User talk:Rhododendrites/2017a

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Four pears.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Rhododendrites could you pleas remove the distraction in the background? -- Rodrigo.Argenton 01:54, 22 December 2016 @Rodrigo.Argenton: Unfortunately, since I will be traveling over the next several days (and because I don't feel confident enough in my Photoshop abilities to do so quickly), I don't think I'll be able to do this before it's archived. Probably best to just decline (or promote if it would still scrape by :) ), but I appreciate the feedback/opportunity to improve it. Rhododendrites 05:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Hi there, Rhododendrites and Rodrigo.Argenton. I've tried something (therefore I cannot vote anymore). I hope it is better. If not, don't hesitate to revert ! --Jebulon 17:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Nice edit Jebulon!-- Slaunger 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice beginning of the (p/y)ear !

Better is to come, if I understand well what happens in FPC page !

Now, we want a poster of fruits !

--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jebulon: Poster is a good idea. I think I'll take a trip to a grocery store or two this weekend for ideas.. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryant Park frozen fountain (61377).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 Stunning! Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seabreacher (00066).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 05:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bergen Street station mosaic.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Data is collected on everything we do (71778).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seabreacher (00054).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. --Ermell 14:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paint brushes (30800).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. --Kritzolina 04:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oil paint mixed with wax (30789).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. --Scotch Mist 11:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brown pelican in La Jolla (70630).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 --Christian Ferrer 05:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Made By Google (00382).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. --Ermell 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Four pears.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Four pears.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this one is for you. Congratulations on a job well done! --cart-Talk 13:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Napatree Point (52242).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. -- Ikan Kekek 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Red pine cones (52371).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 focus on subject. -- Ikan Kekek 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sanderling (52293).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 focus on subject. -- Ikan Kekek 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pomegranate on white.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blood orange slice.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 Weak  Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better. --XRay 07:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cut Forelle pear.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 Weak  Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better. --XRay 07:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mango on white.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nectarine on white.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watch Hill Light (52412).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. -- Ikan Kekek 05:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Red pine cones (52374).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 13:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paint brushes (30804).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. Intentional blurring of back portion of paintbrushes adds to photo quality. --EoRdE6 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sempervivum arachnoideum side.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. --Peulle 08:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oncidium sphacelatum (42110).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --A.Savin 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Water beads (42106).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 Looks good to me, and I didn't have to think hard about whether to promote it. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oncidium sphacelatum (42115).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. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sempervivum arachnoideum top.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I don't like the unsharp strip in the foreground, but this is QIC: Things don't have to be near-perfect here, and this is good enough to promote. -- Ikan Kekek 07:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Statue in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden Fragrance Garden.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 Had probably been a little sharper. But good enough for me.--Famberhorst 06:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 01-21-2017 - Women's March on NYC (10696).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 Basically, the same standards apply as for any other photo, having to do with sharpness, coverage of the subject and so forth. To me, this is a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 21:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 01-21-2017 - Women's March on NYC (10753).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A little noisy (consider denoising if that would help), but a great, well-framed double portrait, and I think there is sufficient focus on the subjects. -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watch Hill Light (52413).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 stark scene, but also serene; good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Magnolia bud (60608).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. --Peulle 08:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ulmus parvifolia base (60558).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment A little bit noisy and disturbing elements at the top. Please check your image. --XRay 06:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC) @XRay:  Done I didn't remove a lot of noise, but hopefully enough. Thanks. Rhododendrites 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Support Thanks. Not the best but good enough. --XRay 17:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 01-21-2017 - Women's March on NYC (10715).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2017-01-28 - protest at JFK (81220).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 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2017-01-28 - protest at JFK (81227).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 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2017-01-28 - protest at JFK (80811).