User talk:A.B.123/Archive

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, A.B.123!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Great.

多多123 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow-legged gull in Rome, Italy 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  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AM Mural crown.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. --ReneeWrites 18:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow-legged gull in Rome, Italy 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow-legged gull in Rome, Italy.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 Very nice. --MB-one 11:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AM Berretto con fregio.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. --ReneeWrites 09:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:1‎

Hi, There is no need to remove the images from this category, as these files should be deleted. Yann (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was just rearranging them into their categories but that's fine too. 多多123 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently busy uploading files so I'll reply late. 多多123 18:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: The rest of the Category:(digit) are also filled with images similar to those. 多多123 19:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah right, I will delete them too. Yann (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AM Eagle.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. --ReneeWrites 10:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PFA Peaked Cap Emblem.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 -- Spurzem 16:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PFA Peaked Cap.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 -- Spurzem 16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Kodak Brownie 127.jpg

Hi, I saw your follow-up messages at COM:QIC, and wanted to give you more detailed feedback, in case that's helpful:

• File:Kodak Brownie 127.jpg - the noise is on the left-hand side of the image. The image could also do with some sharpening, and white balance adjustment.
• File:Speedcube GAN.jpg - again, on the left-hand side in the shadow, also on the blue face. Same with sharpening and white balance needing adjustment. You saw the CA issue, but maybe that is just the blue interacting with the background.

I hope that's helpful. Would be happy to have another look if you want to tweak the images. TBH, I think you'd get better results with this sort of photo by using a lightbox (which aren't expensive). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello... @Mike Peel:

• File:Kodak Brownie 127.jpg — I saw the noise, the sharpening you want is on the actual lens of the camera itself, I'm aware of it being out of focus, I made sure the text was in focus instead. White balance will hopefully be fixed by ReneeWrites in a few hours.
• File:Speedcube GAN.jpg — the noise here is actually mostly on the background, the rest on the blue face is mixing with the texture of the cube itself, it has a dotted texture, it's one of the key differences from the stickered versions of speedcubes, I can confirm this as I have compared it to the MOYU RS3M 2021 and others that I own, this should also be fixable on the shot itself, credit to ReneeWrites for most of my images being fixed by her.

The problem with the lightbox in these specific shots is that I didn't use flash, it's too direct and overexposes the objects. I'm going to acquire a SB-910 for next week or so. Expensive or not, it's not the main problem if it's in the range from £0-120, the actual problem is the time it will take to arrive, I'm trying to get some shots without the flash first. I was already aware of the box solution and was planning to get one, before that I will get the flashgun itself and the diffuser. 多多123 17:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, ping me when the new versions are available and I'll have another look. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why there's noise, I used 400 ISO and f/0 (1/1 seconds shutter speed) it was exposed a long time and the ISO was quite low. 多多123 18:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Noise is always there, it's just whether it's noticeable. I suspect it was the shadows that you brightened afterwards? Although, not sure what f/0 means. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

1" second shutter speed. 多多123 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No, f/stop is separate from shutter speed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I'm pretty sure it's not? It's called f/# on my D3200, and means the shutter speed. 多多123 18:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The f/stop you are talking about is the aperture of the lens, which has no other specification than the number itself, i.e. #. 多多123 18:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

f/stop is how much the lens is open compared to the focal length, it's a ratio, which is why f/0 makes no sense. Normally it would be something like f/2 through f/12 (with f/7-10 normally being optimal). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

f/0 is the shutter speed according to my D3200 and... has been registered as so on the Metadata! Exposure time 1/1 sec (1) F-number f/0. I myself like to look at the Metadata of the images I review, most of the time. 多多123 18:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The f/stop used was probably either f/16 or so or f/3.5, I don't remember exactly. 多多123 18:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Try a middle ground next time, around f/9 normally works nicely. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I only have f/8 or f/11. 多多123 18:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be fully selectable, but f/8 works well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would be able to select, I only have the options for 32 22 16 11 8 5.6 3.5 多多123 18:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't use Nikon, so can't help you there, sorry. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already noticed that, as you use f/# for different reasons. 多多123 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: The new versions are available. 多多123 09:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, those look much better now, I'll support them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

