User talk:Christian Ferrer/Archive16

Local museum of postcards, Mortagne-sur-Gironde, France. Archives 2013 • feb-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2014 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2015 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2016 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2017 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2018 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2019 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2020 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2021 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2022 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • jul-aug • sep-oct • nov-dec 2023 • jan-feb • mar-apr • may-jun • Current

November - December 2015

Petit train

Bonsoir, comment vas-tu?
J’ai vu tes nouvelles photos du petit train. Merci d’avoir pris le temps d’aller en faire.
J’ai retrouvé une photo du "TGV" Akval dans les dossiers de mon père, mais je n’ai pas de date. Est-ce que tu te souviens depuis combien de temps ce train n’est plus à Sète? (je crois que c’est 2009 ou 2010, mais je ne suis pas sur).
Enfin, est-ce que tu sais si le Cettarames est toujours à Sète? Je n’en ai pas ré entendu parler depuis quelques temps, je ne sais pas si il est parti ou si il est toujours à son quai.
Merci d’avance, bonne soirée. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lev. Anthony: Bonsoir ça va bien merci :), non je n'ai aucune idée depuis combien de temps le TGV n'est plus à Sète. J'ai encore quelques photos du train actuel à télécharger, mais je crois que ce seront les dernières cette année car ils vont faire la pause hivernale. Mais maintenant que je sais que les photos de trains t'intéressent, je ne manquerai pas d'en prendre d'autres dès que l'occasion se présentera, il me semble qu'il y a aussi un train touristique aussi à Agde. Concernant le Cettarames, il n'a pas bougé d'un centimètre. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bonsoir,
Merci pour ta réponse. J’essayerais de contacter Mr Lafalla pendant la "trêve" hivernale, il se souviendra peut-être. Merci d’avance pour les photos à venir. Les petits trains sont ma passion d’origine (je crois que c’est l’ancien train d’Agde qui m’a fait développer cette passion avant que je ne tombe dans les navires). Agde dispose de deux trains, un Dotto rouge et un blanc (qui a été vendu il y a quelques jours), mais je crois que leur saison s’est achevée aujourd’hui.
Merci pour l’information concernant le Cettarames. Je croyais qu’il était parti il y a un moment, mais je me suis trompé...
Bonne soirée, à bientôt. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Mabelina

Hallo Christian Ferrer: Je vous remercie pour approuver mon blason de famille! Veuillez évaluer User talk:Mabelina et je me réjouis de vos commentaires. Un grand merci en avance.
Salutations M Mabelina (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lord Mountevans

Hi Christian - I have previously mentioned to Wiki Commons in the spirit of cooperation that Lord Mountevans' entry looks a bit daft insofar as it states that his brother is "unknown", whereas of course it is very well known who he was, namely the 3rd Lord Mountevans (from whom Jeff inherited the title). Let's work together to get Wiki up-to-speed & please guide me as to where my image uploading techniques have been going wrong (even Lord Mountevans' image has been deleted). Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"

I notice in French Wiki under Jeffrey Evans that the InfoBox states Frère inconnu + which of course is not true since Jeff Evans (now the 4th Lord Mountevans) inherited the title from his brother Broke, 3rd Baron Mountevans. I spotted this since the present Lord Mountevans' image has been deleted from Wiki, which I can understand since all my uploads are under review (despite that image being published by Parliament & therefore available for free use), but certainly it is incorrect to say his brother is unknown. I am sure these are just technical glitches and lack of know-how by the uploader! but perhaps you could explain how to overcome such a statement as "unknown" in the case of someone who does not have a Wiki article about them? Many thanks - appreciate your assistance - and more than willing to work through issues where licensing is wrongly attributed or unclear. Best M Mabelina (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

PS. this InfoBox (cut 'n' pasted below) reads:

infobox

qte Naissance 13 mai 1948 + Suède + Décès 2014 + Nationalité britannique + Formation Pembroke College université de Cambridge + Activité homme politique + Père Richard Andvord Evans (d) + Frère inconnu + unqte but, I suggest, would read far less misleadingly as follows: qte Naissance 13 mai 1948 + Suède + Décès 2014 + (delete his decease (Jeff Evans, 4th Baron, is very much alive)) Nationalité britannique + Formation Pembroke College université de Cambridge + (better Pembroke College de Cambridge or Pembroke College à Cambridge) Activité homme politique + (correct, insofar as he is a Member of the House of Lords, but he is in fact a businessman (ie. City shipbroker) before joining the HoL very recently) Père Richard Andvord Evans (d) + (his father, the 2nd Baron Mountevans, died 1974) Frère inconnu + (his elder brother, whose full name was Edward Patrick Broke Evans (& known as Broke), succeeded as 3rd Baron Mountevans in 1974 and died in 2014) unqte

