User talk:Medium69/archives/2014/12

Question sur l'image File:Dosidicus gigas -1.jpg

Bonjour, j'ai vu ta remarque sur le sens du siphon en haut pour cette photo. J'ai aussi vu que tu avais l'air de bien connaître le domaine. J'ai retourné cette photo suite à une demande selon les critères indiqués. Pourrais-tu me donner la bonne orientation ; est-ce qu'elle devait être retournée complètement ?--medium69 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS De même si la photo d'origine est dans le bon sens, indique le moi que je fasse une demande de suppression de celle que j'ai tourner.--medium69 (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Je n'avais pas vu votre message sur commons. Cette demande était-elle sourcée ? la bonne orientation est celle de l'originale, il n'y a rien à tourner. C'est un déplacement vertical, en "position cacatoès". Cordialement--Citron (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Citron: [Merci de la réponse. La demande était dans les fichiers à retourner avec une mention de l'angle de rotation. Je modifie mes erreurs et demande la suppression de l'image que j'ai téléchargé.

Pour la demande, la voici : [1]. Je ne pensais pas qu'une personne n'y connaissant rien aurait fait une telle demande et je lui est fait confiance. Je m'occupe de réparer mon erreur d'ici quelques heures maxi.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Children from Sanaa (10793224695).jpg

I've been looking at photos from the Middle East (where I live) and helping sort them into useful categories. So I'd appreciate an explanation of why this file, "Children from Sanaa," have the categories Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar - though not Yemen? It seems misleading. I also question whether the figures in the photo are verifiably identified as Bedouin. Kindly advise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: In reality, these photos are from Flickr and categorized automatically. My English is not always allows me to check these categories.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 21:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Merci pour l'explication. Ainsi, je changerais les categories manuellemente en conséquence du lieu Sana'a, Yemen. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: Pas de soucis, et comme tu l'as compris, l'anglais n'est pas du tout ma langue maternelle et j'ai beaucoup de mal .--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for your kind information

Hi, some categories have been tagged as {categorize}, among them countries, states and cities etc, therefore p.e. that edit and some more have been fixed, please see also Commons:Categories. Best regards Roland zh (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ːHi, as still re-categorizing 'many' of your as of today contributions, btw just related to the South Indian states, some further hints, so plesae use p.e.

1. Category:Mysore Palace illuminated instead of Category:Mysore etc.
2. Category:Exterior decoration of the Mysore Palace instead of Category:Mysore etc.
3. Category:Watercraft on the Kerala backwaters instead of Category:canals etc.
4. Category:Flora of the Kerala backwaters instead of Category:canals etc.
5. Category:Interior of St. Francis Church, Kochi instead of Category:Mattancherry (honestly, no bad start) etc.
6. Category:Tea plantations in Munnar instead of Category:Munnar + Category:Tea etc.
7. Category:Reliefs and sculptures at the Brihadisvara Temple instead of Category:Thanjavur + Category:UNESCO

btw of course my personal sight but imho it's better to use the template, please also see Template:Personality rights, if a person of 'no public interest' is photographed and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Thyank you for taking notice and taking care, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

and some more hints to categorize imho easily much more adequate:

1. Category:Lakshmi Ramanaswami Temple instead of Category:Mysore+Category:Varaha+Category:Vishnu
2. Category:Gopurams of the Chamundeswari Temple instead of Category:Chamundi+Category:Durga+Category:Mysore
3. Category:Nandi at Chamundeswari Temple instead of Category:Chamundi+Category:Durga+Category:Mysore
4. Category:Vittala Temple instead of Category:Hampi
5. Category:Elephant stables at Hampi instead of Category:Hampi+Category:Stables+Category:Étables
6. Category:Large stone door, Hampi instead of Category:Hampi+Category:Porte (Italy)

etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have kept the default categories proposed by Flickr.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, imho hardly recommended ... imho it's recommonded by more experienced Wikimedians to removre flickr 'categorizes' by transferring to Wikimedia Commons, and p.e. to create as target just a single category named p.e. Category:Flickr transfers by Medium69 to categorize, and you'll helpt to avoid much, very much senseless and boring re-categorizations, duplications and 'overwhelmed' categories tagged as {categrorize}. Theafter a serious Wikimedia Commons related caterigozation may be done by 'experienced' interests, btw in general 'im out of that business'.--18:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Roland zh: Yes I would do this in the future. It's much better.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Medium69, thank you :-) Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Suppression cadre