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 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Building at the end of Sderot Ben Gurion (10013).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Camel Lookout in Mitzpe Ramon (40685)a.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 Slight blown areas from sun, but no big deal. Great mood and fine composition. -- Ikan Kekek 01:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex (50818).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 --Christian Ferrer 16:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Layers of sedimentary rock in Makhtesh Ramon (50749).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 GQ --Palauenc05 15:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex in Mitzpe Ramon (40409).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice and good quality -- Spurzem 19:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Makhtesh Ramon (50785).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 11:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Makhtesh Ramon (40461).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 12:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nubian ibex eating in Mitzpe Ramon (40395).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 12:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nubian ibex at Makhtesh Ramon (40626).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. --A.Savin 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex (50822).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 Seems to be good fried or in oven. Good quality. --Basotxerri 20:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Herd of Nubian ibex along a cliff by a road (50743).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. -- Ikan Kekek 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex (40348).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I really like this one and would nominate it for FP, except that people might object to the man-made object sticking up. Still a possible FP, though, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 03:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex in Mitzpe Ramon (40404).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Makhtesh Ramon (40342).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I really like this with the road, but that could be a hard sell on FPC. Great photo, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Makhtesh Ramon (40426).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. -- Ikan Kekek 03:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruins in Makhtesh Ramon (50779).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 Sorry for being overcritical but the power tower is leaning out, could you fix that, please? --Basotxerri 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC) @Basotxerri: Surely. At first I distorted it to straighten, then though it might look better rotated instead, and finally decided it's probably best to remove it altogether. :) Do you agree? --Rhododendrites 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Comment When you remove things from the landscape like that, I think you should mention it in parentheses in the description.--Peulle 10:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I'm absolutely with you, that's the cleanest solution. Thanks for the efforts. Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon (50771).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I looked at this pic (for other reasons...) before and it is really good, but the ground is a little bit too dark. Do you think you could brighten it a bit for better contrast and possibly apply a bit of noise reduction? --W.carter 13:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) @W.carter: uploaded a new version -- is this along the lines of what you had in mind? --Rhododendrites 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Yes. Both the new versions are good enough for QI, but I would like to see this as a possible FPC and for that only the (a) version is dramatic enough. In the (b) version the stones steals the attention from the clouds and rays. A 50/50 mix between a and b would be ideal. Your call. :) Good quality. --W.carter 10:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Juvenile Nubian ibex in Mitzpe Ramon (40409).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile Nubian ibex in Mitzpe Ramon (40409).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This one is for you. Congratulations! --cart-Talk 13:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phragmipedium lady's slipper orchid (60548).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 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon bw (50771).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon (50771).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Another one for you. Congratulations on a job well done! --cart-Talk 07:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@W.carter: Just squeaked by. :) Thanks [again] for the nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex (50832).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 Awwww..... :) There is a hint of purple CA on the rocks in front of the kids and some green on the rocks behind them. Think you could remove that? --W.carter 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)  Done --Rhododendrites 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Looks great now! Good quality. --W.carter 09:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Layers of sedimentary rock in Makhtesh Ramon (50754).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There is some green/purple CA in the lower half of the pic. Think you can remove that? --W.carter 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)  Done? - more subtle change than with the other one -- not sure if it addressed all of what you saw. --Rhododendrites 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Yes indeed more subtle, but I'm being picky with this one. ;) Looks great now. Good quality. --W.carter 09:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Carcharhinus falciformis (29681569095).jpg (and others USFWS had incorrectly licensed on its Flickr stream)

deletion notifications

File:Carcharhinus falciformis (29681569095).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! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)   File:Panthera pardus (29056978703).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! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)   File:Anguilla rostrata (29681628735).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! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)   Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Affected: File:Alopias spp. (29055081144).jpg And also: File:Alopias spp. (29570399542).jpg File:Ceratotherium simum simum (29645910196).jpg File:Ceratotherium simum simum (29645910396).jpg File:Ceratotherium simum simum (29645910486).jpg File:Loxodonta africana (29055005224).jpg File:Loxodonta africana (29055005984).jpg File:Nautilus (29056436713).jpg File:Nautilus (29056446003).jpg File:Panthera pardus (29681686515).jpg File:Panthera pardus (29681687025).jpg File:Psittacus erithacus (29056638823).jpg File:Psittacus erithacus (29599985791).jpg File:Psittacus erithacus (29681257425).jpg File:Vicugna vicugna (29681723025).jpg —LX (talk, contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Waste nothing...

