User talk:Atamari/Archive/2015

MAN-Werk Gustavsburg

[1]

Hallo Atamari, was schlägst du vor damit die Bahn in die Liste der MAN-Werk Gustavsburg Kanstruktionen kommt?--Symposiarch (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lass' mich noch etwas nachdenken. Diese Wochenende habe ich wenig Zeit. --Atamari (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jedes Bauwerk hat mehrere Hersteller, bei der Schwebebahn geht das herrunter bis auf einzelne Schauben. Für ein Bauteil (siehe Beispiel) der der G.u.J. Jäger habe ich das auch gemacht. In den Bildern ist aber genau das Teil zu sehen oder es gehöhrt thematisch dazu. Du hattest aber das ganze Thema Bilder der Schwebebahn (historisch gesehen) zu dem Werk einsortiert. Unabhänig ob die Kategorie das Produkt des Werks überhaupt zeigt. Die historischen Bilder können ja auch Inneneinrichtungen der Schwebebahn zeigen. So wie ich den Artikel Schwebebahn lese, hatte das MAN-Werk Gustavsburg lediglich Gerüstteile gefertigt. Bedenke, dass in der Category:Historical images of Wuppertal Schwebebahn jederzeit neue Bidler (entsprechend der Def der Kategorie) hinzukommen.

Um bei dem Beispiel von G.u.J. Jäger zurück zu kommen, wenn ich (oder jemand anderes) jemals die Motoren der Baureihe 19xx-19xx (ich schlag jetzt nicht nach) in einer kategorie zusammenfasst und die Kugellager auch noch in einer Unterkategorie fasst - Dann kann ich die Kugellager des Werks G.u.J. Jäger in die Kategorie der G.u.J. Jäger stellen. --Atamari (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

EOD

<cut off>

Auch wenn die Verkehrssprache von commons englisch ist, so sind Beleidigungen auch in anderen Sprache absolut unerwünscht! a×p_de^Hello! 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Gemälde von Ernst Hardt (1869-1917) im Rathaus Barmen, Wuppertal

Ich habe die Breite etwas perspektivisch korrigiert, eine weitere Korrektur ist weiterhin moeglich! Gruß -- Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Szczebrzeszynski: Kannst du das bitte Anhang der genauen Angaben machen, dir ich dir nun gegeben hatte. Perspektivisch ins Rechteck ziehen hätte ich auch selber schnell machen können. Die genauen Dimensionen kann ich in meinem Programm nicht eingeben, sollte aber möglich sein um das Bild korrekt wieder zu geben ... Danke --Atamari (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Jetzt ist das Bild genau 1974x1228 Pixel groß, die Proportionen stimmen präzise! --Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Super, wenn die Proportionen stimmen. --Atamari (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified birds in Gambia

Hi Atamari - just had a look at Category:Unidentified birds in Gambia. Of the 5 pics in it, 4 were easy to identify, yet (from their page histories) had been languishing in this category for months. Had they been categorised by the normal category tree of unidentified birds by taxonomy (order, family, genus), they would have been identified and recategorised within hours, or days at most. Clearly, no-one is looking at this category, and it is not working as a result being outside of the regular category tree for unidentified birds. I'd suggest deleting it, and just stick to the regular category tree for any other unidentified birds in Gambia. No other country has a similar category. - MPF (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The categories delete is really not a good idea. The category:Birds of Gambia is too full and needs to be divided. Making this species is meaningful and focused on the future. See also Category:Passer domesticus by country. Do you really want a picture of a sparrow in a book about Central Europe record when the picture is taken in Gambia? --Atamari (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

category:Birds of Gambia is very far from too full - any category is only too full when it contains over 200 files. Its number of files is also irrelevant to the category in question, Category:Unidentified birds in Gambia. And ditto Category:Passer domesticus by country; it has no relevance to this question whatsoever. - MPF (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete is really not a good idea. For a determination of the kind, it is helpful to know the habitat. That pursuant to the classification in the category for a long time has done nothing rests solely with the fact that I've been working on other things. My dissatisfaction is due to the fact that other user has the category system is not well understood. In plants, which is also made something like: Category:Unidentified plants by location --Atamari (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