I trust these observations are of help to Wiki & who best to deal with such matters? Let's keep in touch - many thanks.
M Mabelina (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"

• @Mabelina: Bonjour, concernant votre problème sur le "frère inconnu", mieux vaut demander à des utilisateurs expérimentés sur le Wikipedia en question, dans la section "Bistro" ou dans la partie "Forum des nouveaux". Pour ma part vous êtes libres de modifier Wikipedia et d'apporter de nouvelles informations à un article à partir du moment ou vous utilisez des sources fiables et que vous indiquez ces sources afin que tout le monde puisse y accéder et vérifier ces infos. Quant à la manière de le faire, je vous le répète le mieux est de voir avec des utilisateurs expérimentés sur le Wikipédia en question.
  J'ai noté que certains des fichiers que vous avez importé ont été supprimé, en effet il est interdit d'importer ici du contenu dont les droits ne sont pas libres ou dont les licenses de publications ne sont pas compatibles avec les nôtres. J'ai pris la défense du blason de votre famille car j'ai cru comprendre qu'il n'avait jamais été publié auparavant, il n'y a donc pas de problème lié à une potentielle première license de publication. Reste la propriété de l'object artistique lui-meme, comme je vous croit de bonne fois quand vous dites que se sont les armoiries de votre famille, j'estime pour ma part qu'il est raisonnable de vous laisser de le publier. Par contre lorsque vous importez des images qui ont déjà été publiées avant, vous devez être très prudent concernant les droits qui s'appliquent sur ces images car les détenteurs de ces images n'ont peut-être pas consentis à l'utilisation que l'on fait de leur images. Cordialement, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Christian Ferrer: merci de nouveau. Je comprends que le droit héraldique est un sujet compliqué et je me réjouis de toute nouvelle collaboration - à bientôt et cordialement. M Mabelina (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ericushöft (Hamburg-HafenCity).14.12471.ajb.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ericushöft (Hamburg-HafenCity).14.12471.ajb.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 1 November 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:
Spiridon II (ship, 1973). Side view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Bandeau Mérimée cathédrale Agde

Bonjour à vous, j'ai supprimé le bandeau car il n'est pas indispensable de le mettre pour chaque fichier lorsque la catégorie mère l'intègre déjà, mais surtout parce que ce type de bandeau Mérimée, destiné à un élément protégé donc référencé PA, doit obligatoirement comporter le type de protection (classé ou inscrit) afin qu'il ne soit pas relégué dans une des catégories de maintenance: erreur pour absence de type de protection. En bref, si vous tenez à apposer ce bandeau Mérimée, il faut écrire dans le cas de cette cathédrale: Mérimée|type=classé|PA00103340 puisqu'elle est classée, ce qui donne

This building is classé au titre des monuments historiques de la France. It is indexed in the base Mérimée, a database of architectural heritage maintained by the French Ministry of Culture, under the reference PA00103340 .

; pour un édifice inscrit Mérimée|type=inscrit|PA...... soit

This building is inscrit au titre des monuments historiques de la France. It is indexed in the base Mérimée, a database of architectural heritage maintained by the French Ministry of Culture, under the reference PA...... .

. Pour vous motiver, sachez que la catégorie de maintenance: Mérimée without type parameter comporte à ce jour plus de 65 000 fichiers erronés, ce qui la rend parfaitement ingérable à moins de passer de long mois à plusieurs volontaires pour l'apurer. Ceci dit uniquement pour votre bonne information et sans aucune intention de vous fâcher. Cordialement. Finoskov (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Finoskov: Merci pour l'info et merci pour votre travail de maintenance, je ferai attention à utiliser le bandeau correctement. Il n'y a pas de problème, au contraire, vous m'avez appris quelque chose, merci de m'avoir corrigé. :) bonsoir. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Princess Hiyam (ship, 1975), Sète 01.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. --Ajepbah 06:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marina (ship, 2011), Sète 01.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 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 2 November 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:
Marina (ship, 2011). Side view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good and useful. Yann (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! EXPRESS 1 (ship, 1982), Sète 01.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 06:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! EXPRESS 1 (ship, 1982), Sète 02.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. --Florstein 10:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 4 November 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:
Princess Hiyam (ship, 1975). Side view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support useful --Jean11 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
EXPRESS 1 (ship, 1982). Side view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Marina (ship, 2011), Sète 01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marina (ship, 2011), Sète 01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Félix, Loupian 01.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 05:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de La Peyrade Frontignan 01.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 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Félix, Loupian 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canal de Sète depuis le Pont Virla 01.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 05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète 07.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 05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

White spot is ok.

