User talk:Daniel Case/Archive 1: 2006–August 21, 2016

Welcome to the Commons, Daniel Case/Archive 1: 2006–August 21, 2016!

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. 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?)

Image Tagging Image:John Cleese at 1989 Oscars.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:John Cleese at 1989 Oscars.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Gurch 05:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cindy Sheehan.jpg

Please do NOT overwrite an image with a different image bearing the same name. Use another name for the new image instead. --Rosenzweig 14:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr image

Please forward the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and add which image on Commons this email is concerned. Then the OTRS volunteers will take care of the correct licensing. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:NY 211 at NY 17M split in Middletown.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NY 211 at NY 17M split in Middletown.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. --Fil nik 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:John R Hayes House.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:John R Hayes House.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. --Fil nik 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:William Decker House.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:William Decker House.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titicus Reservoir

First of all, sorry for my harsh comment - maybe it was too harsh, but comparing to other suggested QI (not even images with QI tag granted), this photo is very bad.

I think that it'd be very difficult to digitally alter this picture for it to meet QI standards. The original picture is rather small, so there's no space to work on. Any noise removal will make this shot blurry.

About colors - the original looks better for me. Blue sky is more natural than purple one. Also, on this purple one, trees have purple haze around them - it's very unnatural.

Tilt - well, I understand your feeling, because I have shot of lake in mountains made not from center of it, but a bit to the left, what gives impression of not even horizon. But I understand that it's a technical fault and I can't suggest it for QI tag.

I'm sorry to say that, but I think that this photo should be taken again. --Leafnode 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ossining,_NY,_train_station.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. Thank you. Siebrand 09:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:NewburghNyWashingtonHQPostCard.JPG

Daniel, i noticed you reverted a category on this item. There seems to be a movement here to stop using the Old postcards of the United States category, and replace it with Postcards of <state> category, sometimes combinded with New York in the 1900's category. I haven't found any "organized" recat/project page concerning this... opinions? (I'm trying to go with the flow concerning categories) Parkerdr 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, opening discussion at Category talk:Postcards. Also see User talk:Infrogmation Parkerdr 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coca-Cola_Vanilla_Zero_US_label.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Coca-Cola_Vanilla_Zero_US_label.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 image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

^{__ ABF __} ϑ 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

hello daniel case. I see you have some pictures of my hometown, middletown! I was wondering, where do you currently work? Your name sounds very familiar.

Image:John_I_Crawford_Farm.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:John_I_Crawford_Farm.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 image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

203.173.42.81 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metric_shampoo_bottle.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Metric_shampoo_bottle.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 image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Samuell 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trail blazes

Category discussion notification

Category:Trail blazes has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr images

The next time you are uploading flickr images without modifying them, check out the experimental service using the flickruploadbot. It goes super fast, it's easy and automatic. It takes care of all of the licensing verification so that a trusted user doesn't need to look over the images. Cheers! Royalbroil 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well Image:Terrorists in Mumbai, 2008-11-26.jpg is Maharahstra Times/AP[1]. The other is I think one of an AFP series.Geni (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support and let me know when you toss your hat in the ring. wadester 16 00:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr reviewer

Hello Daniel, and thank you for your application to be a flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. Congratulations! Please see Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already, and the backlogs at Category:Flickr images needing human review and Category:Flickr review needed. A helpful script for easy-tagging flickr images is at importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); (which you can add to your monobook.js), and you can add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your work on Commons! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basquiat

Hi, you have deleted two images of Jean-Michel Basquiat, why? all the pics come from This file on flickr, and the licence is CC-BY. --FENIX 89 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo

Hi, Daniel! I promote Your photo. Composition really nice. Quality good, but no ideal.

Note 1: If you create the best version of the same file, it is not necessary to create the second file. Use "Upload the new version" tool.

Note 2: If file updating not required, then simply copy photo file from a camera as a file. The camera is similar a USB disk, or use cardreadear. Do not use Photoshop, if it not required. Any edit become worse quality.

Sorry, if my english is not perfect.

With best regards,

--George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bull Stone House New World Dutch barn, Hamptonburgh, NY.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 too big compression in Photoshop. Upload, please new version, 2Mb or more, not 600 Kb (Image options -> Quality 11 approximate). Recreate it from a camera's source file --George Chernilevsky 06:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
now quality sufficient, good composition --George Chernilevsky 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taylor-Corwin House.jpg

I notice you put File:Taylor-Corwin House.jpg under Category:Greek Revival architecture. I wonder if that's useful: the only thing "Greek" about it is a few pseudo-Corinthian columns. Maybe in Category:Corinthian columns instead? Because I don't think we'd want to place every building with one of those as "Greek Revival". - And File:George Briggs House, Bourne, MA.jpg seems even more marginal for the category. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following what the NPS says for both of them (and, BTW, "Greek Revival" has more to do with the floor plan and overall form of the house ... many houses that followed that style didn't have columns or any sort of decoration out front). Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed that NPS always seems to feel compelled to specify a style, even when the building really doesn't particularly fit one. I suppose that if you look only at the front section, the Taylor-Corwin House is a bit closer to Greek Revival, and that the back section is probably a later addition. The Briggs one, though, seems to me to be really stretching it. I guess my own tendency is not to add these "style" categories unless I think the building is a good illustration of the style. So... whenever NPS/NRHP etc. specifies a style, you think it's worth us classifying accordingly? - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, third story being a 20th century addition makes it (formerly) more GR. It was done so smoothly I didn't realize that one was a later addition. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense

Hi Daniel Case, we're currently doing a big license migration. Would you be willing to relicense you {{GFDL}} uploads (like File:Peekskill Presbyterian Church.jpg) under the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Multichill (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (I had thought the template I had been using was updated to reflect the licensing change. I guess not). I already migrated that one, and have uploaded another new image under the new one and will do so in the future. I suppose I'll have to go back and migrate all my old ones, too. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have bots for that, just needed your approval :-). Multichill (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Done. Multichill (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons upload from Flickr

Hi Daniel, I just came across the three images you just uploaded from Flickr. They were flaged by the FlickrBot because the image you uploaded was not the same as the original but an altered and cropped one. Would you mind uploading the original Flickr images first, wait for the clearance of the FlickrBot (usually overnight) and than upload your altered image over your original upload? This procedure would not necessitate any human intervention and would also leave a door open for further photo processing from the 'original'. Don't get me wrong, Flickr is a great photo resource and your photo manipulation really improved the pictures but I still would prefer to have the original Flickr picture somewere on Wiki-Commons. Tahnks for your consideration, --Mirko Junge (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do it but ... is this some new policy change I was unaware of? I'm a reviewer too and I'd like to know this. I always edit Flickr images for use here prior to upload (isn't that the point of us not accepting ND images?) and neither bot nor human has ever said something like this before (I always thought that as long as the image description disclosed the alteration, it was OK). Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No human intervention is neccessary when you upload the original flie as stored in Flcikr and wait for the FlickrBot to clear the image. After the initial clearance you can overload the original with your cropped, manipulated i.e. derivative work without any problem. How cool is that? Let the robot do the work! Bye --Mirko Junge (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Mountain

As discussed on English Wikipedia, I just uploaded some images to Category:Catskill Mountains. Hopefully they'll be of use.--Otherlleft (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have a reason that's academic rather than tourist, I'll try to get some shots of the mountain itself, and broader perspective shots of the ruins.--Otherlleft (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, haven't been back here since the name change! Please take a look at this and offer any advice or monkeying about; for the moment it's the image I will be using in the article I'm drafting on the mountain. If you think a sunnier day is needed, the weather's only getting better!--True Pagan Warrior (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of SVG images

Please be aware when you are copying SVG images from Wikipedia to save the SVG version of the file. Your latest uploads (File:Target old logo.svg, File:Target logo.svg File:Circuit City logo.svg, File:Best Buy Logo.svg) you saved the PNG preview generated by Wikipedia.

To do save the SVG, click the link underneth the images, and select save as. Do not right click the image itself, and select save as, as that will give you the PNG generated by Wikipedia.

e.g. Filename.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 432 × 574 pixels, file size: 3 KB)

Also consider using CommonsHelper as it automatically fills out the template and transfers the images history. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of your image in Businessweek

An image which you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons of Scranton, PA, was recently used by the magazine Bloomberg Businessweek in an article entitled 'Best Places to Raise Your Kids'. The image appeared without attribution and did not mention that it may be reproduced under a Creative Commons license. I thought it would be helpful to notify you of this fact. Contact information for Businessweek is available on its website. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!

I don't think I've ever seen the area from that angle. Seems like a good overview image to illustrate the Taconic on the NRHP lists etc. BTW, I liked your POTY edit summary comments. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files you uploaded may be deleted

The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have not sent the permission, please send it to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. If you have, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard, quoting the file name, so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot^{(talk/opt out)} 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drake Hogestyn by Jeff Katz.jpg

File:Circuit_City_logo.svg

File:Circuit_City_logo.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Acather96 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

A page 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 gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

DrKiernan (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apamea Cardo

Hi Daniel, you have recently uploaded a picture from Flickr . The original picture was taken by me and is in Wikimedia . I would appreciated if you can mention it the description of your modified picture. Thanks. --Bgag (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marion Steam Shovel, Le Roy, NY.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 sky a little bit noisy, but still QI to me.--Mbz1 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthony_Bourdain_on_WNYC.jpg

File:Anthony_Bourdain_on_WNYC.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Walter Zarnowitz (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schunemunk_conglomerate_and_pine.jpg does NOT show Pinus virginiana... it is Pinus rigida

The pine in this photo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schunemunk_conglomerate_and_pine.jpg ) is NOT Pinus virginiana. It is in fact Pinus rigida. Besides the appearance, you can confirm just by looking at a comparative range map:

Pinus virginiana - http://www.ncsu.edu/project/dendrology/index/plantae/vascular/seedplants/gymnosperms/conifers/pine/pinus/contortae/virginia/habitat.html

Pinus rigida - http://www.ncsu.edu/project/dendrology/index/plantae/vascular/seedplants/gymnosperms/conifers/pine/pinus/australes/pitch/habitat.html

I will be working on fixing the links on the various pages this photo is shown, and removing it from the Pinus virginiana page, but the owner should correct the links on the photo file as well. 74.45.40.144 17:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old_substation,_Saratoga_Springs,_NY.jpg

File:Old_substation,_Saratoga_Springs,_NY.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

DanielPenfield (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

thx for ur comment. 123.243.151.30 04:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo resolution

Thanks for giving me the tip. I'll start saving at the higher res, thanks. Although, a lot of the fashion photos are being uploaded to Flickr without copyright because they are blurry to begin with. (-; Ah well! OttawaAC (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Miller.jpg

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses

File:Donald Miller.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ magyar ∙ português do Brasil ∙ italiano ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ français ∙ македонски ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ українська ∙ svenska ∙ sicilianu ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greating Russian Speaking American Railfan

I ran in to your page, since you posted a very interesting photo where Hudson line and West Side Line meet each other my email is tramlearnerATgmailDOTcom GK tramrunner229 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pranab Mukherjee - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009.jpg

Flicky says "some rights reserved". Which are those and how is it free?Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr review

Good morning,

You validated the two following files:

They both belong to the following Flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gubanova/

You don't see anything problematic in the different media offered by this Flickr account? Like a collection of documents from several sources? I started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Iamsmart andyoucantoo to clarify the situation.

