User talk:Basile Morin/Archive 1

SVG

Hi, I am wondering if you originally saved your designs such as File:Ambigram Hillary Clinton Donald Trump.jpg and File:Ambigram Fuck You.gif in a vector format. If you could upload them as SVGs, they would be better than the JPEG/GIF we have now. Guanaco (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guanaco, yes, I have records of all these images available in SVG format on my computer. Although I consider the white background (or another color) is important for the contrast. Not sure it's a good idea to propose these creations with a transparent background. Like a painting, the whole is important, I think, even the spaces of the margins that have an impact on the view. Gif format files seem convenient enough, in my opinion, don't you think so ? Regards, - Basile Morin (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

GIF is okay, but SVG is always nice in case someone wants to use a large version for a banner or poster. Guanaco (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. Constructive advice. Perhaps follow your tip and go to SVG, perhaps increasing the size of my GIFs in the future (to 5000x4000 pixels or so). Thanks ! - Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bienvenu en VI

Redresse un peu ton image de l'université. Si elle est un peu penchée ça peut être un caractère architectural. Dans le doute donne des images bien droites. Pour les autres images elles sont bonnes et devraient passer si tu trouves un scope correct. Par exemple pour le bœuf séché : tu ne peux pas dire que cette image est la meilleure image pour tout le bœuf séché dans le monde. Mais la méthode utilisée a l'air d'être spécifique à la région : donc focalise le scope en ajoutant le nom de la région. N'hésite pas à poser des questions tu trouveras toujours quelqu'un pour t'aider.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Merci Archaeodontosaurus, j'ai importé une nouvelle version plus droite du bâtiment et précisé le scope de 3 images. - Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pour la correction de perspective je ne la vois pas. J’ai oublié de te signaler que les images doivent avoir un géocodage. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pour voir la correction il suffit de superposer les 2 images, ou bien de mesurer la verticalité du centre du batiment à l'aide d'une règle.
• C'est une candidature de VI pas de QI. L'exigence n'est pas la même https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_images#Difference_between_valued_images.2C_quality_images.2C_and_featured_pictures.
• Le géocodage est un plus, il ne me semble pas que ce soit un impératif. Oui c'est bien l'UTC de Compiègne. Cordialement - Basile Morin (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Le géocodage sur l'image est requis sauf pour les shoots en studio ou le respect de la vie privée si tu as pris la photo dans un endroit sensible. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Je désactive en général le GPS de mon appareil photo qui fait fondre la batterie trop rapidement. Surtout parce que le lieu est un paramètre qui importe peu dans la plupart de mes images. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mais merci de m'avoir appris à géocoder, j'essaierai de rajouter cette donnée pour mes prochaines candidatures de VI.
• Au sujet de l'illustration de l'Université de Compiègne, j'ai importé une 3e version avec la perspective arrangée de manière à afficher le bâtiment plus vertical. Je veux bien un retour pour savoir si c'est ça qui était attendu ou encore autre chose. Merci de me proposer cette aide Archaeodontosaurus, j'en suis reconnaissant. Le haut du bâtiment à droite tombe toujours un peu vers le bas, mais ça je ne pense pas qu'on pourra y remédier sans déformer beaucoup l'image. J'ai aussi rajouté les coordonnées géographiques.
• A part ça, encore une question : je ne comprends pas pourquoi la "current version" du fichier n'est pas celle qui s'affiche par défaut. J'ai toujours ma première version comme image, et non pas la dernière comme espérée. J'ai pourtant "purgé le cache" en ajoutant ?action=purge à la fin de l'URL, hélas ça ne produit rien. Une meilleure technique ? Cordialement, Basile Morin (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Commons a des problèmes de temps de réaction ces derniers temps, l'affichage des images ou des listes de suivi sont perturbé. Merci pour ta correction de perspective. Deux problèmes récurrents le géocodage que tu ne dois pas oublier, et le plus ennuyeux les scopes. Le dernier : Irregular shapes l'illustre bien. Pour un scope il ne peut y avoir qu'une seule image promue. Donc tu demande que cette image serve de référence unique pour les formes irrégulières à l'exclusion de toutes autres. C'est difficilement acceptable. Il te faut trouver un scope en adéquation avec ton image. Dans ce cas le challenge est rude. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, je vais patienter pour l'affichage des images corrigées. Au fait, merci Archaeodontosaurus pour le tuyau concernant la perspective, c'est une chose à laquelle je ne prêtais pas attention et qui effectivement améliore assez l'objet, parfois.