It's just fine. Sincerely,--Famberhorst (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de La Peyrade Frontignan 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amadeus (ship, 1910), Sète 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 10 November 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:
Amadeus (ship, 1910). Side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"undefined" deletion summaries

Hi Christian, I hope you are well. You've left a deletion summary of "undefined" on a couple of DRs, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haji Zain Muhammad Khan.jpg. Was this intentional? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hello @Storkk: , thank you. Sorry to have let the summary as "undefined". When I do this it's because I agree totally with the nomination, and see nothing more to add. This is equivalent to "as per above". Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Christian! Undefined looks like a script error :-D. If you won't add a edit summary just add whitespace (other admins doing so as well). Bets --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

oh yeah, ok, now I understand, thank you both! --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lit fishing boats in Sète 01.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Faugères 01.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 07:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Archon apollinus bellargus - Beautiful false apollo.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Archon apollinus bellargus - Beautiful false apollo.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Faugères 02.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 05:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Capitainerie, Sète 01.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 and Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 14 November 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:
Zaher III (ship, 1971). Side view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sadi Carnot Bridge and Maréchal Joffre Embankment, Sète 01.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Église de Saint Etienne de Caussiniojouls 01.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 11:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sadi Carnot Bridge and Maréchal Joffre Embankment, Sète 02.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Église de Saint Etienne de Caussiniojouls 02.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 07:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète 08.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 07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Shipwreck at Paul Riquet Embankment.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very weak  Support May be better without the disturbing car in the front. --XRay 08:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zaher III (ship, 1971), Sète 01.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 09:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Cabrerolles 01.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 07:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church of Cabrerolles 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 07:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church of Cabrerolles 02.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. --Ajepbah 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Roquessels 01.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. --Pudelek 10:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:View from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church of Cabrerolles 03.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. --Livioandronico2013 09:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de Cabrerolles 02.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 14:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roquessels and vineyards 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 20 November 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:
Church of Cabrerolles, Hérault, France. Southern façade..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, ideally the scope should link to a commons category - not to a gallery page. DeFacto (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done It depends of the reviewer, I was already asked to link to a gallery when it exist....both are fine for me, but I changed for you. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Support, best in class. DeFacto (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment If the gallery exists, we must put the gallery; to encourage their development. (belle photo!) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment, the problem here is the gallery had just this photo, whereas the category has several others to compare it with. DeFacto (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Subunternehmen und Beteiligungen des Lufthansa-Konzerns.jpg