Please remember each time you review a picture, the community trusts you to have made basic checks (we of course don't require full enquiries) the Flickr account uses the CC licenses a legitimate way. --Dereckson (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Love Monuments

Hi Daniel, I entered in the Wiki Loves Monuments contest and entered the Cleveland West Pierhead Lighthouse picture and wanted to say thank you for voting on my picture. I am an amateur photographer and have only been doing it more seriously for about a year, so it was good to see professionals' views on the picture. Mtbangert (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would be OK with you putting the picture up to be accepted as a quality image or featured picture. I really don't know anything about editing wikipedia, but let me know if I can help. Mtbangert (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting up the picture for review and again for the support in the WLM contest. Mtbangert (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far it's doing alright in featured images.. thanks again. Mtbangert (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cleveland West Pierhead Lighthouse.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! --Iifar 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

This was originally a help-needed request to an admin. They said I should ask you.

File:Bull Stone House barn.jpg is a smaller (601kb vs 3.55mb) and earlier (2007 vs 2009) version of File:Bull Stone House New World Dutch barn, Hamptonburgh, NY.jpg. Normally I would tag the smaller for deletion but it has a "Did You Know" tag over on enwiki
File:Sloat's Dam and Mill Pond 2.jpg is a cropped version of File:Sloat's Dam and Mill Pond, Sloatsburg, NY.jpg. I know one or the other (or both?) should be tagged with something to do with versions (?) but I got lost in templates trying to figure it out

Help. Thundersnow (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parlos Verdes Light House Aug 2012.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. --Kadellar 22:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Parlos Verdes Light House Aug 2012.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parlos Verdes Light House Aug 2012.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Category:City_of_Newburgh,_New_York

Category:City_of_Newburgh,_New_York has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mjrmtg (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Train station interiors

I see you created a category for Train station interiors in New York, and a few subsequent categories. If I wasn't so glad you did it, I'd be disappointed that you beat me to it. So I created one for California, but honestly, it was a toss up between that, and Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. ----DanTD (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The weird thing is, I keep thinking there might be more. There are so many interior shots from Grand Central Terminal, I was ready to split off the platform images, until somebody else made one for the Main Concourse. ----DanTD (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - As it turned out, neither of the two states were candidates for state-specific train station interior categories. Instead I made categories for Massachusetts and Missouri. But Pennsylvania should be next. --DanTD (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Star Pisces at Ocean Terminal, Hong Kong, from ferry pier 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. --Colin 11:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

--GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You FPC review: an alternative is submitted

Hello Daniel, Thank you for you review of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ajaccio phare citadelle.jpg. Taking account of criticism about the composition, I propose an alternative. Would you be kind enough to have a second look? Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fair Lawn, Cold Spring, NY.jpg

File:Fair Lawn, Cold Spring, NY.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Sphilbrick (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Girl_Posing_at_Glacier_Point_Yosemite_2013.jpg / Help required

Hello Daniel! I really appreciated (and still do) your informed comment on Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Girl_Posing_at_Glacier_Point_Yosemite_2013.jpg. The photo is now an FP :) Could you add one or two sentences to the image description which tells about the relation to Maxfield Parrish's girl on a rock illustration? I could also try to reformulate your comment from the FPC page but I guess you can do better :) Thanks for your help. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPC-Temple Mount View

Hi Daniel- I know you are not a fan of the composition of this image, but I have added an alternate version with (I hope) an improved and more natural sky. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 1: 2006–August 21, 2016⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

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) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Daniel Case,

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:

157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
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) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:People waving at passing train from frozen Hudson River, Barrytown, NY.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:People waving at passing train from frozen Hudson River, Barrytown, NY.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.

McZusatz (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience due to server loss. --McZusatz (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPC: Butter Tubs Pass

Hi! You were so kind as to support my nomination File:Butter-Tubs-Pass-1.jpg. I withdrew that nomination in favour of File:Butter-Tubs-Pass-2.jpg which shows a nicer composition IMHO and is active on FPC for another 3 days.

Would you like to have a glance at it and support it as well? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ontario County courthouse dome over trees.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 Tilted and it needs a little perspective correction IMO--Lmbuga 10:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Done Daniel Case 02:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The building is not stright, but a little bit tilted CCW IMO, but QI--Lmbuga 20:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I shall perhaps be setting up a gallery page of my favorites when I have time."

