User talk:Diliff/Archive4

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Nils Torvalds MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nils Torvalds MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Church of St. Johns Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.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 ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 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:Church of St. Johns Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Wells Cathedral West Front Exterior, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wells Cathedral West Front Exterior, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wells Cathedral West Face Exterior, UK - Diliff.jpg

Hi David, nice picture but the correct architectural term would be 'West Front' rather than 'West Face': see eg en:Architecture of cathedrals and great churches#Architectural forms common to many cathedrals and great churches. Would it be OK if I renamed the file, leaving a redirect? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, please do. You're not the first person to mention that to me actually! Diliff (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Vilnius Old Town Skyline at dusk, Lithuania - Diliff.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 ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 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:Vilnius Old Town Skyline at dusk, Lithuania - Diliff.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Hi Diliff and welcome to Paris! There are not many good pictures of Basilique du Sacré-Cœur de Montmartre, Sainte-Chapelle, Église de la Madeleine, and Notre-Dame de Paris (facades and interiors). But Paris have a lot of famous buildings :-). I hope you will shot also Arc de Triomphe (from Champs-Élysées and three-quarter view), Conciergerie, La Défense (remote view, the parvis), Grand Palais (facade), Institut de France, Opéra Garnier, Palais Bourbon, Palais Royal, Panthéon. Maybe to much for few days but Paris deserves it.--Paris 16 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paris 16. I think the reason why we don't have many good photos of Basilique du Sacré-Cœur de Montmartre, Sainte-Chapelle and Notre-Dame de Paris is that tripod photography is not allowed. I actually did try to take a photo of the interior of Notre-Dame with a tripod, but only from a discrete position where nobody would tell me to stop. ;-) It wasn't a nice view down the centre of the cathedral unfortunately. Maybe on my next visit, I'll try again with the tripod and see if I am stopped or not. :-) Diliff (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but maybe Wikimedia France can help you to take the pictures in Notre-Dame de Paris. But a few days is too short!--Paris 16 (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for exteriors, tripod photography is always allowed :-).--Paris 16 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris 16, are you watching me like a hawk? ;-) You noticed my new uploads immediately! I still have about 10 more images to upload. Perhaps tomorrow. Thanks for your support. Diliff (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Žemaičių Kalvarija Church 1, Lithuania - Diliff.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 ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 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:Žemaičių Kalvarija Church 1, Lithuania - Diliff.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois Ambulatory, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois Chapel, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 06:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Paul-Saint-Louis Church Interior 1, Paris, France.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 06:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

