User talk:Arne Müseler

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euro 2008 public viwing vienna 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Carschten 15:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2009 07 07 arne mueseler 0035.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, but a bit tilted cw IMO --Jebulon 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)  Info i uploaded a new, corrected version --Arne mueseler 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Very good now. Something different in QIC. --Jebulon 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euro 2008 greece vs sweden 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, shame about the girl picking her nose. Mattbuck 11:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euro 2008 em-stadion wals-siezenheim 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - lightly blurred. Mattbuck 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1997 or 2001?

Hi. What is correct year for this duplicate images: Loveparade 1997 berlin 7.jpg and Loveparade 2001 berlin 1.jpg, so other can be deleted as duplicate. --Smooth_O (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

it s 2001, but i have no idea how to delete an image...--Arne (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Arne Müseler!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Dokumentation garzweiler logo.jpg was uncategorized on 4 April 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Boys noize juicy beats 2011 3.jpg was uncategorized on 1 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Boys noize juicy beats 2011 4.jpg was uncategorized on 1 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Boys noize juicy beats 2011 1.jpg was uncategorized on 1 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Boys noize juicy beats 2011 2.jpg was uncategorized on 1 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about Attribution requirements

See this discussion on the English Wikipedia: [1]. 130.126.213.229 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Kategorisierung

Hallo Arne, bitte beim Kategorisieren deiner (schönen) Bilder darauf achten, dass sie nur in der zugedachten Kategorie landen und nicht auch in einer dieser übergeordneten. (z.B. nur "Pfarrikirche Lehen" und nicht auch in "Salzburg", da erstere eh schon (mehrfach) der letzeren untergeordnet ist.) Danke. Gruß --Eweht (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, danke für den Hinweis und entschuldige die Mehrarbeit! --Arne (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tak / Thank you

Hej! Du har lagt et eller flere billeder op i den danske WLM 2011-konkurrence. Juryen vil snart gå i gang med at udvælge de bedste billeder. Mens du venter, kan du evt. tjekke, om der er en god beskrivelse på billedet/billederne og om du har slået e-mail-funktionen til, så vi kan få fat på dig, hvis du vinder. Hvis du har lagt nedskalerede versioner op, så overvej at lægge originalerne op. Uanset om du vinder eller ej, så skal du have tak for dit bidrag!

Hello! You have uploaded one or more pictures to the Danish 2011-WLM competition. The jury will soon begin to select the best pictures. While you wait you may want to check if there is a good description of the image/images and if you have turned on the e-mail feature, so we can reach you if you win. If you have uploaded downscaled versions consider uploading the originals. Whether you win or not thank you very much for your contribution! --MGA73 07:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments: Den gamle Redningsstation Rømø 2.jpg

English:

Hello Arne mueseler,

Your image, Den gamle Redningsstation Rømø 2.jpg, submitted to Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 in Denmark, has been selected as one of 25 for round two for the Danish Wiki Loves Monuments (DaWLM) 2011.

407 images passed the initial screening criteria and will now be weighed against the European WLM judging criteria. For this bigger is better, so if your image can be uploaded in a larger (but not upscaled) version, we would like to encourage you to do so. Also at this point, we need you to make sure that your mail-address set in your preferences is valid and that "Enable e-mail from other users" is checked, so we are able to contact you using Special:EmailUser/Arne mueseler. If we are not able to do so (i.e. a valid e-mail address is not entered, or "Enable e-mail from other users" is unchecked) by October 25th 2011, your image will not qualify for the top-10 - no matter how good it is!

Announcement of the top-10 DaWLM will happen on Wednesday October 26th 2011 on the Danish WLM 2011 project-page. --MGA73 & Heb, jurors DaWLM 2011

Dansk:

Hej Arne mueseler,

Dit billede, Den gamle Redningsstation Rømø 2.jpg, der deltager i Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 i Danmark, er blevet udvalgt som et af 25 billeder, der går videre til runde nummer 2 i dansk Wiki Loves Monuments (DaWLM) 2011.