I guess you never found time? Anyway, nice to meet you today, glad you liked our railways. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

For your information, I've proposed an alternative version on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Algérie - Arménie - 20140531 - 11.jpg, following your advices. Pleclown (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NY 199 E of Hammertown 2014.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 --Halavar 15:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Painted Hall dome interior.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. --Dirtsc 15:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture candidates

Look at this picture again [2]. I redeveloped raw file. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapel ceiling rosette, Greenwich Hospital, London.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 --Halavar 23:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Altar in chapel at Greenwich Hospital, London.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 --Halavar 17:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ceiling bracket detail at chapel, Greenwich Hospital, London.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. --Cccefalon 06:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate chip cookie ingredients.jpg

File:Chocolate chip cookie ingredients.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Josve05a (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:London MMB »124 Thames Barrier.jpg

Hi. I checked this file you declined, for some reason it appears it uploaded only the first pass of JPEG sampling, not the final version. I have uploaded the full 3MB version (rather than the 500kb monstrosity), would you care to take another look? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sundial on rear of Royal Observatory, Greenwich.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 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! London skylines from Wolfe statue near Greenwich Observatory.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. --Dnalor 01 11:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Chapel ceiling rosette, Greenwich Hospital, London version 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chapel ceiling rosette, Greenwich Hospital, London version 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge view at dawn.jpg

I have uploaded an alternative crop and would appreciate if you could indicate a preference, or that you have no strong preference. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Footpath in Greenwich Park, London.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. --Zcebeci 07:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Hospital

Hi Daniel. Here are the handheld panoramas taken inside the painted hall. As I said, not of the quality I'd want to upload to Commons unfortunately, as there are pretty serious stitching problems. Still, it's a beautiful interior, I just wish they would all leave the room and let me use my tripod in peace! ;-) Diliff (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks so much for this , was looking for! Thank you very much.--LivioAndronico talk 19:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ian Curtis grave marker with mementoes.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,finally a photo Length, God be praised .... thanks--Livioandronico2013 09:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ian Curtis post-2008 memorial stone at Macclesfield Cemetery.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 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marble Boat from stern, Summer Palace, Beijing.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 tilted cw. A blurry bird in the sky. --Cccefalon 05:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Fixed Daniel Case 16:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment - Guidelines "Featured pictures"

In den guidelines for "Featured pictures" you can read: "Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like 'it looks terrible' and 'I hate it'. If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care." Nevertheless, you have written to an user: "...it's just another one of the trillions of cat pictures on the Internet"". I would have considered this as an insult, because every living being is individual and a subject. For example, currently several altars are presented as potential "Featured pictures". But nobody writes justifiably: "O no, a oller altar over again ...". Greeting, --BlackIceNRW (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was partially upset about the way an XfD had been closed on enwiki, and there were a couple of other cat pictures clearly not up to FPC standards in nomination (Honestly, I think we should have a list of subjects—in addition to cats, sunsets without any specific geographic context, crepuscular rays and autumn color come to mind—where we should tell new nominators that their picture better be so good that it makes think we've never seen one before, since so many people nominate images of them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your understanding. :-) --BlackIceNRW (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jade Peak Pagoda in smog from Longevity Hill, Beijing.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. Mattbuck 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo requests in Westchester County, NY and Greenwich, CT?

Hi, Daniel!

Do you do photo requests in Westchester County, NY and Greenwich, CT?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have the following list. I have the strongest preference for the Japan-related pictures (the Japanese school in Greenwich, the JEI office in Rye). If you want to throw in a few others I have those listed too.

Greenwich, CT: Japanese School of New York front entrance sign and if possible, building: 270 Lake Avenue, Greenwich, CT (the official address is 15 the Ridgeway but the actual address is on Lake Avenue) - Map to school
Harrison, NY: Keio Academy of New York entrance gate/Sign - 3 College Road, Purchase, NY 10577 USA
The Japanese Educational Institute of New York (ニューヨーク日本人教育審議会) - 150 Purchase Street, Suite 7, Rye , NY 10580 USA
Port Chester Middle School: 113 Bowman Avenue, Port Chester, NY 10573 (used by the Japanese Weekend School of New York)
Daido (Japanese grocery): 522 Mamaroneck Ave, White Plains, NY 10605
French-American School of New York campuses:
- Administration: 525 Fenimore Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543
- Preschool: 85 Palmer Ave, Scarsdale, NY 10583"Lower School
- Elementary school: 111 Larchmont Ave, Larchmont, NY 10538
- Secondary school: Secondary School - 145 New Street, Mamaroneck, NY 10543
German School New York: 50 Partridge Road, White Plains, NY 10605
Mamaroneck, NY: Archie Comics headquarters: 325 Fayette Ave. Mamaroneck, New York 10543

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Have you taken photographs of any of these sites? Do you plan to go to Greenwich or Westchester County anytime soon? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parked cars and houses along Catherine St, Macclesfield.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.--Johann Jaritz 03:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Houses on N end of Newton St, Macclesfield.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. --Hubertl 21:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star Ferry crew using billhook to catch rope at Central ferry pier, Hong Kong.jpg

You've identified this tool as a billhook. A Google search will produce no reference to billhook, but there are results to pole hook. Billhook might be a local term for polehook. 24.34.1.170 18:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barton and Newton streets, Macclesfield.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. --Hubertl 04:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Hauptbahnhof