A part ça je viens de rajouter le géocodage oublié sur mes 2 dernières images.

Par rapport aux scopes, j'ai du mal à comprendre pourquoi on ne peut pas choisir un titre générique. Je ne pense pas qu'une VI exclut toutes les autres images qui concernent le même registre, je crois plutôt qu'elle représente mieux ce registre-là. Par exemple "advertising vehicle in Thailand", je ne vois pas pourquoi ce scope ne fonctionnerait pas pour cette image de train avec une pub. Avant de la proposer dans le groupe, j'ai passé en revue toutes les autres illustrations de la catégorie, et pas trouvé mieux. C'est un train, bon, certes, et pas une voiture ni un camion, mais alors ? quel est le problème d'avoir un train pour illustrer les véhicules en général ? Si c'était une voiture, ça exclurait les trains. Perso, je trouve que cette image colle bien au sujet, car c'est une publicité de style Thaïlandais sur un véhicule. CQFD.

De mon point de vue, il n'y a pas non plus de problème à choisir une image pour des catégories encore plus larges, du genre admettons la douceur ou le courage. Même si l'image n'est pas définitive, rien n'empêche de l'associer au thème. De plus, il semble qu'une image peut supporter plusieurs scopes. Donc pour reprendre l'exemple du train, pourquoi pas à la fois "vehicle" et "train", si les deux pouvaient convenir ?

Pareil pour ma photo dans le scope "irregular shape", je ne vois pas ce qui pose problème. Admettons que le challenge photo du mois soit "irregular shape", et bien cette image aurait sa place je pense parmi les propositions. Donc partant de ce principe, qu'est-ce qui empêche de considérer que cette photo-là est la meilleure (ici sur Wikimedia) pour évoquer ce scope ? Partons du problème inverse, et considérons que ce scope est valide, alors quelle image correspondrait mieux à ce scope ? S'il y en a une autre, je veux bien la voir. Mais tel que je le visualise, il n'y en a pas encore. Donc je ressens un peu une forme de censure injustifiée pour l'instant vis à vis de mes propositions et des motifs de contestation invoqués. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Plus le scope est étroit moins il laisse de place à l’interprétation subjective et aux contestations, et discussions interminables. Il ne faut pas perdre de vu qu’il y a prés de 43 millions d’images dans Common. Si tu laisses les scopes trop ouverts il y aura très peu d’images promues et un encombrement à la révision. L’équilibre se trouve par les scopes. On s’y fait assez vite. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (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:
Université de technologie de Compiègne.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Basile Morin (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alas no. In the current session all architectural images are corrected as you can see. Yours is not, this goes against the rule of desciption. it would be a positive signal to make this correction. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The lines are vertical in the center and the footbridge is horizontal over the street. Turning the image left ot right would affect those. I assume the building looks leading a bit on both sides because of this particular angle from where I was when I shot. To get a perfect perspective of this high building, we should climb up 5 or 6 meters higher, I think. - Basile Morin (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It takes less than a minute to fix. There are many free software that do it very simply. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have Photoshop and I know how to transform a perspective of an image, although this will alter the reality by changing all the proportions, in my opinion. - Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You can not say things wrong. There is a left tilt, with a false vertical. The footbridge are not aligned horizontally and everybody can check it. Photoshop is a tool it does what you tell it to do. It can render an image by correcting the fact that your camera is skewed and that all 24mm lens distorts the images. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Archaeodontosaurus, what do you mean by "your camera is skewed" ? I did not use a fisheye, this 24mm works just like a single eye, capturing the reality without distortion from a special viewpoint. Look at this feature picture File:Lauderdale_Tower,_Barbican_Estate,_London.jpg. - Basile Morin (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