Hi Christian Ferrer. Your reasoning is silly, sorry. Never blindly believe in such a tag. Many images are uploaded to en.wikipedia under inappropriate fair-use claim. Please undelete the image yourself. --Leyo 20:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hello @Leyo: , no I will not, there is a drawing on this logo, it can't be in Commons without an OTRS permission or with a compatible license at his source. The link I provided was to illustrate my point of view but not the reason for erasure. If I remember correctly there was several logos on the image. My point of view is always the same : the designed / complex logos are not free. Sorry that my example (link) was ambiguous but that don't make this logo free. Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't remember the other logos on the image, but I consider this one above TOO and this make the image unfree. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Even newby admins can access deleted files. --Leyo 22:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it took me quite some time before I find out how to do so myself. I encircled where you have to click with a rectangle. Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Natuur12, though I'm not sure to have understand the how to...However regarding the deleted image, I'm not sure to understand the current query, the way it is made, and the insistence of it. I think to have been clear enough, I will not undelete this file. This logo is copyrighted, it is visible and identifiable on the file, that make the image unfree from my point of view. If someone think I made a mistake and / or not agree, I'm sure there is another way like with an undeletion request. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your reason given is clearly insufficient. You didn't care of the statement of an experienced admin at all and the fact that the nominating user is globally locked. I even doubt that you cared about the origin of the logo in question. --Leyo 23:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is there an OTRS permission for this logo? if yes I made a mistake, if no I did not...I'm afraid to not can help you more...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, let me give it a try regarding the closing. The arranging is probably copyrighted, Sun Express logo is probably above TOO. It is too complex, even for a country with a high TOO like Germany. Same goes for the Lufthansa logo. We don't have much info about the Ukraine but the UIA-logo is quite complex as well. The edelweiss logo also looks complex and jet again, we don't have much information about the source country. Namely Switzerland. The rest of the logos are imho below TOO, Best case scenario I would call this a case of having significant doubt. Sorry to say but I would also have closed it as delete. @Christian Ferrer: do you how to access the deleted revisions of a (file) page? Natuur12 (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The arrangement was made by the uploader! The Edelweiss logo is below TOO in Switzerland (that's why the reasoning is nuts and needs to improved). Your other examples are probably borderline cases. --Leyo 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Natuur12: Yes I managed, thanks you for you help, ....and now that I saw it again, I am twice convinced.... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your adjustment. --Leyo 01:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And you will wait for a long as I will not undelete the file, and I will not change nor edit the archive. If you are not satisfied you should make a proper undeletion request and explain on this occasion your discontent. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are surprisingly bold for a newby. --Leyo 10:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Roquessels 02.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 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cabrières et le Pic de Vissou 01.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 --Halavar 08:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de Cabrerolles 01.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 CAs at the horizon --Uoaei1 08:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Done thanks, new version uploaded --Christian Ferrer 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  Support Ok now --Uoaei1 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Ferrer .... I replied to you deletion notices re: Cill Mhaighneann and Saint Maighneann images. I would be grateful if you could assit me in having these images added to the page on Kilmainham and on the page on saint maighneann respectively..... Thanks ... Msriposte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msriposte (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards and trees in Autignac 01.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 --Halavar 10:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SNAV Sardegna (ship, 1989), Sète 01.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 07:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orb River, Vieussan 02.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 10:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Anax imperator Exuvie MHNT Parc de la Maourine.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anax imperator Exuvie MHNT Parc de la Maourine.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Je te remercie de cette excellente initiative. Je n'en reviens pas du score fait par cette charmante bestiole. Surtout ne change rien tu es parfait --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh bien....merci :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Bob's big boy statue burbank 2013.jpg

This file was deleted on 29 October 2015. Since no notice of the deletion request was posted on the talk pages of either the Big Boy Restaurants or Bob's Big Boy articles, I was unable to defend the photograph. I have no idea how AN-NOY judged this photograph to be a derivative of a copyrighted work (the statue itself) since the work did not meet the conditions for US copyright. The so called copyrighted statue can only possibly refer a version created about 1978 where the figure is not holding a hamburger; this occurred because the American franchisees wanted to change focus beyond hamburgers and because the Japanese affiliates discontinued selling hamburgers on a bun. The older statues with the held hamburger (as in the deleted photo) did not meet the pre-1978 US rules and thus forever lost US copyright eligibility.

The photo should be permitted and should be restored. If you cannot do this please inform me how it can be accomplished. The following is my rationale and a final comment/proposal on policy:

---

The deleted photograph of the Big Boy statue (here and below referring to statues holding the hamburger) should be restored. The photographer's placement in the public domain is valid because these statues themselves are in the public domain.

1. The Big Boy statues originated about 1956 but no later than 1958.
2. The statues are castings from (molds of) original master statues (several sizes were reproduced between 1956 and 1977).
3. The statues are of a 3-dimensional design owned (not copyrighted) and used by Big Boy, then known as Robert C. Wian Enterprises.
4. The statues ("reproductions") were made available by Big Boy (through the contracted fabricator or fabricators) to Big Boy franchisees ("a group") for "public display". Thus they were "published".

