Commons talk:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

CR or not CR: or the perverse effect of well-intentioned comments[edit]

  • More and more reviewers at QIC comment on the nominations without putting explicitly a vote. This serves to draw the attention of the nominator to some minor flaws or just to express an opinion. However well-intentioned this practice (usually) is, it has the perverse effect of putting the nomination in a kind of limbo (where no one cares for it any more), from where the only ways to escape are to respond to the comment or sending the image to CR. In my opinion the core part of QIC is not a forum and should not become one. If I did not remove all dust spots or my verticals are not perfect, that is my fault only and I deserve a decline. There will be plenty of time to re-nominate or sending the image to CR after corrected.
  • My second thought is about what a QI is. More and more I assist to excellent images being criticized because of minor technical flaws, such as a couple of dust spots or the lack of perfect verticality, while others with poor compositions, clumsy framings, weird geometries or just poor exposure are swiftly promoted. Come on guys, Photography is much, much more than the absence of formal flaws! If pixel-counting were sufficient, a bot could do the job. Just my 2-cents. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If that is the reason, it is an acceptable reason as the discussion page is the place to ask questions and to discuss problems. Maybe every request to fix or cmt should be sent to CR then -- making it easier to discuss and keep an eye on. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    Wait five days. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I keep thinking it would be nice if nominations had to wait a day before Proms or Decls could be assigned. Seriously, images get nominated and then promoted in like minutes sometimes. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    Then be part of the solution and only review candidates that have gone a few days unreviewed. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This makes sense. I'll think about...--Jebulon (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
We are not here to judge "this was the best the person could do with their equipment and without photoshop". We are to judge whether the image on Commons is of good quality. I agree there's more to it than pixel counting, and when I was reviewing I would bring attention to minor flaws such as bad crops, dust spots, hot pixels. This is because those are items which should be fixed on every single photo that comes through here. You give the nominator a chance to correct it - if they do you promote it, if they don't you decline it. No image can be of good quality if there are dust spots, or hot pixels, or if the photo extends beyond the borders of an image. Anything with that is sloppy and we should not allow sloppy work into QI.
The reason I would give someone a comment rather than instant decline is because you're right, we sometimes miss things and it's our own fault, but declining something which is easily fixable is just unnecessarily cruel and rude, and it promotes stuff being sent to CR unnecessarily. Your image has dust spots? OK, if you fixed them it would be QI. We're not in a big rush to promote/decline everything on the first day, fix the error and I'll check back in a few days. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Matt here. Please, give nominators a chance to improve their pictures before sentencing it. Otherwise we would just increase the flow of pictures to CR, as the picture, after the fix of whatever flaws, does deserve the QI stamp and would always find somebody willing to promote it. Poco2 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It is somehow disappointing that none of the comments above mention the most important points raised in this discussion: the perverse effect of well-intentioned comments and the quality of the reviews, almost sistematically focused on (minor) formal aspects. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    QI has always had a lack of consistency between reviewers, but that does not mean that the people who leave comments should relax their standards. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be a question of fair play to finish a review with a vote (support / neutral / decline). And as far as I remember, the regulars do finish their reviews. If I see a dust spot on your images, I will give my comments also in future and expect, that you resolve the issue. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel bad when edits are made and the commenter doesn't get back to change the vote or whatever. I am not sure what I should do in such a case. Maybe send it to CR? -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    If their concerns are dealt with and you think it's good enough, promote it. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Own candidates??!?? -- Smial (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's your own nom/photo, send it to CR. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that QI focuses mainly on formal aspects. Not every well-composed picture meets also the QI standards. I think this is quite normal and nothing to worry about. I don't nominate every picture I upload to commons although I only upload those of which I think they are really good. But I know that not every good picture is also a QI. And a well-founded decline is nothing that should be taken personal. It can't really be questioned that a picture with dust spots or CA shouldn't be promoted, even if the composition is great. But I absolutely agree with Alvesgaspar that we don't care enough about compositional aspects and educational value in QIC. I also agree with Cccefalon that a reviewer should promote or decline a picture after an issue he mentioned before was later resolved by the nominator. --Code (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • A bit of hypocrisy here, as I can read ? Mmmmh ? Of course, some nominators here have only a mantra in head: "Nominate my five pics everyday", and nothing else. The best friends of this behavior are : lack of preparation, lack of respect of the reviewers, lack of concentration, lack of care. And therefore: tilts, unsharpness, bad crops, dust spots, overexpose, underexpose, perpective not corrected, abuse of choice of so-called intentional distortion (no time lost in processing, yuppie !) etc... No matter !!! Quick quick quick ! Out of the camera, immediately in QIC page !! Well, I think I support Alvesgaspar here. You nominate a picture : it is your responsibility, and it needs care and a minimum of time. I'm sure that in many cases, the review takes more time that all the uploading process, including the time necessary for taking the picture !! Where is the problem of a decline ? If a picture has a flaw like a dust spot, it cannot be a QI. Simple, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    You are pushing it too far. The only target you will achieve doing so is that those who dare to nominate their first pictures in QIC will never come back again, and a lot of stuff will be handled in CR (more work and maintenance) as the picture would deserve the promotion after those flaws are fixed. Poco2 20:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    First, I'm not surprised that you answer and disagree. Second, I'm not a bot, but a human, and I'm able to think of what I do when I vote. There are principles, personal own rules, and flexibility. Remember my first noms in 2010, remember yours, and... remember the meaning of your user name ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It was not my intention to open a can of worms! I just wanted to call the attention to the disproportionate power an (usually) innocent comment can have in a nomination: to suspend it until the nominator responds to the reviewer or complies with the suggested improvement, no matter how good the image is or how he feels about it. Don’t ask me why it happens because I don’t know. But in my opinion it is not fair. With a decline vote, he/she would have the possibility of sending it straight to CR; with just a candid comment or a well-intentioned suggestion, he would be blamed to do so (as I was recently). The fact is QIC was not intended to work that way and the templates are obviously not designed to accommodate discussions. I agree with Jebulon in that there is some mild hypocrisy in the above reactions. Claiming that a straight decline would chase away newbies is just a strawman fallacy: the editors opposing strongly such practice are not newbies at all. On the contrary, they are among the editors with a larger number of promoted images. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 -- Smial (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

