User talk:Der Wolf im Wald

English: Welcome to the Commons, Der Wolf im Wald!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 10:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Der Wolf im Wald!

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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.

BotMultichillT 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Photo Equipment DWiW.jpg is uncategorized since 7 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 400D.jpg is uncategorized since 7 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Solarkraftwerk IRT.jpg is uncategorized since 12 July 2009.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Silvester Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good.--Mbz1 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Kölner Dom abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments nett, Atmosphäre kommt perfekt rüber --Mbdortmund 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Post Tower Bonn.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Great.--Mbz1 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Baureihe 151 144-3.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments good quality. Bit more margins need for far better composition --George Chernilevsky 08:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Audi e-tron.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good. --Berthold Werner 14:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

QI "flooding"

Hi there. I don't know if you have been said that already, but for your information, quoted from the QI guidelines: "Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon." It would be nice to submit only a few images per day. Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a I discovered QI a few days ago, so I submited all my best images. You can be sure that I will not submit some images in the next time ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Krokusse violett.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

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:
Canon EOS 400D.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support I'm not a big fan of the frontal view without lens (at least as the single view of the machine), but it is the cleanest picture we have and it is very descriptive. --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:54, 3 December 2009 (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:
Altes Rathaus (Bonn).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:53, 3 December 2009 (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:
Audi e-tron.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Question Is the model different from this one, or is the car asymmetric? --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

it is the same car and nearly the same camera position, but the car is on a turning platform, so it is shown from all sides -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You got me wrong: The car has this kind of air intake (behind the door) on the right flank, but not on the left flank? --Eusebius (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

the car has this air intake on both sides, but it can open and close it so that you can't see it: on my photo it is open and on the other one it is closed ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK... I'm anything but a car specialist, I would have understood that more quickly on a jet picture (but the intakes shuts for different reasons I guess). Thanks for the info anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:56, 3 December 2009 (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:
Römer (Frankfurt am Main).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment I am ready to support it, but I suggest to internationalize the scope wording—e.g “Römer (Frankfurt am Main)”. --Myrabella (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Info scope changed from Frankfurter Römer to Römer (Frankfurt am Main) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Request I must have been absent-minded because I forgot to ask you to geocode that image. So I do it now! --Myrabella (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Info geocode added ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Quite OK to me now, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Es ist gut gemacht

Es sind die guten Nominierungen.

Sie können die Illustrationen mit den Belohnungen innerhalb der Galerie von solchen Zeichen bemerken:

Der gewöhnliche Umfang:

• = {{FP star}}
• = {{QI seal}}
• = {{VI seal}}

Anderer Umfang, zum Beispiel, 20 Punkte:

• = {{FP star|20}}
• = {{QI seal|20}}
• = {{VI seal|20}}

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis! Viele Grüße, -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Comment I would promote when in full resolution --Berthold Werner 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) * Comment also over the the recommended resolution (2MP) -- Wolf im Wald 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC) But the guidelines also say that "images should not be downsampled". This argument is rarely used as it can be unfair to cheap camera owners, but here the downsampling is quite significant and the picture was taken with a good camera in a controlled environment. --Eusebius 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)  Support I agree with all comments above, but result is good for me --George Chernilevsky 06:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Zug Langzeitbelichtung.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality and something different.--Mbz1 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Nahverkehrszüge Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good. --Aqwis 09:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:DB 140 423-5.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good--Korall 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:DB 185 001-5.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good--Korall 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Reichstag Fernsehturm.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments very nice composition --George Chernilevsky 10:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Canon EOS 400D Rückseite.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good--Korall 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Regionalbahn 27.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Comment Some kind of train category too? The image is good. --Korall 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)  Comment train category added ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Thank you, I promote now.--Korall 17:15, 3 December 2009 (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:
DB Class 151.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support I like also File:DB 151 110-4.jpg since it has a nice perspective. However, this nominated one seems to be a way sharper. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Skyline Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Excellent IMO. Could benefit from a slightly tighter crop at the bottom. --Cayambe 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hohenzollernbrücke Kölner Dom.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments I would promote this, but I only comment because this would be my first promotion and I'd like someone else more experienced to comment it too.Fale 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)  Support I'm a newbie as well, but this looks exclent to me too. --MattiPaavola 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Markthalle Stuttgart.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Skyline Frankfurt am Main.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Perfect Archaeodontosaurus 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Brandenburger Tor abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Resolution seems to be high enough. -- Nicolas17 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Skyline Frankfurt Flößerbrücke.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments good --Pudelek 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Babenhäuser Landstraße in Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --Cayambe 11:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Mercedes-Benz IAA 2007.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Great mood. --Cayambe 08:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:IAA Frankfurt 2007.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Weihnachtsbaum Römerberg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Comment Is this tinted towards green? Location-tag? Would maybe benefit from perspective correction? --MattiPaavola 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Location-tag added, I think the colors are realistic, because of the green tree which reflects the light. A perspective correction is IMO not necessary, because after it will look unnatural -- Der Wolf im Wald 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)  Support Thanks for the location tag. I can live with the colors now after the explanation. :-) --MattiPaavola 13:04, 7 December 2009 (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:
Trains of Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Question In what way does this particular picture represent German trains better than other pictures? Wolf (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no other picture which shows more than one German train in such a quality. Besides the locomotives on this picture are very typical for German passenger train service and the photo is taken on the area of the most important German railway hub ([1]). -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 Support There is an exhaustive amount pf pictures of German trains. I found this as the closest competitor: File:Würzburg Hauptbahnhof ICE-Begegnung 0524.JPG. It shows multiple types including an ICE. However, I personally slightly prefer the nominated one.