   "When the work is reproduced in multiple copies, such as in ... castings of a statue, the work is published when the reproductions are ... offered to a group for ... public display." (page 1, Circular 40, US Copyright Office, http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf)

5. Publication occurred prior to 1978.
6. Publication (public display) existed because the statues functioned as a sign displayed to be seen by the public and particularly visible to travelers on public streets, roads and highways. Such publication made the statue free to copy. (Free to copy obviously includes free to photograph, since a photograph is treated the same as the sculpture itself.)
7. Publication (public display) occurred without prominent, if any, copyright notice. (Show me one.)
8. Such publication of a statue without a prominent copyright notice, in this period, places the statue in the public domain.
9. Therefore, under US copyright law, the Big Boy statues (holding a hamburger) are in the public domain and so there is no copyright to convey to photographs. (This is supported by the fact that Big Boy statues are publicly traded on ebay, and Big Boy has taken no action to confiscate and destroy those statues as permitted by US law.)
10. Re COM:TOO, I do not know of any court or other authority's judgment about the statues being ineligible for copyright protection, however this is immaterial given the facts above. (If this is a requirement, it is very problematic: Why would Big Boy legally act (causing a court ruling) if this statue were not eligible for copyright?)
11. The Big Boy character itself is currently a registered trademark (service mark) and use of the statue in a commercial manner which creates public confusion damaging Big Boy would be prohibited. This has no bearing on issues of copyright of these statues or photographs of these statues; since Commons only enforces copyright, the image is permitted. COM:LIC (This distinction is supported by the fact that Big Boy has taken no action against the many photographs of the statues, but gave immediate legal notice when a Big Boy statue was publicly displayed with a Shoney's sign, in a memorial in Charleston WV. Shoney's is a former Big Boy franchisee. Because Shoney's currently operates restaurants, the display would create public confusion and infringe on Big Boy's trademark. Big Boy acted per trademark issues, not copyright issues.) The statue is an important icon and discussed at length in the Big Boy restaurants article.
12. The deleted photograph of the Big Boy statue should be restored to WikiMedia and deletions from effected articles should be repaired. (Viz, Big Boy Restaurants and Bob's Big Boy.)

Comment & proposal When similar concerns about images are asserted that could reasonably lead to their deletion, notice should be given on the talk pages of articles in which the image is displayed. This will prompt interested parties to participate in the process and defend the image if desired. Respectfully, when only those enforcing policy are involved, or when those interested in effected articles are left ignorant of deletion proposals, resulting actions will possibly be too conservative—err too greatly on the side of policy. This process is not optimal, but can be detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. It is also contrary to Wikipedia policy encouraging the use of talk pages in the articles themselves.

Placing notices on the talk pages of effected articles is reasonable and should be a policy. Box73 (talk)

• I think you talk about this deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bob's big boy statue burbank 2013.jpg. Maybe the original model (artwork) is in the PD, however, I doubt seriously than the artwork shown on the photo is very old, it seems to be a new version, thus another artwork made by another artist. Is there an evidence this artwork, not the first Big Boy but the one on the photo, is here since before 1978? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Of more the copyright statut of the design have been renewed and is currently active. [1] --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A belated greeting Christian — Production of these statues (this very design) predates 1978. (I worked at a Big Boy in 1977 that had an identical statue, but this sized model dates from the early 60s.) The photograph itself is more recent but that is immaterial if the statue is not copyrighted. The photo is treated as a copy of the statue. The photographed statue was likely repainted but this is immaterial since the painting didn't change in any significant way worthy of copyright. (The hair color changed from black to dark brown but this also occurred prior to 1978.) But even if this reproduction was molded after 1977, other identical reproductions existed before 1977 again making this immaterial; once the 3-dimensional reproduced sculpture loses copyright, any identical copies likewise lose copyright regardless of production date. (Think about this analogy — If I take a book that lost its copyright and reprint an exact copy sometime in the future, my reproduction likewise can't be copyrighted. I mean, who could claim copyright infringement? I couldn't.)

Look at this & press "View the Document" and look at this 1958 newspaper advertisement, noticing the statue in the architect's rendering under the sign I can find even better examples.

Re: [2] this is a trademark registration, not a copyright. Commons only enforces copyright, not trademarks. COM:LIC Thanks and stay safe! Box73 (talk)

• I opened an undeletion request, continue the discution there. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Escagnès (hameau), Roquebrun 01.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 10:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Prades-sur-Vernazobre 01.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 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ibrahim Al-zadjali 21.jpg