Hi Daniel, here you said that you wanted the picture with a bluer sky. Well, here it is. Do you think I can nominate the new version for FP? Should we do a replace procedure or can it stand for itself? Thanks for your opinion! --Code (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Code. Sorry to intrude on your message to Daniel, but I just wanted to add my comments. I think it's so similar to the other FP that we should probably replace it. I think the sky is much better although, as I commented on your other nomination, I think you could have achieved a much nicer blue sky by just adjusting the white balance. Anyway, one other issue with this image is the HDR. I don't think the dynamic range of the scene required HDR at all! And what it has done is create problems in the reflections on the water (I have this problem too when doing HDR photography of rivers or lakes). One way to fix this if you still want to keep the HDR tone mapping of the train station is to copy and paste the water from the normal exposure onto the HDR tone mapped version. It should look almost the same (it isn't a high dynamic range situation), and it will have better reflections without the ghost problems. Just my two cents. :-) Diliff (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Diliff: Thank you very much for your hint. You are right. I used HDR in this case to avoid chromatic noise in the dark areas underneath the bridge but indeed this lead to problems with the water. Maybe this is not really the scene which requires HDR. I think I will completely rework this picture in the next days and then see if I can nominate it for FP. You are certainly right that we should do a replace procedure here. However, I think on the other (older) picture the reflection is somewhat better. --Code (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Newton Street looking south from Hatton Street, Macclesfield.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 Perspectives, dustspots and a bit of CAs (see note for all) --Christian Ferrer 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Daniel Case 05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexões vs Reflexos

Hi Daniel, thanks for your contributions in portuguese categories .. but .. once more I have to correct you: "Reflexões" means thoughts, thinking; "Reflexos" is a better translation. Thanks anyway. best regards, --JotaCartas (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for advice on improving the quality of my photographs

Daniel,

Thanks for voting in a recent Feature Picture nomination of one of my photographs. This was the first time one of my photos has ever been nominated for FP status, which is quite exciting for me, although I agree with your assessment that this image is not worthy of said status. However, now that I have been slowly improving as an amateur photographer over the past few years and I am the proud owner of a Sony ILCE-5100 mirrorless camera, I think I have a good opportunity to work toward FP-quality photographs in the future.

If you don't mind me asking, what simple (or not so simple) tips might you have for a photographer like myself? What improvements can I make when I'm actually capturing photos? Or maybe is there a default setting with my camera that I should change? (I haven't changed any of the defaults, at least not intentionally.)

Any and all guidance you can provide would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Michael Barera (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Path to rear of Palm House, Kew Gardens.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. --Xicotencatl 07:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Walkway at Kew Gardens.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 Can you you soften the harsh shadows a little bit? --Dirtsc 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done I didn't think they were that bad, but then I looked again and saw your point. Daniel Case 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better now, good quality for me. --Dirtsc 19:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plantings behind Palm House, Kew Gardens.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. --Hubertl 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flowers and shrubbery before rear of Palm House, Kew Gardens.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. --Johann Jaritz 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rear of Palm House, Kew Gardens.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! View into vista from rear of Palm House, Kew Gardens.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. --Johann Jaritz 03:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palms in the Palm House, Kew Gardens.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. --Tuxyso 21:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Upper walkway inside Palm House at Kew Gardens.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. --Tuxyso 21:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palms in Palm House atrium.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. --Hockei 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Walkway through palms in Palm House, Kew Gardens.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 20:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View to roof in center of Palm House, Kew Gardens.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 13:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Palm House, Kew Gardens.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 07:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statuary and plantings in front of the Palm House, Kew Gardens.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. --Hubertl 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated two of your photos for featured picture status. have a look at the nomination pages:

Thank you and good luck! ■ MMXX ^talk 21:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flowers in front of the Palm House, Kew Gardens.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 19:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Couple taking selfie at Kew Gardens.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 07:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens, 2014.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. --Bgag 23:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Interior of Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens.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.--Famberhorst 04:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rose Pergola at Kew Gardens.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. the small rest-CA is acceptable --Hubertl 08:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alpine House, Kew Gardens.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 --Llez 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Finland :-)

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for trying to improve the categorization on one of my contributions here. I have undone it though as the photo has not been taken in Finland, but in Viborg, Denmark. I know you are a good editor and did it in good faith, so no worries. Best wishes from Denmark, -- Slaunger (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg

File:Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

J e e 16:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! London Overground train approaching Kew Gardens station from south.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 08:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! London Overground and Underground trains at Kew Gardens, with footbridge.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. --Hubertl 05:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barbican Lakeside on a summer evening.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 Excellent composition, quality good but partly slightly unsharp/out of focus (why f/4.5, I dont understand the choice of limited dof here). Overall QI imo.--ArildV 10:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lauderdale Tower, Barbican Estate, London.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 Bold perspective, but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reflections

Why do you always add "warer reflections" categories even to images where there aren't any? For example this one, I'm going to remove it now... For sure, a water reflection of a boat is something like here, but certainly not File:20151030 Syrians and Iraq refugees arrive at Skala Sykamias Lesvos Greece.jpg here Thanks --A.Savin 15:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark

Thanks for your QI reviews. I was wondering, when I nominated File:Sea Foam at Beavertail JamestownRI 20060109.jpg, if the printed date would be an issue. It makes sense that it is. I've gone ahead and cropped it and reuploaded two versions. I think that I prefer the landscape crop (the current version), but I also tried the other way. I'd welcome your feedback on that as well as on whether it would be worth renominating (and/or if that's necessary). Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just hoping to revisit this. Would it be worth renominating this one? Without the watermark it seems like it meets QI criteria... but I'm still very much learning about what works and what doesn't, so maybe you can help me avoid a repeat if I'm wrong :) Thanks — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Shot on goal during youth hockey tournament at West Edmonton Mall Ice Palace.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 18:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ice Palace at the West Edmonton Mall during the Brick youth tournament, 2015.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 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Interior of Toronto Pearson International Airport Terminal 1 wider view.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 10:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cabins in Old Town, Yellowknife, NT.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.--Famberhorst 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cupola and bell tower, College Hall, Montclair State University.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 enjoy the three well-placed colors R-B-G. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Greenstone Government Building, Yellowknife, NT.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 Well balanced and everything fits. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! West Edmonton Mall wing view.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 08:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Young woman stirring food at Mexico City street market.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 quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valingu siire.jpg