In this moment, in commons Diliff is synonymous of perfection, The Photographer is only a nickname. Expensive lenses, their ability to travel, however, especially for his technique for photographing churches interiors. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Paul-Saint-Louis Church Interior 2, Paris, France.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint-François-Xavier Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint-François-Xavier Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St Eustace Organ and Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St Eustace, Chapel of the Virgin Mary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St Eustace Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica of Saint Clotilde Sanctuary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 08:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica of Saint Clotilde Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Merri Church Interior 4, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Merri Church Interior 3, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Merri Church Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Merri Church Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Merri Church Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Wells Cathedral Chapter House, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wells Cathedral Chapter House, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Canterbury Cathedral Trinity Chapel Stained Glass, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canterbury Cathedral Trinity Chapel Stained Glass, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Sulpice Church Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 07:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Sulpice Church Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Johann Jaritz 09:10, 03 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sanctuary of Abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 10:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nave of Abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 10:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet Nave, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 10:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:House of Blackheads and St. Peter's Church Tower, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:House of Blackheads and St. Peter's Church Tower, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Saint Merri Church Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Merri Church Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Corpus Christi College Chapel 1, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corpus Christi College Chapel 1, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Cyprian's Church Sanctuary, Clarence Gate, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Cyprian's Church Sanctuary, Clarence Gate, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 14 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) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ok, for example in this image what's wrong in your opinion? thanx--LivioAndronico talk 12:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you suddenly care about what I think, after being so defensive on the nomination pages? Well, that image isn't too bad. It's better than some of your other images. What I would say is that it's a bit dark and the white balance is too cold. The composition could probably be improved slightly by having the camera a tiny bit further back so that Jesus' arm is not cut off and more of the details at the top are visible. It's not that there is anything wrong with the image, it's simply that it isn't as impressive as many other images. It doesn't stand out. Diliff (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum .....anyway and now? Is better? Regards --LivioAndronico talk 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is better in some ways and worse in others. Yes, the WB and brightness is better but you have introduced some strong artifacts in the image, and the much of the detail is lost. Are you taking the photos in RAW or in JPG? All I can do is tell you what the faults are, but if you explain what you have done, maybe I can tell you if it is a good idea or a bad idea to do it. Diliff (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Always in RAW,I did the white balance and I increased saturation nothing more...--LivioAndronico talk 16:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot just be a white balance and saturation increase. The new image is much brighter, especially in the shadows. Looking at the images again, the new image also has a green tint. Look at the cloth over the altar - it was blue before but now it is brighter and green. Look at the wooden platform around the altar. It now has red and purple patches on it. Whatever you have done, it has brightened the shadows a lot, and this has brought out some problems. Sorry, I think the new image is actually worse than the original. Diliff (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem,I am not susceptible....now? I did the white balance and taken away a bit of brightness --LivioAndronico talk 17:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral Chapel of Saint Casimir, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Great --Martin Kraft 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius Old Town Skyline at dusk, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 13:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral Exterior 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Martin Kraft 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gate of Dawn Exterior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Michael the Archangel Church 1, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! House of Perkūnas, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 19:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vytautas the Great Bridge from hill, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 20:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gediminas Avenue 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Orthodox Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --DXR 19:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Orthodox Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Orthodox Church of Revelation of the Holy Mother of God Domes, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilniaus Street Scene, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of churches

Hello Diliff! How are you? All right? Here are some pictures of a basilica here in Brazil. Perhaps this can cause you to be impressed and help your pictures (not that you need help). As you see, there are pictures of the basilica interior with people, without people, etc. Only a suggestion and a curiosity. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trakai Island Castle Courtyard, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Milseburg 13:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vytautas the Great Bridge, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Milseburg 13:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Augustine's Church, Kilburn Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Augustine's Church, Kilburn Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Sophia's Greek Orthodox Cathedral Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Sophia's Greek Orthodox Cathedral Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:York Minster Choir, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:York Minster Choir, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:York Minster Rood Screen, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:York Minster Rood Screen, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for goodness