Hi Christian, I hope you are well. I don't understand the reason for deletion for the above, could you please clarify? It is mentioned in ticket:2015102510005222, but I need to understand the deletion reason before deciding whether to ask for undeletion. Storkk (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Storkk: , there was no OTRS ticket on the file page when I deleted it. As I'm not an OTRS member I can't read the ticket above, you should make an undeletion request. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

m:Steward requests/Permissions#Abuse of power by a Commons administrator. Alan ^(talk) 23:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Cessenon-sur-Orb 02.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 18:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

de-adminship

Hi, I moved your request to meta:Steward requests/Permissions#Christian_Ferrer.40commons (only stewards can remove sysop right). Personal note: Self requests will be set on hold for 24 hours per standard procedure there - so you can think about it again. I personally haven't seen any problems with your admin actions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

+1. I just saw the discussions on ANU and the admin action by you reverted by Nyttend. It is quite common and you need to expect such small pressure in future too. If you can manage comfortably such things in future, please consider withdrawing that request. Otherwise you can stick with the earlier activities. Any way, take it lite. Cheers, Jee 11:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks @Jkadavoor: , I already withdrawn the de-admin request. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Je suis contant que tu ai retiré ta demande. Cet épisode t’honore, car seul les imbéciles ne doutent pas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • +1. ;o) Yann (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christian, if I contributed to your feeling demoralized, I apologize. I think that you will make a valuable administrator! Storkk (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Storkk: , no, it's definitely not you, thank you :) it was just a big moment of doubt and questioning. I have to find the right balance between my beliefs, general interest and tools at my disposal. Friendly, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Prades-sur-Vernazobre 02.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 13:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Senecio inaequidens, Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.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 11:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Παλούμπα

You signed with deletion again a photo which is mine, I captured this! I am going to use a suitin law. I am looking forward for our answer Sir.--Viliop (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Viliop: the issue is not the photo is not yours, but on the fact there is no FOP in Greece, the monument is protected by the law. Do not remove a deletion tag when there is one. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dittrichia viscosa, Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.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 10:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mazet in vineyards. Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.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. --Florstein 09:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Adjustments

Hi Christian Ferrer! As I saw your username in this page's history, I would like to ask you to help me to fix it, because a bot edit broke it up. If you dont mind, I would like to ask also about splitting the "Animated section" under this this page (and this one also) into, eg, .gifs, videos, audios etc. Regards, Sturm (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Sturm: , thanks, it's done, I fixed it. It's not the first time the BOT fail to put the images at the right places. Regarding about splitting the "Animated section", we usually wait to have a big numbers of files before to split gallery page of featured images into several subpages, however inside the page itself you can spit it into subsections, it is even a good idea. I f you want to do it you can do it using the same kind of formatting as in this gallery page.
  Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

First steps... Fell free to edit the pages! Thanks for the adjustment! ;) Sturm (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sturm: The principle is good but I have not expressed myself well, we create new galleries only when the currents one are very full, however here there is only less than 50 files in this page, it is not enough to create new pages, and only a few per years are promoted to the featured picture statut. Look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animated, I created two subsections in the page, feel free to move the files in these sections and / or to creates another ones if relevant. But I don't think there is enough files to create new pages. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Mazet in vineyards. Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mazet in vineyards. Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards in Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.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 08:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BulBot

