User talk:Elekhh/Archive2

Viscri fortified church

I saw your comment on the picture of the fortified church at Viscri. It is actually a church that is not easy to take a really good picture of. I have some on my picasaweb site, although not one I would nominate. I have plans to upload quite a few pictures from churches in Romania when I get around to it. It will be mainly from the wooden churches in Maramureș and the painted monastries in Bucovina. Haros (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're now a filemover

Hi Elekhh/Archive2, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
• Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
• For guideline when to rename a file, please see Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming.

Geagea (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ATC Inveresk Tasmania 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good composition --Archaeodontosaurus 09:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Eilean Donan Castle, Scotland - Jan 2011.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan Castle, Scotland - Jan 2011.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Melbourne terrace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - Meets the criteria for me.--MrPanyGoff 10:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment - What if you remove these dots in the scope name? ;) --MrPanyGoff 08:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

uff, sorry, hope now is nicer :). --ELEKHH^T 10:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Support No matter that it shows only part of the whole building the photo gives the most informative idea of the subject so far in commons, imo. As addition I would like to suggest Biblioteca Ambrosiana (exterior) as the name of the scope.--MrPanyGoff 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museum of Sydney 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good. Needs a crop in foreground IMO, but the remaining part of the shadow should be then more disturbing...--Jebulon 16:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Barry St Student Housing Melbourne 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Fine --Mattbuck 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FP candidate (tower)

Hi Elekhh!
Thank You for review. Yes, with a slight crop at top composition is better now. New version of photo uploaded over.
With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 43eabe7db61a56d5270e3350c654afdd

I am now owner of a TUSC account!

Deletion suggestions

Thank you for the suggestions about speedy deletion (duplicate) and renaming, I hope you don't mind that I've copied your message in my talk page, so that I can find those pages easily. Regards, Kadellar (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Flicker problems

Hi Elekhh, a while ago you recommended me to use the Flifinfo tool. At first it worked fine but as of lately I have been experiencing problems with it and I can't find out why. For instance when I try to upload this picture, It won't upluad it. I get this message: "Warning: file_get_contents(http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors&action=raw) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.0 403 Forbidden in /home/www/kunden/ramselehof.de/wikipedia/flinfo/FlinfoFlickr.php on line 121

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/www/kunden/ramselehof.de/wikipedia/flinfo/FlinfoFlickr.php:121) in /home/www/kunden/ramselehof.de/wikipedia/flinfo/FlinfoOut.php on line 168" Any idea what is wrong? I seem to do exactly as I did when it worked fine.Ramblersen (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that it suddanly doesn't seem to choose a license automatically ("none selected") - which I guess is the whole point with using it. Still can't find out why though.Ramblersen (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded here. The problem was the "|" character used in the filename. --ELEKHH^T 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be so difficult but I jeep on getting the same fail message and have the same problem with all images. It does provide the "file info" and I save "the largest available size" but when I open the upload form, it doesn't seem to find the right "destination file name" (it writes its original Flicker name and not the name I have saved it under) and doesn't select any license. Very weird since I seem to be doing exactly as I did back when it worked just fine. Well don't thibk more about it if you don't recognize the symptoms and thanks for uploading the picture.Ramblersen (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, indeed warning messages still come up. No idea what's wrong but I'm noticing that one can still proceed and upload despite the warning messages. When tested, the license has been imported, and there is no need to add another license, so the drop-down license menu can stay as "none selected". The destination file name could be edited. Should report this to the tool's creator. Nice too see your systematically improvements to the coverage of Danish arts. I see you still managed to do uploads, but if there is any which did not work at all just let me know. --ELEKHH^T 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Need advice

What would be an appropriate English category name for these:

• 
• 
• 
• 

??? I have around a hundred more, and it's from just one town. TIA, NVO (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Very very nice images! Those are all window frames, and happen to be also made of carved wood. This is what google found for "carved wooden window frames" [1]. But I am not a native English speaker, neither specialist in architectural heritage --ELEKHH^T 20:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite comfortable with carved - carving disappeared from local crafts around World War II, and was replaced with jigsaw-only work. The window in the fourth picture was (again imo) made from stock, factory-made jigsaw pieces. Oldest-looking houses don't have any jigsaw pieces - but then this may be a fault of reasoning (they decayed faster then solid wood).