Please rereview your vote, because I'm a railway engineer. Regards, --Ivar (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yellowknife, NT, post office 2015.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. Very nice work! --Michael Barera 19:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Lauderdale Tower, Barbican Estate, London.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lauderdale Tower, Barbican Estate, London.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Happy holidays! * 2016! ***

		*** * * Happy Holidays 2016 ! * * ***
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

... and a Happy New Year!

Thank you very much for the nomination, Daniel. It crossed my head to nominate it myself but I'm becoming lazy! I do have an account there ([3]) and used to be a regular at en:FPC, but have been away for some time. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
	Happy New Year Daniel Case! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Torre Latinoamericana from Alameda Central promenade.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. --XRay 06:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

you have overseen it, but its IMO really sharp now. --Hubertl 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional greeting

	Dear friend
	Happy New Year and best wishes!! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Catskill Escarpment and Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge from Ferncliff Forest firetower.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. --Johann Jaritz 04:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Table Mountain from Curtis-Ormsbee Trail.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 Nice motive! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fountain in Lafayette Park, Albany, NY.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 Beautiful motive of excellent quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NY 113 in Spackenkill 2014.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. Would be cool if you could get the exact same spot as previous photo! --Domdomegg 20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Locust Grove, Poughkeepsie, NY, 2014.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. --Frank Schulenburg 21:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Could you please stick to reviewing the images and discussing reviews made. Both times we have clashed recently you have gone off in a tangent and the conversation thus deteriorated on both sides. FPC is a public forum where users vote and review and discuss their votes and reviews, as well as giving advice on how the nominator's image / image-making might be improved. On the Pelican FPC I criticised your requirement that the noise be fixed in order to earn support. Now we can disagree on whether there is too much noise and whether pixel peeping is harming the project but you cannot, absolutely cannot, ask me to shut up just because I disagree with you and wish to express that. I can respect your right to make whatever comment or vote you like, but don't ask me to respect a comment or vote by keeping quiet. Life doesn't work like that. Do not respond to criticism of your review by making personal attacks.

The opinions expressed at FPC matter. You don't seem to be in the habit of nominating your own images, so perhaps you just aren't aware of what it is like as a nominator. I know users who downsize their photos to 6MP to try to escape the pixel peeping comments. And I know photographers who have given up in frustration at the ridiculous comments that are sometimes made here. There's a constant churn of users at FPC and the first thing anyone does when joining a group is to align oneself to the culture -- so if one sees a pixel peeping culture then that's what perpetuates. If one sees a culture where portraits (especially if not by a FPC regular) are given an especially hard time, then that's what perpetuates.

We are all learning here. Learning how to take better pictures. And learning how to review pictures. Working out what matters and what doesn't. What works and what doesn't. That requires discussion and challenging and testing opinions. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincushion distortion in Lauderdale Tower picture

Hi Daniel Case, I was looking at your recently promoted Featured Picture: File:Lauderdale Tower, Barbican Estate, London.jpg. I noticed there's a lot of pincushion distortion. To illustrate this, I have drawn some straight lines in red here. Could you take a look? Thanks. dllu (t,c) 05:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which cases is perspective correction appropriate?

Daniel, first of all, thanks for your comments!

Up to now, I'm still a bit unsecure according to the question "In which cases is perspective correction appropriate? (or not)"

According to the image shown right, you mentioned In focus and does not need perspective correction ... yay!.
In your comment you highlighted does not. This highlighting irritated me a bit.

To illustrate my concerns: Recently I provided two different versions of a building photo to the QI community, to request the communities opinions according to the mentioned question, by these two postings:

Version 1: Less perspective correction, according to human recognition
Version 2: With perspective correction, the vertical lines of the building are shown straight vertical

As a result both versions have been promoted – this wasn't a really help for me. But it seemed, the first version took more people in interest. This fits to my assumtion and epectation. So I got confirmed: A close-up view of a building shouldn't be processed to have vertical lines, because it doesn't fit to human recognition.