maybe a little comment is helpful here (if not, please ignore):
in contrast to the main Category:Unidentified plants, the Unidentified birds category nearly always has only a few images. This is because MPF (and a few other users, i don't know) regularly take care for sorting these images. He does really great work in this area. I know this because i already put hundreds of images into it (due to my very little knowledge of birds), and it was nearly always MPF who categorized them within hours! i can understand that he wants to keep all images in only one place (better overview), and that does not want to take care for a system of numerous by country subcategories with further subcategories. For the unidentified plant category tree my experience is, that most images stay in these categories for months or years, only the main category and very few country categories are regularly checked.
An other difference between plants and birds is probably, that birds can fly ;) and that many species are not bound so much to countries/areas like plants are.

Atamari, maybe you can test Category:Unidentified birds for some weeks, and instead of adding "in Gambia" to the "Unidentified birds" category name, add the location information "Gambia" to the description (if it is not already there)? i think you will notice that it works well. Holger1959 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Very valid points from Holger1959 (thanks!); yes, location and habitat are very important, but this is better mentioned in the file description and by geolocation coordinates, than by categories. It is important too to remember that birds do not follow human-created political boundaries; a bird does not carry a passport and does not know nor care if it is in Gambia, or Senegal, or Guinea. It knows it is in a West African savanna, or riverine forest, etc., and the boundaries of these do not match the nation boundaries. - MPF (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

ok --Atamari (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2014 - Ein Wiki-Beitrag für den Naturschutz

Hallo Atamari,

vor einer Woche endete der zweimonatige Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth. Du hast daran aktiv teilgenommen und wir möchten Dir dafür herzlich danken.

Mit rund 14.500 Fotos hat Deutschland einen Anteil von 20 % an diesem internationalen Projekt erbracht, an dem sich 15 Länder beteiligten. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl an 729 Teilnehmern allein in Deutschland. Einen Überblick zu den Fotos und Teilnehmern findest du auf unserer WLE-Projektseite.

Gegenwärtig ist die deutsche Jury dabei, diesen wertvollen Fotobestand zu geschützten Naturlandschaften und Naturdenkmalen zu sichten. Am kommenden Wochenende wird in Hamburg die entscheidende Jury-Sitzung stattfinden. Wir wünschen auch Dir mit Deinem Foto-Beitrag dabei viel Glück und Erfolg.

Der nächste Fotowettbewerb steht bereits vor der Tür. Im September findet nun schon zum vierten Mal der Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt, wo die Kulturdenkmale im Vordergrund stehen. Doch du musst mit dem Fotografieren nicht bis zum September warten. Vielleicht kannst du den Sommer nutzen um entsprechend den offiziellen Denkmallisten geeignete Motive aufzuspüren. Ebenso kannst du gerne dabei helfen, die hochgeladenen Fotos zu kategorisieren oder in Wikipedia-Artikel und Listen einzubinden.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross)

ok --Atamari (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

Hallo Atamari,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

ok --Atamari (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Zurücksetzer ‎

Ich bedanke mich für das Vertrauen, bin nun auch Zurücksetzer ‎auf den Commons.

habe nun folgende Funktionen:

• Automatischer Kontrollierer
• Dateiverschieber
• Zurücksetzer
• Kampagnenbearbeiter (Hochladeassistent))

--Atamari (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ok --Atamari (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Umbenennen von File:Zapp Ofen im Holzofen in Münster (2012).jpg

Hallo Atamari Kannst du bitte das Bild

Hilden>building in Hilden>houses in Hilden File:Zapp Ofen im Holzofen in Münster (2012).jpg

umbenennen in:

File:Kindertagesstätte Mäusenest (ehemals Jugendheim).jpg

Es hatte beim Hochladen einen falschen Namen bekommen. Das Bild hat mit einer ehemaligen Backmaschinenfabrik überhaupt nichts zu tun. Didym lässt es nicht löschen, da du es verlinkt hast auf. User:Atamari/BotGallery/Kreis Mettmann/2015 March 1-10

