User talk:Dr. Chriss

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Dr. Chriss!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neubaukirche (Würzburg).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice --Poco a poco 17:15, 27 October 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:
Neubaukirche in Würzburg, Germany. Exterior..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope. Halavar (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altes Rathaus (Würzburg).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I don't like the 100% perspective correction, and the small width-to-height ratio but still good quality. --Smial 08:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Dr. Chriss⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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 were 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.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Dr. Chriss,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altes Abgeordnetenhochhaus.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 High quality.--ArildV 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Christian

es tut mir leid, dass ich dir zwei Bilder ablehnen musste, seit einem halben Jahr gilt die Regel,dass jeder nur fünf Bilder pro Tag hochladen darf, einfach um die Teilnehmer nicht zu überfordern. Es ist eine Maßnahme, die Qualität insgesamt zu verbessern, damit man sich auch mehr Zeit für die Prüfung der Kollegenbilder nehmen kann. Bitte nominiere die beiden Bilder morgen noch einmal.

Gruß aus Wien --Hubertl (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Hubertl, danke für den Hinweis, die Bilder werde ich morgen nochmal nominieren, bin ja noch relativ neu hier. --Dr. Chriss (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So ganz neu bist ja nicht, aber noch im einstelligen Bereich, was die Nominierungen für QI etc. betrifft. Aber mit umso besseren Bildern steigst du ein. Allerdings haben mich heute die Störungen im Bild von den Kammerspielen gewundert, ich hatte das vor kurzem auch bei einem Bild und konnte mir nicht erklären was das ist. Ich hab mal auf ein Speicherproblem in der Kamera getippt. Warum, ist mir völlig unklar, da es nur einmal vorgekommen ist. Umso wichtiger ist mir inzwischen, von jedem Motiv gleich mehrere Versionen zu machen, wegwerfen kann man immer was. Auch kommt es bei mir vor, dass ich - ohne Stativ - schon mal meine Probleme habe, die Kamera wirklich ruhig zu halten. --Hubertl (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Der Account existiert seit 2 Jahren ja, aber nach ein paar wenigen Uploads und Kandidaturen habe ich mich wieder auf mein Studium konzentriert und hatte eine Flaute. In der Zeit habe ich wieder fast alles grundlegende über Wikipedia und Commons vergessen (und einiges hatte sich geändert), sodass ich wieder fast bei Null anfangen musste. Aufgrund solcher Probleme versuche ich das jetzt mal, Danke für den Tipp/Hinweis :). Wegen der Fehler habe ich mir auch eine Neue Ausrüstung gekauft womit sowas seltener vorkommen sollte. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Ich weiß das Ghosts stören, aber der Fokus sollte doch auf der Detailschärfe des Gebäudes liegen weshalb ich dieses als QI vorgeschlagen habe. Gruß -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Stitching Errors