Hi David, you wrote in the FPC of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall this sentence: "I have noticed that many of your nomination images have not been as consistently good recently". In order not cut that series, do you think that there is something you consider to be "good" in this category?. I haven't changed my modus operandi or quality standard, and I am surprised that my last FPCs got so many opposes. My experience says also that sometimes pictures that I like and have good quality for others have a wow factor I didn't expect. Actually out of my 3 pictures in the final round of POTY 2 of them I would have never imagined to be there. One of them I was even surprised that got FP (I didn't nominate it). Thank you! Poc o² 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, I'm interested. Is that a list of "pre" FP photos that you would definitely nominate, or "potential" FP photos you've still to decide on. If the latter, what is your feel for what percentage might be nominated? You said on the other page that 56% of your nominations were successful. If I'm honest, I think you should probably have a better pass-rate than that given your long experience here and that many of your photographs are in the same well-worn and popular FP genre (travel landscape/architecture). I don't think it helps our more junior participants learn what an FP is when one of the regulars gets it wrong half the time. There will always be a portion of FP candidates that pass simply for being a nice photo (we all know the reviewers who support just about anything). The quality of the nomination page it itself therefore part of what helps keep the FP threshold high. I'm downloading your images and will have a look and give some feedback if you like. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Colin, will not nominate all of them. In same cases I still have to decide among several, in other cases I still have to make up my mind, in others I see potential but I'd re-develop them. On the other side, every time I nominate a picture for FP it comes from that pool. So, out of all pictures I have uploaded those there are the pictures, I believe, can become FP. You are welcome to give me feedback, either it is definitely not a FP or it is definitely good enough to try it. Poc o² 17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, Colin, have you come accross something FP-worthy? Poc o² 19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, been too busy (last night I had three photo challenges to mark and award and before that help prepare the two new ones). Should get a chance to look tonight.... -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I haven't had a chance to have a good look through them all. I had a quick scan when you first gave me the link to the category, and I saw that there were indeed a number of FP-worthy images, but also many that I think would not be too successful at FPC. I think the biggest issue that I find with your images, generally speaking, is that there is often not much which separates them from a typical 'good' photo of the subject. Sharpness and detail is rarely spectacular and the composition is usually solid but not wow-inspiring. This is perfect for QI, but for me, FPs usually need something extra to set them apart and simply taking a 'good' shot is not enough IMO. I am not as critical in judgement as Benh is, but I agree with him that we should all be more willing to oppose and ensure that only the best images are supported. Give me some time and I'll give you a list of my favourites. Also, I noticed that you don't seem to vote on any images in FPC anymore. Is it because you don't have enough time, or is it a conscious decision not to participate? Diliff (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to look at some last night. I now have guests staying so will take longer to browse them all. Similar views to Diliff that many were fine QI but no more. What separates you from many QI nominators is the variety and quality of your subjects -- your images are highly useful and interesting. The fact that many don't have the extra spark that is needed imo for FP doesn't diminish their importance or general quality. I'm currently reading London Hidden Interiors and while some of the photos are wow FP many are just good quality illustrative images that are absolutely necessary to describe and illustrate the subject but in themselves win no prizes. Does that make sense? -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, guys, thanks for the feedback. Sure I know what you mean. Just let me know when you have found something interesting. No hassle. Poc o² 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hill of Crosses 2, Siauliai, Lithuania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --XRay 16:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hill of Crosses 1, Siauliai, Lithuania.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --XRay 16:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Anne's Church Exterior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn Interior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 -- KTC 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hill of Crosses 3, Siauliai, Lithuania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 13:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St Gertrude, Kaunas - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Telšiai Cathedral 1, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 13:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Šiauliai Cathedral Interior 3, Šiauliai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vengolis 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint Marie Interior 3, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very Good quality. --Vengolis 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Saint Marie Interior 2, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vengolis 11:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pažaislis Monastery interior dome, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vengolis 11:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Casimir Church Exterior At Dusk, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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! Church of St. Johns Interior 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 15:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of St. Johns Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ximonic 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Catherine's Church, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ximonic 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vytautas the Great Bridge, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Hi Diliff, I saw this image, for info the right side is leaning out and there are black frames at top left and top right. -- Christian Ferrer 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It's definitely not one of my best panoramas. ;-) I had so many images to process from Lithuania that it took me a couple of months to finish processing and uploading them, so I have to admit that I rushed some of them. I'll reprocess it soon when I have a chance again. Diliff (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius Modern Skyline, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trakai Island Castle, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Nicholas Orthodox Church Exterior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Yann 20:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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}}}

Peterborough Cathedral Sanctuary's photo

Hi Diliff, is this image missing a template? -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katie, yes sorry it is. I realised very recently that it was an image that I had forgotten to upload, so it wasn't uploaded with the main batch, and I simply forgot to tag it. I'll do it now. It is (hopefully) the only one. Well spotted. Diliff (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cervus elaphus LC0367.jpg

Did you mean to support? Your comment suggests otherwise. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Oops. Has been corrected! Diliff (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --C messier 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Peter and St. Paul's Church Exterior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support QI for me. --C messier 13:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Cuthbert's Church Philbeach Gardens Reredos, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Cuthbert's Church Philbeach Gardens Reredos, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/KTC (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy

