User talk:Crusier

Welcome to the Commons, Crusier!

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

Yann 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FPC

Please have a look at our Image Guidelines before reviewing on FPC. Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cupressus × leylandii

Hi Cruiser - those references are out of date! Both parent species Nootka Cypress and Monterey Cypress are now treated in Cupressus, so their hybrid is also in Cupressus. See:

• Jagel, A., & Stuetzel, T. (2001). Zur Abgrenzung von Chamaecyparis Spach und Cupressus L. (Cupressaceae) und die systematische Stellung von Cupressus nootkatensis D.Don [=Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D.Don) Spach]. Feddes Repertorium 112 (1-4): 179-229.
• Xiang, Q., & Li, J. (2005). Derivation of Xanthocyparis and Juniperus from within Cupressus: Evidence from Sequences of nrDNA Internal Transcribed Spacer Region. Harvard Papers in Botany 9 (2): 375-382
• Mu, L., Wang, L., Yao, L., Hao, B, & Luo, Q. (2006). Application of pet G-trn P sequence to systematic study of Chinese Cupressus species. Frontiers of Biology in China 4: 349-352.
• Rushforth, K. (2007). Notes on the Cupressaceae in Vietnam. Vietnamese Journal of Biology. 29 (3): 32-39.

Hope this helps! MPF (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article needs updating (I've given up on editing there because fighting constant vandalism is so depressing) - MPF (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Find me a source in internet after 2002 which says that Nootka Cypress is Cupressus!" - Here's some:

• Cupressus Conservation Project with Cupressus nootkatensis and Cupressus vietnamensis
• USDA Plants
• CalFlora
• Jepson Manual
• Virginia Tech

MPF (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Stowarzyszenie Wikimedia Polska zaprasza Cię na warsztaty fotograficzne, które odbędą się w Łodzi, 1-3 maja 2010. Twój wkład do Wikimedia Commons wskazuje, że możesz wiele skorzystać z udziału w warsztatach i podzielić się swoim doświadczeniem fotograficznym z innymi. Warsztaty są skierowane do:

• osób już wgrywających mniejsze czy większe ilości zdjęć do Wikimedia

Commons - niezależnie od ich jakości

• fototoamatorów - nie związanych dotąd z projektami Wikimedia
• zawodowych fotografów - w charakterze doradców i wykładowców

Nie ma znaczenia jaki typ fotografii preferujesz - w Wikimedia Commons jest miejsce zarówno dla portrecistów, dokumentalistów, jak i fotografów pejzażu miejskiego i przyrody. Wikiwarsztaty będą miały charakter kameralny (max. 40-50 osób) i trwały przez weekend 1-3 maja 2010 <sobota-poniedziałek>, Zajęcia będą się odbywały w Łódzkim Domu Kultury oraz w plenerze. Organizatorzy zapewniają w ramach opłaty konferencyjnej (50 zł od osoby) - nocleg( PTSM na ul. Zamenhoffa), wyżywienie (obiady) i bezpłatny dostęp do Internetu w trakcie obrad.

E-mail: wikifoto@wikimedia.pl WWW: http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiwarsztaty_fotograficzne Tel: 0-22 219 56 94 Stowarzyszenie Wikimedia Polska, ul. Tuwima 95, p. 15, Łódź.

Zobacz też: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/pl/6/66/Zaproszenie_wiki_foto_2010.pdf

Pozdrowienia,

Organizatorzy Warsztatów Wikifoto 2010

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Metasequoia glyptostroboides leafs.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 for me and useful--Archaeodontosaurus 04:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Felis catus 02.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus mugo nothosubsp. rotundata shoots.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 05:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Populus alba cross section Marki.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 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Araucaria?

