabella, I really didn't know what cloudberries could be... Well, 'plaquebière' ?... Hm...first time I hear this word... What kind of berry is it ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, no need further explanations, I found this !! Thanks to Wikipédia !--Jebulon (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the criteria for VI:

1. Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons.

Yes. (Better than File: Moroshka.JPG)

2. Is nominated as being the most valuable within a suitably generic scope

Cloudberry is certainly not the world's most famous bear. But it has had an important historical role in northern Scandinavia and other northern parts of the world. Mainly because of the high content of vitamin C.

3. Must illustrate its subject well.

Yes. it is not a valid ground of opposition that it would be easy to create a better one. A VI is the best available image of its type on Commons, not the best that can be conceived of. It would perhaps be more educational to include a fresh berries, but the picture gives a good picture of cloudberry jam and have a decent quality.

4. Is fully described on the image page.

Yes.

5. Is geocoded, when relevant.

See above

6. Is well categorized at an appropriate level.

Yes. --Ankara (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Convinced. Moreover, seems to illustrate the usual aspect of that jam (I compared with another image found on that blog). Description in French added; image inserted in the fr:WP article on plaquebière. --Myrabella (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree.--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Homemade cloudberry jam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

File:Eriophorum scheuchzeri in Ljungdalen Sweden september 2010.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 20:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Edshultshall panorama september 2010.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 A bit unsharp in places, but good. Mattbuck 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Makrill.JPG – nu förstår jag

Aha, nu förstår jag! Josve laddade upp en nedskalad version av bilden, som han sedan skalade upp vilket gör bilden till sämre kvalitét. Heymid (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja det blev nog lite fel för honom.--Ankara (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ms Ballerina.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 Clear QI to me now. --Cayambe 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Helags Panorama.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 Nice, despite the "halo" around the snow in left down part of the image if my eyes work right :) --Chmee2 08:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator espiritu santu

Hello,

I'm working on a video for an exhibition of design in France about transport in cities, and I would like to use your videos, which permit a good point of view on the city. Would you allow me to use it? And if yes, do you want me to attribute you the work, and if yes, what is your name you want me to use?

Thanks a lot for your help, and sorry for my mistakes in english...

Alice.

Elevator espiritu santu

Hello,

I'm working on a video for an exhibition of design in France about transport in cities, and I would like to use your videos, which permit a good point of view on the city. Would you allow me to use it? And if yes, do you want me to attribute you the work, and if yes, what is your name you want me to use?

Thanks a lot for your help, and sorry for my mistakes in english...

Alice.

Hey Alice,

You are of course welcome to use the video. This video is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please use my name here, Ankara. Best Regards--Ankara (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nacka strand september 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK--Mbz1 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Typhon 16 November 2010c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 11:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lumafabriken november 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 10:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park inn Hammarby Sjöstad.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stora tullhuset november 2010b.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
Comment I think it needs a white balance adjustment, it looks very blue to me. --V-wolf 05:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC) New version uploaded.--Ankara 08:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC) ---DKrieger 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) IMO a good and useful image now ... even more, if you think about the tricky light.[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kolingsborg from Katarinahissen September 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good to me.--Jebulon 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vikdalen september 2010b.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 15:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Riddarhuset november 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Juvelkvarnen september 2010b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. Mattbuck 04:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ostindiska huset september 2010b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 11:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norra Hamngatan 2.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 14:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Norra Hamngatan 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments ok --Carschten 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cityvarvet september 2010.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 The picture is very good, but needs a little more detailed description.--Andrei Stroe 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I have added a detailed descriptionAnkara 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

File:Danviks hospital december 2010b.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kvarteret Dihlströms september 2010.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 As technical quality and composition it meets the criteria for QI, imo. MrPanyGoff 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sergelgatan from Mäster Samuelsgatan september 2010.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 Perspective correction needed --Jebulon 23:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fine with the perspective. -- H005 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Instabil2.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ulvsunda slott december 2010.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 Compositionally a little busy, but I like the color and contrast. --King of Hearts 18:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lumakranen.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 I'd like to see a closer shot of the crane, but this is also well shot. Great exposition of the snow. --LeavXC 16:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Ankara, happy New 2011 Year! --Vizu (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk! Happy new year!--Ankara (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Norra Hamngatan 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok to me. --Cayambe 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Norra Hamngatan 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Torkilstöten Panorama October 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bankogatan from Axel Dahlströms torg september 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Norra Hamngatan 2.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 Needs a perspective correction at the left side. Also: the crane at the left is distracting and should be removed imo. Both issues are fixable. --Cayambe 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Done. New version uploaded.--Ankara 09:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC). QI to me now. --Cayambe 09:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QI: New version

Hello Ankara, there is a new version of the picture on the QIC. I think know that it is okey now. alofok * 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It looks good now. Regards--Ankara (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Underneath the Tranebergsbron, Stockholm, Sweden - 20101212.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 nice idea --Mbdortmund 11:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Melbourne Townhall.jpg

Dear Ankara. I sincerely thank you for your finding and pointing out of my QI candidate image error. I would not find this incorrect blending of the stitched image by myself without your careful review/checking. Also this is a good point for me to learn in photograph, especially in the post photograph processing. Thanks again for your support. Donaldytong (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sincerely --Ankara (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyska bron september 2010c.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Tyska bron september 2010b.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To complete my review

I would like to take the time to tell you some other things that, I hope, will make sure I get understood.

1) I love the mood that comes out of those old cameras. It is strong and full of life. I'm sure you made a very good purchase with this camera and that you will get marvelous results with it.

2) It's sad but people in QI images are a bit rough and I get influenced sometimes. But one thing is for sure: these people will go and look at pixels and size first, picture next. So noise is realy hard to pass. (Personaly, I have to downsize my pictures to get them trough so people won't look at pixels in a 15 megapixels picture) My guess is, unless if you get a picture in a perfect condition with a realy unsensitive film, you won't get a QI label with pictures from your Nikon FM. You'll have to be proud by yourself... By the way this one is great!

3) I've come to an understanding lately and I would like sharing it with you. It is fun to get a QI label, but the best part of what we do is to go out and have fun taking pictures! When I think that way, I get less frustrated when people tell me that I have 0.05% of pixels of my picture that are blown and therefore my picture isn't good.

So in the friendliest way, I hope you will continue your beautiful work and have fun with your new full frame! Take care, Letartean (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and you are absolutely right. Thanks again. I look forward to seeing more of your great pictures from Québec. Take care, --Ankara (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Makaronifabriken 2011b.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Karlsbodavägen december 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

User talk:Ankara/Archive

Strandvägenvinter

Please link images

Deprecated License

Re File:FitzRoyfromtheroad.JPG

File tagging File:Bohlin.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Tack you

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Speedy versus Bad Name on Categori:Lindgården

Valued Image Promotion

Comment by Ottava Rima

Kategoeriseringar

Valued Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Körsnär

Quality Image Promotion

Danebrog and swedish orders

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

File:Makrill.JPG – nu förstår jag

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Elevator espiritu santu

Elevator espiritu santu

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Happy New Year!

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

South Melbourne Townhall.jpg

To complete my review

Quality Image Promotion

Navigation menu

Search