She really is a good editor, never can go wrong with her. :) 多多123 09:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow-legged gull in Rome, Italy 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. --ReneeWrites 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PFA Handle.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 Good quality. --GoldenArtists 21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RAMC Beret.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 Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
"Aeronautica Militare" Peaked cap emblem.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Am troubled by two issues. The first is the image scope which is not the full military uniform but more specifically "Dress hat emblem for a standard-issue Italian Air Force "Aeronautica Militare" (AM) ceremonial uniform". The second issue is that the emblem is slightly clipped at the top and bottom. For VI, the full emblem without clipping should be displayed. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Info @GRDN711:

1. The scope isn't too specific, there are only two official regulated headwear in the Air Force, the Peaked cap (displayed) and the pilot's fighter helmet (something like... this File:Pilot helmet on HB-RVV (J-4206).jpg), the term "ceremonial" was used for non-military/unaware users as a more broad term, it's actually used as ceremonial, full dress, service and off-duty and on-duty tasks, so anything from training to parades or in-HQ duties, excepting pilot work and aviating. Furthermore, getting a photo of the full uniform is too hard as you either have to attend a parade or know a member of the AM; however, there are many military schools but there are also many "No photography" warning signs displayed.

2. The clip is nearly microscopic, and is not visual to the eyes in real life if compared to the bottom of the image, the peak of the cap is only non-visible by ~2cm, the reason for the framing is to retain the most possible quality available on the shot, but either way I have uploaded an alternative File:AM Berretto con fregio 2.jpg. 多多123 16:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I propose to set up this scope which seems to be suitable: "Aeronautica Militare" peaked cap emblem --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Uniforms of the Italian Air Force/Category:Military uniforms of Italy to "Aeronautica Militare" Peaked cap emblem --多多123 16:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

多多123

Samsung SGH-L760

Hi 多多123, since the keyword studio conditions was mentioned in relation to your QI nomination and you wrote that you are a novice that likes to accept suggestions for improvement, a little advice: For such photos, you can also use a white A4 or A3 sheet as background and underlay, slightly overexpose the background and then correct the exposure of the subject. If your subject cannot stand upright by itself, you could position something behind it. You can also use a white A4 or A3 sheet as a background and underlay for such photos, overexpose the background slightly and then correct the exposure of the subject. If your subject cannot stand upright by itself, you could position something behind it. This is how I took basically all the photos in my user category Tabletop photography and I think one can work with it quite well in the beginning. If daylight is not sufficient, you can use a torch as an indirect light source by holding it on another white sheet and placing the reflected light on your subject to create soft transitions. Regards Anil Ö. (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The plan is to get a SB-910 next week, the "Reflector" diffusor and a lightbox. Read User talk:多多123#File:Kodak Brownie 127.jpg 多多123 10:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PFA-FAA Roundel.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. --ReneeWrites 23:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PFA Coat of Arms.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. --ReneeWrites 23:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Italian Air Force Uniforms

Since commons seems to be the focus of your activities on wiki, I would like to add a comment on the ItAF Uniform issue here as well, because the explanation that I have already given you on my page on de.wikipedia is quite elaborate and in German. In simple terms, you added this section that is based on a book of the history of the ItAF; but this book refers to the history between 1923 and 1945 only, and therefore the description of the uniform is also related to that period of time. Here, here, here, here, and here you have added this section, generated by automatic translation from this section, pretending that these texts describe the details of the current uniform of the Aeronautica Militare, whereas in reality it is the description of the uniform of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. It is really misleading, and with all due respect I would like to ask you to remove these automatically translated sections. As far as the specific English article on the Uniforms of the Italian Armed Forces is concerned, the section from which this issue derives should be modified in order to clarify that the mentioned uniform is the first uniform of the service, used during the fascist period. LKIT2 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, the original text was not written by myself, I just translated it into the different Wikis. 多多123 15:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but since the original text is misleading, your translations have the same effect. And please remember that automatically translated texts do not meet the linguistic standards of wikipedia. As far as I am concerned I think I will modify the original English text in order to give the mentioned clarification. But the translations cannot be modified, because their purpose is to describe the current uniform; the only solution is removing them, and in doing so, we also solve the mentioned linguistic problem. LKIT2 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently busy, so feel free to do so. 多多123 15:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Since commons seems to be the focus of your activities on wiki

You can also message me on the English Wikipedia at w:en:User:多多123. 多多123 16:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kodak Brownie 127.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Speedcube GAN.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