QI categorization tool[edit]

screenshot QI categorization tool

More than 7900 images pending. Firefox on my old win xp machine at home (32 bit) crashes if I try to work on this page. Here at work (Win 7 pro 64, Firefox, SSD, 8 GB Ram, VDSL 50.000) the page looks like... see screenshot. Solution? Any suggestions? -- Smial (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could save the page? The straight html provides urls to the individual image pages and they could be dealt with there. Maybe you could email the page to me and I could divide it into 25 image galleries and it could be managed from that by more than just one brave volunteer. The original page is (usually) a convenience, not a necessity. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry for my unclear questions. I addressed the problem several times in September/October, last discussion can be found here. Without solution and/or consequences. In September I split the page into two parts, one with about 1.000 to 2.000 images to work on, the rest I moved to ../temp. With up to +- 1.000 images the page works with pleasant speed. End of September I needed to move all images back to the main page, as I knew, not to have fast internet connection for several weeks. I've several times tried to find some contributors who like to help, with little or no effect. So my question for a solution was not about technical problem how to work on a too big page, but about either help to reduce this no more acceptable long queue, or for suggestions about a completely different manner to deal with promoted images. -- Smial (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Smial, I tried to contribute a little bit to this page but on Firefox as well as on Explorer, the script stopped working and I got nothing. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Every now and then a brave colleague attempts to work on the page, but I can understand that this happens only a short time, because the work is just too cumbersome. -- Smial (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

QI categorization tool - A new approach[edit]

Personalized tool for QI godfathers

Yesterday, Smial and me started a new approach to resolve the problem with the pending sorting of the recently promoted QI images. The idea is, to find godfathers among the reviewers, which are willing to adopt the responsibility over a small amount of images to be categorized.