Thank you for your help. You can download the raw-file here and please replace the current version. I have problem with my new laptop and the monitor. --ArildV (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new version.--ArildV (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to help! Diliff (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Peterborough Cathedral Sanctuary, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peterborough Cathedral Sanctuary, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Anne's Church Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Marianne Casamance 14:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Marianne Casamance 06:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Casimir Church Interior 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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}}}

Copyright status: File:Duke Humfrey's Library Interior 4, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.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 ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 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:Duke Humfrey's Library Interior 4, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some stitching problems with PTGui

Hi David,

I have made this image stitching File:Lörrach - Kirche St. Peter - Westansicht.jpg out of 9 (3x3) freehand images. I have added some control points to improve the result. But the big problem is still that the branches of the left tree doesn`t fit exactly together. And this problem while the overlap of the single shots is big enough. Do you have any idea how to handle with this problem? If you like I could allocate to you the tif-files (are about 1.8 GB). Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. What you didn't tell me is what software you're using to stitch the images. This is important because different software deals with blending the images quite differently. It doesn't look like any blending I'm familiar with (a thin strip of blur). I'm happy to try stitching it myself. Perhaps just low compression JPGs is enough though. Sometimes using JPGs causes posterisation in the sky when the blender tries to adjust the exposures, but usually it's fine. I use JPG for most of my panoramas unless I have problems such as the one I just mentioned. Diliff (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the headline ;-) No problem for me to convert the TIF into JPG. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise: PTGui V 9.2.0 Pro. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading the nine single shots cia WeTransfer (a download link you should receive in the next 30 minutes via E-Mail, are about 240 MB of non compressed JPG). I'm curious if you manage to get this image without error. The overlap should be enough but the delicate tree structures should disturb the stitching algorithm of PTGui. I have tried to add some further control point but this wasn't successful. If you manage I'm very interesting how you manage this. :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wladyslaw. I've had a go and it seems to have been a success. I don't think the control points are the problem (well, there is a parallax problem but you can't fix it with control point adjustments), it's the stitching/blending algorithm of PTGui that has caused the issue. I've restitched it with Smartblend and the result was pretty good, no errors in the trees (none that I can see anyway). I had to do some cloning along the edges of the building as there was some misalignments there but nothing too hard. I've actually uploaded over the top of the original image, but if you don't like it, feel free to revert, or I could upload it as a derivative. I also gave it a small amount of noise reduction and sharpening. I still have the image open in Photoshop so if you would prefer it without noise reduction and sharpening, I can upload that version. Let me know. Diliff (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff: First of all: thank you al lot for your effort.

Noise reduction and sharpening is okay for me. A minor stitching error on the lamps bar is visible. Not a big deal.

Is Smartblend a further application for PTGui? It seems to be free in use, isn't it? But this means PTGui (as stand alone program) has some problems in special constellations. Which version of PTGui do you have? I'm thinking about to update my V 9.2.0 Pro to the new 10.0.12 which should be much more faster. But speed is not my problem. I have a highly equipped PC so that even big panos with 60 images doesn't need more than 10 minutes. What's your opinion to the new version? --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wladyslaw, sorry for the delay in replying. It's a plugin for PTGui, and does the blending work instead of PTGui's own blending. It is much slower than PTGui (I don't think it can use more than one CPU core even). I use PTGui Pro 10.0.0.12. It is much faster. I don't know if there are any major other advantages to it though. 10 minutes is crazy though. For me, with around 100-150 images, it takes about 20-30 seconds to stitch. I have a fast PC with 32gb ram and an SSD drive, so that may explain it. I couldn't imagine waiting more than 1-2 minutes for one panorama to stitch! ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Riga Skyline Panorama, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --C messier 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilnius University M. K. Sarbievijus Courtyard, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 for QI, it will be better if the minor CA at the top left is fixed. --C messier 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodleian Library et al. photos