Take a look at this - amazing collection. The stuff from Krasnoyarsk [2] is quite a puzzle - there's an apparent Buddhist or even Japanese influence, and yet it does not show up in any other Siberian town. No one knows why. NVO (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Forest cover image

Hi Elekhh, replied at my user page in regards to this issue. KVDP (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

More upload troubles

Sorry to be so hopeless and trouble you again but now I am also having problems with non-Flicker images. When I use the new "upload wizard# which seems to have been implemented in the set up, I repeatedly get the message "Please make this title more meaningful" above the "title" spot in the form and the result is that it won't upload the picture. For instance with this image of Hvidøre House north of Copenhagen but it is whit any picture and any title I have tried (eg "Hvidøre vintage photo, c. 1900"). Any idea how to make title meaningful to Mr. Wizard?Ramblersen (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe is some temporary bug as the upload wizard does not work right now on my computer. --ELEKHH^T 14:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Aarh now commons is back to normal it seems. I suddanly got the Wizard directly when pressing "ipload file" on the main page but now it is its good old self. And thanks for fixing the nomination of the Hotel Astoria article, I see it has been up today.Ramblersen (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support - Since it is stated that the photo was taken at MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts I put a geotag. --MrPanyGoff 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment This image can not alone accounts for the entire solar energeia in Australia, I suggested reducing the scope, perhaps : White Cliffs Solar Power Station. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have limited experience with VIC. How about w:Solar power in Australia? If that's also still too broad, and what you are suggesting is good enough, have nothing against. Please adjust the scope as required. --ELEKHH^T 21:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Done
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, Valencia - Jan 2007.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, Valencia - Jan 2007.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dizengof St Tel Aviv 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Taxiarchos228 08:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ACF 60L Green Building Carlton.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Taxiarchos228 08:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cabanes du Breuil in FPC

Hi ELEKHH,

I've read your comment in FPC page regarding my last nomination.

Do you think this kind of exposure is better ? It is a gift for you, it shows a facing view of the houses at left of the nominated picture.

Thanks anyway for your feedback, even if negative ! --Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Oxfam East Africa - A mass grave for children in Dadaab.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oxfam East Africa - A mass grave for children in Dadaab.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ...

...your comment here. It's hard; but you're right. So it gives me a hint for better compositions of my photos. Greets --Sir James (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Um es nicht weiter ausarten zu lassen

Hallo Elekhh,

offensichtlich haben wir hier etwas unterschiedliche Auffassungen von dem was man sollte oder nicht. Ich bin der Ansicht, dass es zum guten Ton gehört bei besonders leicht zu behebenden Mängeln (zumal es sich hier auch noch um eine Auslegungsfrage handelt, ob es überhaupt ein Mangel ist) entweder selbst Hand anzulegen oder einen Bewertungsneutralen Hinweis zu vergeben. Dass Änderungen vollzogen sind, sind nämlich erstens über die Versionsgeschichte nachzuvollziehen und damit ist mit Sicherheit ausgeschlossen, dass hier jemand irre geführt wird, dazu kommt, dass bei QIC sowieso nicht genug Platz für uferlose Gespräche existiert was man sich ohnehin gleich von vorne herein schenken sollte. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Promovieren ist aber nicht Bewertungsneutal, und dein Sicherheitsgefühl teile ich nicht ganz, aber sonst bin ich gleicher Meinung. --ELEKHH^T 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Promovieren ist keine Bewertung sondern die Evaluation einer nach Regeln vorgegebenen Vorgehensweise. Deine wiederholte persönliche gefärbte Unterstellung und dein tendenziöses Dummstellen sind nicht Gegenstand für die allgemeine Diskussionsseite von QI. Deine persönlichen Animositäten interessieren keinen und ich werde weiterhin Bewertungen schließen wenn sie zu lange rumgammeln; ob meine eigenen oder nicht. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Du verwechselst nun unterschiedliche Dinge: ich habe "promovieren" wie hier gemeint, dass weißt du ganz genau. Mit dem Rest deiner letzten Kommentar bin ich überhaupt nicht einverstanden, vielleicht überlegst du es nochmal. --ELEKHH^T 22:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower

Hi Elekhh,

As requested by you, I've cloned out some disturbing tree branches of this picture. I hope you'll find this better (because it was very hard to do so !!) So do I. Anyway, thanks for review and useful comment.--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Oppose until it is geocoded. The exact place place where the photo was taken is mentioned in the description, so it should be easy. Yann (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Geocoded. Took a bit of research to figure out which of the four corners it was as of course the place has a different name now, and there have been throughout history several Lion Heads in the area, but finally fount it was 116 Charles St. --ELEKHH^T 13:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support Ok now. Yann (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari

hello, why you have delete my image of Ferrari in Milan? --Serenato (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The image was deleted because there was no conclusive evidence of its license, having been published on the internet prior to upload here, and hence the given date of creation was also wrong. In such cases COM:OTRS is required. If you think it was deleted in error please request undelete at Commons:Undeletion requests. --ELEKHH^T 23:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Uploading problems

