User talk:Chrumps

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Halo in cirrostratus 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 {{{3}}}

--Tony Wills 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coenagrion puella F.jpg

Hello Chrumps, your photo does not show Coenagrion puella. Much "better": It is a male specimen of Ischnura pumilio. Please correct that. -- Regards, Fice 14:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ischnura pumilio is very similar. Thanks for paying attention, fixed. BTW could you take a look on Image:Calopteryx virgo F.jpg - is it female Calopteryx virgo or maybe female Calopteryx splendens? I'm not 100% sure. -- Chrumps 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think, Calopteryx virgo is correct - the wings are rather brown. Indead, often it is quite difficult to decide between these two species, when only females are present. Back to the other picture: Couldn't you reload it with a new file name? That would be the best solution. -- Kind regards, Fice 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Cetonia-aurata.jpg, which was nominated by Lycaon at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cetonia-aurata.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal concerning User PH-n templates

Hi, there is a proposal and vote concerning the {{User PH-0}},...,{{User PH-3}} templates, that you may be interested in. --Tony Wills 10:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dendrobates-azureus.jpg

Hi, I was doing some category sorting and came across this image you uploaded last summer. Have you ever nominated it for QI? I really enjoyed it and would like to nominate it for you, if you don't mind. Durova 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(just my 2 cents worth) Well below the size guideline, it would be an up-hill battle :-) --Tony Wills 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007

Hi, I'm writing to let you know that an image of yours that became a Commons Featured Picture during 2007 is now part of the 2007 Picture of the Year competition. If you have > 200 edits you are welcome to vote too. Thanks for contributing your valuable work and good luck. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ischnura pumilio M.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 --Mbdortmund 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhododendron luteum (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 Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosciol sw Idziego w Inowlodzu.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 already QI, but if you can go there again it would be slightly better to make the picture with a longer time and a smaller aperture, the wall in the foreground would look better --Mbdortmund 09:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wieża neobarokowa Uniejów.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. --Estrilda 22:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berberis chinensis.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 harsh light, but good illustration of the species. Lycaon 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hibiscus-syriacus.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; DOF is O.K., in spite of f/2.8. -- MJJR 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhododendron williamsianum (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 very nice --Ianare 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Liatris spicata Purple.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. Maedin 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aythya nyroca.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, good details, although a little bit dark --Mbdortmund 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calopteryx virgo F.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 Sharp in detail, good --George Chernilevsky 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cetonia-aurata.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 High-quality macro. --Iotatau 12:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hypericum oblongifolium.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. Lycaon 09:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zamek Królewski w Łęczycy.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 Walls on the left side tilted, should be corrected --Mbdortmund 00:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)  Comment perspective corrected, please purge to view new version -- Smial 12:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Now good. Would you like to add the {{location}}? --Iotatau 20:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosciol sw Katarzyny w Korczewie.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}}}

Commons:WikiProject Chemistry/Deletion requests

Hi Chrumps.
 Info I listed your deletion requests there. --Leyo 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhododendron catawbiense.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 10:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Schemat

Hehe, po dwóch latach ktoś zauważył, brawo! ;) Będziesz na 10-leciu? Jeśli tak, to stawiam Ci piwo. ;) -- CLI (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Poprawiłem, dzięki za przypomnienie. Mam czas reakcji jak polskie urzędy... ;) -- CLI (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Location?

Hi Chrumps - do you have a location for this pic, please? File:Aythya nyroca.jpg. Is it captive, or wild? Thanks! MPF (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Modele związków chemicznych

Używam ChemOffice. Struktury tworzę sam, bardzo rzadko ze wzorów SMILES i praktycznie zawsze upewniam się, że są poprawne. O ile tylko mam jak. :) Pozdrawiam, Adam Rędzikowski (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC).

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Chrumps⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Translation Adminship

Hi there! I am looking for the RfTA page and I am sure that I have seen it before but can't seem to find it now. I would be most grateful if you could point me in the right direction :) Thanks in advance! --WikiBronze (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi WikiBronze! The place for RfTA is Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Just add a new section. Regards, --Chrumps (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your swift response! Have a good one. --WikiBronze (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Chrumps,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Zmiana nazwy kategorii

Witaj,

Po prostu zmień nazwę kategorii. Polecam włączenie w "preferencjach" gadżetu "Cat-a-lot", co znacznie przyspieszy pracę. Pamiętaj też o aktualizacji odnośników w Wikipediach, w których jest hasło o tej uczelni, np. w pl:Politechnika Łódzka jest link do Category:Technical University of Lodz. Po przenosinach proponuję pozostawić przekierowanie w opróżnionej kategorii. Pozdrawiam, tsca (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nie bardzo rozumiem, na czym polega problem z utworzeniem nowej kategorii.

Przekierowanie warto zostawić na wypadek odnośników z zewnątrz i jako wskazówkę dla ew. innych edytorów, którzy mogliby ją omyłkowo odtwarzać.

tsca (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ratusz w Łęczycy.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 perspective correction and removal of magenta CA. --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)  Done --Chrumps 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 21:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Macrolepiota-procera.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. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Magdalene of Canossa Verona.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 Some noise in the background, but good enough for QI --MB-one 09:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panthera tigris altaica in Lodz Zoo 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 quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oryx dammah 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 OK. --JLPC 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amanita muscaria 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.--ArildV 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panthera tigris altaica in Lodz Zoo 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. --Jacek Halicki 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corpus Christi in Łowicz.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 19:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corpus Christi in Łowicz.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. --Jacek Halicki 07:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gentiana dinarica.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. --Jacek Halicki 07:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support In such a rich scope, File:ParasolMushroom.JPG is good too, but not geocoded and doesn't show the immature and mature forms that this image does. This one is unobstructed and good quality. COM:VICR satisfied. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Collegiate Church in Tum.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. --Livioandronico2013 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Mary and Saint Alexius collegiate church in Tum view from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment : could you, please, add "NW (or SE...) view" to the scope, as we usually do on this page ? --JLPC (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Fine like this too. A scope too narrow does not make sense. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Of course there is a sense for adding a direction, because this church (and other churches and most of the buildings) looks completely different from other side. Yann, We discussed abot this few times here in VI... --Halavar (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Done --Chrumps (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good now. --Halavar (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Margaret of Antioch church in Zadzim, view from W..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Saint Nicholas in Papowo Toruńskie, view from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

New level {{User PH-4}}

Hi ; new level 4 for you ?--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PH-4

This user is able to take professional quality photographs.