Yes, it is a Araucaria heterophylla -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cedrus libani foliage PAN.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 quality. Good example of using DOF --George Chernilevsky 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! TVN24 Łyse 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acer saccharinum young leaves.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 Quality ok, not too thrilled by the bg (but this is not FP). --Dschwen 15:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Picea omorika young shoot.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 Not convinced by the composition, but good details --Ianare 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Magnolia x soulangeana Rogów.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 All looks good, the thumbnail too. --Jebulon 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)  Comment I see it: [1] --Crusier 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus palustris Rogów 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 QI to me, with acceptrable CA (violet fringes) mainly at the top left. --Cayambe 07:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quercus coccinea bark.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.--Jebulon 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phrynohyas resinifictrix Warsaw Zoo 02.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 and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 19:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pseudotsuga menziesii bark Rogów.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.--Jebulon 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Długa river.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 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Persicaria amphibia flower.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 & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus banksiana cone 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 QI for me Darius Baužys 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Świętokrzyski Bridge 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 picture. Trace 11:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Świętokrzyski Bridge.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, nice composition to me, even I like version 2 more --J. Lunau 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:F-35A_AF-01.jpg

File:F-35A_AF-01.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!

Denniss (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

File:F-35A.jpg

File:F-35A.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!

Denniss (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Thuja_plicata_foliage_underside.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Thuja_plicata_foliage_underside.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Pseudotsuga_menziesii_trunk.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Pseudotsuga_menziesii_trunk.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Magnolia_officinalis_Rogów.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Magnolia_officinalis_Rogów.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Acer_japonicum_Rogów.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Acer_japonicum_Rogów.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alnus glutinosa Ząbki.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies grandis cross section.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 --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Callitropsis nootkatensis Pendula.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, QI--Jebulon 10:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus contorta latifolia foliage.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. --King of Hearts 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus armandii foliage.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 little underexposed. --King of Hearts 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment Now good? --Crusier 04:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Better. --King of Hearts 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus pumila Rogów.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 Nothing to complain about, QI to me. --Cayambe 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Pinus rigida foliage Drewnica.jpg

Hi, I declined this picture's nomination for QI for the following reasons:

• Lack of contrast - the background should be really blurred to bring out the subject. Currently the pine leaves get lost in the picture and do not stand out.
• Composition - the image appears tilted due to the birch trunk, and the oak sprout comes out of nowhere. Pitke (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pseudotsuga menziesii lammas growth 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 QI. 99of9 12:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pseudotsuga menziesii lammas growth.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. --99of9 12:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Typha latifolia Library Garden.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 --Mbdortmund 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Library Garden Warsaw.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 08:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Tsuga heterophylla cones.JPG

Hi Crusier - this one is actually Tsuga caroliniana, not T. heterophylla. Can you get some good close-up pics of the foliage, and cones on the tree, of this specimen? There aren't any good close-up pics of this species yet on Commons. I'll also re-name the file soon. Thanks! MPF (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks! Not easy to re-visit the tree for more photos? It looks a nice specimen. - MPF (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK!! - MPF (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Datura inoxia UW.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 Quality is ok, but the composition is confusing; I'd prefer a tighter crop on the central plant. --Quartl 07:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)  Done? --Crusier 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Good for me now. --Quartl 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Abies × cephaloniana"

Hi Cruiser - this isn't a validly published name (not listed by IPNI). What is it supposed to be? MPF (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope you had a nice holiday ;-) Unfortunately, the problem still remains that the name is not validly published (see ICBN Article 29.1 and Article 30.3), and we shouldn't use unpublished names in Commons. I'd guess the thing to do is give the page a hybrid formula name (i.e., "Abies cephalonica × Abies nordmanniana"). Same too (just checked) for "Thuja × plicatoides", which is an invalid name. I'll change them in a day or two. Hope this helps clarify! MPF (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wisłoujście.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, perhapy slightly overexposed, see tower. --Cayambe 07:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! EELAND Martwa Wisla.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 11:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD 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 Good. --Cayambe 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhus typhina Marki.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 Quality is O.K. -- MJJR 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Liriodendron tulipifera PAN leaf.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 Really nice — Jagro 16:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marki Zwałka 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 There is some noticeable CA on the bottom corners when looked at 100%, but not enough to justify a decline. I like the excellent contrast of the snow, white balance is good. Great picture. --Murdockcrc 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moderus Beta MF 01 1143 Gdańsk 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 Widać trochę CA, ale biorąc pod uwagę rozdzielczość wydaje mi się, że QI się należy. --Sfu 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MAN NG 363 Lion's City G 3456 Marki.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 Quality --Ralf Roletschek