•  Request @ the previous reviewer: please sign your vote :-) --Myrabella (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it was me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hintersee.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments astonishing - - Archaeodontosaurus 16:13, 8 December 2009 (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:
Frankfurt am Main.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment I think the scope should simply be Frankfurt am Main. After a quick exploration it seems to be the best pic for this scope as well. --Eusebius (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the scope from "Skylines in Frankfurt" into "Frankfurt am Main" -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I think it is the best picture we have for this scope. --Eusebius (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment For this town, I imagine it would be appropriate to have an image showing the Main River if possible (I noticed 1 or 2, for instance, but better examples may exist)? --Myrabella (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the second image you point out fails to show the city centre. The first one is taken from a skyscraper in the city centre, thus giving only a partial vue of it. It's a multi-criteria optimization problem now: is it more relevant to show a full view of the visually prominent skyscraper zone of the city or to show the river? Feel free to set up an MVR if you deem it necessary. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• You have brought out the issue very clearly. I tend to incline towards the second option: an image showing the river (it is Frankfurt am Main, after all :-), some "old" buildings (the town has a long history) and an evocation of "Mainhattan" (even only partially) could well epitomize the scope too. What would you think of File:Skyline Frankfurt.jpg, by Der Wolf im Wald too? --Myrabella (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It sure is interesting. --Eusebius (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• => Moved to MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I remove my support, I need to think about the MVR. The image notes on this picture sure add value. --Eusebius (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, you're right, they do. --Myrabella (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I slightly favor this one, which gives a wider view of the city. It would seem strange to have a city scope and focus on a few buildings in a small area when we have this kind of picture. --Eusebius (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: +1
2. Skyline Frankfurt.jpg: 0
=>
File:Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: Promoted.
File:Skyline Frankfurt.jpg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good. --High Contrast 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC) very nice, excellent. It is FP IMO --George Chernilevsky 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --MattiPaavola 16:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Viktoria Siegessäule.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 14:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

QI

Guten Tag, Thomas!
Ihre Nominationen sind schon belohnt QI.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Das tut mir leid, muss ich wohl übersehen haben... Viele Grüße -- Der Wolf (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Baureihe 140 866-5.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Comment Please add EN description and geolocation. --Iotatau 08:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)  Comment Added -- Der Wolf im Wald 11:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Now QI. Good composition. --Iotatau 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Internationalisation of User:Der Wolf im Wald/Credits

Hello Thomas,

I noticed your custom credit template, User:Der Wolf im Wald/Credits. I believe it would be nice if this template was internationalised, so your message would be displayed using the language of the user. Would you mind if I enable this ?

The design and texts would be the same. English and German users would see the existing credit lines. I will add a French version, as faithful to the original as possible. For unregistered users, and users for whom no translation is available, a default version would be displayed (generally, it is the English version, but if you want you can have a specific one).

What do you think ? Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is a good idea, but I have no idea how to enable this, may you please try it?

Thank you!

Cheers -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Your template now exists in three languages : German, English and French. The design for all three is defined in User:Der Wolf im Wald/Credits/layout, which you can change at will. And you can also add more languages later, by having more subpages added (such as User:Der Wolf im Wald/Credits/es, etc.)

The english version is displayed by default (that can be changed if you want).

Just leave me a note if you have any problems with this later, I would be glad to help!

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Greetings -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2009 panorama.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rathaus Bonn

Hallo, das Rathaus Bonn ist ansonsten zu schön, als dass es wegen der minimalen "perspective distortion" durchfallen sollte. Dürfte ich eine korrigierte Version hochladen? Ansonsten wird es bei mir in Adobe Photoshop mit "Lens Correction"-Parametern von -0,1° und -5 vertikaler Transformation perfekt. Gruß aus Berlin, Jochen --Iotatau (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Danke, aber ich nehm mir das Bild jetzt mal vor;). Viele Grüße -- Der Wolf (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Altes Rathaus Bonn.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Auf der linken Seite leicht nach rechts verzerrt. --Mbdortmund 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Das ist aber ein ganz normaler Verzerrungseffekt, ihn zu beheben würde das Bild unnatürlich wirken lassen. Außerdem finde ich die Auflösung (34,5 MP) so beeindruckend, dass es allein schon deshalb ein Qualitätsbild ist. -- Der Wolf im Wald 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)  Question Excellent amount of details, excellent light, but lacks perspective correction: the left side of the house is leaning towards right. Would you be willing to fix that? (Sorry if I duplicated any review comments, but I don't understand a word about the German above. :-)) --MattiPaavola 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)  CommentLook at the QI rules, perspective correction is wanted. Size alone is not a reason for promotion. --MichaelBueker 11:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)  CommentPerspective correction done! -- Der Wolf im Wald 18:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, now QI. --Iotatau 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anfrage