Hi Elekhh, you once gave me a link to this Flicker uploader but now it won't work for me. I keep getting messages like this one: "Cannot determine image ID from input http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2562/3706353018_6fdd3c085b_o.jpg" (with this image but it is a random example, it is the same no matter which image I try to upload even though the license is ok). This has been the case for quite a while now. Any idea what the problem is?Ramblersen (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It works if you enter the main URL of the page "http://www.flickr.com/photos/smaedli/3706353018/" or only the image ID "3706353018". Cheers, and happy holidays! --ELEKHH^T 22:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Aah I guess that was what I used to be doing, sorry to bother you with such a trivial problem. And happy holidays to you, too.Ramblersen (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Minoru_Yamasaki_-_TIME_cover_1963.jpg

File:Minoru_Yamasaki_-_TIME_cover_1963.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

79.201.94.88 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support good for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Claritas (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fondation Maeght

Info reçue de la Fondation posée en Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fondation Maeght.jpg. --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 14:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Good photograph. It is a public event and should be geocoded according to the rules. You can find the place of the lecture in Linz.--MrPanyGoff 05:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that irrelevant as the place is not depicted? --ELEKHH^T 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm partly agree that's why I don't oppose. From the other hand, it is somehow informative - public people and places of their official appearances. Anyway, I tend to support. Even I think that an approximate geotag somewhere in the town is enough if the exact location is the problem.--MrPanyGoff 16:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support OK, I put the geotag of Ars Electronica Center. --MrPanyGoff 13:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Information

Hi.

I think the use of some words is historicaly and morally forbidden. [3].

Sorry to involve you in this case, but I cannot remain silent.

Have a nice week-end.--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

blabla

Just to say I hope you won't be discouraged by the pseudo "trolling" issue, and keep contributing the way you do, regardless of any debatable behaviour whatsoever. - Benh (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

+1.--Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Me again. I've read your comment in Admin's page. Sorry, you are wrong to leave the FPC page. If you do that, you let alone the other honest contributors, and you make the "soft terror" and the bad faith win, as always. Friendly,--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right, and I am sorry. But the problems are worse than I could help much. And there are other forums I can participate without being brutalised, so I am simply choosing to work where I am not repeatedly assaulted, as I assume others do as well. Please don't blame me for that. I understand that given the French Wiki does not have an FP you are less inclined for other options. Maybe you can set up a "Gentlemen's FP", with very explicit rules to exclude those acting as barbarians (this is not to characterise anybody, only the actions of some). As I am continuing to work on Wikipedia inevitably will use Commons, but will avoid the QI and FP forums. I hope you stay strong and continue the good work. --ELEKHH^T 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answer, with regrets.--Jebulon (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm also very sorry to see you stepping back. I consider your only fault is to say what you think, and I believe you always do this carefully. Where r we heading to if even on wikipedia we can no longer express an opinion without fearing backfires? Come on, does spiderman give up because of the numerous and repetitive treats? ;) At least you can ignore them. Of course, it's your choice, but I'm only very sad about it. - Benh (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry for disappointing you and thanks for the encouragement. Problem is, administrators choose to be short-sighted or blind, as I expected. That is the main reason why I am withdrawing, civility is not upheld. I am even contemplating now full retirement. --ELEKHH^T 12:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg

Hi, can you please readd the description and licensing information to File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg? For an unknown reason, it hasn't been restored. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't: "[457ab7ce] 2012-11-02 23:28:28: Fatal exception of type MWException" --ELEKHH^T 23:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. It would probably be best if you uploaded this image under a new name. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 00:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png

Hi can you recolor this map slightly:

• Color Russia, and Japan brown aswell (these also withdrew from Kyoto protocol)
• Perhaps make a derivate map (ie use this one for this) that also indicates which countries have no emissions target (and thus do nothing to reduce their emissions, although they still "participate" in the Kyoto protocol). the major ones are China and India, but there are also smaller ones, ie Cyprus, Malta, ... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Annex_I_Parties_without_Kyoto_targets and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-Annex_I

109.130.144.44 10:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Japan or Russia would have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, only that they are not participating in a continuation of it between 2013-20. So probably you are asking for a map to illustrate Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions. However as negotiations are ongoing in Qatar until December 7, I think is better to wait with the new map until the end of those negotiations. Also note that the map does differentiate between Annex I+II countries (with targets, dark green) and other countries (no targets, light green). The status of Cyprus and Malta is explained at List of parties to the Kyoto Protocol. --ELEKHH^T 22:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you mean that the lightgreen countries all have no targets ? Then the file description needs changing, I allready did this, look whether it's accurate (not sure on distinction Annex I and Annex 2 )

Kyoto Protocol participation map as of February 2012

• Green (darkgreen, lightgreen) indicates countries that have ratified the treaty
  • Annex I & II countries with targets: dark green
  • Annex I & II countries without targets: light green
• Grey = no position taken or position unknown
• Brown = Countries with no intention to ratify the treaty
• Red = Countries which have withdrawn from the Protocol.

109.130.141.70 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The map you requested about the extended Kyoto has been created at File:Kyoto Protocol extension period-2012-2020---participation map 2012.png. --ELEKHH^T 22:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)