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MAN NG 363 Lion's City G 3456 Marki 3.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 Quality --Ralf Roletschek

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! A589 Scania CN270UB Marki.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 20:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bug bridge Małkinia.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 work. --Ralf Roletschek 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suricata suricatta Oliwa.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, good DoF, very expressive.--Jebulon 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Platanus × hispanica.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--Jebulon 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Water drops in setting Sun light.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 don't manage ton andersand what it is, but i found it beautiful and sharp --Croucrou 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)  Info Ohh, I apologize for the mistake in the description --Crusier 06:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Larix decidua Marki 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 Good quality. --Carschten 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Larix decidua trunk Marki 3.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 quality. --Carschten 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus ponderosa female cones.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 quality. --Cayambe 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ginkgo biloba PAN 3.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 quality and very nice. --Taxiarchos228 15:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ginkgo biloba PAN 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 Good quality. --Carschten 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies grandis seedling.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 quality. --Cayambe 19:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ginkgo biloba PAN.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 Fine. --Mattbuck 10:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ginkgo biloba PAN 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 Could be sharper, but ok. --Mattbuck 10:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ginkgo biloba PAN 6.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 don't like this one so much - possibly needs cropping on the top and right. Mattbuck 10:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)  Done Now? --Crusier 10:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Yes. Mattbuck 11:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Evangelical-Augsburg Cemetery Marki 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 I wouldn't mind a bit of cropping at the top, but ok. --Mattbuck 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Evangelical-Augsburg Cemetery Marki 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 Good. --Mattbuck 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies grandis seedling 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 Good. --Mattbuck 11:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Larix decidua Marki 7.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. --David Perez 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus ponderosa subsp. ponderosa cones and shoots 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 QI.--Jebulon 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marki Zwałka Panorama 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 Good quality. --Carschten 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD 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 08:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD 6.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 very good, but tilted --Carschten 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)  Done fixed (I think...) --Crusier 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD plates .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! -- MJJR 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LED screen Marki.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 subject isn't that exciting, but the quality is ok. Please add geocode. --Cayambe 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viscum album Marki.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 Despite some (unavoidablel) CA here, QI to me. --Cayambe 20:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Draisine Warszawa DTP 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  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marki 270311 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelcz M121I 4922 Marki cropp.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 quality. Please add geotag. --Cayambe 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD 12.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 image of a cute engine. I prefer this crop. The background is rather distracting, but I know: you cannot remove it... -- MJJR 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MAN NG 363 Lion's City G 3432 Marki.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pulsatilla Marki.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 Great! Please add Locaton. --AleXXw 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)  Done --Crusier 06:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD 11.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 quality. --Carschten 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Balloon Marki 3.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 very nice, but needs perspective distortion correction --Carschten 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)  Done Now? --Crusier 11:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC) The crop has become more tight but I think its ok since the balloon is still anchored to the ground. Jovianeye 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lake Marki.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 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pulsatilla Marki 3.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 Very good. Cookie 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MAN SD202 6001 Gdynia.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 Dobre, ale tło mocno rozprasza --Sfu 21:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies pollen cones Marki 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 I think it is good enough for a QI --Ximonic 01:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acer platanoides Marki 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 a perspective distortion correction would make it better, but it's a QI imo though --Carschten 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)  Comment Like that? --Crusier 06:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies pollen cones Marki 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 I would suggest to crop of a small part at the right and the bottem. - Basvb 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)  Done OK now? --Crusier 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Yes best from the series now. Mvg, Basvb 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies pollen cones Marki 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  Support ...and I kind of like this one too. The 'subject' is sharp enough. --Ximonic 01:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Needs tighter cropping around the sharp subject. --Gidip 14:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)  Done Now? --Crusier 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) OK --Gidip 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies alba cross section Beskid Żywiecki.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 quality. --Raghith 10:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sundial Stanisław Staszic Park Częstochowa.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 quality. --Saffron Blaze 20:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pinus sylvestris Beskid Żywiecki.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 quality. Pleasse geotag. --Cayambe 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Px48 1778 MKD 13.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. A slight cropping of the lower edge would improve the image. -- MJJR 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)  Done now? --Crusier 07:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Solaris Urbino15 8772 TT.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 Composition: The main object is not "zoomed" enough, too much uninteresting and disturbing space around --Crusier 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)  Comment This better: File:Solaris Urbino15 8772 TT crop.JPG ? --Crusier 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)  Support I'm more interested in road signs than in buses. --Ikar.us 22:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trasa Toruńska Targówek.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 continuation of File:Solaris Urbino15 8772 TT.JPG. If focal length was 135mm, wasn't it possible to take a view of both together? --Ikar.us 22:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