Hallo, ich bin Autor des Bonner Personenlexikon, erschienen in der 2. Auflage beim Bouvier-Verlag und würde gerne zwei Aufnahmen (Poppelsdorfer Schloss und Universitäts-Hauptgebäude) in der demnächst erscheinenden dritten Auflage abdrucken. Willst du tatsächlich, wie bei Wiki-Commons steht, als "Wolf im Wald genannt" werden? Ich finde das etwas albern und würde dich lieber mit deinem korrekten vollständigen Namen nennen. Geht das in Ordnung? 95.223.246.203 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, ja freut mich dass du meine Bilder verwenden möchtest. Du kannst mich einfach als Thomas Wolf erwähnen, Wolf im Wald wäre in diesem Falle wirklich recht albern;) Viele Grüße -- Der Wolf (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Danke für deine rasche und positive Antwort. Liebe Grüße -- Jupp (übrigens bei Wikipedia findest du mich als Juppartist) 95.223.246.203 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankfurter Panorama

Deine Panoramas vom Geotheturm auf FFM blickend sind wirklich ausgesprochen gut! Ich hoffe diesen Sommer bot sich auch wieder die Gelegenheit dazu, denn die 2009er Aufnahme leidet im Vergleich zur 2008er unter einer sehr starken Verblauung. Auf letzterer sind jedoch Opernturm und das Palais Quartier noch im Bau. Wie dem auch sei, setzen deine Bilder hier den Qualitatsstandard! --36ophiuchi (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, freut mich dass sie dir so gefallen! Ich habe eine gute Nachricht für dich: Ich werde in etwa einer Woche wieder in Frankfurt sein und jeden Tag zum Goetheturm fahren, bis ich ein geniales Foto habe. Diesmal mit neuer Fotoausrüstung, die die Qualität der alten noch weit übertrifft und ich werde mir mehr Mühe geben mit dem Stitchen (mehr Einzelaufnahmen), sodass die Auflösug und Schärfe noch wesentlich besser werden als bei den alten Bildern. ;) Viele Grüße -- Der Wolf (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Opernturm.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --kallerna 08:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Fernsehturm Hamburg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments QI for me--Lmbuga 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Westarkade Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Sharp and good. --Cayambe 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Mainfest Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 14:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:T185 facade.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments interesting --Mbdortmund 09:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

FPC

Hello, although the history says it's been removed, I can still see the ghost sleeve of the lady at the leftmost edge of this superb picture, even after clearing my cache, purging, hitting Ctrl-Shift-R numerous times... is it possible that you mistakenly reuploaded just the exact same picture ? Kindest regards, --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I only fixed the red artifact in the tree. Do you mean the bright point between the womans shoulder an the lamp? I checked all single images on which vou can see this part an this is definitely no artifact. It's the sun shineing on the ground;) Greatings, -- Der Wolf (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, i mean the thing circled in green... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, now I understand you. I tried to fix it, but sadly it was unpossilbe for me to eliminate the artifact... greatings -- Der Wolf (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (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:
Opernturm.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 21 August 2010 (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:
Frankfurt am Main.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Request To compete with the present VI, you have to open a Most Valued Review. For the existing VI, "the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR." All details on Commons:Valued image candidates#How to open a Most Valued Review. --Myrabella (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice! -- Der Wolf (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I still guess that it would be appropriate to have an image including the Main river for that scope. However, compared with the present VI, I support this challenger because it depicts a larger part of the town, carefully documented with annotations. At the review size, this geocoded QI looks good on-screen (although I tend to prefer the rendering of the other image). Last point, it is well categorized => OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores:
1. Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg: +1 <--
2. Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) 
=>
File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg: Promoted.<--
File:Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. 

--Myrabella (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Tower 185 during construction phase on a sunny afternoon.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Great! --kallerna 06:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Grashalme crop.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Grashalme.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Comment - I like it, but it needs taxonomical categorisation. Mattbuck 14:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Fama Kunstakademie Dresden.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Klein Geschenk

Please have a look here, I hope you'll enjoy !

Frohes neues Jahr !--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup ! Bonne année aussi ! ;-) Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

... And a few days later, end of the story:

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've received this on my talk page this afternoon. IMO, it is for you, I was only the nominator ! Great picture, wich really deserves the FP status, congratulations !--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Wunderschön !--Jebulon 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Junges Gras.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments well done --AngMoKio 15:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Römerberg Frankfurt abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Wonderful. I love it :) --Schlaier 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Cappadocia

Hi,

I noticed you made a derivative work from my panorama of Cappadocia. Since I've uploaded another version, you might want (or not ;) ) top report the change ? I mainly changed the colours (WB and saturation) and fixed a few stitching errors by reprocessing the source material from scratch.