407 billeder er indledningsvist blevet godkendte som deltagere i konkurrencen, og vil nu blive holdt op imod de europæiske WLM bedømmelseskriterier. Her betyder størrelsen noget, så hvis dit billede findes i en større udgave (der ikke blot er opskaleret), så vil vi gerne her opfordre dig til at uploade den. På nuværende tidspunkt har vi også brug for at du sikrer dig at din e-mail adresse i indstillingerne er gyldig og at der er sat flueben ved "Tillad e-mail fra andre brugere", så vi kan kontakte dig via Special:EmailUser/Arne mueseler. Hvis vi ikke kan dette (f.eks. der ikke er indtastet en gydlig e-mail-adresse, eller der ikke er sat flueben ved "Tillad e-mail fra andre brugere") d. 25. oktober 2011, deltager dit billede ikke i den videre konkurrence - uanset hvor godt det er!

Den endelige annoncering af de 10 bedste DaWLM bidrag, vil ske onsdag d. 26. oktober på på den danske WLM 2011 projektside.. --MGA73 & Heb, jury DaWLM 2011

Wiki Loves Monuments: Kommandørgården på Rømø 1.jpg

English:

Hello Arne mueseler,

Your image, Kommandørgården på Rømø 1.jpg, submitted to Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 in Denmark, has been selected as one of 25 for round two for the Danish Wiki Loves Monuments (DaWLM) 2011.

407 images passed the initial screening criteria and will now be weighed against the European WLM judging criteria. For this bigger is better, so if your image can be uploaded in a larger (but not upscaled) version, we would like to encourage you to do so. Also at this point, we need you to make sure that your mail-address set in your preferences is valid and that "Enable e-mail from other users" is checked, so we are able to contact you using Special:EmailUser/Arne mueseler. If we are not able to do so (i.e. a valid e-mail address is not entered, or "Enable e-mail from other users" is unchecked) by October 25th 2011, your image will not qualify for the top-10 - no matter how good it is!

Announcement of the top-10 DaWLM will happen on Wednesday October 26th 2011 on the Danish WLM 2011 project-page. --MGA73 & Heb, jurors DaWLM 2011

Dansk:

Hej Arne mueseler,

Dit billede, Kommandørgården på Rømø 1.jpg, der deltager i Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 i Danmark, er blevet udvalgt som et af 25 billeder, der går videre til runde nummer 2 i dansk Wiki Loves Monuments (DaWLM) 2011.

407 billeder er indledningsvist blevet godkendte som deltagere i konkurrencen, og vil nu blive holdt op imod de europæiske WLM bedømmelseskriterier. Her betyder størrelsen noget, så hvis dit billede findes i en større udgave (der ikke blot er opskaleret), så vil vi gerne her opfordre dig til at uploade den. På nuværende tidspunkt har vi også brug for at du sikrer dig at din e-mail adresse i indstillingerne er gyldig og at der er sat flueben ved "Tillad e-mail fra andre brugere", så vi kan kontakte dig via Special:EmailUser/Arne mueseler. Hvis vi ikke kan dette (f.eks. der ikke er indtastet en gydlig e-mail-adresse, eller der ikke er sat flueben ved "Tillad e-mail fra andre brugere") d. 25. oktober 2011, deltager dit billede ikke i den videre konkurrence - uanset hvor godt det er!

Den endelige annoncering af de 10 bedste DaWLM bidrag, vil ske onsdag d. 26. oktober på på den danske WLM 2011 projektside.. --MGA73 & Heb, jury DaWLM 2011

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Arne Müseler, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Christliche kirche georgetown penang 1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Christliche kirche georgetown penang 1.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Christliche kirche georgetown penang 2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Christliche kirche georgetown penang 2.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Leuchtturm georgetown penang 1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Leuchtturm georgetown penang 1.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Broeken heart telephones love lane georgetown penang.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Broeken heart telephones love lane georgetown penang.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kapitan Kling Moschee georgetown penang 1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kapitan Kling Moschee georgetown penang 1.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kapitan Kling Moschee georgetown penang 2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kapitan Kling Moschee georgetown penang 2.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kon Hock Keong Tempel Georgetown Penang 2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kon Hock Keong Tempel Georgetown Penang 2.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kon Hock Keong Tempel georgetown penang 1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kon Hock Keong Tempel georgetown penang 1.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flughafen kota bharu 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Deleted content