Salut, j'ai remarqué que tu as supprimé le cadre de pas mal de mes imports. Je t'en remercie grandement, mais je me pose une question. Vu la vitesse, je suppose que tu te sert d'un robot. Si il est public, j'aimerais avoir l'adresse car ça pourrait me rendre service aussi.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour, non pas de robot, tout à la mimine - je télécharge les photos, je les modifie au niveau encadrement en laissant les onglets ouverts, et je les réinjecte ensuite par série et je vois que tu en profites pour en mettre encore - Mais c'est vrai que s'il existe un robot.... cela faciliterait beaucoup le travail - Bonne journée --Lomita (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lomita: Tout comme moi alors . Je m'étais imaginé que tu utilisais un robot. et pour te répondre, oui, j'en ajoute encore pas mal. Hier j'ai transféré près de 3.000 photos de Flickr et une grande majorité à ce léger cadre. Je fais encore le point, mais c'est long. J'en avais déjà sélectionné plus de la moitié, et j'ai eu un plantage de mon navigateur. Comme j'utilise un programme en Javascript, j'ai du tout recommencé . Je n'ai pas envie de reperdre deux heures de boulots, donc là, je les fait par série de 500.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pas de souci, on nettoiera tout cela tout doucement - Bon courage --Lomita (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Merci.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Merci

Merci pour le conseil et VG-4 :) Il me faut contribuer plus !

@Desbenoit: Tu as oublié de signé . Je trouvais qu'il manquait ce modèle expert ; je l'ai donc créé et je contacte tout ceux qui ont donc le niveau 3, que j'ai classé comme avancé pour leur indiqué ce nouveau niveau expert. Il m'en reste encore à contacté cependant.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For what/why?

Hi
You just gave me {{User PH-4}} and I don't understand really.
Is it a suggestion or something you think and if so why?
It's not that it doesn't make me somewhat happy but I just wonder why and I thank you for that you think so. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: The model with the expert level did not exist. As you had the highest level lvl 3, it remains a suggestion if you feel you are an expert level to 4.

Merci!

Merci beaucoup! --Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your recognition on my photographic eforts. Best regards: --WPPilot (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

New Level PH-4

Bonjour William,
Merci bien de proposer le niveau "PH-4" pour mes photos. Ceci prouve votre appréciation pour mon travail photographique, ce qui me fait grand plaisir. J'aime en effet faire des photos et je cherche à obtenir de la qualité. Néanmoins, je n'ai ni une formation professionnelle en la matière, ni un matériel professionnel. Je resterai toujours un amateur - dans la double signification de "non professionnel" et de "quelqu'un qui aime faire ce qu'il fait" - et c'est très bien comme cela. Le niveau PH-3 me convient le mieux, je pense. Cordialement. -- MJJR (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes on chemical svg breaks other pages

Hi. I just stumbled upon the page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glykolyse which is broken since you changed the svgs, e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Biochem_reaction_arrow_reversible_NNNN_horiz_med.svg . There you changed also the width/height of the image (in other images probably too). So all those arrows are now ~500+ pixels width, before only 80px since the year 2007. I think if those files were good enough for 7 years, a change of those that are used in so many other articles shouldn't break them. Please correct or revert. --Peter Büttner (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Büttner: I fixed it in the articles.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 19:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks all right now. I learned that a '|80px' in image links is useful--Peter Büttner (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Ljubljana