Hi David, please don't forget to tag any relevant photos from wmuk:Project grants/Bodleian Library, Oxford with the appropriate template. Thanks! -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I will do. I haven't quite finished uploading all the images, I was going to do it all at once. I suppose I should at least do it before a nomination though. :-) Diliff (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it all at once would be fine. Yes, before a nomination would be good, if only so I don't vote on it by accident. Great work by the way! Thanks a lot -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Mary's Church, Radcliffe Sq, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary's Church, Radcliffe Sq, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Bristol Cathedral Nave looking east, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bristol Cathedral Nave looking east, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Divinity School Interior 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Divinity School Interior 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Convocation House 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convocation House 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Pitt Rivers Museum Interior, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pitt Rivers Museum Interior, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Circus

Hi David,

I took a panorama of Piccadilly Circus a week ago. It could be better lighting wise, but it has a fairly high size, and there's almost no people and car on it. Was thinking of adding it to the article when I saw your panorama. Obviously, two panoramas would be too much, so I was considering replacing it. What do you think about that ? There are pros and cons (and yours is more thorough, although it has a glaring stitching error). Waiting for your input. Thanks ! - Benh (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benh, I have no problem with you replacing my image in any and all articles as it's probably a better view really. I had been meaning to update that image anyway, but never got around to it. That image was just a very quick-and-dirty handheld stitch. If I ever do take a new panorama though, we'll have to have this conversation again and see which is still the best. ;-) Diliff (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my feeling about it: you did it quickly. It doesn't seem as prepared as your other shots. And it's 8 years old also! We have better gear, software and, hopefully, skills since. Anyways, I would have feel bad to have replaced without noticing you first. WIll do once I come up a better caption and geotag it. I don't have much doubt about the outcome of whose picture would be the best if you reshoot it, so please keep focusing on churches ;) Thanks you for your answer. - Benh (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To let you know I did the replacement, and that I link to your version in the description page. - Benh (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Etienne du Mont

Hi Diliff !

A pity you did not let me know that you wanted to come to this church yesterday: this is my parish church (I'am a catholic), and I live very close to it. I have been happy to meet you !! I know the vicar pretty well, and he could have open to me some hidden doors for you ! I hope you enjoyed the rod screen (the most famous in France maybe), and the "distortion" of the abside, very special and unique. Did you notice the enormous pillars of the bell tower ? And that the keyboard of the organ is on the side of the church, and the grave of Saint-Genevieve, and the grave of Blaise Pascal, and the one of Jean Racine, and the Renaissance stained glass windows, and the stoning of St Stephen (Etienne) as pediment, and and... I'm waiting for your productions, of course !! Be lucky in post processing ! Cheers and thanks for message !--Jebulon (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm sorry. I didn't have very long there. I actually walked a path from Charles de Gaulle - Etoile metro station to Etienne du Mont and that church was my last of the day. I didn't have a lot of time to take photos of everything unfortunately, so next time I'm in Paris, I may try to visit again. I'll contact you if so! Diliff (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be welcome, be sure !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

color space

Hi David,

in my FPC Benh and Colin criticise that in my images (especially the stitched ones) there is colourable missing the color space information in the EXIF. Here User_talk:Benh#color_space I have tried to clarify this point but I only get (for me) ambiguous technical explanations. My workflow is (1) RAW-conversation with Nikon Capture NX2, (2) for panoramas I use PTGui and (3) for final works I often use GIMP. Benh suspects GIMP to be responsible for the removing the color profile. But sadly I can't follow his arguments or can see the real problem of my images. If I open the image information about the stitching GIMP shows me that color profil is RGB (look screenshot). Do you understand him and are you able to bring me his arguments understandable or what do you think?

Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wladyslaw, well I wasn't following the discussion too closely but I did see it on his talk page. I'm a bit confused too, although I'm not really an expert on the subject and I don't use GIMP so I'm not that familiar with it. One thing I can say though is that RGB is not actually a defined colour space itself, it is only a model that describes the variables (red, green and blue) but not the precise boundaries of those variables. sRGB is an actual defined colour space and is the most commonly used. Most graphics programs will assume sRGB if no colour space is embedded in the image itself. So I'm not sure that GIMP is truly correct in telling you the colour space. I suspect it's only telling you that your image is comprised of red, green and blue channels, and that if you change the image to CMYK or some other colour model (I just googled about GIMP and CMYK colour and it appears that GIMP doesn't support it), it would then display that instead. Also, if GIMP is stripping the colour space, it could be doing that when you save it, not when you open it, so it might not be the best way to prove or disprove the problem. The only way to know for sure is to use a tool that will tell you what the colour space is before and after you have edited it in GIMP, which is what Benh has suggested (EXIFTOOL). I'll try to download GIMP and do some tests of my own to see if I can replicate what Benh is saying. Diliff (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this sounds all very reasonable. I'll make some researches for me too. This problem should be fixable and not to complicated. Thanks so far. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wladyslaw, I think there is some confusion of terminology. The RGB colour space (without the 's' prefix on RGB) is technically a "colour space" but is a generic term for a group of well-defined "absolute colour spaces" that all follow the RGB colour model. Other popular colour models include HSL/HSV, and CMYK. That field in the properties window is just saying you are working in RGB rather than CMYK and that you have true colour rather than "Indexed color (256 colors)" like with a GIF file. If you look at the next tab in the properties window (Colour Profile / Farbprofil) I'd hope to see something like "sRGB (built in)". See GIMP Image properties. We need an absolute colour space like sRGB or AdobeRGB (preferably the first for internet use) for the colour values in the JPG to be well defined. The EXIF information can indicate sRGB with a simple tag, but ideally the graphics software should embed a full colour profile too. See also GIMP Prefs Colour Management where you set up what profiles to use for each colour model and for display. I'm sure I've read elsewhere that you have a high-end display so this is an area you really must read about to ensure GIMP is properly colour managed to get the best results from your display, and to ensure what-you-see is what everyone else sees. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Wells Cathedral Organ from Inverted Arches, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wells Cathedral Organ from Inverted Arches, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good file names

Hi Diliff,

Just wanted to drop by and say that I appreciate your consistent file names, which includes the country. It makes it very easy to do maintenance jobs such as this, as I do not even have to open the file pages to figure out the country. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Worcester College Chapel, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Worcester College Chapel, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Merton College Chapel Organ, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Merton College Chapel Organ, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:New College Chapel Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New College Chapel Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg

Hi Diliff,

Just a quick heads-up: I noticed that the EXIF for this file indicates that the color space in "uncalibrated", which does not sound as intended. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slaunger (talk, thanks for letting me know. Indeed, that's some kind of mistake. Not sure how it crept in as my images usually have sRGB colour space defined. I've uploaded a new image over the top of it with the corrected details. How did you notice it anyway? Are you stalking me? ;-) Diliff (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff, I have had some problems with apparently corrupt EXIF data in my recent uploads after changing to newest version of Lightroom. To figure out if the problem only affected my uploads or were experienced by other users using LR as well, I had a look at (stalked ;-) ) the EXIF data in your most recent uploads and the uploads of a few other users that I know use LR. In that process I noticed by coincidence the "uncalibrated" color space in one of your files. -- Slaunger (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Well I haven't uploaded any images processed by Lightroom CC yet (there will be quite a few to come though in the next week or so). I did read your post about the corrupt EXIF data but I couldn't actually figure out what was wrong with it. I compared the EXIF of the two images but didn't see any real difference. Diliff (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Keble College Chapel Interior 1, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keble College Chapel Interior 1, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St James's Church Interior 2, Spanish Place, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St James's Church Interior 2, Spanish Place, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Kings Cross Railway Station Platforms 5 to 8, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kings Cross Railway Station Platforms 5 to 8, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Amiens Cathedral Transept Crossing, Picardy, France - Diliff.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 ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 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:Amiens Cathedral Transept Crossing, Picardy, France - Diliff.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.