Danke Paulgerhard

ehemals File:Zapp Ofen im Holzofen in Münster (2012).jpg nennt sich nun File:Kindertagesstätte Mäusenest (ehemals Jugendheim).jpg --Atamari (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Festung Hohentwiel 3.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}}}

ok --Atamari (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ok --Atamari (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 1500 files per gallery, while your gallery had 11082 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 1500 files per gallery, while your gallery had 29090 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC))

Garnisonsstraße

Es sollte doch so weit wie möglich kategorisiert werden, damit gehört die Garnisonsstraße in die Cultural heritage monuments in Solingen‎, nicht aber jede Hausnummer einzeln. Ebenso der Gräfrather Markt, nicht jede Hausnummer einzeln. Sonst hast du hier als Kategrien die Liste der Denkmäler, das ist unsinnig und unübersichtlich. Darum gehören die Hausnummern zur Straße und nicht einzeln aufgeführt. --Michael (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nein, nicht jedes Objekt in dieser Straße steht unter Denkmalschutz! Du kannst nicht alles wischi-waschi unter Denkmalschutz stellen. Bitte halte dich an die Denkmalliste. In der Denkmalliste stehenb einzelne Gebäude und nicht ganze Straßenzüge. Wenn in der Denmalliste ein kompletter Straßenzug steht wäre das etwas anderes. --Atamari (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Du hast schon Recht, dann braucht es eine Kategorie Denkmäler in der Garnisonsstraße, jedes einzelne Denkmal hier aufzuführen wird eine lange Liste von Kategorien die nicht überschaubar ist. Es gibt ja auch Denkmallisten für Stadtteile, da ist natürlich nicht der ganze Stadtteil sondern eben nur die Denkmäler drin. Wenn ich alleine an die ganzen Gebäude in Unterburg denke ... dann haben wir bald 1.000 Kategorien und mehr hier aufgelistet. --Michael (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Im Detail muss mal auch noch unterscheiden zwischen einem Denkmalbereich und einem eingetragenen Baudenkmal. In einem Denkmalbereich können sich auch Objekte (Gebäude) sich befinden, die selbst kein Baudenkmal sind (dennoch haben die Bauherren nicht die komplette Gestaltungsfreiheit). Im Altstadtkern von Gräfrath ist das Beispielsweise so, der Kern ich auch als Denkmalbereich ausgewiesen - aber einzelne Häuser (meist - nicht - immer hier auch ganze Straßenzüge). Bei dem Beispiel Garnisonsstraße, sind nur die unteren Häuser (ich meine in der Nähe des Gräfrather Maktes) unter Denkmalschutz. Aber das Villenähnliche Haus Garnisonstraße 30 ist meines Wissnes nicht als Baudenkmal ausgewiesen. Das weis man aber nicht immer als Fotograf (es sei denn mal hat immer eine Liste zur Hand). --Atamari (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Im Denkmalbereich hätte jedes Bild eines Gebäudes die Kategorie zum Denkmalbereich, bei einzelnen Hausnummern einer Straße eben Baudenkmal Straße (Ort) oder ähnlich. Wie wir wissen, kategorisieren die Fotografen selten perfekt, da ist halt Nacharbeit gefragt. --Michael (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology/Germany

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology/Germany, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 1500 files per gallery, while your gallery had 13516 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology/Germany

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology/Germany, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 1500 files per gallery, while your gallery had 13236 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC))

File:1915402-Sewrrekunda billboard-The Gambia.jpg

File:1915402-Sewrrekunda billboard-The Gambia.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!

JuTa 10:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Du hast gewonnen!

WLE logo

Hallo Atamari,

neben dem Hauptwettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth in Deutschland sind in diesem Jahr auch Sonderpreise für die schönsten und aussagekräftigsten Bilder mit geowissenschaftlichem Inhalt vergeben worden. Gerade in diesem Bereich gibt es auf Commons noch sehr große Defizite und viele geowissenschaftliche Artikel sind daher noch unbebildert. Ich möchte Dir mitteilen, dass Du mit einem Bild des oberdevonischen Plattensandsteins in Wuppertal den Sonderpreis Sedimentäre Gesteine gewonnen hast. Recht herzlichen Dank dafür. Die Detailaufnahme des Gesteins mit den tektonischen und sedimentären Merkmalen hat uns gut gefallen. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch in Zukunft weitere derartige Bilder mit geowissenschaftlichem Inhalt Commons zur Verfügung stellen könntest. Nochmals vielen Dank & herzlichen Glückwunsch.