Hallo Dr. Chriss, zuerst die gute Nachricht: Deine Bilder sind ausgezeichnet scharf und korrekt belichtet. Leider sind aber mehr als 50% Deiner Bilder mit schweren Stitching-Fehlern behaftet. Bitte prüfe vor weiteren QIC-Nominierungen Deine Bilder gewissenhaft auf Diskontinuitäten. Bitte repariere auch das bereits als QI durchgewunkene Bild File:Altes_Abgeordnetenhochhaus.jpg. Ich habe Dir auch bei zwei noch nicht nominierten Photos Hinweise hinterlassen. Ich bin sicher, dass nachdem Du dieses Problem im Griff hast, alle Deine Photos mit Leichtigkeit QI-Status erlangen können. Gruss, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Cccefalon, ja in der Tat sind ein paar Stichingfehler zu erkennen, aber ich achte lieber darauf, dass das enzyklopädische Motiv klar und deutlich erkennbar ist und nicht ein Schild oder Stromleitungen im Himmel wie beim Fall diesen Bildes, wenn ich die Stromleitungen korrigieren würde, müsste ich maßgebliche Fassadenteile verschieben wodurch ein weißes Loch entstehen würde, was das Gesamtbild beeinträchtigen würde. Zudem benutze ich schon eins der besten Stichingprogramme auf dem Markt. Das was sich korrigieren lässt werde ich bearbeiten, bei neuen Bildern kannst du dir aber sicher sein, dass solche gravierende Fehler seltener oder weniger gering auftreten werden, da ich mir eine bessere Ausrüstung zugelegt habe und diese alsbald zum Einsatz kommen wird. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, aber ein Bild mit Stitchingfehlern wird bei QIC nicht als Quality Image akzeptiert werden. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, danke für den Hinweis :) -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ich bin sehr erfreut, dass Du die Kritik angenommen hast und die Bilder überarbeitest. Es wäre wirklich schade, wenn die sehr guten Bilder mit handwerklichen Fehlern behaftet sind. Dank und Gruss, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung. An Kritik lernt man ja schließlich und ich will mich so weit wie möglich verbessern, daher stehe ich jeder konstruktiver Kritik offen gegenüber und versuche mein Bestes diese umzusetzen. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kunsthalle Weishaupt Frontseite.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. Great sharpness. -- MJJR 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Langer Eugen.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. --Hubertl 18:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hans-und-Sophie-Scholl-Platz - Museumsgesellschaft - Kunsthalle Weishaupt.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. --Cccefalon 00:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museum Ulm.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.--ArildV 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwörhaus Ulm.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. --Ximonic 10:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kameha Bonn von der Südbrücke.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. --Cccefalon 02:10, 7 May 2015 (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:
Townhall in Würzburg, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good. Yann (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2015 (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:
Langer Eugen in Bonn, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Geocoding please. Yann (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Info Done. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2015 (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:
Oberlandesgericht in Munich, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Geocoding please. Yann (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Info Done. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2015 (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:
Schwörhaus in Ulm, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (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:
Citylibrary in Ulm, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2015 (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:
Cityhall in Ulm, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2015 (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:
Dreifaltigkeitskirche (church) in Ulm, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Picture have stitching errors - see note. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Info Fixed -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Haus der Begegnung) - Ulm.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. --Cccefalon 20:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zentraler Omnibusbahnhof München 2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museumsgesellschaft Ulm.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 Stitching ghosts, I don´t like unclear Exif infos. This is not made with a 16mm lens --Hubertl 07:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Fixed Thanks for the hint. -- Dr. Chriss 22:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Cccefalon, do you want to take another look? --King of Hearts 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)*  Support ok with new version..--Hubertl 07:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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:
Central bus station in Munich, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good, best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:41, 15 May 2015 (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:
Main train station in Ulm, Germany, entrance.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good, best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:17, 15 May 2015 (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:
Kameha Grand hotel from the west in Bonn, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good, best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:39, 15 May 2015 (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:
Assembly building (Bonn), Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good, best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ulm Hauptbahnhof Eingang.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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Urania-Weltzeituhr auf dem Alexanderplatz in Berlin 2015 Weitwinkel.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 or very good quality, but proposal in german. File with only German description: I can't categorized it in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted--Lmbuga 19:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)  Comment Do you categorize the image within a few days?--Lmbuga 19:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)  Comment Done, English description added. The mainarcticle of this object exists only in German speech.... Therefor i thought only German description would be enough ;) -- Dr. Chriss 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) I think it's not required, but appreciated. Thank you--Lmbuga 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Urania-Weltzeituhr auf dem Alexanderplatz in Berlin 2015.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. --Cccefalon 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frontansicht des Hauptgebäudes der Humboldt-Universität in Berlin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilhelm von Humboldt Denkmal - Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.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 QI for me--Lmbuga 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hauptgebäude der Humboldt-Universität mit Alexander von Humboldt Denkmal - Berlin.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. Composition is odd, but I rather like it. --Crisco 1492 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2015 (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:
Humboldt-University, Main building .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2015 (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:
Urania-Weltzeituhr.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Noteː There is already a VI of this category. The nomination of this picture you can see here. I nominated the new picture, because i think it has a better quality. To the scope, why I didn't choosed the English versionː It doesn't exist in English, therefor i choosed the German scope (Other available languages are Polish, Italian and Norwegian).
 Comment This is not the place to present the image, you must put it in "Most valued reviews". --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Ohh sorry, that was my fault. I nominate it under the right place, thank you for noticing. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I'm not sure about this. This one is certainly nicer to look at at first sight because of the weather. But then again, the other one has a less disturbing background. Can't really see much of a difference when it comes to things like sharpness etc. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment marked some spots, please compare with other picture. I think their some noise in the shadown under the clock and a bit less sharpeness on the solar system reproduction and the clock (dirt between the numbers). The full resolution of my picture is about 30 MP, so i can expand to 20 or 25 mp if needed. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Chriss: Sorry, I should've been more clear about that: You are absolutely right in that if you zoom in, this image is the sharper one. But if you have a look at Commons:Valued image criteria (especially point 3.3), you will see that picture quality at full resolution isn't really a determining factor at VI. What matters here is how it looks in the preview above (after clicking on "review" if you still are on the candidate list when reading this), and that's where I can't see a difference in quality. We can resort to quality at full resolution as a determining factor when we can't come to a conclusion based on the preview, but that's pretty much the last thing to consider. As I wrote above, the background of the other one might be better because it's less cluttered, so that's something that needs to be considered first. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Ohh yeah i understand now what u mean, thank you for the fast answer and detailed justification. But a nodeː In little resolution every picture over 10 mp will be sharp if it gets smaller for preview. I really thought the sharpness at 100̥ percent view would be important, because it says something about the whole quality of the picture. -- Dr. Chriss (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Biggest size, better sharpness, no people hide the column so you can see the map engraved on it. It is definitely better. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't notice the map until now. That's actually a good point →  Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Urania-Weltzeituhr auf dem Alexanderplatz in Berlin 2015.jpg:  +3  <--
2. Berlin - Weltzeituhr2.jpg: 