Ju Ta 20:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msg at WP

David, did you saw my msg at WP? -- RTA 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I did. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to think about it properly and give you a reply, but I will. Sorry for the delay. :-) Diliff (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Relax, I just asked because something I miss some msgs here. Take your time. :) 22:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - May - Panoramas

I'm afraid I have had to remove File:Watsons Bay - Camp Cove Beach, Sydney 2 - Nov 2008.jpg, File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg, File:Richmond Riverside, London - Sept 2008.jpg, File:Derwent Water, Keswick - June 2009.jpg and File:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg since they were not first uploaded to Commons in May 2015, per the Photo Challenge rules. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought this one wasn't restricted to recently taken. I thought some of the others were also taken/uploaded before May? Anyway, no problem! Diliff (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now that some were taken prior to May, but only uploaded in May. Kind of cheating, but whatever. To enforce it would be difficult. :-) Diliff (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of photo challenge. Most allow photos to have been taken any time, but they must be newly uploaded (version 1) in the challenge month -- that way the aim of attracting new content for Commons is met. The second kind has an additional constraint that the photo must also be taken in the challenge month. That's my preferred kind, as it meets what I consider a "challenge" is about -- to go out and take a new image that you otherwise might not have taken. But those challenges can be less popular or attract lower-quality entrants due to this restriction. If the number of people participating each month grows (or grows in quality) then perhaps all challenges could be run that way. I know it is possible to lie in the EXIF but I hope people are honest and there is no cash prize to encourage cheating. One problem is that if we don't keep an eye on the entrants, then they can mislead other people too. It would be nice to have automated submission web page that validated entrants. My vote-page-creation program would have rejected your images, but better to catch earlier. Plenty time left in May!! -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Reims Cathedral Organ, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reims Cathedral Organ, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower

Do you have a higher resolution version of File:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg? File:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg is very nice but there are some stitching error.--Paris 16 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry that version is the only one I have of the Champ de Mars. I lost all my old photos when my hard drive crashed last year. Where are the stitching errors in the London Thames image? Diliff (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

Hi Diliff, this gallery was created, you can use it for your next candidate images if relevant. I have not yet transfered all corresponding images from the other gallery, I will do it gradually. Thus I changed the gallery in your nomination. -- Christian Ferrer 05:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strasbourg Railway Station at Night, Alsace, France - Diliff.jpg

Hi there. This is actually {{NoFoP-France}}, but maybe I missed something? --A.Savin 18:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I didn't really consider that, I'm not used to dealing with FoP issues as the UK doesn't have these restrictions. Maybe it could be considered de minimis because it's not possible to photograph the interior building without shooting through the new glass façade. It's an interesting question. Normally de minimis applies when the copyrighted object is a "mere element" and "accessory to the topic depicted", and "its presence in the picture must be unavoidable" (according to this). I would say that it is unavoidable to show the glass façade when shooting a photo of the old building. ;-) Diliff (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Amiens Cathedral Transept Crossing, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amiens Cathedral Transept Crossing, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Séverin Nave, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --XRay 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Séverin Sanctuary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Séverin Ambulatory, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 Fantastic, I can feel the coldness of the stones and heard footsteps on the floor, good quality too --Christian Ferrer 16:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Séverin Organ, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 17:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid Open