	Gewinner eines Geo-Sonderpreises beim Fotowettbewerb Wiki loves Earth 2015 in Deutschland
	Vielen Dank für Deinen schönen Beitrag zur Bebilderung geowissenschaftlicher Objekte sagt Geolina

Der Sonderpreis Sedimentäre Gesteine ist ein von mir gestifteter Buchpreis, ein kleines Päckchen mit geowissenschaftlicher Literatur unter anderem mit der Sonderveröffentlichung Sedimente des Paläokarsts im devonischen Massenkalk von Wülfrath (Bergisches Land).

Für die Abwicklung der Übersendung / Übergabe des Buchpreise wäre es nett, wenn Du Dich mit mir auf bekanntem Wege in Verbindung setzen würdest. Wir werden dann sicher einen für Dich passenden Weg finden.

Viele Grüße, --Geolina163 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2015 - die Organisatoren sagen Danke

Hallo Atamari,

am 31. Mai 2015 endete der Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth, an dem Du mit Deinen Bildern teilgenommen hast. Dafür möchten wir Dir herzlich danken.

Dieses Jahr haben sich 26 Länder am Wettbewerb beteiligt, insgesamt wurden dabei 108.444 Bilder hochgeladen. Aus Deutschland kamen 14.115 Fotos, was einem Anteil von 13 % entspricht. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl von 1000 Teilnehmern allein beim deutschen Wettbewerb. Einen Überblick findest du auf unserer Ergebnisseite.

Die deutsche Jury hat Ende Juni auf einer Sitzung in Fulda die Top100 und die Preisträger ausgewählt. Eine Entscheidung der internationalen Jury wird noch im Juli erwartet.

Ein anderer Fotowettbewerb steht bereits vor der Tür. Im September findet zum fünften Mal der Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt, bei dem Kultur- und Baudenkmäler bebildert werden sollen. Mit dem Fotografieren dafür kann jetzt schon begonnen werden. Vielleicht möchtest Du Dich sogar an der Organisation dieses Wettbewerbs oder von Wiki Loves Earth 2016 beteiligen?

Wir würden uns über weitere Beiträge von Dir freuen.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht das Orga-Team.

--Blech (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Bahnhof Dornap-Hahnenfurth 0013.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 20:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0008.jpg

Weißt du zufällig, ob das eines der Nagel-Bilder ist? [Stolz auf seinen Original Nagel Damit-ihr-Sohn[ich]-im-Studium-nichts-vergisst-Elefanten-Jute-Beutel und seinen Original Nagel Ein-Löwe-für-den-Kampf-uns-Recht-Jutebeutel]. Benedictus Levita (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ja, soweit ich weis. Es ist als Kategorie in Category:Paintings by Erika Nagel eingebunden. Später, nach 2007, kam wohl noch die Signierung dazu. --Atamari (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Briller Bach 002.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 Ok for me. --Hubertl 18:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Schlichte aber schöne Aufnahme. Glückwunsch! --Kürschner (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Die Anforderungen bei QI steigen... ein Bild von 2007 als QI auszuzeichnen (zu lassen) ist nicht einfach. Gehe jetzt vielleicht mal sukzussive durch. --Atamari (talk) 10:30, 23 July 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:
2003 excavations of Alte reformierte Kirche Elberfeld.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Good but, we must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done: reconstructed the location using the church on the left and the CVJM building in the background as reference. →  Support--El Grafo (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Schöller 0004.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 Ok, I was getting convinced --Hubertl 21:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrichstraße 0003.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 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Bahnhof Dornap-Hahnenfurth 0014.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 06:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Bahnhof Dornap-Hahnenfurth 0017.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 06:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Landwehr in Remscheid?