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:
Saint Mary and Saint Alexius collegiate church in Tum view from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment : could you, please, add "NW (or SE...) view" to the scope, as we usually do on this page ? --JLPC (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Fine like this too. A scope too narrow does not make sense. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Of course there is a sense for adding a direction, because this church (and other churches and most of the buildings) looks completely different from other side. Yann, We discussed abot this few times here in VI... --Halavar (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Done --Chrumps (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good now. --Halavar (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 Info Opened, because there is VI within the same scope. Now, we should decide, which one is better. --Halavar (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support This is better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Agree, this one is better. --Halavar (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Really, this is better. — revi_msg 14:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Tum kolegiata 2-2.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) 
2. Collegiate Church in Tum.jpg: +3 <--
=>
File:Tum kolegiata 2-2.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. 
File:Collegiate Church in Tum.jpg: Promoted<--

--Halavar (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cześć, przyszedłem tu tylko z prośbą o poprawienie obrazka. Przyjęło się określenie "deklaracja" zamiast "stwierdzenie" :) KABEXXXIOR | DYSKUSJA 15:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Ostatnio tłumaczę teksty na Wikidanych i nie spotkałem się z claim, ale spokojnie, wierzę Ci :) Ja proponuję użyć słowo "deklaracja", bo jest tak używane w tłumaczeniach :) KABEXXXIOR | DYSKUSJA 16:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Ale w tym przypadku chodzi o statement, które jest (nie patrz na to, co jest powszechne w informatyce, tylko to, co na Wikidanych) tłumaczone, zarówno przez ludzi, jak już przez sam system jako deklaracja. KABEXXXIOR | DYSKUSJA 17:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

PŁ

Witaj – mam prośbę, czy mógłbyś w jakiejś nieokreślonej przyszłości, będąc przypadkowo w pobliżu zrobić choć po jednym zdjęciu do tych dwóch cat.: [1] [2]? pzdr. Darekm135 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New version of Wikidata statement.svg

Hi there!

I just thought I would drop you a not and let you know that I have just updated File:Wikidata statement.svg and then saw that you uploaded the translated versions! I did take a quick look at the tool URL referenced but it seems to be down. It would be great if you could upload new translations :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St. Giles' church in Inowłódz, Poland (a view from SW).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Only one in class that's properly composed, and with good lighting to boot. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of_St. Giles in Zrębice, Poland (a view from SW).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. INeverCry 22:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support: Looks like the best image within its scope. -- DAJF (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. INeverCry 22:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Tornado aircraft.jpg

File:Tornado aircraft.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!

De728631 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Commons page of WikiScienceCompetition

Hi! The translation was introduced when i was still polishing the page, days ago. As a result, there is a last change who should be done. The section "National competitions" should be put under the "rules". is it possible to do that? It's not a big deal, I just had no idea how to do it manually with all the tags.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Atlantoxerus getulus.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 Weak support. IMO the focus is a bit too much in front (compare right foot and eyes) but still acceptable to me. --Basotxerri 08:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment look at the changes in the syntax of the scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Prośba o małe poprawki na grafice

Czy mógłbyś zmienić daty w tej grafice? A konkretnie zmienić daty oddania do użytku trzech teleskopów na rok 2024: Gigantyczny Teleskop Magellana, Thirty Meter Telescope, Ekstremalnie Wielki Teleskop Europejski. Pewnie będą jeszcze obsuwy, ale na razie tak będzie OK. Pikador (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Dzięki, mógłbyś jeszcze zerknąć na któryś z artykułów z tą grafiką, bo czcionka jakaś taka mniej czytelna się zrobiła. Pikador (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Minął prawie rok i są niestety kolejne opóźnienia, czy mógłbyś zaktualizować? Kosmiczny Teleskop Jemesa Webba - 2021, Large Synoptic Survey Telescope - 2021, Gigantyczny Teleskop Magellana - 2025, Ekstremalnie Wielki Teleskop Europejski - 2025, Thirty Meter Telescope - 2027. Pikador (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: File:Muzeumwlokna.jpg

Bardzo przepraszam za te metadane z pliku z Siklawicą, to faktycznie niedopuszczalne aby takie dane znikały w jakichkolwiek okolicznościach. Będę miał to na uwadze, jak też pozostałe uwagi. Czonek (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Kiedy nie można nadpisywać zdjęć

Dziękuję za wszystkie uwagi w tym i poprzednim wątku, masz oczywiście we wszystkim rację. Aby rozwiać jakiekolwiek kontrowersje wycofałem wszystkie swoje edycje plików graficznych wykonane programami wpieranym AI. A ponieważ i tak nie byłem dumny z dokonywanych zmian, to chciałbym całkowicie usunąć dodane prze zemnie wersje z wiki, ale albo nie mam uprawnienia albo przyrastają mnie technikalia. Czonek (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Gapurov1.jpg

File:Gapurov1.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!

188.123.231.59 18:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)