Hi, about the batch of pictures of Ljubljana that you recently uploaded from Flickr... you should know that there is no Freedom of Panorama in Slovenia (see COM:FOP#Slovenia), therefore photographs of copyrighted architecture cannot be freely licensed. Most of the actual images represent still copyrighted works by Jože Plečnik, so they will unfortunately have to be deleted. The next time, you can ask some of the active Slovenians on Commons (myself or Eleassar) before uploading to make sure. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Ok thanks.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to thank me for every file I categorize properly. I understand the message, and you're welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Ok ; it is a habit --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Medium69, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I would consider advice.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

typo in svg

Hi Medium69, please take a look at File talk:Structure of the magnetosphere-en.svg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Thank you for the information; is corrected.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

File:GizemGönültaş05.JPG

Hi Medium69, do you really think a file claiming to depict a person who is not actually shown isn't misleading? I honestly thought this was one of the most obvious cases for a file move request. Baffled, --Headlocker (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Headlocker: Sorry it's a mistake on my part. I just rename the file.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings

---

Hello. This is a reminder for you that it is important to address the identified issues instead of simply removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions according to our community guidelines. You can have this done automatically for you -- simply place {{subst:User:Jeff G./usertalksetup}} or {{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and then old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details). If you have received warnings for copyright issues, please familiarize yourself with our policy on licensing. You can also ask for help at the village pump or the help desk if you need assistance.

• Considering this edit. All tagged files are derivated works (book & magazine covers, illustrations, packaging, etc., see also COM:PACKAGING, COM:DW etc.) copyrighted by their respective copyright owners. Gunnex (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gunnex: En ce cas je les archives.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah non !!!  :)

Bonsoir, trop drôle tes dernières contributions.... - Bonne soirée --Lomita (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oups ! excuse moi, je n'avais pas vu la procédure en cours.... je vais donc attendre un peu avant de travailler dessus - --Lomita (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lomita: oui mais tu as vu il y en a moins pour environ 2.500 imports je progresse ! Par contre, oui, j'ai vu que certains sont en cours de procédure de suppression. Inutile de perdre du temps dessus tant que le bandeau est en place.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nervous system diagram numbered.svg, 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 12:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Igen review request

Hi, I hope that {{igen|A|0|+}} (example) will at some point in time replace the current zoo of SVG-is-okay tags. Obviously you didn't like it on File:Nervous_system_diagram_unlabeled.svg, maybe state what's (still) wrong on Template_talk:Image_generation. I certainly like your "SVG" better than "SVG genesis". OTOH I'd prefer one line instead of two. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Climate change numbered.svg, 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 The French version has more texts than 1,2,3,4; if that's supposed to be the master template for localisations something is missing. –Be..anyone 20:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC  Done Yes, It was an oversight.--Medium69 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)) Not all embedded JPG are bad, I like this. –Be..anyone 05:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sucrose molecule.svg, 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 10:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Structure volcano numbered.svg, 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. --Yann 08:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Changing composition molten salt reactor numbered.svg, 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 10:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biochem reaction arrow reversible NYNY horiz med.svg, 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 Please see my notes. fixable. --Cccefalon 10:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Correctd.--Medium69 14:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bacterial Anaerobic Corrosion numbered.svg, 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 Now valid SVG –Be..anyone 21:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)  Comment There is nothing big to say about quality in such a SVG but the outlined arrows are not good: Some are barely visible and some are just not good looking because they cross different background colours. The image would look much better with filled arrows in a different colour, e.g. a decent orange. --Cccefalon 08:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)  Done I followed your advice. More readable now.--Medium69 11:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Well done! It really looks good now. --Cccefalon 07:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Atmosphere structure numbered.svg, 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 Now valid SVG. –Be..anyone 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC) At the right side, some elements cross the image border. --Cccefalon 08:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Corrected.--Medium69 11:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Airolo - connecting corridor numbered.svg, 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 Now valid SVG. –Be..anyone 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Numbers 1, 2 and 4 placed too close at image elements IMO. --Cccefalon 08:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Corrected.--Medium69 12:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abeliophyllum-distichum.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 It looks tilted cw. fixable. --Cccefalon 08:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Image rotated slightly.--Medium69 12:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Not the best one but can pass as QI IMO --Cccefalon 07:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: New level {{User VG-4}}

Thank you so much for having informed me, I will appraise if I have the requirements. Cheers, F l a n k e r (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2015!