Mir ist in Remscheid ein über einen Hang herablaufender Wall mit stark verflachtem Graben aufgefallen, den ich erst einmal für eine Landwehr halten würde. Die Stelle (oberstes Morsbachtal, Wanderweg nördlich von Tackermühle) befindet sich "mitten" im jetzigen Remscheider Stadtgebiet, aber wohl an der ehemaligen Grenze zwischen Remscheid, Lennep und Lüttringhausen. Hast Du mal von einer Landwehr in der Gegend gehört oder gelesen? -- Ies (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bevor ich spekulieren, geben wir die Frage an Morty weiter, der weis in dieser Richtung sehr viel. --Atamari (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ist sogar mit Google Maps zu sehen und größer, als ich angenommen hatte. (51.195092, 7.228536). -- Ies (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ich kenne diesen Wallgraben aus eigener Anschauung vor Ort, habe ihn aber noch nicht näher untersucht. In der Literatur wird er m.W. nicht erwähnt. Ich halte es nicht für eine Grenzlandwehr des Kirchspiels Lüttringhausen zu Lennep oder Remscheid, denn bis zur französichen Zeit gehörte alles bis einschließlich Goldenberg und Hohenhagen (mit dem Müggenbach/Mückenbach als Grenze) zu Lüttringhausen (womit der Wallgraben nicht an der Grenze lag) und später wurden keiner mehr gebaut. Auch als Honschaftgrenze kommt er kaum in Frage, denn er ist mitten in der alten Hohenhager Honschaft. Vermutlich hat er was mit den Ländereien des Buscherhofs zu tun. Morty (talk) 08:26, 2 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:
Alter Lichtscheider Wasserturm.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Poor quality but Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:37, 2 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:
Drosera magnifica, habitus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Look at the changes in the scope syntax. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Very good. But it lacks geocoding.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very good & useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Beyenburger Freiheit 0009.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 18:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Doppersberg 0010.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 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Ebert-Str 0083.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 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Ebert-Str 0084.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. it would be better IMO, if you will lighten up the dark parts on the right side or in general. --Hubertl 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2015-07-25 The Other (Amphi festival 2015) 012.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  Info very difficult the indoor concert photography --Atamari 20:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0162.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 20:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0163.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 QI for me --Isiwal 20:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0094.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. --Cayambe 05:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0100.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 Crisp; the best of this bunch --Daniel Case 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0128.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 OK, this one's sharp in the foreground --Daniel Case 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0168.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 18:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0170.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 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0173.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 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0174.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. --Zcebeci 16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0175.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 15:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0177.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 21:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0169.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 10:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0138.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 09:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0158.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 09:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0165.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 09:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Else-Lasker-Schüler-Str 0017.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 09:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hochstr 0008.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, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0201.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 05:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 0249.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 05:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hochstr 0016.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 18:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kirchhofstr 0031.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 18:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kirchhofstr 0028.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 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Paradestr 0001.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 20:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Paradestr 0002.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 perspective correction required --Isiwal 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)  Done --Atamari 20:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) weak pro. --Isiwal 19:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Grias di...