On the other hand, I got the impression, a more distant view of a building (like "Wohnanlage Tannenbusch") should be processed to have vertical lines. Therefore your comment irritated me a bit. Cheers, --Hasenläufer (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're asking Daniel here, but as someone who has done a lot of architectural photography, I think I might have something to say on the matter. There's no hard and fast rule, but it's generally agreed that vertical corrections are a good idea (for a number of complicated reasons), except where the angle of view is so high that correcting the verticals results in too much distortion. Exactly how much is 'too much'? Well, that's subjective, but you usually know it when you see it. Objects and shapes at the edges of the scene are too geometrically distorted. Partial correction can be a good idea to minimise the effect of distortion in these situations, and for some people, it results in a more 'realistic' looking image, but any perspective choice is a compromise in some way - there's no 'right' way to portray a three dimensional scene in a two dimensional format. I would argue that leaning vertical lines are not what our eye sees though, because we don't look at a wide angle scene in the same way that we look at a photo. Our eye only views a small area of a scene at a time and we create a 'mental map' of the scene that doesn't really have a true two dimensional equivalent. But what I will add is that the reason our eyes don't see leaning vertical lines in person is because verticals only lean inwards when they are 'off centre'. When you are looking upwards and your eye is centred on a vertical line, it is straight. If we could accurately perceive the angle of lines at the edge of our vision, they would indeed be leaning inwards, but the truth is, we really can't do that. Our vision at the periphery is very poor and we really only have a vague sense of what's there and much of that is populated by our memory of what we saw there when we looked moments earlier. Our brain does play a great trick on us by making us perceive our vision to be much better than it actually is. The truth is that our foveal vision is somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees wide - the equivalent of a 300mm to 800mm lens. Sometimes I think that much of what we consider to be 'natural' looking is merely derived not from what our eyes actually see, but from what we are most familiar: regular photos with uncorrected verticals. Anyway, I digress. :-) Diliff (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, thanks for your comment. I agree a lot. Please take a look at this article, and what is mentioned about the chain: "The chain links are tapered toward the bottom of a length of 150 mm to 130 mm and of a width of 74 mm to 70 mm. Thus the impression is from the perspective seen from below gained, have the chain into the entire length of the same thickness." (I added this sentence recently, it's a translation form the German article. Maybe Google translate didn't make the best job.) --Hasenläufer (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hasenläufer, I've made some small changes to the English in the article. The meaning of the sentence was understandable but the grammar wasn't correct so I've improved it. :-) The tapering if the chain links is a clever idea and this was done in many architectural designs to either decrease or increase the effect of perspective (depending on what they wanted to achieve!). Diliff (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasenläufer and Diliff: Here's a perfect example from my own work of the perspective-correction conundrum. I love this picture; the color and detail exceeded my expectations. But I won't be nominating it for even QI because when I tried to correct the perspective, I didn't have enough room at the top. And it's so obviously necessary ... just look at the buildings on the right.

I suppose I'll have to go back there some other day under similar conditions and shoot from further away. If I can.

Of course, sometimes it does work, as the other photo suggests. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a pretty good example of when it's not worth correcting - you need to allow more space around the sides because the image is effectively cropped by the perspective adjustment. Similarly, when I do my wide angle panoramas, huge chunks of the captured scene [have to be cropped out because they don't fit within the bounds of the rectangular framing (example here). If you were to judge the framing of your panorama based on the edges of the captured scene, you'd be disappointed to find important elements missing! Btw, regarding going back and shooting it again from further away, as you say that's not always possible, or introduces foreground objects that get in the way. That's always a problem in Europe - there's signage, fencing, cars, etc everywhere! If you want an uninterrupted view, you have to get up close and accept the huge inevitable distortions. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, according to the Newton Street photo: You made a small "leaning in angle" at the left side, but at the right side, the last building has a straight vertical edge. Isn't it a rule of thumb, to achieve identical "leaning in angles" at both sides of the subject? --Hasenläufer (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, Diliff, thanks for your comments. Yes, I'm aware, taking close-ups of buildings needs to spend enough room around the building while taking the photo, to make later perspective corrections possible. Quite recently I started to make perspective corrections of photos with perspective problems in two vanishing points, following the procedere mentioned in the video tutorial at Adobe's help page Perspective warp, My first results of adapting this procedere are this and this photo. But, when I came to a third try to fix a photo, I got problems by fixing "Haus Axe". At a first glance, it seems to be possible to make perspective corrections of the building as in the other cases. But in this case of "Haus Axe", beside the building, there is a second subject at the photo which caused me headache: It's the fence in the foreground. Every time, I tried to fix the perspective of the building, the fence is concerned too and has big distortions at the bottom right corner of the image. So, my question is: What is the specific problem in this case? My assumption is: The problem is caused by two different horizontal positions of the central edge, the middle starting line of the perspective correction. The horizontal position of the fence's "edge" is right of the building's edge. It seems, "perspective warp" comes to a limit in this case and it might be impossible, to fix the perspective problems in this case. --Hasenläufer (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michiel, at Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 11 2016 you mentioned "Perspective problem and I don't think it is repairable". Did you mean, the problem is caused by the fence, as I assumed above? (BTW, at January 11, I wasn't aware of the image nomination, initiated by User:Leit.) --Hasenläufer (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain exactly what you think is wrong about the fence? It's not clear to me what the issue is. I don't see 'big distortions' at the bottom right corner. The fence line does appear to be raised, as if the elevation of the ground increases on the right side. But it doesn't look terrible, and maybe that's just how it is. If that's the problem that you're describing, it should be quite easy to fix. Also, I did notice that the right side of the image is leaning outwards a tiny amount. Not by much, and I don't think it's serious enough to complain about, but I'm just mentioning it in case that's also what you're describing. I wouldn't say it's a problem only with the fence though. Both the building and the fence are leaning outward, but the fence leans a bit more. That's not unexpected though, not all fences are properly vertical, whereas buildings usually are. Diliff (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not expressing my concerns clear enough and leading you to wrong directions. The problem with the fence occurres during processing a "perspective warp" in Photoshop. I didn't publish an image whith such an effect. --Hasenläufer (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the only (possible) issue that I can clearly see is that the building nearest to the camera has a roof line that doesn't have the same vanishing point as the building behind it. The only explanation I can find is that the building is not on the same axis. I had a look on Google Maps using the geocoding on the image page and indeed the buildings are not aligned. The foreground building is not aligned with the fence or street but the background building is. Perhaps this is the 'perspective problem' that Michiel refers to. If so, I think he's wrong - it's because of the building's geometry and alignment. Diliff (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know how to expalin this correctly but I think the corner of the building has to move a bit downstairs. I did not realize that you did not know this photo was nominated by somebody else, so I am really sorry that I have declined this photo instead colour your photo yellow and move your photo for discussion --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I tried again, to reduce perspective errors of the "Haus Axe" photo. The mentioned "big distortions at the bottom right corner" isn't the problem (it seems, I made processing errors). The problem is: When I try to change the height of the building, to make it a bit flatter, the fence and the curbside get knees. If I try to avoid these knees, I come back to the original height. So, I give up to fix this photo. --Hasenläufer (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! West tower at old Basilica of Our Lady of Guadulupe, Mexico City.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 streak of light lends the tower a mellow mood. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carillon at the Basilica of Guadelupe, Mexico City, in morning 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 Beautiful morning mood. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Northeast tower of New York State Capitol framed by trees.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 What seems to be skewed, but good quality.--Famberhorst 06:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum East Court - updated