Let me show you how it works:

  • Smial prepared a sub page of the "Recently promoted QI images", which is branded with my user name: Commons:Quality_images/Recently_promoted/Cccfalon
  • I asked him to move 500 of the pending 8000 images to my new categorization page
  • When clicking on the link in the line "Please categorize using the QI categorization tool", I get a thumbnail view of all images with a drop-down menu under every image
  • The drop down menu contains all available categories and as easy as a cake I can assign a suitable category with the image
  • For saving my work, I press the SAVE button at the end of the page
  • A "HIDE PROCESSED IMAGES" button at the top of the page helps me to keep the side clear

Smial accepted to act as a manager for the subpages. After one week, he will empty the categorized as well as the so far uncategorized images from the subpage and substitute them with a fresh set. It will ensure, that images whereas I feel unsafe to categorize (e.g. insects) will be handed over to another godfather.

There is no pressure in completing the categorization in a certain time.

I knowe, there are colleagues with some good experience with categories among us. PLEASE JOIN US - It would be great to find some fellow photographers, which are willing to contribute. Just say "YES" and tell us, if you want to adopt a small (50 - 150) or big amount (200 - 500) of images. Smial will then create a subpage with your username and fill it with the requested amount of images. He also will take care of emptying and refilling the page approximatly one time per week.

And if someone just wants to try out the tool, you can try it on my subpage. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cccefalon: @Smial: Ok, I'll join you. Please create me a subpage with 200 pictures. --Code (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/code ;-) -- Smial (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will take care of 500 images, Smial Poco2 10:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Poco - sorry, 615 images, properly count does not seem to be my strong point ;-) But these sub pages are not private property, everyone who has problems with the too big main page can work on them cross country ;-) -- Smial (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If you feel uncomfortable with too much images, you can of course copy back some photos to the original page, Diego. Anyway, thanks for participating! Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
After every work on the main page I need to restart my firefox because it consumes too much memory and nearly freezes. So I try to avoid tooooooo many changes at a time. Will be better tomorrow, at work I have a somewhat more powerful computer and faster internet connection. --Smial (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, 200 for me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Berthold Werner Have fun ;-) -- Smial (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Finished mine, ready for the next 500 ;-) --Code (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is no time pressure, I will join. First a package of 500 please. --XRay talk 12:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/XRay Nimm dir soviel Zeit, wie du dazu Lust hast. Wenn sich ein, zwei Tage nichts mehr tut auf deiner Unterseite, tausche ich den Satz aus. Oder du fragst auf meiner Benutzerdiskussion oder hier auf der Disk nach Nachschub. -- Smial (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Nimm lieber 5 bis 7 Tage. Ich habe nicht jeden Tag Gelegenheit weiterzumachen. --XRay talk 13:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I try first 200. --Jean11 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
ok, Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Jean11, s.v.p. -- Smial (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

First 200 done (as far as my knowledge of insects works), next 200 please --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have saved, but no processing has taken place, what can I do?

  • Is there a list of the areas? Or can someone send me the list per email?
  • I wonder what is the range for cats?
  • Include museums in Subject/Architecture/Public Buildings?
  • What about paintings? Subject/Works of arts? Paintings of people in Subject/People?

Thanks. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries: Smial will copy your work back to the original place and the QICbot will process all image categories among his daily duties. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there no other solution? --Jean11 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The software of the bot was configured in a way, that it is only looking into the top directory of the Recently Promoted Images. Of course - if you know, what you are doing - you can move back yourself. It is not a miracle. We just wanted to keep it simple for the contributors and Smial accepted to administrate the file distribution. (Wenn es Dich gelüsted, heute abend noch mehr zu kategorisieren, kannst Du jederzeit in den Verzeichnissen der anderen Paten arbeiten; das sind keine Erbhöfe.) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Tanks. Yesterday I had tried it at your side. No save possible, I thought it´s works perhaps only with the „own“ page. I do it at my side by hand. Is working. --Jean11 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Cats = Mammals, domesticated --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Clear, I didnt saw it. Thank you. --Jean11 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • All done. Next please not more than 200, please. --XRay talk 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    I take 500 more Poco2 00:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You all are really amazing, more than 2.000 images done in less than one week! -- Smial (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think, my set also can be renewed. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. -- Smial (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Berthold Werner ✓ Done as far as possible. I can take new ones. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Ready. Next please, up to 200 images. And: Thank you, Smial. --XRay talk 19:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

5 eigene Bilder oder 5 Nominierungen pro Account?[edit]