danke, dass du dich an der Verwaltung beim consensual review beteiligst, ist nicht gerade das Liebkind was Arbeit betrifft unter den Beteiligten. Bitte denke aber an die Regel, dass eine Entscheidung frühestens 48 Stunden nach dem letzten Eintrag erfolgt. Unabhängig, wie lange der Abschnitt schon steht, und sei es zwei Wochen. Sonst schaut es so aus, als ob man - wenn man wie du heute zwei mal - seine eigene Stimme gleich durch den Abschluss der Diskussion zementiert. Nur als Hinweis. Bei knappen Entscheidungen, wo die eigene Stimme den Ausschlag gäbe, wäre das eine schlechte Optik. War aber in diesem Fall eh nicht. --Hubertl 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bei den QI ganz unten? Ja, da habe ich noch zwei Stimmen dazu gegeben und meine eigene Meinung ausgedrückt. Bei knappen Entscheidungen wären mehrere Stimmen für die eine oder andere Richtung besser (meistens aber nicht zu kritisch sein). Aber eine Diskussion abschließen wollte ich nicht. Es ist doch so, das FP noch besser sein soll als QI? Wenn ich mir den Diskussionsverlauf gleicher Bilder anschaue, dann bekomme ich den gegenteiligen Eindruck. Scheinbar wird (zur Zeit) bei FP das Bild durchgewinkt und bei QI abgelehnt. --Atamari (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vielleicht halte ich beim Consensual Review heraus. --Atamari (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Neuenhof 0013.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 For me OK now --Isiwal 21:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Scharpennacker Weg 0006.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 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Scharpennacker Weg 0010.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 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Südstadt 0026.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 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Scharpennacker Weg 0005.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 07:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Neuenhof 0021.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 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Neumarktstr 0023.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 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kirchhofstr 0030.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 Ok now for me --Hubertl 04:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kohlstr 0001.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 15:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Wuppertal Marpe 0011.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 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Zur Düssel 2008 006.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 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Von-der-Heydt-Platz 0003.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. --Cayambe 17:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Marpe 0005.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 Der Weißabgleich stimmt nicht ganz. --Ralf Roletschek 08:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC) ich habs mal schnell gemacht --Ralf Roletschek 09:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kirchhofstr 0044.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 Wrong color balance IMO, cyan cast.--Jebulon 09:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC) new Version --Atamari 22:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Support Not a great change, but better, thanks.--Jebulon 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Südstadt 0022.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 Please correct tilt/perspective. --C messier 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)  Done --Atamari 22:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)  Support Ok for me. --C messier 11:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hochstr 0013.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 Can you fix the description, it is pretty vague./Kannst du bitte die Beschreibung am Bild noch präzisieren? Denis Barthel 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)  Done --Atamari 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)  Support --Palauenc05 20:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Verschieben meiner Beiträge zu WLM 2015

Hallo Atamari,

Du hast meine Bilder "95239 St Gallus Altar.jpg" und "95239 St Gallus Orgel.jpg" zur WLM 2015 in eine andere Kategorie verschoben, weil sie nicht in den Wettbewerbszeitraum fielen. Ich wäre wirklich dankbar, wenn sich Nutzer, die andauernd verschieben, endlich einmal die Diskussionsseite zu den Bildern nutzen würden oder die Versionsgeschichte ansähen. Ich hatte am 26. Juli 2015 eine andere Version der Bilder hochgeladen. Ich habe dann WLM 2015 zum Anlass genommen, die Bilder nochmals neu mit einem anderen Algorithmus zu rechnen, das Rauschen zu minimieren, das erst bei höheren Auflösungen sichtbar wird, und perspektivische Korrekturen vorzunehmen. Dann habe ich die neuen Bilder in deutlich höherer Auflösung am 09.09.2015 im Rahmen des Wettbewerbs WLM 2015 hochgeladen. Das Ausgangsmaterial an Fotos aus der Kamera ist das gleiche, die HDR-Bilder sind neu. Ich habe keinen neuen Namen vergeben, da ich der Vermüllung von Wikimedia Commons vorbeugen wollte. Hätte ich die Bilder einfach unter neuem Namen hochgeladen, hätte ich wohl nicht andauernd das Verschieben aus der WLM-Kategorie. Aber in meinen Augen sind die Bilder vom September neu. Ich weiß, wann ich sie erzeugt habe. Aber ich bin das andauernde Zurückverschieben leid. Mir vergeht dadurch leider jede Lust am Wettbewerb, wenn jeder die Regeln anders interpretiert und eigenmächtig verschiebt. --KsjhDe (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Auf dem Johannisberg 0052.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 Weak  Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better. --XRay 13:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Am Freudenberg 0021.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 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Am Jagdhaus 0001.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 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Am Jagdhaus 0013.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 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Adolf-Vorwerk-Str 0202.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 23:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Am Jagdhaus 0005.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 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Engelsstr 0033.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 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Auf dem Johannisberg 0015.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 Ok now for me --Hubertl 21:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Auf dem Johannisberg 0017.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 Ok now for me --Hubertl 21:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0034.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 This is ok, sorry, I meant the other two in the Friedrich-Engels-Allee, the pharmacy. --Hubertl 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Engelsstr 0036.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 06:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Buchenhofener Str 0057.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 Ok for me. --Hubertl 06:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0035.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 23:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0025.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 Ok now --Hubertl 08:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0026.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 Ok now. --Hubertl 08:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Auf dem Johannisberg 0057.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 19:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Heinz-Kluncker-Str 0015.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 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Höhenstr 0026.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 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Am Jagdhaus 0016.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 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Am Jagdhaus 0017.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 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Eichenhofer Weg 0005.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 06:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Engelsstr 0028.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. The inscription isn't readable. You should explain it (with the template "inscription"). --XRay 06:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hütter Str 0006.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 14:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Engelsstr 0032.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 Weak  Support Good quality. People at the left are disturbing. --XRay 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Engelsstr 0034.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 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Engelsstr 0035.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 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0357.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 14:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0350.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 14:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0353.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 14:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Friedrich-Engels-Allee 0208.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 Ok now. --Hubertl 10:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Hilden Hildener Heide 0003.jpg