=>
File:Urania-Weltzeituhr auf dem Alexanderplatz in Berlin 2015.jpg:Promoted<-- 
File:Berlin - Weltzeituhr2.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. 

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alexanderplatz in Berlin - Panorama.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 Amazing quality. --Mайкл Гиммельфарб 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2015 (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:
Alexanderplatz in Berlin, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weltzeituhr mit Fernsehturm - Alexanderplatz.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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kameha von der Rheinseite.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. --Hubertl 08:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kameha Grand Bonn von Westen.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 Impressive building, good quality. --Tsungam 09:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Domberg Innenhof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Deutsche Welle.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. --Hubertl 08:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2015 (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:
Urania-Weltzeituhr and Berliner Fernsehturm..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Park Inn VIC

Hi, ich habe das mal in eine MVR-Kandidatur umgewandelt, hoffe das war in deinem Sinne. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Bei einer Kandidatur wo es noch kein VI gibt, habe ich keine Probleme und weiß wie und wo ich das Bild zu Wahl stellen muss. Bei einer VI Kandidatur wo aber bereits ein VI existiert weiß ich nie wie und wo ich die Abwahl des Alten und die Wahl des neues VI einstellen soll. Vielleicht kannst du mir hier mal Klarheit schaffen. :) --Dr. Chriss (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jaaa, das ist zunächst erstmal nicht ganz offensichtlich, habe auch erst vor kurzem verstanden wie das funktioniert:

1. wie gewohnt neue Kandidaturseite für dein Bild anlegen, aber nicht unter Commons:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list eintragen
2. alte Kandidaturseite des amtierenden VI rauskramen und status auf "discussed" setzen. Ich haue da dann noch einen Kommentar drunter, damit man Bescheid weiss (Beispiel)
3. Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Most_valued_review_candidate_list aufrufen und neuen Abschnitt mit zum Scope passender Überschrift anlegen. Unterhalb der Überschrift dann {{VICs}} verwenden um die beiden (ggf. auch mehrere) Kandidaten einander gegenüberzustellen. Das ist die gleiche Vorlage wie sie auch in der normalen "candidate list" für die große Liste verwendet wird. Der einzige Unterschied ist, dass wir hier für jeden Satz an Gegenkandidaten einen eigenen Abschnitt mit einer eigenen kleinen Liste anlegen.

Dann wird für beide separat abgestimmt und das Bild mit den meisten Netto-Pro-Stimmen gewinnt (Die Stimmen der alten Kandidatur des bestehenden VI werden nicht mehr berücksichtigt). Die nötigen Infos dazu liegen leider ziemlich verstreut uner Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Most_valued_review, Commons:Valued_image_closure#Closing_valued_image_set_candidates und Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Promotion_rules. --El Grafo (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhh so langsam geht mir ein Licht auf :). Dann vielen Dank für die ausfürhliche und belehrende Erklärung, werde dann wohl demnächst solche Kandidaturen auch einstellen können ohne das du diese nochmals bearbeiten musst. Beste Grüße --Dr. Chriss (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berliner Fernsehturm mit Urania-Weltzeituhr und Berolina-Haus.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. --Cccefalon 03:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Park Inn by Radisson Alexanderplatz - Berlin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fassade der Stiftung Deutsches Historisches Museum (ehem. Zeughaus) - Berlin.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. --Ralf Roletschek 11:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hermann von Helmholtz-Statue vor der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.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. --Code 06:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhof Berlin Friedrichstraße - Detailansicht.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhof Berlin Friedrichstraße - Überblick.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2015 (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:
Statue Hermann von Helmholtz, in front of Humboldt University of Berlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2015 (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:
Bahnhof Berlin Friedrichstraße, exterior view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best shot in scope. DeFacto (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berliner Fernsehturm, Sicht vom Neptunbrunnen - Berlin Mitte.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. --Ralf Roletschek 19:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2015 (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:
Park Inn (Berlin), exterior view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Noteː There is already VI of this category, i show the nomination on the next candidation.