Thanks - Benh (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Benh, I added the information which version of your image I took as source for my edit. Greetings, -- Wolf im Wald 20:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Deutsche Bank neue Fassade.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --H005 14:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Scope rich but it is the most detailed image of the building. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: zu "Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen, andernfalls verfällt diese Lizenz gänzlich"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fassade_Turm_am_Thurn-und-Taxis-Platz.jpg&diff=61823565&oldid=61819877

Hallo Der Wolf im Wald, m.E. ist deine Restriktion "Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen, andernfalls verfällt diese Lizenz gänzlich" nicht mit unserem Freiheitsgedanken vereinbar. Ich meine daher, dass du diese Restriktion nicht benutzten solltest. Vor allem aber solltest du sie nicht nachträglich bei Bildern hinzufügen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hinweis: Ein Belegexemplar erbeten kann man sich, verpflichtend einfordern ist jedoch eine hier unzulässige Beschränkung. Siehe auch Commons:LICENSING#Acceptable_licenses: „The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: [...] Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses.“ Also allein schon die Pflicht zur Benachrichtigung ist eine unzulässige Einschränkung, eine Belegexemplarpflicht würde das sogar noch weiter steigern. --Quedel (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Auch die Bedingung, den Namen direkt am Bild zu zeigen ist eine zusätzliche Einschränkung der CC-Lizenz, die evtl. auch hier nicht erlaubt ist. Zitat aus der von dir gewählten Lizenz: „keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) ...“ bzw. in der /de-Version: „die Rechteinhaberschaft in einer der Nutzung entsprechenden, angemessenen Form anzuerkennen“. ^Selbstnotiz --Quedel (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Der Wolf im Wald, du hast immernoch angesprecohende Einschränkungen in deiner Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Der_Wolf_im_Wald/Credits zigfach verwendeten Vorlage. Entferne sie bitte oder ich muss sie offiziell zur Löschung vorschlagen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Der Wolf im Wald, dies ist die letzte Warnung bevor ich oder jemand anderes alle damit lizenzierten Bilder zur Löschung vorschlage.

• "gut sichtbar in unmittelbarer Bildnähe"
• "Von Printprodukten, die dieses Werk verwenden, ist dem Autor ein Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen, andernfalls kann keine Veröffentlichung erfolgen."

Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Erledigt, siehe unten. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bitte lies, was Quedel schreibt. "solange der Urheber in Bildnähe genannt sowie auf folgende Internetseite des Urhebers verlinkt wird: www.foto-tw.de" hast du nun unter anderem. Das könnte eine zusätzliche Beschränkung der CC-Lizenz sein, die nicht erwünscht ist. Bitte formuliere deinen Baustein so, dass er nicht über die Lizenz hinaus einschränkend wirkt. Besonders die Sache mit "in Bildnähe" ist kritisch.

"bitte ein Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen" ist nun schon besser, aber bitte mache noch deutlicher, dass das keine Bedingung, sondern wirklich nur eine die eigentliche Lizenz nicht einschränkende Bitte ist. Vergesse auch nicht eventuell bestehende Übersetzungen des Bausteins. template:Credit line wäre vielleicht auch für dich interessant. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So, ich denke nun passt's. Die Lizenz sieht ja vor, dass der Autor/Rechteinhaber in der von ihm festgelegten Weise genannt wird, ich habe sie nun als "Thomas Wolf, www.foto-tw.de" festgelegt. Andere nehmen ja auch Pseudonyme oder ähliches, wenn es also immer noch problematisch wäre, würde ich mir offiziell das Pseudonym Thomas Wolf, www.foto-tw.de zulegen. ;-) Grüße, -- Wolf im Wald 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Danke. Ja, die die Festlegung der Credit Line ist vollkommen okay.