2 misidentified plant images

• 
• 

Hi A.B.123/Archive, your images above are from the U.K., not from some Mediterranean country. Cheirolophus is a genus from the Meditarrenean area. AFAIK the involucral bracts look quite different. These two images look strongly like Cirsium vulgare because of the typical leaves on one of the images. I might be mistaken and this may be some other kind of thistle, but this is unlikely. So I changed the descriptions and the categories. The images should be renamed. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with Cirsium vulgare, those have more flat shaping. File:Cirsium sp (9389375723).jpg has more similar characteristics, I will request a move to BombusCirsium, in a more general term as I disagree with your identification, but will keep the description as it is. 多多123 16:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

So let's agree to disagree. Identification of thistles is not easy. Generally, you need much more than just a flower head for a good ID and you have no chance for an ID at all without some leaves. I don't know why Cirsium vulgare is supposed to have a "more flat shaping", but all the plants in the gallery above should be Cirsium vulgare. The involucral bracts are spreading in your photos as in Cirsium vulgare and there are some rather typical leaves near the flower head, whereas the involucral bracts in File:Cirsium sp (9389375723).jpg are appressed, without leaves near the top. File:Cirsium sp (9389375723).jpg might be Cirsium heterophyllum, but I am not entirely sure. At least this is a species very different from yours (and most certainly not Cirsium vulgare). We could speculate about hybrids, which is possible but still not very likely, or about some really odd Carduus specimen, but I doubt that. This may not be the nicest specimen of Cirsium vulgare, but it looks precisely like this species and I have no idea what else it could be in Britain. Cirsium eriophorum might be the most similar species in Britain, but it has much bigger flower heads and a lot of hairs at the involucral bracts that look like a spider web. Cirsium vulgare may or may not have some of these hairs. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Another solution would be tagging it as Unidentified, and simply calling it a component of the Cirsium genus. 多多123 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind that. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
"Policía Federal Argentina", peaked cap emblem.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  

Category:Police uniforms of Argentina and Category:Policía Federal Argentina are the categories of the image. I added a Wikilink to the enforcement agency. --多多123 18:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Look at the modification of the scope if you agree, we validate... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: That's fine too. 多多123 20:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Royal Army Medical Corps beret.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Congrats!

I just saw that several of your images got promoted to Valued Images, and I wanted to congratulate you on that! You're making real strides here on Commons :D ReneeWrites (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Renee! Thank you! :) I have stopped taken a few photos, per se, but am still taking outside of Commons. I will return to weekly-daily uploading when I receive my Nikon SB-910. 多多123 14:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Speedcube MoYu 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. --MB-one 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plants vs. Zombies handheld console.jpg

File:Plants vs. Zombies handheld console.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!

86.48.10.55 21:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plants vs. Zombies handheld console 2.jpg

File:Plants vs. Zombies handheld console 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!

86.48.10.55 21:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Speedcube MoYu 2022.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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

I got the deletion notice for two of the files I worked on. I also read the comments on QI about downsamping and I'm sorry, it won't happen again. I did not know about the policy (or I just forgot about it) and I did not think people would take issue with the image sizes if they were well above the 2MP minimum (and even double the 6MP minimum I've seen some others arbitrarily enforce).

Anyway, I hope you're doing alright, and that we can still work together in the future. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: It's totally not your fault! I think there's a way to avoid downsizing... I recently watched a video on "creating details" and upping sharpness. Here's the link [1], I'm not sure if you're already aware. I'm doing good, I just got a few car photos which I will upload soon. Of course we can still work together! :) Don't let a mistake stop you! 多多123 14:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baxa syringe.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 are dust spots to remove --Basile Morin 04:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)  Info @Basile Morin: New version uploaded. --多多123 12:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Red thread (yarn).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. --ReneeWrites 09:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tangerine halves.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 Good quality. --ParisTaras 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Il mini di italiano.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Speedcube MoYu 2022 2 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  Support Good quality. --Rangan Datta Wiki 12:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Nice colours --Rangan Datta Wiki 12:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 01:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Black screwdriver.png, 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 Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olympus μ mju II.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 Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 23:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olympus μ mju II 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  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 23:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ViviCam 8324 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  Support Good quality. --C messier 21:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2020 BMW 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 Crop is quite tight, but still good quality. --MB-one 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)