Hello Daniel, I am currently submitting the "Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum East Court" in the Featured picture candidates. One of the criticisms that you and others have made is that my photograph needs perspective correction. I have now updated the photograph and done perspective correction.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carns Road, Inuvik, NT.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.--Famberhorst 06:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mackenzie River east channel at Tuktoyaktuk Winter Road junction.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 --Florstein 07:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View up Mackenzie River east channel to Inuvik, NT.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. --Johann Jaritz 07:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Daniel Case,

Thank you very much for your response. an interesting story in a special photo.
I need to translate via Translate and it often does not go well and be deformed the senses.
Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma,--Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! GSI Mariner beached on banks of the Mackenzie River, Inuvik, NT.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 ship is on dry land? Beautiful shot.--Famberhorst 06:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nun talking to women on steps of new Basilica of Our Lady of Guadulupe.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. --Johann Jaritz 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black History Month

Since you've cottoned on to my plans a bit, reckon I could beg some help? The two-nomination limit is slowing me down a bit. =)

Here's the ones I think will probably pass Commons:

Barbara Jordan
Al Grey
Martin Luther King, Jr., et al.
Samuel Coleridge-Taylor
Cardiss Collins

Here's the ones that might have more trouble (due to the original image being a little less well-preserved/composed:

Fannie Lou Hamer
Vivian Malone

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trail into taiga, Inuvik, NT.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. --Johann Jaritz 03:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trail through taiga near Arctic Chalet, Inuvik, NT.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. --Johann Jaritz 03:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry Mayer, The Awakening, 1915 Cornell CUL PJM 1176 01.jpg

I thought you'd like to know that I've put up a restoration as an alternative. Sorry for the delay, but as you can imagine, an approximately 54 megapixel image does take some time to do right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Small cabin at Arctic Chalet, Inuvik, NT.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. --Berthold Werner 07:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dempster Highway S of Inuvik, NT.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. --Johann Jaritz 03:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Auxiliary steps at Pirámide del Sol, Teotihuacan.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 am an ardent worshiper of Carlos Castañeda`s books. The Sun Pyramid takes me back to the place where Don Juan Matus operated. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Woman using selfie stick on steps of Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan.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 On the tracks of Carlos Castañeda. Very nice. --Johann Jaritz 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tourists climbing lower stairs of Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan.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 Looking for Don Juan Matus. Amazing. --Johann Jaritz 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Veterans' memorial in cemetery outside Inuvik, NT.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.--Famberhorst 18:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Graves in cemetery south of Inuvik, NT.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. --Johann Jaritz 07:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Black spruce stand at Arctic Chalet, Inuvik, NT.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. --Johann Jaritz 05:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry of permission of re-using a figure in our book

Dear Daniel Case,

This is Dr. Jia He. I'm sending this message to inquire your permission of re-using one of your photos as Figure 1.3(c) in our forthcoming book. The pohot is about Stonecutters Bridge, and the link to that photo is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stonecutters%27_Bridge,_Hong_Kong.jpg

If you don't mind, could you please allow me to re-use this photo in our book of "Smart Civil Structures"? The source of this figure will be certainly cited in a proper way. Thanks very much for your kind help and support. Look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.132.127.192 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Front view of Our Lady of Victory Church, Inuvik, NT.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. --Zcebeci 20:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Northernmost traffic light in North America, Inuvik, NT.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
Might be that time of the day or night that the blue sky appears a bit strange to me --Ermell 12:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GSI Mariner beached on banks of the Mackenzie River, Inuvik, NT.jpg

Hello Daniel, nice image but for info there is a purple fringe on the rear roof balcony, it may remain acceptable, however there are countless dustspots... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your comments at FPC are priceless!! w.carter*-Talk* 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Late evening sun over downtown Inuvik, NT.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 It's tilted --Pudelek 09:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC
Done Very subtly, indeed ... I have corrected it. Daniel Case 00:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Support please remove the red CA at the lamps on the right. Overall good enough for QI to me --Carschten 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:GSI Mariner beached on banks of the Mackenzie River, Inuvik, NT.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:GSI Mariner beached on banks of the Mackenzie River, Inuvik, NT.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hendrick Martin House, Red Hook, NY.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 Beautiful motive. Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Late on an Inuvik summer evening.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. --Hubertl 06:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]