• "solange der Urheber beim Bild in folgender Form genannt wird" -- ob dieses beim Bild nicht eine Einschränkung zur Lizenz ist, weiß ich nicht. Die Lizenz verlangt ja nur eine "angemessene" Nennung oder so ähnlich. Wie sieht es z.B. bei einer Nutzung wie in der Wikipedia aus (Thumbnails ohne Namensnennung im Artikel mit Link auf die Dateiseite, wo der Name genannt wird)? Ich könnte mir vorstellen(!), dass das nach der CC-Lizenz erlaubt ist - bei deiner zusätzlichen Formulierung eher nicht. Ich hoffe du verstehst die Problematik.
• "wird gebeten" -- so ganz deutlich freiwillig liest sich das für mich nicht; ja, die eigentliche Wortbedeutung ist freiwillig. Wie wär's mit wird gebeten freiwillig...? Oder ist dir das zu deutlich? ;-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ich denke die Formulierung ist so OK, weil sie ja ganz klar eine Bitte darstellt und wenn ich jemanden um etwas bitte, ist die Person ja nicht (juristisch) verpflichtet auf meine Bitte einzugehen. Bezüglich der Formulierung "beim Bild" denke ich, dass die Lizenz dies nicht ausschließt, nur nicht explizit vorsieht, also die Formulierung kommt nicht mit der Lizenz in Konflikt. Diese Formulierung würde ich auch unbedingt so beibehalten wollen, weil ich nicht möchte, dass geldgierige Unternehmen meine Werke zur kommerziellen Nutzung missbrauchen und mein Name dann irgendwo in einer Broschüre auf letzter Seite in Schriftgröße 1 erscheint, die neben dem DIN-A0-Plakat mit meinem Foto bestellt werden kann.. Verstehst du was ich meine? Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 17:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"beim Bild" - wir lassen aus gutem Grund nur manche Lizenzen hier zu. Wenn hier jeder Einschränkungen hinzufügen kann ... nunja. Mir gefällt es nicht. Quedel sieht das wohl auch so (s. oben). Du weißt nicht zufälligerweise ob die Zulässigkeit von "beim Bild" schonmal irgendwo (de:WP:UF, COM:VPC, ...) diskutiert wurde? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nein, das weiß ich leider auch nicht. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 18:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Es wurde schon mehrfach diskutiert, hab allerdings keine Links parat. Letztendlich kann man es so formulieren: ist eine Autorennennung wie hier: „solange der Urheber beim Bild in folgender Form genannt wird“ zwar rein theoretisch mit den Lizenzbedingungen verknüpfbar, jedoch führt dies automatisch dazu, dass dieses Bild auf keinem Wikimedia-Projekt verwendet werden darf. Das heißt, jedes Bild müsste aus allen Artikeln / Portalen etc. entfernt werden. Eine Autorennennung am Bild ist hier nämlich nicht vorgesehen (die erreicht man nur wenn man aufs Bild klickt). Legt man dann wiederum die Commons-Regularien sehr streng aus, könnte man die Bilder wegen "Nichtverwendbarkeit" sogar löschen lassen. --Quedel (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, danke für den Hinweis. Dann könnte man es also so handhaben, dass für alle Wikimedia-Projekte eine Ausnahmeregelung gilt? Also beispielsweise: „solange der Urheber beim Bild in folgender Form genannt wird (davon befreit sind alle Projekte der Wikimedia Foundation)“. Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:L#Acceptable_licenses - siehst du das damit (z.B. "Use by Wikimedia only") im Einklang? Und: meinst du, dass das dann noch ausreichend frei ist, wenn es ohne eine Ausnahme für Wikipedia noch nicht mal die Wikipedia benutzen könnte? Was ist mit einem Fork? Der dürfte es dann z.B. nicht benutzen? Bitte trenne dich von dieser Einschränkung und versuche nicht Lizenzen selbst zu basteln. Nimm bitte das verfügbare und schränke es nicht zusätzlich ein. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 23:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurt am Main 2011 Skyline origres.jpg

Sie müssen nicht unterschreiben Ihre Bewerbung. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, worauf beziehst du dich bitte genau? -- Wolf im Wald 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

brauche Tipp

Hallo Thomas, als Canon-User mit mehr Erfahrung kannst du mir vielleicht weiterhelfen, und zwar: Die von mir bisher ausprobierten Techniken zur Erstellung von Belichtungsfusionen/HDR sowie Panoramas erkennen die Canon-Rohdatenerweiterung CR2 nicht (was auch nicht überraschend ist). Nun frage ich mich, ob es irgendwelche Möglichkeiten gibt, dies zu umgehen, sprich: Die Möglichkeit zu haben, Inputbilder vor der Verarbeitung ohne Komprimierungsverlust bearbeiten zu können. Oder sogar HDR direkt mit CR2 zu erstellen, um danach bearbeiten zu können. Wie sieht das z.B. beim "echten" Photoshop (nie gehabt) aus. Weißt du da näheres? - Gruß A.Savin 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, bitte entschuldige die späte Antwort (hatte viel Stress die Tage), also ich mache zwar eigentlich keine HDRs, aber wenn ich ein Canon-RAW verlustfrei in ein kompatibleres Format konvertieren will, greife ich zu 16-bit-TIFF. Mit dem RAW Konverter kannst du die Bilder einfach in dem Format ausgeben. TIFF ist unkomprimiert und auch die Farbtiefe leidet nicht, da die Kamera in 12-BIT aufnimmt und daher 16-BIT nicht schaden. Bei 8-BIT wäre natürlich ein Verlust zu verzeichnen. Zwar können die Dateien beim Transferieren dann auch mal 100MB groß werden, aber ich hoffe mal, dass dein HDR-Programm TIFF akzeptiert und auch mit 16 BIT arbeiten kann (was eigentlich nicht das Problem sein sollte)... Viel Erfolg und Viele Grüße, -- Wolf im Wald 14:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alles klar. Werde das unbedingt mal ausprobieren. Danke dir. - A.Savin 14:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Alte Oper Frankfurt abends 2011-07.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments QI to me. --S nova 14:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Westend Gate Frankfurt 2011-07.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 20:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Maintower Frankfurt Rückseite.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Smial 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - OVO mit Baum.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 18:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - OVO innen.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 18:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - OVO.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 18:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline

Bin beeindruckt! Von wo ist das aufgenommen? Gruß -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, freut mich! Das ist vom öffentlichen Domturm (Aufgang kostenpflichtig) aus ca. 65m Höhe aufgenommen. Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Danke, steht ja auch in der Bildbeschreibung habe ich jetzt gesehen:-). -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 22:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - Schöner Schein.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments very good for very difficult conditions and ISO 1600 --Carschten 18:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - Resonate-2.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 20:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - Resonate-1.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments great --Carschten 18:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - Resonate-3.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. Nice image. --JDP90 10:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - Rententurm.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments QI for me. --Kadellar 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keine progressiven JPEGs

Hallo Der Wolf im Wald, siehe File:Berliner_Siegessäule_2012-04.jpg#filehistory. Progressive JPEGs benötigen sehr viel Speicher beim Skalieren - daher funktioniert die Thumberstellung ab einer gewissen Größe nicht mehr. Verwende möglichst keine progressive Kodierung. OT: Beachte auch meinen Hinweis in Abschnitt #FYI:_zu_.22Belegexemplar_zukommen_zu_lassen.2C_andernfalls_verf.C3.A4llt_diese_Lizenz_g.C3.A4nzlich.22. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis, ich habe nun die erforderliche Korrektur an meinen Credits vorgenommen, den obigen Hinweis muss ich übersehen haben, wofür ich mich entschuldige! Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 15:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ich bitte noch einmal um Entschuldigung, mir war das nicht klar, weil die Lizenz ja vorsieht, dass der Urheber in der von ihm festgelegten Art und Weise genannt werden soll. Kannst du mich vielleicht noch aufklären, warum meine alte Version trotzdem nicht gültig war? Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 15:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(vorstehendes von meiner Disk. hierher verschoben - antworte einfach nur hier) Hallo nochmal, freut mich, dass du nun reagierst! Hier nur zur JPEG-Geschichte: Was ist dir dabei nicht klar? Ist dir nicht klar, wieso die Server keine Vorschaubilder erstellen können? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 15:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, nein eigentlich bezog ich mich auf den Hinweis zu meinen Credits, habe das vielleicht etwas verwirrend verlinkt. Also weil ich dachte, dass die Lizenz vorsieht, dass der Urheber in der von ihm bestimmten Art und Weise genannt wird... Bezüglich progressive JPEGs dachte ich immer es läge an der hohen Auflösung, mit der die Server nicht fertig werden, aber nun weiß ich es ja besser. :-) Viele Grüße. -- Wolf im Wald 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Zur Lizenz habe ich dir oben geantwortet. Ja, es lag gewissermaßen an der hohen Auflösung - progressive JPEGs mit kleiner Auflösung funktionieren. Aber eine gewissen Größe (welche das ist, weiß ich nicht) klappt es aber nicht mehr. Da progressive JPEGs immer mal Mal Probleme machen, werden sie in Commons allgemein nicht empfohlen - ist sowieso Geschmackssache, ob man sie bevorzugt. Ich finde es immer recht blöde, wenn ich nicht schnell sehe, wie "scharf" ein Bild nun eigentlich ist und nicht sehe, wann es fertig geladen hat. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe bislang immer hochauflösende Stitchings als progressive JPEGs hochgeladen, weil ich diese aufgrund der hohen Auflösung stärker komprimiert habe und beim progressiven JPEG dabei weniger Qualität verloren geht, aber künftig werde ich wohl keine progressiven mehr hochladen. Grüße, -- Wolf im Wald 16:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wir haben hier ja auf der Dateiseite sowieso eine herunterskalierte Vorschauversion, daher kommt der Vorteil von progressive-JPEG (schnell ein Vorschaubild zu haben) nicht zum Tragen. Also auf die Qualität hat progressive Abspeicherung eigentlich gar keinen Einfluss (de:JPEG#Progressives_JPEG). Die von mir hochgeladene Version war eine verlustfreie (gleiche Qualität) Umkodierung (von progressiv nach nicht-progressiv/baseline) deiner ersten Version.