J'ai du mal avec l'anglais. Ton appareil était légèrement penché sur la gauche. Mais ce n'est pas l'essentiel. En fait dans aucun tableau tu ne vois les bâtiments penchés, les peintres les peignaient droits, mais nos appareilles de photo déforment très facilement. Donc il y a des logiciels qui corrigent et ils le font très bien. En VI il faut être au plus près de la réalité. Si tu ne connais pas parfaitement les réglages qui te permettront d'y arriver je veux bien t'aider avec plaisir, si tu veux que je te corrige t'on image je te l'envoie sur ton Email, cette entraide fait partie de notre envie d'être dans Wiki. Mais tu ne peux pas me donner de faux arguments.Je comprends aussi que les premiers contacts avec VI soient difficile voir rugueux mais nous y sommes tous passé, et nous avons tous trouvé des gens pour nous aider. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Archaeodontosaurus really is offering and trying to help you. VI's have to represent the way the building is in reality not the way the photo took the image, or perspective way or what side we were on. We're only trying to offer good will. Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you're saying and also what you're expecting. Although distorting an image so that it looks "natural" is not something I am used to do usually. I tend to believe that the "reality" is the picture recorded on the camera, and that any modification would create an artificial image, less natural than the original. Well, if everybody expect such kind of transformations, then I accept to do so. Be sure my aim is not to discredit others, but to share my personal point of view, and maybe learn. Regards - Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 CommentWhile I agree this shot needs a bit of correction it may also not be the best to illustrate the point of perspective correction in relation to a VI for the future. Because in this image there are two buildings the effect may appear to be more pronounced. For example; a single house or building correcting distortion where the vertical lines is distorted by misalignment with the focal plane on the camera is more easier to make an appropriate VI. This will be harder to correct. But in general a VI is supposed to represent the image as accurately as possible as it exists in it's environment. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Perspective corrected. I followed the instructions from that page : en:Perspective control.

Though, I don't understand why the current version of my new file uploaded yesterday is not displayed per default, and why the current image is still the old one. Any clue about this bug ? Tried to purge the cache without success.

I think this is the best illustration for the considered scope, based on the related Category:Université de technologie de Compiègne. Maybe not a masterpiece, but good enough for the subject. There are two main buildings in that university and it's important to see both in the illustration. None of the other photos show the school like that.

Most of the criticisms issued here concern the quality of the picture. But this is not a QI candidate and keep in mind this parameter is not mentionned in the Valued image criteria, until now. - Basile Morin (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mankini Borat style on the beach - grinning.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 22:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Small storage shed in France with open doors.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 The image is tilted and needs a perspective correction (both sides are leaning in). There are some red chromatic aberrations on the left side (on the outer left door and on the columns). Could you fix that, please? --Basotxerri 08:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)  Done in the current version - Basile Morin 09:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC) OK now, thank you! BTW, geocoding is useful, please add some (you can use the geolocator). Good quality. --Basotxerri 10:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2017 (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:
Sun-dried beef.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is too broad.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Question Why too broad ? This is dried meat with sun, this is beef meat, see the Category:Dried beef. Is it necessary to precise "in South-East Asia", really ? - Basile Morin (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Basile Morin (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Neutral Sorry, but this image of dead animals is not valuable for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Lothar Spurzem, the fact you don't eat meat doesn't mean meat as food should not exist. - Basile Morin (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Did I say this? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)

Category:Dead animals is not Dried beef, the chosen scope - Basile Morin (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - Of course I recognize "dried beef" as a valid scope, and as such, it's indeed too broad for VI. However, what makes this clearly visible as being dried meat in Laos, as opposed to other countries? To be valid, a scope has to be visibly distinguishable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek, from Google images, see Dried beef and Dried beef in Laos. It's different. And I believe this image defines best the scope "Dried beef in Laos" here. Regards,- Basile Morin (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: How can someone tell just by looking at this photo that it isn't of dried beef in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, somewhere in China, etc.? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Info Ok, I changed again : Dried beef => Dried beef in Laos => now Dried beef in the sun. - Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That would be "Sun-dried beef". So someone needs to look at all images of sun-dried beef on the site; I'm not sure it'll be me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that this photo of beef sticks drying in the sun is the only one on the whole Wikimedia repository. Or the only one well-tagged with adequate categories. Even on Google it's extremely difficult to find a similar picture. But the funny thing is that this kind of preparation is so widely spread here in this country ! Not only hidden in private properties, but above all well-visible in many streets and many markets. So why is it not already a furnished category or even an existing scope ? In my opinion, just because Laos is still completely unknown in the world. Amazing for example to see there is only one Valued image of Laos on Wikimedia today, lol !