Did you read the last statement? In fact, nobody is in favor of keeping these two images. --Leyo 08:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• If some Web sites, think relevant to talk about about Diazenium and its conjugate acid Diazynediium and to use similar files (the firsts result with google in few seconds : [3], [4], [5]), I don't think they are out of scope. These files can be useful for someone even if it is not in a Wikipedia article, as evidence, similar ones are currently used in internet so our versions are not so out of scope IMO, and I don't see any reason to delete until there is no better versions. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, when it comes to chemical structures a quick Google search done by truck driver overweights the opinion of a university lecturer in chemistry (last posting). --Leyo 00:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  Leyo: please don't do this. An ad hominem combined with an inversed ad verecundiam is no style for any admin. Christian Ferrer did much more homework than most admins for a standard DR and his arguments followed the rules of logic so please be satisfied or ask for a second opinion. Don't follow this current path. And in case you wonder: still a student and my area of expertise is ecology which means that I am not totally closeness when it comes to Chemistry. And yes, I do higly respect you and DMacks but I also higly respect Christian Ferrer because he thin ks carefully about any admin action he makes. Natuur12 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  You missed the point. I don't take decisions against consensus (even if there are just two users) in matters I am not familiar with. I ask the same rule being followed by others. --Leyo 01:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict)I didn’t miss the point. Two users just isn't enough to establish a consensus. (Yes I would have deleted them but that is because I know about the specific details regarding certain structural formulas and I only know about those because DMacks explained them to me in a highly respectful matter) You did however miss or dodged my point. There was no reason to mention his profession in a denigrating way. If you have to prove your point by mocking one of the most important professions there is your arguments mean nothing. This is not how an intellectual debate works. (and I don't mind if you talk to me the way you did against Christian Ferrer since Dutch people are quite direct but please keep in mind that not everyone is familiar with this kind of dicussion.) Natuur12 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  If an admin takes a decision against the state of a discussion, a reasoning like “Deleted the ones replaced, keep the two others” is not sufficient. This is even more the case if one users is an expert in that area, while the admin is not. The type of profession certainly does not matter (also e.g. a Noble Prize winner in economics is likely to be much less of an expert in chemistry than a chemist). --Leyo 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I formally warned his on his talk. I'll proceed to ANU if repeated. Jee 01:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  Replied there. --Leyo 01:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly I don't know who is "university lecturer in chemistry" and I don't care about who is and who is not. Secondly in addition to drive truck I carry sometimes in my arms more than 12 000 kg per days, and to make deliveries walk a lot of kilometers, I'm rather sure you are not even able to imagine how hard it is, and after my job I give a big part of my free time to various maintenance tasks. I'm not perfect, well, but I try to do well. It is a pity that no university lecturer in chemistry was able to close this DR, however me I did, who is the least competent here? Subject aside, media is a media, after read several times the discussion, I took the decision with the keys I had. I think I was elected to make such decisions. If you think these files don't deserve their place here, well ok, but they deserve even less so big "discussions". I will not be afraid by you nor by some subjects "outside my jurisdiction" here in Commons, it's in part because I've this kind of determination that I have been elected. It's a shame you do not give as much energy for administrative job that the energy you gave [6] in ad hominem injunctions to undelete copyrighted images, and that the last one you gave here. Go your way, regards --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  I don't consider any job as better or worse than any other. I was only referring to the “distance” to the topic, which I would have considered similar for e.g. a priest, a navy seal or a Nobel Prize winner in economics. Since a cousin of mine is a truck driver, I am fully aware of how though this profession is.

  What you failed doing is the following (from Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions):

  Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the more a clear explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request.

  As stated above, this is especially true since your decision was in disagreement with the state of the discussion. --Leyo 15:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fine with me, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BulBot; regard, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Leyo 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Re File:London-Boroughs-20mph.jpg deletion

The image was deleted because you believe that it was copyrightable and published thus the upload violated copyright? The deletion was not an issue with how it was uploaded? Just making sure. Rybkovich (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Answer there. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My question is re the London-Boroughs-20mph.jpg deletion. Rybkovich (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You do have a point but this point of view doesn't seem to be widely accepted at Wikimedia Commons yet. Just like I can site a law professor who states that google maps is to simple to be eligible for copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Rybkovich: Oh sorry, indeed it's not the same file, I thought of something else. I deleted this one because of this policy : Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Maps & satellite imagery. I searched on the Web for the source because here it was clearly not an "own work", and I did no find a source that have been released under a suitable free license. Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Mild afterglow.JPG

why did you have my picture deleted? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mild_afterglow.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1 it was my own work, apparently reuploaded to the freepik site http://br.freepik.com/fotos-gratis/arrebol-leve_612361.htm but it was my work uploaded here first. what is the problem?

• I did not delete it, I found the image in Category:License review needed, wanting to confirm the license I followed the provided source, but not satisfied with what I saw I nominated it for deletion, then Alan deleted it. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• The image was uploaded to Commons on 12 June 2013. On http://br.freepik.com/fotos-gratis/arrebol-leve_612361.htm, however, it says 3 anos atrás. Hence, the image was uploaded there first. Images Gratuito para uso não comercial are not accepted on Commons. --Leyo 14:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vitis vinifera, Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.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. Good close up. --Hubertl 09:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 7 December 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:
Altar of St. Nicolas. Maguelone Cathedral..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Butterfly Green-underside Blue - Glaucopsyche alexis 01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly Green-underside Blue - Glaucopsyche alexis 01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Orientation issue

Hi, Christian - the issue began when a BOT came in and rotated the image Spotted moray eel.jpg from a correct horizontal orientation to an incorrect vertical one. I reverted it to its original orientation. The issue is that the image as it appears on my user page [7] shows the incorrect vertical orientation even though it is correct on the image page. Any suggestions as to how I can fix it? Is it possible to delete the incorrect orientation all together? Thanks in advance! Atsme 📞 21:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hello @Atsme: , when I go to your user page the image seems to have the correct orientation. It was likely a cache issue. Now all seems fine. Regard, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Maguelone