Ist da im Hintergrund nicht ein Sprungturm zu sehen? Wenn Du das Bild zumindest in der Nähe der Hildener Heide gemacht hast, müsste das das Hildener Waldbad (Elberfelder Straße 173) sein. Der Teich auf einigen anderen Deiner Bildern der Hildener Heide ist vermutlich auch der am Hildener Waldbad. Diese Gegend nördlich der Elberfelder Straße gehört aber wohl nicht mehr zur Hildener Heide, sondern zum Hildener Stadtwald. Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mir ist das gesamte Gebiet als Hildener Heide bekannt. Hildener Stadtwald ist eher ein Teilgebiet im nördlichen Teil. Teilgebiete primär, weil es keine zusammenhöngende Naturschutzgebiete sind. --Atamari (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Bruch 2015 002.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 20:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Joseph-Haydn-Str 0012.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 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Jägerhofstr 0004.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 21:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Events in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the 2010s

Guten Morgen, Atamari,
in den letzten Tagen wurde die obige Category angelegt, um den Menschen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern den Dokumentations- und Arbeits-Einstieg bei Commons zu erleichtern. Beim Anklicken dieser Seite wird das Jahr 2012 noch richtig angezeigt und querverwiesen. Das auf der selben Seite ebenfalls angezeigt Jahr 2015 bleibt jedoch rot, als ob es noch nicht angelegt worden wäre. Beim Anklicken des roten Jahres 2015 erscheint dann "Category:2015 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern", also ohne das Wort "in". Kannst Du helfen oder weißt Du einen Rat? Ich verstehe es einfach nicht und habe schon wohl alles Mögliche ausprobiert. Besten Dank vorab für Deine Hilfe sendet --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

besser? --Atamari (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bernd Schwabe in Hannover: Das war die Heilung. --Atamari (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Guten Morgen, Atamari. Wunderbar! Sicher im Namen auch der Menschen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Danke! --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kottsiepen 0024.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 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Joseph-Haydn-Str 0016.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 07:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Jägerhofstr 0009.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 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Metzmachersrath 0010.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. -- Der Wolf im Wald 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Jägerhofstr 0005.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 16:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Metzmachersrath 0008.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. --Medium69 12:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Metzmachersrath 0011.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. --Medium69 12:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Lüntenbecker Weg 0119.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. --Medium69 14:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Lise-Meitner-Str 0009.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. --Medium69 15:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Lüntenbecker Weg 0093.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. --Medium69 15:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Neumarkt 0018.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 13:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Neumarkt 0003.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 13:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Lüntenbecker Weg 0175.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 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Kottsiepen 0016.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) 05:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Obere Lichtenplatzer Str 0017.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 17:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Obere Lichtenplatzer Str 0018.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 17:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Obere Lichtenplatzer Str 0029.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 17:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Pina Bausch condolences 0003.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 20:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Nordpark 0004.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 considering the conditions --Dirtsc 10:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Odoakerstr 0034.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. --Medium69 17:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Pina Bausch condolences 0001.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) 05:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)