Hi, David! Actually I had no press pass, I had two invitations for visitors. I didn't ask for a pass because at first I wouldn't have been able to attend, but my plans changed unexpectedly and I finally went. Check the applying times!! It may be a month before the tournament for Wimbledon. One day I had the main ticket and the other I could enter the centre court, but there were more interesting matches in courts 2 and 3. If I wanted to, I could usually sit in the first row of seats (where press had some seats already reserved). Photographers couldn't stay on ground level except for the final (I saw it on TV) and maybe semifinals. --Kadellar (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, I won't be able to apply for a press pass either. According to the Wimbledon Championships website, it's too late to apply, and I don't think there is a chance that I would be able to get one anyway - they say the passes are limited to "Daily Newspapers, Evening Newspapers, Sunday Newspapers, International Wire Service and News Agencies, Specialist Tennis/Sport Magazines, Specialist Tennis/Sport Internet sites". I'm not sure that Wikimedia can really claim to be any of the above! I've asked Wikimedia UK for a grant to cover a few days of ground passes (1-3 days probably). The weather for Wimbledon is very unpredictable, so I will probably wait until the night before to decide which days I'm going to visit. It also requires me to get up reallllllyyy early and queue for hours, because the only public tickets that aren't already sold out are released in the morning via a loooooonnnggg queue. It takes about 3-4 hours of waiting to get in and if you arrived too late after about 6:30 or 7:00am, you wasted your time because there's no tickets left. So I hope it's all worth it. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Still Pond 3, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Still Pond 3, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Best photographer of interiors Congratulations! You have taken many interior photos. For me, they are the most wonderful photos of this category! Thanks for your great contributions! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ArionEstar, I appreciate it. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - May - Panoramas

I'm afraid I shall have to remove File:London Skyline from Waterloo Bridge, London, UK - Diliff.jpg as the aspect ratio 1.95:1 is not greater than 2:1, which is the challenge rules. I hope you can take more images for future challenges. --

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Admiralty Arch at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Admiralty Arch at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St Raphael's Interior 1, Kingston, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Raphael's Interior 1, Kingston, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St-Etienne-du-Mont Exterior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 done! -- MJJR 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St-Etienne-du-Mont Organ, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Great! -- MJJR 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St-Etienne-du-Mont Interior 3, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. -- MJJR 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St-Etienne-du-Mont Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. -- MJJR 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St-Etienne-du-Mont Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good work. -- MJJR 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St-Etienne-du-Mont Interior 4, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Still Pond 2, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was nominated by Laitche at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Still Pond 2, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Laitche (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Saint-Séverin Sanctuary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Séverin Sanctuary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Augustin Church Altar 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Code 05:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Augustin Church Nave, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Code 05:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Augustin Church Altar 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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}}}

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Basilica of Saint Denis Choir Misericords, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica of Saint Denis Choir Misericords, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:San Crisogono (Rome) - Interior Diliff edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Crisogono (Rome) - Interior.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you must have this too :)--LivioAndronico talk 11:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. No, it was 90% you. I just helped with the processing. It's not really my art, its yours! Diliff (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Crisogono (Rome) - Interior Diliff edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support good quality. --C messier 11:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Amiens Cathedral Ambulatory, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amiens Cathedral Ambulatory, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	The Photographer's Barnstar for your outstanding contributions on Commons. --- --Hafspajen (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see that

[1] :) -- RTA 09:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. :-) It's rare to find that kind of light. Not many English churches have incense so they are not smoky like that. I visited a Coptic Christian (Egyptian) church a month ago in London and it was very smoky in that way, but unfortunately not such nice light. Diliff (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:London_City_Hall_Helical_staircase_-_Oct_2008.jpg

See [[2]]

A proposed change to EU copyright policy would mean that unless immediate action is taken this image could not be included on Commons, owing to an ammendment restricting freedom of panorama to non-commercial images which is incompatible with Commons licensing policy. Your summary for this image also clearly indicates that under some circumstances you were considering commerical use. Under the proposed amendment, this would be impossible without the consent of the original creators of the work photographed, who aren't at present mentioned in the description.

I would strongly suggest that you read the meta page linked and

 (i) Add details of the creator of the work photographed.
(ii) Obtain their permission/consent (even though technically you don't as yet need to in the UK)

(iii) Support the Wikimedia communities efforts to have a clear and consistent policy on FoP across the EU and in the UK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]