---

Hello Arne Müseler, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Josef reschen.jpeg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

• use in any work, regardless of content
• creation of derivative works
• commercial use
• free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

Hallo Arne mueseler,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

Cornelia Ecker

Hallo Arne, Du (oder jemand gleichen Namens?) ist hier als Urheber genannt, steht das Bild unter der angegebenen Lizenz? --Ailura (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

hi, ja das ist richtig. je nachdem für was du es brauchst hätte ich es auch noch in einer besseren auflösung.--Arne (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mir ist nur aufgefallen dass es von einem Dritten hochgeladen in der de-wp eingebunden wurde, ich persönlich brauche es gerade nicht. --Ailura (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

wollt ich grad machen, hab das bild aber als jpg vorliegen und nicht als png, dadurch lässt er es mich nicht überschreiben. was ist geschickter? meins in png umwandeln oder es ganz neu hochladen?--Arne (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, da kenn ich auch keinen guten Trick, ich würde neu hochladen und Schnellöschantrag wegen duplicate auf das alte kleine stellen. --Ailura (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Der WLM-Countdown hat begonnen

Hallo Arne mueseler,

nun ist es wieder soweit. Vom 1. bis zum 30. September findet zum fünften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Im Mittelpunkt steht bekanntlich das Fotografieren von Kulturdenkmalen. Du hast an einem der letzten Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen und wir freuen uns auf weitere Bildbeiträge von Dir.

Viele interessante Motive, nicht nur Burgen und Schlösser, sondern auch Fachwerkhäuser, Brücken und Brunnen, technische und Industriedenkmale und vieles mehr gibt es noch zu fotografieren, damit sie in der Wikipedia dokumentiert werden können. Nützliche Tipps findest du auf unserer WLM-Projektseite. Du kannst gerne individuell Fototouren durchführen oder aber Dich auch Gruppentouren anschließen. Besonders freuen wir uns auf Fotos, die Lücken in den Denkmallisten der Wikipedia ausfüllen.

Darüber hinaus kannst Du auch an der Arbeit der Jury teilnehmen, die Mitte Oktober die Fotos bewerten und die Gewinner ermitteln wird. Bis zum 15. August kannst du hier Deine Bewerbung einreichen.

Viel Erfolg und Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia in den bevorstehenden Wettbewerbswochen wünscht Dir das Orga-Team. Wir freuen uns auf Deine Fotos.

( Bernd Gross, 6. August 2015)

File:Arne.jpg

File:Arne.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!

Kaulder (contribs | talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Dubai airport 1.jpg

File:Dubai airport 1.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!

Canopus Grandiflora 20:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Dubai airport 2.jpg

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple park cupertino 2019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 16:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sochi adler aerial view 2018 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --GRDN711 18:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! National Stadium Warsaw aerial view 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sochi adler aerial view 2018 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Manfred Kuzel 07:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sochi adler aerial view 2018 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Manfred Kuzel 07:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sochi adler aerial view 2018 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Manfred Kuzel 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Moses Mabhida Stadion durban aerial view 1.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moses Mabhida Stadion durban aerial view 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Manfred Kuzel 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pfarrkirche Bucheben Rauris.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 and beautiful --Aristeas 08:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Yeah, this one is gorgeous. -- Ikan Kekek 20:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beijing national stadium 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Small perspective correction needed. But good quality for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nukualofa Tonga 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 23:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Real tonga airlines 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Adding location information, with GPS coordinates if possible, would be helpful. --GRDN711 21:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiDaheim 2019 – Gratulation!

Hallo Arne mueseler!
Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb zu WikiDaheim 2019! In diesem Jahr freuen wir uns über mehr als 8000 Bilder, mit denen viele Orte oder Sehenswertes in Österreich in der Wikipedia und anderen Projekten mit neuen oder besseren Bildern versehen werden können.

Aus den von der Vorjury ausgewählten Bildern hat die Hauptjury nun die Preisträger dieses Jahres gewählt und so haben wir die Freude, Dir zum 5. Platz zu gratulieren!

