User talk:MrPanyGoff/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Stephen church - Nesebar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 05:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 15:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

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:
Ambassador Hotel, Niš (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ, Amsterdam (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

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:
Doogie White.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
New Theatre, Cardiff (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Imperial Library - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 07:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Mariahilf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --JLPC 08:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vienna university.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. --Moroder 08:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kavarna main street.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. --JDP90 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alongside Schönbrunn palace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --JLPC 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pallavicini Palace COA - Vienna.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. --Moroder 09:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Larisch von Moennich palace - Vienna.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. --JLPC 07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vienna Seminary.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me. --Florstein 17:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

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:
Saint Stephen church, Nesebar (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Knighton clock tower, Wales.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Plaza de Armas, Cusco.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
V&A Waterfront clock tower, Cape Town.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
John Day-Columbia rivers confluence, Oregon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Generali building tower - Vienna.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. --Taxiarchos228 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zahnwehhergott - Vienna.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. --JLPC 06:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lobkowitzplatz 1 - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --JLPC 22:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stallburg - Vienna.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! --Iifar 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

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:
Elmina Castle, Ghana (outside view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Belvedere - Vienna - 2.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. --JLPC 08:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:JubileChurch-Roma-RichardMeier-1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Friedrichstrasse (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Building on main street - Varna.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. --Moroder 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Heiligenkreuzerhof - Vienna.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  Request Perspective correction --Moroder 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Which lines do you want to be corrected, horizontal or vertical? I think the verticals are OK. Most of the horizontals are also OK. The others are probably twisted on the building, after all this is a very old structure refreshed by painting.--MrPanyGoff 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Good quality. --Yann 11:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

Eleassar (t/p) 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you take a look at the licensing of this file please?

You've dual licensed it as GFDL/cc-by-sa-3.0. However, some of the original works are cc-by-sa only, so it can't be licensed under GFDL.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bled Coat of Arms.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Eleassar (t/p) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

Eleassar (t/p) 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry for your trouble with Commons. I enjoyed your pictures really. --Bin im Garten (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013?[edit]

I share the opinion above, and know that you did a great job here, especially in the VI project, still alive, thanks to you.
I don't know what happened at the end of August, but maybe you could consider that the new year could be a good occasion for a new start in "Commons" ?
I think that "Commons" needs contributors like you.
Anyway, whatever you decide, I wish you a happy new year and a good life.--Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 ![edit]

We have no news from you for a few months. I hope you do not have to worry about in your life and you continue to take photographs. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2013.
We miss you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Philippi - 2.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.welcome back.--ArildV 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Architectural Capital from Philippi - 2.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 --Rjcastillo 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Philippi - 1.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 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Architectural Capital from Philippi.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. --A.Savin 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Lydia church.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 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Theater of Philippi.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. --JDP90 18:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Architectural Capital from Philippi - 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JDP90 07:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of the Ascension - Sopot.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 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sequoia in Sopot.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. --JLPC 18:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bulgarian Bank Tower - Karlovo.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 14:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Old Window - Scortsite.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. --Christian Ferrer 21:41, 03 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! History museum - Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --Bgag 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Liechtenstein Palace - Vienna - 2.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. --Bgag 16:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! History museum - Sofia - 2.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
There were so many distracting elements around (plants, windows, other objects) so I shot it with full zoom and this is actually the whole image.--MrPanyGoff 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! French embassy - Vienna.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. --Tuxyso 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palais Metternich - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Old tobacco warehouse - Kavala.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 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chamber of Commerce - Kavala.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, but please, fix the CA (see note). --Poco a poco 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done is it OK now?--MrPanyGoff 08:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! BNBank - Karlovo.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 --Iifar 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alexander Nevsky fragment - Sofia.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. --JLPC 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica A - Philippi.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. --Danrok 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The Arsenal - Kavala castle.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 --Poco a poco 15:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The Church of The Nativity - Shipka.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! --Moroder 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar
Very nice photographs :) Congratulations!!!

You are an inspiration... Faizking321 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--MrPanyGoff 11:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kavala aqueduct - 1.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. --Moroder 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schonbrunn Palace - Vienna.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. Could you add the panorama template, please. --Moonik 14:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancient theatre - Philippi.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. --NorbertNagel 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clock tower - Nesebar.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. --Bgag 19:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Christ Pantocrator church - Nesebar 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --ArildV 08:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Agave attenuata - Sundial House.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. --Bgag 18:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kastaniensaal - Schonbrunn Palace.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. --JLPC 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schonbrunn Palace fragment.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. --Moroder 09:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Corner fragment Albertinaplatz - Vienna.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. --JLPC 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Belvedere fragment - Vienna.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. --A.Savin 11:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kavala Town Hall.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 09:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Michaelerkirche tower - Vienna.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. --Tuxyso 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kursalon - Vienna.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. --Berthold Werner 16:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica A - Philippi 2.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 21:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mallard - Anas platyrhynchos.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. --JDP90 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Strudlhofstiege - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Raphael statue - Liechtenstein Palace - Vienna.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. --JLPC 16:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Stephen's Cathedral clock - Vienna.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. --Berthold Werner 12:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Xenophon statue - Vienna.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. --JLPC 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of the Ascension - Sopot - 2.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, despite the not so attractive foreground -- MJJR 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The tower of Kavala castle.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! --Moroder 18:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Austrian Parliament Building.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. --Moroder 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ministry for International Affairs - Vienna.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. --A.Savin 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Stephen's Cathedral Tower roof - Vienna.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 --Iifar 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Presentation of Mary church - Stara Zagora.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. --JLPC 17:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dolno Kamartsi village.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 13:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rhinoceros unicornis - Tiergarten Schönbrunn.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. Although motiom blur on a leg indicating movement , acceptable composition --Moroder 21:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Old church - Targovishte.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 May I suggest to crop off the octagonal topping. It sort of disturbs my sense of balance ;-) --Moroder 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done upper crop. --MrPanyGoff 11:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Good quality. --Moroder 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
[reply]


Victoria-Volksbank in Vienna, Austria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria Volksbanken Versicherung - ERGO - Vienna.jpg[edit]

More information on the picture: The picture shows the Volksbank building. Volksbank is in the basement, whereas Victoria Volksbanken Versicherung refers to the former Victoria Volksbanken Versicherung (insurance company) which is now called ERGO. Could you please rename the picture (which is great, by the way) ?