•  Support This picture is better. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I fully agree with the arguments of Dr. Chriss --Der Regenbogenfisch (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Question any other reviews neeeded or can the vote closed? Like the voting above "Most valued review candidates" takes a lot of time and there are some more MVR̠'s which have to reviewed and if we would sort out this voting there would be the focus on the other MVR's. --Dr. Chriss (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment It is long and complicated. The person who opened this nommination must close. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Park Inn by Radisson Alexanderplatz - Berlin.jpg: +3 <--
2. Berlin - Park Inn Hotel2.jpg: +/-0 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Park Inn by Radisson Alexanderplatz - Berlin.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Berlin - Park Inn Hotel2.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.

--El Grafo (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2015 (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:
Münchner Kammerspiele, exterior view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in scope, useful --J. Lunau (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2015 (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:
Ulmer Museum, exterior view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, unquestionably best in scope. DeFacto (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2015 (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:
Full shots of Berliner Fernsehturm, closeup view with Entrance.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skyline Frankfurt am Main 2015.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. --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holstentor von der Petrikirche.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. --Hubertl 04:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holstentor von der Petrikirche - Zuschnitt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment It looks oversharpened. And a little bit oversaturated. (And not a QI criteria: IMO EXIF data is missing.) --XRay 06:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)  Info I don̠t think so, or maybe i just don̠t see it, can you tell me where and mark the spots? Furthermore it is a Stitching from 8 pictures and therfore EXIFs are missing but the picture were made with 100mm, Canon Eos 750D, ISO 100, f 5,6, 1/1000... The gaps of the building are white and maybe it looks like there are halos arround every line... best regards Dr. Chriss 16:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, Du kannst EXIF immer beibehalten, in dem du einfach (im Photoshop zumindest) ein unbearbeitetes Foto aus der Belichtungsreihe öffnest, es durch das bearbeitete Bild bzw. das Panorama ersetzt (ggf. unter Anpassung der Bildgröße) und es dann unter dem endgültigen Dateinamen speicherst. --A.Savin 17:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Ahh okay guter Tipp für das nächste Mal, wird jetzt die Abstimmung daran scheitern? Da ich nicht gerade die schnellste Internetverbindung habe und der neue Upload wieder zeitintensiv sein wird.... Dr. Chriss 18:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Info as u can see here, the picture is nearly "perfect" straigtened, verticals are nearly vertical. greets Dr. Chriss 22:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Info added EXIFS on commons dexription Dr. Chriss 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Support All in all it's OK now. Thanks. Good work. --XRay 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Tilt & perspective issues. --Jacek Halicki 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Info i'm sorry but the buidling is lopsided as u can see here, the picture is nearly "perfect" straigtened, look at the street lamps or the salt store on the right, verticals are nearly vertical. greets Dr. Chriss 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Please other users for opinions. --Jacek Halicki 00:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)  Comment Without doubt: Good quality. --Hasenläufer 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)*  Comment Good quality, see the good explanation by Hendric Stattmann about the same pic in discuss. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holstentor in Lübeck 2015.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. (EXIF data missing.) --XRay 08:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)  Info u're right, is added Dr. Chriss 20:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2016 (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:
Holstentor, backview.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info i'm sorry to tell you, that the picture does not have any perspective or tilt problems. As u can see here, the buidling is lopsided, not the picture. It is nearly "perfect" straigtened (look at the street lamps or other references). Verticals are nearly vertical. Greets Dr. Chriss (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No need to be sorry:  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Holstentor in Lübeck 2015.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor in Lübeck 2015.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