Eine Einladung mit den Details zur Preisvergabe erhältst Du demnächst noch via E-Mail.

Mit herzlichem Gruß, für das Team von WikiDaheim, Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Faleloa foa haapai tonga 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 08:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Garzweiler surface mine Bucket-wheel excavator 2019 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perspective correction needed --Llez 05:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuhlheide berlin 2019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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) 05:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! İstanbul Havalimanı Airport 2019 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 00:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! National Speed Skating Oval Beijing 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olympic Hockey Centre.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality is good, but geo-location is missing. Also description is not obvious, where in Greece is this hockey stadium (probably Athene) --Michielverbeek 08:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)  Done. Thanks for the review - added the place to the description, geo-location was there before --Arne Müseler 23:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2019 (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:
Aerial photographs of Hellinikon Olympic Hockey Centre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It is not the only Olympic Hockey Center , the name of the city must be added to the scope. You must also add aerial view . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Oh, i didnt know that the categorys must always broken down so precisely, even when there are only a few images - sorry, still learning. will fix that. but i think then it will no longer make sense to nominate the picture because there are only two pictures of the venue and only one aerial view. or am i wrong? --Arne (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Info fixed categorys & scope --Arne (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2019

•  Comment - The reason why we like precise scopes is that we sometimes like to leave room for other useful subscopes, even if we have yet to have photos of them at Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, field hockey!  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2019 (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:
Aerial view of Beijing National Speed Skating Oval.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. (Irrelevant remark: Those buildings beyond the stadium are really dystopic!). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2019 (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:
Aerial views of the National Stadium in Warsaw.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Lack gecoding. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Info Fixed. -- Arne (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2019 (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:
Aerial views of Wrocław Municipal Stadium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2019 (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:
Weekend (Rapper).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2019 (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:
Exterior of Volgograd Arena (aerial view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it would be good to add "aerial view" in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment okay like this? --Arne (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2019 (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:
Interior of Terminal 3 Station (Beijing).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2019 (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:
Exterior of Beijing National Indoor Stadium photographed from the roof of the Beijing National Stadium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be good to add to the scope the direction of the shooting --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

*  Comment fixed --Arne (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2019 (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:
Aerial view of Waldbühne, Berlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2019 (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:
Aerial view of Schinias Rowing and Canoeing Centre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2019 (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:
International Depatures at Istanbul Airport.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2019 (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:
Aerial view of Olympiapark Schwimmstadion Berlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg

★ 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:
Aerial view of Veltins-Arena.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Wersestadion.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Stadion Rote Erde.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Westfalenhalle Dortmund.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Pfarrkirche hll. Hieronymus und Leonhard, Rauris.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2020 (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:
Aerial Views of Obertauern.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Ernst-Happel-Stadion.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2020 (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:
Aerial photographs of Berlin Brandenburg Airport.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Japan National Stadium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Tokyo Aquatics Centre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Ariake Arena.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Ariake Gymnastics Centre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Ariake Coliseum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Yoyogi National Gymnasium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Tokyo Metropolitan Gymnasium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Meiji Jingu Stadium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

File:World cup stadium seoul.jpg

★ 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:
Aerial view of Seoul World Cup Stadium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of International Stadium Yokohama.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Gangneung Ice Arena.jpg

Yours sincerely, 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Gangneung Oval.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Gangneung Curling Centre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Faliro Olympic Beach Volleyball Centre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Toyosu Market.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Tokyo Tatsumi International Swimming Center.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2020 (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:
Interior of Beijing National Aquatics Centre (icerink).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support better Charles (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Water Cube Ice Cube Beijing 1.jpg: 0
2. Water Cube Ice Cube Beijing 2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
1. File:Water Cube Ice Cube Beijing 1.jpg : Declined
2. File:Water Cube Ice Cube Beijing 2.jpg : Promoted <-- 

pandakekok9 12:16, 9 April 2020 (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:
Views of Untersberg from the north.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Leopoldskroner Weiher.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope and used. --pandakekok9 06:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (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:
Interior of of Gangneung Station.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ergänzung bei deiner Bildvorlage

Hallo Arne, kannst du bitte bei deiner Vorlage zur Bildbeschreibung, wie du sie zuletzt bei den Drohnenaufnahmen von Salzburg verwendest, bitte die Angabe des Aufnahmedatums ergänzen, dass würde Nacharbeit ersparen. Danke. lg --Eweht (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis (und die Korrekturen) --Arne (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Fischerhaus koenighaeusel salzburg 1.jpg

File:Fischerhaus koenighaeusel salzburg 1.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!