		* * * Happy Holidays 2015 ! * * *
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wall rounded glass brick.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 Visible CAs on the right side. --Code 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Corrected.--Medium69 15:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Ok. --Code 22:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hieroglyph egyptian-Sa-Ra.svg, 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 Sorry, this picture is a raster (has too many polygons), this should be vectorized manually --The Photographer 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Drawing review.--Medium69 16:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) From 8 to 2 KB, voila. –Be..anyone 05:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Eugenio Montero Ríos, de Kaulak.jpg

Hi, Medium69, I'd like to correctly understand your edition here. Apparently, by including {{Medium69/retouche}} in the author filed in the {{Information}} template, you not only claim "authorship" but also require to be credited. However, I'm not able to understand which authorship you're claiming. Authorship involves originality and using an automatic tool to remove a border, can't hardly be considered as an original work. In fact, your edition, being below any threshold of originality, does not generate any new right. In such conditions, how can you "require" to be credited? Credited for exactly what? Your edition is appropriately recorded in the file history and IMHO that's all. The only authorship involved is Kaulak's and none of the remaining persons involved in bringing this image to commons (the person that scanned the journal to make it available in the Hemeroteca Digital; Totemkin, which found the image and extracted from the PDF; or you; have created any additional right and I can't see how any of you could claim authorship and require to be credited. I understand it's been just a misunderstanding. Sure. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Discasto: Good evening, I'm going to change my model as appropriate. For cons, I do not claim at all to be the author and does not require anything ... reread good.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it again and it reads as follows: Please credit this : William Crochot. It's a polite requirement (but a requirement) and it was included in the author field. Now, the wording is better, as the requirement has been removed. And please, leave the file as it was at the beginning. If you disagree with the reversion, have a look at en:WP:BRD and discuss your proposal in the file's talk page before editwarring. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

the file does not change ... only demand changes to a new file. Learn to read.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, my reading comprehension in English is rather good. And the piece of advice remains: before editwarring, discuss your proposals first. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Discasto: Featured : Especial:Registro/block&page=Usuario:Discasto...--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are the usual resource when one does not will to admit s/he is wrong. Cheers --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually saw that you did not accept criticism; where your block .--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:34, 27 December 2014 (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:
Electron microscope images of pollen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2014 (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:
3D molecule of Sucrose.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment The caption of the image is too succinct --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Description revisited and more detailed.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Sucrose to 3D molecule of Sucrose --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 09:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Best in Scope Look at the change in the caption --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2014 (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:
Diagram of Anaerobic corrosion.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Scope too broad --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus:  Done More specific scope.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Corrosion to Anaerobic corrosion --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

It's better I suggest: Diagram of [[:Category:Anaerobic corrosion|Anaerobic corrosion]] --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus:  Done Thanks.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 08:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Corrosion to Diagram of Anaerobic corrosion--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 08:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC) {{{3}}}

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2014 (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:
Graphic of Molten salt reactors.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

---

Scope changed from Molten salt reactors to Graphic of Molten salt reactors --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 09:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2014 (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:
Diagram of Earth's atmosphere.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. — Revi 14:53, 29 December 2014 (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:
Diagram of Forte Airolo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment The caption is too short. It would be useful to indicate where it is this strong: the country and the canton. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus:  Done I changed the caption and added geolocation.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2014 (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:
Glass block walls.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)