Darf ich aus Neugier wissen, wieso du nun eine stärker komprimierte drübergeladen hast? Findest du 15 MB zu groß? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ich hatte deine Version nicht bemerkt und bezüglich Komprimierung dachte ich, dass 15MB vielleicht etwas viel sind, weil sich dann schnell die Leute beschweren.. Aber ich kann auch gerne wieder das Foto in ursprünglicher Qualität hochladen. Viele Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 00:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Zoofenster Fassadendetail.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --kallerna 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Berliner Siegessäule 2012-04.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC).  Comment Well done, it's very sharp! Please check the sky carefully, there are some light dust spots. --Iifar 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Speicherstadt abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments nice! --Ralf Roletschek 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lizenzbaustein

Moin Thomas,
du könntest vielleicht daran interessiert sein in Zukunft

als Lizenzbaustein zu nutzen. Dadurch wird deine im Permission-Parameter geforderte Attribution deutlicher und tendenziell eher eingehalten. Zudem erkennt dann "Use this file on the web" diese Attribution. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Peter, ich habe schon oft überlegt diesen Baustein beim Hochladen zu verwenden, das Problem ist nur, dass er nicht auswählbar ist in der Liste. Wie soll ich da vorgehen? Nach jedem Hochladen manuell ersetzen? Etwas nervig und auch nicht optimal juristisch gesehen.. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 16:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Luminale 2012 - Tanzende Wasser-1.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Epic. --Mattbuck 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

QI signature

HI,

I guess you nominate the picture of the Berlins Museum Island and TV tower in QIC, but the bot did not accept your signature, and took mine instead. Would you please sign again ? Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that was a mistake, sorry! I fixed it a few seconds ago. Greetings, -- Wolf im Wald 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Promoted !--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Berlin Museumsinsel Fernsehturm.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good !--Jebulon 23:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Cityscape Berlin.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 10:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hamburg Berliner Tor Center.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. - A.Savin 22:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 30 May 2012 (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:
Brandenburg Gate at night.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support--Paris 16 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

luminale

danke, für deine mail! dontworry (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerne. Viele Grüße, -- Wolf im Wald 12:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your latest FP Candidate: Alte Nationalgalerie abends.jpg

Hallo, Bis auf die Flagge auf dem Dach ist das Bild klasse. Kann man die Flagge nicht wegretuschieren, so dass nur noch der Flaggenmast steht? Gruß -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, ich denke, das ist keine gute Idee, weil dann das Erscheinungsbild des Gebäudes verfälscht würde. So schlimm sind die angesprochenen Bereiche doch auch nicht, oder? Weil bei solchen Langzeitbelichtungen ist so etwas ja nicht zu vermeiden und gehört auch irgendwie dazu. Ich weiß nicht ob es sinnvoll gewesen wäre noch eine kürzere Belichtung mit ISO 3200 oder 6400 zu machen, in der das Problem nicht aufgetaucht wäre. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 15:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Alte Nationalgalerie abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 05:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Altes Rathaus München Westseite.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Yes, QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Alte Nationalgalerie abends (Zuschnitt).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alte Nationalgalerie abends (Zuschnitt).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very nice --Poco a poco 17:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Fruchtkasten und Schillerdenkmal.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

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:
Brandenburg Gate at night .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support For me, the bright streetlights on either side detract somewhat from this view of the gate, and while the lights at the right could be easily cropped, removing the lights at left would necessitate also cropping part of the guardhouse. Despite this shortcoming, however, I think this image is best because the lighting on the gate (and especially on the quadriga) is more muted, resulting in less of a washed-out look. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Times are changing... See that 2009 discussion where a nominated image for the scope "Brandenburg Gate at night" had been declined because of the scope, deemed too narrow at that time: Commons:Valued image candidates/Brandenburger Tor abends.jpg. --Myrabella (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg, the other file in this MVR, was promoted to VI back in May. So if we reject this image, we retain the other. It seems as though you want to demote the other (current) VI in this scope without replacing it? cmadler (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • My remark was just for the record, to register that the interpretation of the guidelines has changed between 2009 and now. It is a noticeable evolution of the VIC "jurisprudence", worthy to be pointed out. --Myrabella (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Better exposure control than in the alternative. Marginal value difference. Concerning the scope I am OK with the night scope as the Brandenburger Tor is very notable and has a special night appearance. That would probably also have been my opinion in 2009, if I had voted. But nevertheless interesting observation by Myrabella. --Slaunger (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

--MrPanyGoff 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Königsstuhl und Viktoria-Sicht.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 06:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Seebrücke Sellin abends.jpg