MVR-Auswertung

Ahoi, sieht so aus als wolltest du das gerne selber machen? So geht's (offizielle Anleitung hier):

• Stimmen auswerten:  Support zählt plus 1,  Oppose zählt minus 1
  • Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg kriegt +2 Punkte
  • Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg kriegt 0 Punkte (die eine pro-Stimme aus dem vorherigen Whalgang zählt nicht mehr.
• Ergebnisse auf den Abstimmungsseiten eintragen:
  • Commons:Valued image candidates/Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg kriegt folgenden text (Quellcode zum Kopieren, inclusive führender Leerzeichen):

 Scores: 
 1. [[Commons:Valued image candidates/Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg|Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg]]: +2 <--
 2. [[Commons:Valued image candidates/Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg|Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg]]: 0 (current VI within same scope) 
 =>
 [[:File:Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg]]: Promoted. <--
 [[:File:Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg]]: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
 --~~~~

• • Commons:Valued image candidates/Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg kriegt folgenden text:

 Scores: 
 1. [[Commons:Valued image candidates/Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg|Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg]]: +2
 2. [[Commons:Valued image candidates/Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg|Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg]]: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
 =>
 [[:File:Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg]]: Promoted.
 [[:File:Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg]]: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
 --~~~~

• Auf den Abstimmungsseiten den Status setzen:
  • status=promoted für Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg
  • status=declined für Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg
• Von Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list folgenden code kopieren (nicht entfernen, das braucht der Bot noch):

=== Holstentor, frontview ===
{{VICs
  |Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite - Zuschnitt.jpg
  |Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg
}}

Unter Commons:Closed most valued reviews auf den Link zum entsprechenden Monatsarchiv (hier: 2016-01) klicken (hier noch ein Rotlink → Seite neu anlegen) und das kopierte dort einfügen, speichern.

• Das neue VI als solches zu kennzeichnen übernimmt wie üblich der Bot und entfernt dann anschließend auch den entsprechenden Abschnitt aus Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list
• Das alte VI musst du von Hand als solches kennzeichnen: auf File:Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg ersetzt du

{{VI|[[:Category:Holstentor|Holstentor, West view]]|18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)|subpage=Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg}}

durch

{{VI-former|subpage=Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg|scope=[[:Category:Holstentor|Holstentor, West view]]|~~~~~}}

• Laut den Anweisungen müsstest du jetzt das alte VI noch aus der entsprechenden Galerie unterhalb von Commons:Valued images by topic entfernen, aber es scheint als wäre es dort gar nicht einsortiert worden.

Bei Problemen gerne nochmal nachfragen … Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Vielen Dank für die ausführliche Erklärung. Ich habe mich entschieden, damit dies nicht andere User machen müssen und somit diesen Arbeit zu ersparen, fortan meine eigenen MVR'S selbst auszuwerten nachdem lange genug zur Abstimmung gewartet wurde. Ich versuch das gleich mal und mach mich an die Arbeit ː). Beste Grüße und Dank, --Dr. Chriss (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Eine kleine Frage hätte ich da nochː

{{VI-former|Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg|[[:Category:Holstentor|]], West view|~~~~~}}

habe ich als Quelltext für das alte VI benutzt, da bei den von dir geschriebenen die Kategorie nicht angezeigt wurde. Als Vorbild habe ich mir den Quelltext aus diesem ehemaligen VI genommen. War das jetzt richtig oder nicht? --Dr. Chriss (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're almost arrived. You have closed the two images but you do not put them in [1] So that the two are processed. I closed your image with the label. Thank you for your work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I created the page, but was it no right or was something else missing? And this work i thought would do the Bot, sorry about that, but thanks for doing itː) --Dr. Chriss (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nominate another Holstentor picture?

Hello, Dr. Chriss, and please forgive me for writing in English, as my German is intermediate at best, and I'd have to look up lots of words in order to write this post in German.

I love this photo of the Holstentor with a Renaissance (or Gothic?) building to its left and a deep field of roads in the distance. I'd like to nominate it for FP, but I thought I'd ask you first if you, as the artist, think there's a reason why you'd prefer for it not to be nominated.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I feel honored of your question to nominate my picture. Of course i don't have a problem with that, there was no reason to be nominated, so u can do it :). Regards --Dr. Chriss (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and make the nomination. Good luck! I hope others agree that this is great work worthy of a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I hope so too, but if they think it isn't they will write the reasons and for the next timte i can make it better. Thanks for your honest opinion. --Dr. Chriss (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• You're most welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)