Jeder Teilnehmer darf täglich bis zu fünf Bilder nominieren. - Wer sind "Teilnehmer"? Es gibt keine Einschränkung, daß man nur eigene Bilder vorschlagen darf, man darf nur eigene Bilder nicht bewerten. Und nur angemeldete Benutzer dürfen bewerten. Also dürfen auch IPs vorschlagen. Also darf man beliebig viele FREMDE Bilder vorschlagen. Muß ich mich nun abmelden, um fremde Bildr zu nominieren? Es ist doch das Ziel, möglichst viele gute Bilder zu kennzeichnen? --Ralf Roleček 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe stets maximal fünf Bilder vorgeschlagen, egal ob eigene oder fremde. Es wäre vermutlich mindestens knuffig, sich abzumelden und unter IP weitere fünf Bilder von smial einzutragen, wenn mein tägliches Kontingent erschöpft ist. -- Smial (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Es ist wohl die Frage, ob es ein Projekt ist, das die besten Fotos auf Commons auszeichenen will, oder ob es mehr eine (sorry!) Egomanenveranstaltung sein soll. Denn wenn jedeR insgesamt nur 5 Bilder nominieren darf, wird keineR (oder nur selten jemand) auf die Idee kommen, Bilder anderer FotografInnen zu nominieren. So finden sich in den QIs eben nicht die besten Bilder von Commons, sondern die besten Bilder der hier aktiven UserInnen. Natürlich kommen jetzt wieder welche, die sagen, das Projekt steht ja allen offen - es hat aber nicht jedeR die Zeit, sich hier zu engagieren, aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Das heißt, Zeit ist der erste Faktor, der über gute und schlechte Bilder entscheidet. Da Zeit (außer der Belichtungszeit) aber üblicherweise kein Kriterium für gute Bilder ist, wird damit das Projekt QI vollkommen entwertet, denn die Auszeichnung sagt ja in erster Linie etwas über die Zeit des Fotografen aus.
Deshalb mein Vorschlag: JedeR darf pro 5 fremden Bildern eine durch die Community festzulegende Anzahl von eigenen Bildern (2 bis 5) nominieren. D.h., nominiert jemand 10 (15, etc.) fremde Bilder, darf er auch die doppelte (dreifache, etc.) Anzahl eigener Bilder nominieren. - Ein weiterer Schritt wäre dann, daß eine Fremdnominierung bereits als Promotion gilt, denn es ist dasselbe, ob jemand die Eigennominierung eines anderen bewertet oder ob er sich bei einem fremden Bild irgendwo auf Commons denkt, daß es eine Auszeichnung wert ist (widersprochen werden kann ja in jedem Fall). Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ich habe das Thema hier eröffnet, weil ich gestern Bilder anderer Fotografen nominiert habe, die dann über den erlaubten 5 lagen. Einfach so, weil sie mir gefallen haben. --Ralf Roleček 08:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In a lengthy discussion in October and November 2014, we concluded "Maximum number of daily nominations per user is 5". No reason for inducing a new interpretation of the result. Also see our guidelines: "Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination." You nominate more than five and the surplus won't be eligible. If an IP number (IP is not a registered User) is nominating, it won't be eligible as well. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Die Diskussion habe ich nicht verfolgt, weil ich kein englisch kann. --Ralf Roleček 09:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Gut, dann wäre die Sache jetzt geklärt und Du weisst, dass es Dir nichts nützt, wenn Du mehr als 5 Bilder nominierst oder Dich als IP einloggst :) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Häferl: Daß QIC die Tendenz zu einer Veranstaltung hat, an der nur ein kleiner, elitärer Kreis beteiligt ist, unterschreibe ich gern, auch wenn ich den Begriff "Egomanen" nicht unterstützen möchte. Natürlich sind hier Leute, die viel Zeit investieren können, gegenüber Gelegenheitsmitarbeitern im Vorteil, wenn es darum geht, ihre Bilder durchzubringen. Dein Vorschlag würde jedoch die "Zeithaber" noch stärker bevorteilen, also genau gar nichts im Sinne einer breiteren Mitarbeiterbasis verbessern. Eine Fremdnominierung direkt als Promotion zu behandeln, stellt das bisherige Verfahren völlig auf den Kopf, denn bislang gehen stets mindestens vier Augen bzw. zwei Urteile in die Bewertung ein: Die Meinung des Vorschlagenden, der ein Bild für gut genug für QI hält und die desjenigen, der sein support oder sein decline hineinpflanzt. --Smial (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is a proposal which should be discussed by the community, it has to be written in English as the interconnecting language of this forum.
However, it would oppose the proposal of Häferl that the nomination of anothers photo already counts as a promotion. As for now, most nominations of other authors are not meeting the guidelinesand as a result, this proposal in consequence would flood the consensual review. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ralf Roletschek: the "rule of five" was introduced due to people mass-nominating images, which were swiftly promoted despite myriad flaws. The number of reviewers is significantly fewer than the number of nominators, and without rules QI becomes more of a chore. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The rule is: 5 Nominierung pro Account. I'll oppose to any change, it is a very good rule.--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
At FPC we can also nominate pics of a foreign photographer additional to the two own and i think, its a good rule. --Ralf Roleček 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't, even at FPC. Zwei Nominierung pro account is the rule.--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not too seriously: For each 100 reviews or 100 categorized images on "Recently promoted" we could allow one more QI candidate as a bonus here. ;-) -- Smial (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Google-Translation: I will nominate 4 + 1 for me personally in future. There are many good photographers here and not everyone knows about QIC. Not everyone taking part. That's why I'm going every day, if I nominate own pictures, also suggest a strange photo. It would be nice if you would reconsider these rules. --Ralf Roleček 21:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please could anyone translate this, my english is not good enough, um mich präzise auszudrücken. Danke im voraus. ;-)
Okay, Smial, "kleiner, elitärer Kreis" is better. ;-) Es freut mich, dass bezüglich der Fremdnominierungen jetzt eine Diskussion in Gang kommt und Ralf bereits einen guten Vorsatz gefasst hat. Eine Diskussion anzuregen war der Sinn meines Vorschlags. Deshalb (und weil es extrem mühsam wäre, auf Englisch zu diskutieren) mische ich mich da auch nicht weiter ein, würde mich aber freuen, wenn Ihr zu einer für alle akzeptablen Lösung findet. Nice greetings, --Häferl (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I chucked it into google translate:
Okay, smial, "small, elite circle" is better. ;-) I am pleased that with respect to the foreign nominations now a discussion gets underway and Ralf has already passed a good resolution. To stimulate discussion was the meaning of my proposal. Therefore (and because it would be extremely tedious to discuss in English) I mingle as a not continue, but I would be pleased if you find an acceptable solution for all. Nice greetings, --Häferl (talk) 22:12, November 18 2015 (UTC)
-mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of QIC-related AN/U discussion.[edit]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#El_Golli_Mohamed - relating to revenge voting. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Review needed[edit]