Haha! :D It takes a true artist to see the potential of things gone bad in the fridge. You modern take on paintings with Memento Mori inclusions is really fun. Are you familiar with the practice of including a fly or some decaying fruit in still-life paintings to add a note of seriousness in a painting of opulence? --cart-Talk 12:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Armenian grape-hyacinth at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81282s)a.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 Background is rather bright, think you could tone down the highlights there some? --W.carter 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Brought the highlights down a bit, brought them down a bit more in the background (and other minor adjustmnents). Rhododendrites 00:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC) What a difference! Now it is well seperated from the background and beautiful to look at. Thanks! Good quality. --W.carter 10:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sarracenia leucophylla at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81396).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 beautiful but could use just a little more light. --W.carter 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC) And on the first day on the nomination, Cart said "let there be light", and there was light. Well, some. May be that the image is just too dark -- pushing it much more will run against noise issues... Rhododendrites 04:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Exquisite! That was just that little smidgen of light I was looking for to see the flowers but retain the mystery of the photo. Good quality. This pic is only one straw (literary) away from FPC IMO. --W.carter 10:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrosoma atlanticum (12258).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some of the background is very dark, but the subject is quite interesting and bright enough. -- Ikan Kekek 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monterey Bay (12175).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 picture of a picturesque place that I like. -- Ikan Kekek 02:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Squirrel in Prospect Park (92553).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 Could have been a bit sharper, but good enough for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Juvenile Nubian ibex jumping off wall (40375).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support - Nice picture and story. The crop of the mother is unfortunate, but the kid is more the subject, and I think enough of the mother is visible for the picture to be good. -- Ikan Kekek 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Great egret (12205).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek 02:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! California scrub jay (12188).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. Slight cutoff of tail feathers is slightly regrettable. -- Ikan Kekek 02:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sarracenia minor at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81407).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. -- Ikan Kekek 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Star magnolia at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81256).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like it a lot. -- Ikan Kekek 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! March for Science NYC (22362).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. All 5 photos in this bunch are really good. -- Ikan Kekek 02:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quince (10895s).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 well done. -- Ikan Kekek 08:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quince (10928s).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice still life. -- Ikan Kekek 08:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moldy garlic (20871).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! Now throw away that garlic. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Sarracenia leucophylla at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81396)b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarracenia leucophylla at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81396)b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Another one for your collection. Congratulations! You have really advanced as a photographer since we started this little collaboration. Well done! --cart-Talk 21:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@W.carter: thanks! the entirety of my collection is still a subset of your side collection. :) one of these days I'll nominate something. Out of that sentiment I just nominated one on enwp that I want so sure would fly here (not linking only because I'm on my phone and it's a hassle). Side note: I started to say "aw shucks" and realized I have no idea where that word comes from, nevermind whether it's known outside the us. Turns out it's a minced oath for "shit" that apparently took on a dedicated meaning. Hm. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Haha! Don't blame me, I just nominate things I find good enough. :) To tell the truth, this time I saw the photo first and found it beautiful. I thought: "Well, this is something that surely has FP quality and should be nominated." Checking if the photographer was someone likely to make a self-nomination, I saw that it was by you. Since I know you are still a bit timid about FPC noms, I went to work.

Interesting as always to get to the origin of a word or expression, thanks. I love digging for things like that myself ... and blurting out explanations at inappropriate times... "Aw shucks" is certainly known here but we associate it with shy Texas cowboys in 1950s movies. Didn't know it was still in use "over there".