213.147.161.144 11:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg

And also:

• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 2.jpg
• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 3.jpg
• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 4.jpg

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 14:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Hohenwerfen castle.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hohenwerfen castle.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Garzweiler surface mine Bucket-wheel excavator 2019 1.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garzweiler surface mine Bucket-wheel excavator 2019 1.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eugen Freund 2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --PantheraLeo1359531 19:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2020 (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:
Aerial view of Leuchtturm Kampen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2020 (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:
Berlin Brandenburg Airport - Terminal 1 (southwest view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Leuchtturm Hörnum.jpg

★ 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:
Aerial view of Leuchtturm Hörnum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very good, useful and used image -- Spurzem (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sankt gilgen bootsanleger.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tournasol7 08:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Street snow forrest.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- Ikan Kekek 09:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unternberg schloss moosham.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unken kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tournasol7 08:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamsweg sankt leonhard.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tournasol7 08:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Leuchtturm Hörnum.jpg

File:Leuchtturm Hörnum.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!

2003:EC:5F2D:2800:1C96:7DE5:DC79:41B9 09:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple airpods max 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple airpods max with case.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saalfelden friedhof cemetry.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rhododendrites 04:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Leuchtturm Hörnum.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leuchtturm Hörnum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)  Question@Arne Müseler: The coordinates are wrong. Please correct. Did you fly over nature reserve? In the description you invite to ask for a higher resolution. Is there? --Milseburg 12:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin brandenburg airport tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hohenwerfen castle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thalgau.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin Brandenburg Airport at night.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! C-130J-30 Super Hercules Royal Danish Air Force Rømø 2 .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 06:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! David egger.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Granada 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rømø Causeway Rømødæmingen 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)  Comment Might be worth a FPC nomination --PantheraLeo1359531 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bayarena Leverkusen 2020.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Slightly noisy, but IMHO still QI. --C messier 19:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:2020 04 26 arne mueseler 16 23 0887.jpg

Copyright status: File:2020 04 26 arne mueseler 16 23 0887.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:2020 04 26 arne mueseler 16 23 0887.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Demolition of Immerather Dom, St. Lambertus 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2020 - December - Demolition/Winners

	Photo Challenge Winner
	Congratulations! Your picture Demolition of Immerather Dom, St. Lambertus 2.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Demolition, in December 2020. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Seoul Olympic Stadium aerial view.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

File:World cup stadium seoul.jpg

File:World cup stadium seoul.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!

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Airport düsseldorf terminal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Falbisoner 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ferry carferry cres krk.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Alexander Novikov 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Airport düsseldorf tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 The top of the tower is quite blurred, but it has good resolution & I like the composition very much. --Nefronus 18:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hauptbahnhof berlin tief 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Falbisoner 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vrbnik krk croatia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Nefronus 03:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niedersonthofen camping.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Very interesting motif, good quality. --Nefronus 08:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cres croatia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Apart from the center of the image there's some unsharpness probably caused by the lens. But good enough for QI imo. --Nefronus 08:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Peace and Friendship Stadium Athens.JPG

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Scam

It appears as though this user's images, be it by his knowledge or not, are being used as part of a copyright scam. They are being listed on Wikipedia as Creative Commons images, but websites that use the images are being sent a demand for payment with threats of lawsuits.

Arne - can you clarify, are you involved in this scam? Or is this being done without your knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

hello, if you have used the picture under creative commons, there shouldn't be a problem. if that's the case, please write to me at arne.mueseler@gmail.com - and in general I would be happy if you asked before starting a deletion request. --Arne (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Olympic village 2020 tokyo.jpg

File:Olympic village 2020 tokyo.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!