Hi, You should try a nomination at FP with a small crop at the bottom. Great image! Yann (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Do you think the new version is OK? Greetings -- Wolf im Wald (de) 13:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Seebrücke Sellin abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Cool. --Alchemist-hp 01:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Seebrücke Sellin nordöstlicher Teil.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 05:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI, of course. --JLPC (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Alter Elbtunnel Hamburg menschenleer.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support : best in scope. --JLPC (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Altes Rathaus München Ostseite.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good.--ArildV 06:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Deutsche Bank Headquarters.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 02:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Maintower Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments First class immage! --THWZ 16:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Very good image. I suggest adding "exterior" to scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I corrected the Scope. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 00:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Support Gut gemacht! --Iifar 11:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Support Gut gemacht! --Iifar 11:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Baureihe 189 067-2.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments OK to me. - A.Savin 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
DBAG Class 140.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:48, 29 October 2012 (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:
Downtown of Frankfurt am Main.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support Best in very rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 4.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 1.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Needs maybe a slight perspective correction (the TV tower is not vertical), but it is a QI anyway (if not copyrighted, as it were in France...)!--Jebulon 16:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:182 002.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Minor CAs, but ok. --Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 7.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Krokusse violett 3.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good picture, definitely QI, but there should be the scientific name in the description --DKrieger 17:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Genus level ID may enough for a cultivar; but it seems just a crop of an existing FP/QI. -- Jkadavoor 05:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Guess it's ok then. Mattbuck 12:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hauptwache Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --Mattbuck 12:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 3.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --Mattbuck 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Marco-Polo-Tower.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Rathausturm Hamburg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Great ! --Jebulon 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 6.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 03:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 5.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 03:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Römerberg Schnee.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments schön matschig grau! --Ralf Roletschek 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Seebrücke Sellin abends crop.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good, this version should be FP instead, it had more support votes. --Iifar 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Schnee.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. - A.Savin 20:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Siemens ES 64 F4 - 088.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Support --Iifar 14:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Taunusturm Baustelle 2012-03-27.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Comment slightly overexposed --Rjcastillo 03:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC) I think it's OK for QI. - A.Savin 20:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Römerberg Weihnachten.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Ximeg 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Fruchtkasten und Stiftskirche.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good quality. Good job. --Selbymay 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Heilig-Geist-Spital abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Lucasbosch 20:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Heilig-Geist-Spital abends.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heilig-Geist-Spital abends.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Neues Rathaus Hannover abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Very good. --Moonik 04:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Porta Nigra abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 16:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC) But please, get rid of that dust spot (see note) Poco a poco 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I fixed it. -- Der Wolf im Wald 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bildverwendung in der Wuppertaler Rundschau

Hamburg

Hallo,

dein nebenstehendes Bild wurde auf Seite 1 der Wuppertaler Rundschau vom 17. April 2015 (Nr. 16) verwendet. Leider wurde dort auf eine Namensnennung oder sonstige weitere Angaben zur Lizenz verzichtet. Aber... die kleine Erwähnung verweist auf Seite 19, dort beginnt Teil der sich mit „Freizeit“ beschäftigt. Dort ist das Bild nochmals, mit Namenesnennung und Webadresse, in der Größe DIN A4 (ca.) gedruckt. --Atamari (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis! Viele Grüße, -- Wolf im Wald (de) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Elbphilharmonie Hamburg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Clearly QI imo. --Julian Herzog 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Wie, die ist immer noch nicht fertig?? :) --Tuxyso 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sankt-Michaelis-Kirche Hamburg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 16:54, 21 April 2013 (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:
Elbphilharmonie under construction.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Comment Once the cranes will be removed this picture is no longer the best. Maybe he should add "end of the work" in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of "Elbphilharmonie under construction"? -- Wolf im Wald (de) 14:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The finishing is by the way not until 2016. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hanseatic Trade Center Hamburg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments  Support OK --A.Savin 11:54, 24 April 2013 (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 the Hanseatic Trade Center.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment It would be good to add "exterior" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

scope changed into "Exterior of the Hanseatic Trade Center" -- Wolf im Wald (de) 15:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Alsterblick Hamburg.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. Btw whenever you nominate a picture of a different author, please, indicate it. --Poco a poco 21:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2013 (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 Bonner Münster.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2013 (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:
Beethoven-Haus Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Beethoven-Denkmal Bonn.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality--Lmbuga 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Beethoven-Haus.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Beethoven-Denkmal Bonn.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality--Lmbuga 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Beethoven-Haus.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Bonner Münster.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

gelungenes Berlin-Foto

Hallo, einen Hinweis zum Text bei File:Cityscape Berlin.jpg, und eine Frage. So gut kenne ich Berlin nämlich nicht, und ich vermute, ich bin nicht ganz der Einzige.

Frage: Was ist das große, auffällige Hochaus links vom Fernsehturm? (das mit dem "weißen Rahmen.) Hinweis: Den Berliner Dom sollte man doch auch noch erwähnen, oder nicht?

Deutsch: Berliner Innenstadt von der Siegessäule aus gesehen: links der Reichstag, in der Mitte der Fernsehturm,
rechts der Berliner Dom, dann das Rote Rathaus und darunter (davor) das Brandenburger Tor. --Haigst-Mann (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, es handelt sich bei dem Gebäude um das sog. internationale Handelszentrum. Ich habe den Dom nun übrigens noch in der Bildbeschreibung ergänzt. Viele Grüße und danke für de Hinweis! -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Siegestor München abends.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Nice + QI. --Tuxyso 06:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Stadtbild München.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 20:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hauptbahnhof Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good quality. --Iifar 16:56, 13 June 2013 (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 Frankfurt (Main) Hauptbahnhof.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment Good but, it would be useful to add "exterior" in scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed scope into Exterior of Frankfurt (Main) Hauptbahnhof -- Wolf im Wald (de) 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support -- Useful and good. -- Trace (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Hauptbahnhof Berlin.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments QI without doubt. Nice photo with good leading lines. --Tuxyso 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)