file:Trinity Church in Kobyłka 2.JPG

file:Trinity Church in Kobyłka 2.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!

Czonek (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:32D3-3 and Pm3-3 MK.JPG‎

Sorry, must have been finger-trouble on my part. I don't even use HotCat Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acer saccharum Rogów.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marki Piłsudskiego 76.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, and not terribly interesting, but all in all the quality is good enough for me, --Slaunger 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Android i5800.png

File:Android i5800.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca shoot.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 quality. --NorbertNagel 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iphiclides podalirius Trzy Korony.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. --Iifar 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bison bonasus Oliwa 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 I think it's just a bit too bright - possible overexposure bottom left. Mattbuck 13:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC))  Done I hope it's better now? --Crusier 14:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Better. Mattbuck 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies alba Pieniny.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 maybe be confused with the background, but good for QI IMO.--Jebulon 13:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fagus sylvatica leaves bottom.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. --Florstein 09:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies alba Silesian Beskids.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 Slight magenta CA to be reduced maybe, but good nevertheless.--Jebulon 08:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Done OK now? --Crusier 10:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abies alba bark Silesian Beskids.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 Maybe the slightest problem with DOF but certainly QI for me. -- Aisano 19:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fagus sylvatica cross section Silesian Beskids.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 Not perfect, but nice and QI for me --Haneburger 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pseudotsuga menziesii seedling.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 quality. --Poco a poco 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brassica oleracea gongylodes without sun.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 Slightly unfortunate lighting but  Weak support. --Kreuzschnabel 23:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Bardzo Ładne zdjęcie szukam podobnego do prezentacji Matematycznej dla naszego klienta. Potrzebuje wyłącznego prawa tak aby oddać je klientowi. W zamian daję miejsce w napisach końcowych. wojciechbacal@gmail.com WojtekBącal WojtekBącal (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified Abies

Hi Crusier - some time ago you added a series of pics File:Abies pollen cones Marki.JPG et seq., as an unidentified Abies. My thought is Abies × arnoldiana, do you think that is correct? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably it. I have been suspecting that it's A. arnoldiana from the beginning. It was bought as A. koreana, but I think it grows too fast for this species. Actually, I've uploaded a picture of cones on this tree few months after those, and I already described it as A. arnoldiana: File:Abies cones Marki.JPG. --Crusier (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll recat them all there then - MPF (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Bombycilla garrulus on apple.JPG

File:Bombycilla garrulus on apple.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!

81.155.14.24 17:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Caiman crocodilus Akwarium Gdynia.JPG

File:Caiman crocodilus Akwarium Gdynia.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 GT-I5800 8.png

File:Android 2.2 GT-I5800 8.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800.png

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800 2.png

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800 2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 i5800 5.png

File:Android 2.2 i5800 5.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800 9.png

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800 9.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800 8.png

File:Android 2.2 SGH-I5800 8.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

File:Abies grandis seedling.JPG is during this week on main page of Estonian Vikipeedia, because grand fir is article of the week. Thank you for nice photo! Taivo (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

File:The Lion King Media Markt Billboard Marki.jpg

File:The Lion King Media Markt Billboard Marki.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!

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Moon setting, Marki

On the subject of your shot of the moon going down in Marki, Poland, and what category it belongs in: mate, the moon to all intents and purposes is not visible in this shot. The shot may belong in a Marki cat, but not a moon cat.

Cheers,

Sardaka (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Crusier,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Android 2.2 GT-I5800 2.png

File:Android 2.2 GT-I5800 2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Мункач Варош (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)