Apart from that, agree with "sun dried beef" => better. May change that detail if other people agree. Regards - Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - I will support this nomination once the change is made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Duly  Supported. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Historic locomotive hosting goats in Don Khon, Si Phan Don, Laos.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 GQ --Palauenc05 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2017 (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:
Temporary wooden footbridge in Vang Vieng.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is too broad.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done => precision : "in Laos" - Basile Morin (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - That is not precise, because I don't think there's anything obviously visually "in Laos" about the footbridge. Instead, I think either "Wooden footbridge in Vang Vieng" is a notable enough scope or this probably can't be a VI. I mean, maybe, just possibly, the scene is distinctive enough to specify "Southeast Asian footbridge", but does this really represent all footbridges in the entire country, let alone entire region? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment with the exception of animals and some other things that have their own very specific rules, always air towards a very extremely specific scope. You can always broaden it out. I would support a scope change to "Wooden footbridge in Vang Vieng". You can't say that all wooden footbridges in the entire country of Laos are represented by one picture. Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Info Scope modified from Wooden footbridge in Laos to Fragile wooden footbridge. - Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Question - Is that really a meaningful scope? I feel like you don't have a good feel for what makes a scope useful. The best scopes are just specific enough, with the idea that they are useful scopes for an article in an encyclopedia, a blog, a dictionary, etc. I'm trying to imagine the article that has a statement about "fragile foot bridges". I mean, I guess that's certainly possible, but what do you think? I'm doubting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Meaningful, yes. Useful, it depends on what you're interested in. In Laos most of the constructions are fragile. They're just like that, like this bridge. People build them quickly, and if they collapse, then they repair or make a new one. Same in China, very fragile scaffoldings in bamboos in all constructions. Advantages : cheap and quick, inconvenients : fragile and ephemeral. - Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Info I've just found this convenient Category:Temporary bridges with the word temporary probably better than fragile. Thus, changed the scope accordingly, precising also Vang Vieng. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Fragile wooden footbridge to Temporary wooden footbridge in Vang Vieng --Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2017 (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, IMO. Perhaps both categories should be linked, but I don't care. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good scope! Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2017 (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:
Food and drink advertising on train in Thailand.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It takes geocoding, and the scope is too wide --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Geocoding  Done - Basile Morin (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Mild  Oppose - I guess a train could be called a "vehicle", but this is the first time I've heard it called one. I always think of a vehicle as something driven on a road - a car, bus, truck, etc. (I suppose a tractor). Anyway, I think File:Palang Prachachon Chiangmai 2007 (1).jpg is more useful in scope (and if not that, because of the people, then File:Matchima Thippathai Chiangmai 2007.jpg), though it's not geocoded and lacks an English-language description. I'd support the nominated photo for a scope like "Advertisements on the exterior of a train in Thailand". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Advertising vehicles in Thailand to Food and drink advertising on train in Thailand --Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2017 (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 in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I support this scope as well. There are enough pictures of advertising in Thailand to make me think someone may want one to illustrate an article. Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2017 (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:
Rotonda II (2010), Alexander Brodsky.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Space Invaders and spray can mosaic graffiti in Paris.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 Well categorized, illustrates the subject well, Good Quality -- Sixflashphoto 06:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Red weaver ants transporting a dead gecko, in Laos.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 -- Sixflashphoto 04:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calving in Laos (4 of 9).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. --Ercé 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cow giving birth, in Laos (step by step).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. --Ercé 14:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Geckos mating.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. --Ercé 14:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calving in Laos (8 of 9).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. -- Ikan Kekek 08:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I can nomintae your cow. i dont have more than 2 nominees. --Mile (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mile for this kind attention ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2017 (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:
Common House Geckos (Hemidactylus frenatus), mating.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 28 November 2017 (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:
Lotus fruit (Nelumbo nucifera), seeds.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment If the scope if the seeds then I could see supporting this. If the scope is the fruit I would have a hard time picking it over this -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The scope announces the one and the other, both are well repesented there is no problem and the image is very didactic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 28 November 2017 (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:
Calving.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Common House Gecko with open mouth, in Laos.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. --Basotxerri 20:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - October - Corroded objects/Winners

	Photo Challenge Winner
	Congratulations! Your picture Historic locomotive hosting goats in Don Khon, Si Phan Don, Laos.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Corroded objects, in October 2017. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Cow giving birth, in Laos (step by step).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cow giving birth, in Laos (step by step).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Silhouettes of trees at sunset.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. -- PumpkinSky 02:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coypus.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 02:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fishing boy in Laos 4.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 02:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old man face.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 02:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cygnus feathers.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 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Five children on a motorycle.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 use of DoF. Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fishing boy in Laos.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice --Pudelek 16:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calving in Laos (6 of 9).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. -- Johann Jaritz 08:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lotus fruit seeds.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. -- Johann Jaritz 08:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fishing boy in Laos 5.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 15:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Woman fishing in Don Det, Laos.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. --Basotxerri 15:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laughing Laotian woman showing her teeth.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 14:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tuk-tuk taxi sidecar in Laos.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 Strange noise around the rods of the hood. Can you repair that?--Famberhorst 16:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Yes  Done -- Basile Morin 14:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC) It is not perfect, but ok for me. (Pixels little more about)--Famberhorst 18:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)