HatBucketBalls (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Baku Crystal Hall 2014 1.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice photo ！ Charlie fong (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Dame 2015 1.jpg

And also:

• File:Dame 2015 2.jpg P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Nukualofa Tonga 4.jpg

File:Nukualofa Tonga 4.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominierung KEB / Bildkorrektur / Überschreiben?

Guten Abend Arne! Ich habe dein tolles Foto vom A40-Stillleben auf KEB nominiert. Auf der rechten Bildseite sind die vertikalen Linien nicht ganz korrekt korrigiert. Kannst du das noch nachholen? Ich übernehme das auch gerne, würde, sofern du einverstanden bist, dann dein Bild mit der (minimal) korrigierten Version überschreiben. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Danke für die Nominierung - darfst natürlich gerne korrigieren. Arne (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ich habe mal eine neue Version drüber geladen. Neben der Perspektive habe ich auch den Himmel und die Tiefen selektiv von Rauschen befreit. Wenn es dir nicht gefällt, revertiere das gerne. Durch die Perspektivkorrektur ist der Bildausschnitt vorne minimal knapper als vorher. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Arena lviv.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Seoul incheon airport terminal 2.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Jamsil Students Gymnasium.jpg

✗plicit 03:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Jamsil Arena Seoul.jpg

File:Jamsil Arena Seoul.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!

✗plicit 06:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you for the fantastic photos, especially the super useful aerial ones! the wub "?!" 00:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Paris Stade de France Saint Denis.jpg

File:Paris Stade de France Saint Denis.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Paris Stade de France Gate D.jpg

File:Paris Stade de France Gate D.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Paris Stade de France Gate H.jpg

File:Paris Stade de France Gate H.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Cape town stadium aerial view 1.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Ich wollte mich herzlich bei dir für die Karte über den Tagebau Garzweiler bedanken. Ich selber habe sie gerade ein bischen verbessert. Viele Grüße Markus RurKreisJülich (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

A beer for you! RurKreisJülich (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg

And also:

• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 2.jpg
• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 3.jpg
• File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 4.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

File:The motherland calls Mamayev Kurgan Volgograd.jpg

File:The motherland calls Mamayev Kurgan Volgograd.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

File:San siro stadium.jpg

File:San siro stadium.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!

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

COM:VPC discussion

Hi. I started a discussion about some issues with image licensing that you use. Ankry (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Duck ling ship hong kong.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duck ling ship hong kong.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:SK Olympic Handball Gymnasium Seoul.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Olympic Gymnastics Arena - KSPO Dome.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Seoul Olympic Park Tennis Center - Olympic Hall.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Olympic Weightlifting Gymnasium - Woori Art Hall.jpg

File:Olympic Weightlifting Gymnasium - Woori Art Hall.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Moses Mabhida Stadion durban aerial view 1.jpg

File:Moses Mabhida Stadion durban aerial view 1.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Rotes rathaus u5 ubahn station 1.jpg

And also:

• File:Rotes rathaus u5 ubahn station 2.jpg
• File:Rotes rathaus u5 ubahn station 3.jpg
• File:Rotes rathaus u5 ubahn station 4.jpg
• File:Rotes rathaus u5 ubahn station 5.jpg

Yours sincerely, Lukas Beck (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Kyiv Monument to the Friendship of Nations.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Kiev maidan.jpg

File:Kiev maidan.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Paris Le Parc des Princes.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Olympic Hockey Centre.jpg

File:Olympic Hockey Centre.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!

🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Olympic Baseball Centre Athens Greece 2.jpg

File:Olympic Baseball Centre Athens Greece 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Template:Idw/lang

🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Olympic Baseball Centre Athens Greece 1.jpg

Template:Autotranslate 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Olympic baseball centre 11.JPG

Template:Autotranslate 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Faliro Olympic Beach Volleyball Centre Athens 4.JPG

Template:Autotranslate 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Faliro Olympic Beach Volleyball Centre Athens 3.JPG

Template:Autotranslate 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)