Tu devrais faire les 3 sculptures chacune à part. Surtout le saint-Paul qui m'a toujours fasciné par sa modernité incroyable, sa pourrait faire un bon sujet FP --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• C'est une excellente idée Didier, je vais retourner sur place dès que possible avec mon zoom, pour avoir les 3 en grand format! --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme 📞 03:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [8]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlou from Cessenon-sur-Orb 01.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 -- George Chernilevsky 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mazet in vineyards. Cessenon-sur-Orb 03.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.--Famberhorst 16:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mazet in vineyards. Cessenon-sur-Orb 02.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 --Роман Дергунов 18:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 13 December 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:
Maguelone Cathedral. High atlar..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Escagnès (hameau), Roquebrun 02.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 18:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 14 December 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:
Western portal of Maguelone Cathedral.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 01.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. --Livioandronico2013 21:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pic Saint-Loup, Saint-Mathieu-de-Tréviers 01.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 08:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Field near Maguelone Cathedral 01.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 13:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Mathieu-de-Tréviers 01.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. --Trace 12:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lyriothemis acigastra female at Kadavoor.jpg, uploaded by User:Christian Ferrer and nominated by User:Pine at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lyriothemis acigastra female at Kadavoor.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderful processing! Jee 14:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Lrock.JPG

Hi Christian Ferrer. I was wondering if you could take a look at File:Lrock.JPG. You deleted File:Lr2.jpg as a copyvio and this photo was uploaded by the same editor. A Google image search shows it being used on quite a number of websites and the quality of the photo and the way the subject is posing makes it seem like it was professionally taken and not "own work". I've tagged it with {{No permission since}}, but I think it might be a copyvio. Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, indeed. I added {{copyvio}} template and provided a link. It will be deleted. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Melitaea trivia - Lesser Spotted Fritillary -2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Melitaea trivia - Lesser Spotted Fritillary -2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 09.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 12:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 03.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.--Famberhorst 06:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you.

Good evening, Christian Ferrer,
Thank you for nominating my photo as FP candidate.
Sincerely,
--Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 04.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 17:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Modern Muslim female headgear

Here you assumed that I meant the putative religion of the models. If you have honored the URD with a modicum of attention you’d have seen that the rationale was «modern Muslim female headgear», not merely modern Muslim woman. Headgear, unlike one’s religion, is readily apparent on a photograph. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed, my point was more focused on people's photography rather than on the headgear. You will grant me that it was also, incidentally, a picture of a person, and furthermore, unused. Your following words have focused me : "toxic anathema against “personal images", my understanding of English language helping the "headgear" rationale was indeed go unnoticed for my part. In all cases I meet daily in the street of women with this kind of headgear and that this does not arouse a great interest for me. For me peoples are all the same : with headgears, caps, hairdressings or with nothing special... I don't care about fashion and religion, only people's acts are interesting for me. I still don't think this image is not very interesting, sorry. Although your vision, I agree, is defensible. Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mine is : "These images are not realistically useful for an educational purpose IMO. Unused personal images are mostly out of scope regardless of religion or origin. If no, so all personal images are in scope for there is no reason to favor clothing one religion or lack thereof". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 05.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. --Σπάρτακος 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Wonderful holidays

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! --Tremonist (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

*** Happy holidays! *** 2016! ***

		* * * Happy Holidays 2016 ! * * *
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Berger's Clouded Yellow - Colias sareptensis 03.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berger's Clouded Yellow - Colias sareptensis 03.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI --Rjcastillo 14:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maguelone Cathedral, entrance 01 .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salagou Lake, Liausson.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 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Hemerocallis 'Pink Damask'. Locatie De Kruidhof 01.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hemerocallis 'Pink Damask'. Locatie De Kruidhof 01.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salagou Lake, Liausson 01.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 14:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phragmites australis, Salagou Lake, Liausson 01.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 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Featured Picture Barnstar
		For managing and developing the Featured Pictures Galleries. Thanks for your work! El Grafo (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salagou Lake, Liausson 04.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.--Famberhorst 16:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

	Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
	Happy New Year Christian Ferrer! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké95 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, I wish you the same things...:) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)