I looked up your WP fountain photo nom and I think you made the right call. It has loads of information and educational value but it is lacking a bit in composition for COM:FP. That blue building is too disturbing, perhaps this angle was the lesser of several evils. --cart-Talk 09:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@W.carter: Oh, no blame intended -- more like credit, and acknowledging that I've been a weenie about self-nominating (speaking of euphemisms that took on a different meaning...). "Shucks" is typically an overtly coy or jokey way of receiving a compliment. Also used sometimes to mockingly characterize e.g. a politician who puts on a naive persona (i.e. a person who probably says "aw, shucks" a lot). ...Not that you asked for more. :)

The angle is mainly due to it being the first place I came across where it wasn't too intrusive to put a tripod and where I could get a shot without a steady stream of people walking through (e.g.). We'll see. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I always like a bit more knowledge. :) I cases such as the fountain there are two options:

1. You get two well-built and menacing-looking friends to help you hold people back while you take the picture. Said friends should be dressed in blue windbreakers with the logo for "Rhod's Documentary Photography^Inc" stenciled on the back.

2. You borrow a trick from panorama photographers that resembles focus stacking a bit, only this is more like "content stacking". You place the camera (tripod must be used) to get the best possible view. Take about 10-20 photos with the exact same setting with some time between them so that people have moved to different spots in the frame. Stack the photos in layers in a program and erase the obstructing people in each layer. The resulting image should be the full view you wanted since each photo contributes with some unobstructed part of the object/(fountain), just without people. Hope you understand what I'm trying to describe here. Other photographers use the opposite technique to get more people/whatever in the same photo, stacking the layers and erasing empty space. You can see this in some of the photos in the slideshow on this page. Take a look at the first with the planes, #6 with the basket ball players and #8 with the birds. --cart-Talk 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Susan S. McKinney-Steward gravestone at Green-Wood Cemetery (62062).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.--Manfred Kuzel 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mausoleum at Green-Wood Cemetery (62094h).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. --Uoaei1 03:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Governor DeWitt Clinton statue at Green-Wood Cemetery (front) (61927).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. --Uoaei1 03:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Makhtesh Ramon (40460).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. --A.Savin 08:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Western Wall at night (20081).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. -- Ikan Kekek 09:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dome of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (20160).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 --Halavar 09:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2017 (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:
Susan McKinney Steward - gravestone.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Scope updated based on this. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Scope updated per this. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support - Useful, but Rhododendrites, one comment: These are the gravestones, not the graves themselves, which are holes in the ground. I think you should change all the scopes to "gravestone". I will affirm in advance that my votes to support will be valid after the change in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: Thanks. I was mainly going by the wikidata property ("image of grave"), but I think you're right. I came across a recent discussion on enwiki regarding the use of the arguably euphemistic "resting place" in infoboxes. It led to talk of all sorts of different possibilities. I don't remember if there was consensus, but the most inclusive non-euphemistic term was the terribly clunky "location of remains". Don't know if these all qualify as "gravestones", per se, especially one I'm planning to nominate tomorrow, which is more of a statue, but it's better than "grave". Changed. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could use "Memorial Statue" for the one tomorrow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Rhododendrites, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (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:
Sarracenia minor (hooded pitcherplant), greenhouse specimen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Archaeodontosaurus: Fixed. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Perfect for the shape. It might be useful to reduce the scope to Botanical Garden because it is not its natural habitus. Other opinions would be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Archaeodontosaurus: Thanks. What about "greenhouse specimen"? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support For me, perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Makhtesh Ramon (40462).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. --Basotxerri 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks for following up on this one. Question: while I get that the uploader should be notified regardless, why create a deletion discussion page for an obvious copyvio rather than just tag as SD? I don't think I've had an issue in the past tagging that way. If I had to guess, it would be that there is no easy gadget to notify and tag as SD, but there is one to notify, tag for deletion, and create a deletion discussion page? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking a bit closer I see there are ways to tag as copyvio and notify with one click -- is there an advantage to creating a discussion page? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A reason should be provided. Do you use the gadget? Making a DR is fastest way to inform the uploader when it wasn't do before. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)