User talk:Der Wolf im Wald

See also: User talk:Der Wolf im Wald/Archive for old discussions.

It is possible to contact me via e-mail as well, but I will most likely reply if you write me straight here instead of using the e-mail form. You could contact me in English or German.

If you write me here on my talk page, I will normally reply here as well; so, if you expect an answer, please watch this page for a while.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019 (100MP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality, and really impressive! --Aristeas 20:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Verkehrsmuseum Dresden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore panorama

Amazing shot. Could you share some of your techniques? For example, why did you need 187 frames? It seems like 3x5=15 should be enough to get to the current resolution with a Canon 5DS. Also, when making multi-row panoramas, there are often frames that contain nothing but sky. How do you stitch those? Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello King of Hearts, thanks for your feedback and your interest! The problem with this stitching was to get sharp single shots. With 600mm and 50MP you can see much fluctuation of sharpness because of the heated air flow near the ground. Therefore many of the 187 images are not perfectly sharp. So I took nearly similar images and shifted the image section with every shot only about one third. The same also applies vertically, so that the different images have a lot of similarities and the actual image information is clearly less than 187 x 50 MP. The output file of my stitching software PTGui had a resolution of 1683 MP. The final crop still had a resolution of 1448 megapixels. But because of the sharpness fluctuations which despite the many similarities could not be completely eliminated at every point and because of the 30.000 x 30.000 pixels limitation of the JPEG format, I finally had to scale down the final result. So the final resolution is 30.000 × 20.397 pixels, the maximum of JPEG ;-).

As you already suspected, the sky was also a problem, because I only shoot photos, that contain stitchable picture information. So I had to add some sky with photoshop in the center of the upper image border. I made sure that the color, brightness and noise corresponds to the original image material.

Overall I worked a few days on this image. But now it's my very sharpest one. :-) Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 00:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Here and here you can see the sky problem using the example of Auditorio de Tenerife 2015.jpg. Every red framed and numbered area is one single image. There I took 170 x 21 MP = 348 MP, but the resolution was also reduced because of the limited performance of my computer in 2015. -- Wolf im Wald 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I can think of three techniques for the sky: 1) generate fake sky automatically using content-aware fill; 2) generate fake sky manually using the clone brush; 3) take a shot of real sky using a shorter lens that includes some foreground (so that it can be stitched) and upsample/denoise. Have you tried all of them? What did you end up using? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think, that the clone brush works, because the sky has different color and brightness at different positions. I think I tried this in my first images, but it didn't work well. I like your third idea, but unfortunately never tried it. Maybe it could be a problem to use different lenses, because every lens has its own look. So the sky could be brighter or darker with the same camera adjustments. Also the colors could be a bit different. I always use the PS gradient tool and add some noise, that is roughly equivalent to the original camera noise. Otherwise it would look very artificial and distort the picture impression. It should be as true to original as possible. -- Wolf im Wald 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Great shot, btw. Do you use a pano head, and, if so, what model? -- Veggies (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Usually I use my Nodal Ninja 4 pano head, but the Canon 600mm is definitely too big for this one. So I shot the pics by hand (was torture ;-). Because of the long distance and the high focal length parallax was luckily not a big problem. -- Wolf im Wald 13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 20:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

As FP  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2020/2021!

		* Happy Holidays 2020/2021, Der Wolf im Wald! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2021/2022!

		* Happy Holidays 2021/2022, Der Wolf im Wald! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish you all the best for the new year! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01 wide.jpg

File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01 wide.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2003:DB:B704:855E:2DF6:9579:42FF:DCC7 21:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021 (100MP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porta Nigra morgens (100MP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Jakubhal 05:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mennonitischer Friedhof Leutesdorf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alte Oper Frankfurt 2019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Europäische Zentralbank Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Westhafen Frankfurt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Snowmanstudios 18:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eurotower mit Euro-Skulptur.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good -- Spurzem 16:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  

• You mean I should change the scope? I didn't include the perspective because I think it's the best perspective to photograph the tower. -- Wolf im Wald 11:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• A complex building has a totally different aspect depending on where you look at it: so you give the direction of exposure such as south north etc... the scope should be improved. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Info I specified the scope. -- Wolf im Wald 13:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Info I specified the scope. -- Wolf im Wald 14:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral It is a beautiful sky but the building itself looks so much better from the park, with the train in view for example, or with the bridge as the horizon. I believe it is designed to be viewed that way, from the car park to an extent, but also from the leisure park, and with the bridge as the horizon, for these are the most striking angles. The other angles mostly include housing, and the building appears fairly non descript in those, except for it's size and reflectivity of course. My point is, a building like this is designed with those angles in mind on purpose, and this one has two showy angles and a sort of, I don't know what an architect would call the car park view, an entrance view maybe. So there should be three branches of valued image for this building. The car park, the train park, and the bridge in the horizon. You can be sure it was not designed just to be a twisty shiny thingy! It was designed with those angles in mind. ~ R.T.G 20:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• @RTG: Your intervention is very fair, that's why the scope has been modified. Other angles of view are welcome.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

 super! --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose There is already an existing VI for this scope of the Porta Nigra. This nomination should be withdrawn and re-nominated in MVR if the nominator wishes to contest the existing VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support I prefer this one, because there are no cars in the foreground. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Palauenc05. Without cars in the foreground makes this image more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support It also lacks competition from the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support IMHO an exemplary hi-res image, certainly a VI. Congrats: 44 images ... and, as yet, I haven't detected a single stitching error, even in the multitude of leaves at right. Which software do you use? Tremendous detail - every single chisel mark visible. Quite often hi-res images with low contrast do not readily appeal to the eye when rendered at lo-res, say a few hundred pixels each edge, but this image sports enough colour and contrast to please at any resolution. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Franz van Duns: Thank you! I use PTGui but I need several hours to eliminate stitching errors. That's why you don't see any stitching error in the picture. I don't think there is a software that stitches completely free of errors. Maybe you could also like the following pictures, which have an even higher sharpness: 612 megapixels & 348 megapixels ;-) Regards -- Wolf im Wald 19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Porta Nigra morgens.jpg: +4 <--
2. Trier Porta Nigra BW 1.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Porta Nigra morgens.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Trier Porta Nigra BW 1.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former.

--A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Westhafen Tower 2019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 04:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 15:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2022 (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:
Westhafen Tower, from west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2022 (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:
Westhafen Frankfurt, from Flußkrebssteg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mesa Arch Canyonlands sunrise.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 04:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Darmstadt Mathildenhöhe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaibab National Forest.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grand Canyon North Rim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clouds over Grand Canyon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2022/2023!

		* Happy Holidays 2022/2023, Der Wolf im Wald! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 00:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@George Chernilevsky: Thank you George! I wish you a Merry Christmas and a good start to the New Year! Enjoy the time with your family and stay healthy! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 02:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frankfurter Römer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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).

-- Milseburg (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Oppose There are scaffoldings on "Exhibition building" in this image. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Better light, higher resolution, more detail --Milseburg (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Fewer shadows, better lighting. Would be even better without the scaffolding, but this is currently best in scope. Lorax (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Scores:

 1. Mathildenhöhe.jpg: 1 oppose (current VI within same scope) 
 2. Darmstadt Mathildenhöhe.jpg: 2 support, 1 oppose <--

 =>
 File:Mathildenhöhe.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. 
 File:Darmstadt Mathildenhöhe.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Milseburg (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2021 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Französischer Dom.jpg

Yours sincerely, C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Auditorio de Tenerife 2015.jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

		* Happy Holidays! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks George! I hope you started well in the new year! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 09:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)