Dear @Medium69:, @Pokéfan95: ,@XRay: @Hubertl: and @Cccefalon:, many photos need Review,why is not reviewed ? --Touzrimounir (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you review some of them? --Magnus (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Touzrimounir, we all are not employees of WikiMedia but are volounteering in our spare time. I am a chemical engineer with a tight work shedule and I am contributing every day 3 or more additional hours for WikiCommons. When doing review or even which image I am reviewing is alone my cup of tea. Thanks for understanding. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Medium69: I am not a photographer I can't judged, photos of other photographers, @Cccefalon: Yes I know, I hope I can help, but as I said I can't judged, photos of other photographers--Touzrimounir (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Touzrimounir: The judgment must be impartial and is completely voluntary. For my part, I criticize multiple images per day among those that must be evaluated. It regularly happens that certain images be removed without being evaluated. In this case, they may be proposed again as a candidate.
Je vois que tu est francophone. La traduction venant de Google, voici la VF :
Le jugement doit être impartial et est entièrement volontaire. Pour ma part, je critique plusieurs images par jour entre ceux qui doivent être évalués. Il arrive régulièrement que certaines images soient supprimées sans être évaluée. Dans ce cas, ils peuvent être proposées à nouveau comme candidat. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

On-Line Jigsaw Puzzles![edit]

Found another creative use of my works. Credit is linked to Commons:Quality images. Not bad. :) Jee 12:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Bravo! I tried and took too long... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You can click "Change Cut" and try "6 or 12 piece" first. More pieces is difficult. :) Jee 14:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have the beginner's version with 4 large pieces? ;) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)