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vienna City Hall tower.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 OK --A.Savin 20:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bohemian court chancellery door - Vienna.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 18:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neuer Markt 10 - Vienna.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. --Mattbuck 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palmhouse roof - Burggarten.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Perspective not perfetct, but ok --Poco a poco 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spanish Riding School stable.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. --JLPC 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Löwelstraße 20 - Vienna.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. --Berthold Werner 07:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forum of Philippi.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. --Berthold Werner 08:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Liechtenstein Palace Gate - Vienna.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 Rather underexposed on the left. Can you correct that?--Grondin 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the leaves on the tree? Do you find them so dark? I think they are normally exposed and the main object is not affected.--MrPanyGoff 12:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with MrPany, and support this, although I find the off-centreness rather off-putting. Mattbuck 22:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Klemens Maria Hofbauer.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 22:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Belvedere gardens - Vienna.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 --Rjcastillo 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Holy Mother of God Church Tower - Plovdiv.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. --Selbymay 08:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stadtbahnpavillons Karlsplatz - Vienna.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. --Martin Falbisoner 21:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St John Aliturgetos church - Nesebar - 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Barbara Church - Vienna.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 --Iifar 17:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Prince of Liechtenstein statue - Vienna.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. --Selbymay 10:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mur statue - Albertina bastion - Viena.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. --Iifar 07:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vase - Palmenhaus - Vienna.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. --Moonik 09:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schottenkirche belfry - Vienna.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 15:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzach statue - Albertina bastion - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Lydia church 2.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. --Selbymay 14:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica B detail - Philippi.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. --Myrabella 07:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Small Gloriette - Schönbrunn Palace.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 --Iifar 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rosa Piccadilly Shrub.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. --JLPC 18:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Minoritenkirche - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --ArildV 11:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amalienburg tower - Hofburg Palace.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 OK --A.Savin 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Capuchin Church - Vienna - 2.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. --Moonik 11:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Architectural Capital Basilica B - Philippi.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. --JLPC 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Servite Church belfry - Vienna.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 enough. --Nino Verde 08:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Minoritenkirche rose window - Vienna.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. --Nino Verde 10:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rosa 'Othello' bud.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok I think --Poco a poco 09:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Horse drawn carriage - Vienna.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. --JDP90 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Imperial Chancellory Wing - Hofburg Palace.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. --Berthold Werner 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Caspar de Valembourg Epitaph.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 09:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bulgaria pictures[edit]

Congratulations for your beautiful pictures. I am very tempted to visit Bulgaria but I am not sure if the language is a barrier.

There is always some language barrier when one visits foreign countries ;) Anyway, I don't think this will be a problem, most of the people aged under 45 use English at a relatively good level. To give you some cue: During the end of July and the whole August the weather is hot but I suggest to visit Sofia in this exactly time because most of the people are on the seaside so the city is more pleasant place because of the ease traffic.--MrPanyGoff 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Votive Church detail - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me, IMO. Nice view.--Grondin 11:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica B fragment - Philippi.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 for me --Grondin 14:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! March statue - Albertina bastion - Viena.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. --Nino Verde 10:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sphinx in Belvedere.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 --Rjcastillo 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Victoria Volksbanken Versicherung - ERGO - Vienna.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 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Belvedere - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI Arcalino 11:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Karavelov street - Montana.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. --Moroder 07:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vienna City Hall tower - 2.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 14:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rosa Othello.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 Looks OK. --Tuxyso 19:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Stephen's Cathedral Sundial - Vienna.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. --Christian Ferrer 18:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Earth and Man Museum Sofia - 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 QI for me. --Kadellar 19:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Burgtheater - Vienna.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.--ArildV 09:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dormition of the Theotokos Church - detail - Dragovishtitsa - Kyustendil.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --Kadellar 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Old post hall - Tarnovo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Liechtenstein Palace gardens - Vienna.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. --Moonik 08:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eurasian brown bear.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 enough --Nino Verde 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Reformed City Church - Vienna.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 --Lmbuga 14:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! White rhinoceros head - Sofia zoo.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--Lmbuga 14:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wattle and daub construction.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 16:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Shetland pony - Sofia zoo.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--Lmbuga 09:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lawson Cypress seed cones.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--Lmbuga 16:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lawson Cypress leaves.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 sharp.--Earth100 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moth Orchid cultivated.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 08:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Garden Geranium buds -2.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 09:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paddle cactus Nopalea (Opuntia) dejecta.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 18:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Geranium robertianum - Etropole.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 --Christian Ferrer 17:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Common mallow - Malva sylvestris.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 --A.Savin 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Petka church - Balchik.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 OK --A.Savin 12:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eastern Prickly Pear - Opuntia compressa.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 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Michael the Archangel church - Balgarevo - 2.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. --JLPC 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grizzly bear - Ursus arctos horribilis.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 Okay. --Florstein 18:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Echeveria glauca - Balchik Palace.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. --NorbertNagel 20:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! White rhinoceros head - Sofia zoo - 2.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 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Opuntia lindheimeri – Cowtongue Prickly Pear.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 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Petka church - Balchik - 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 12:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Japanese cedar cones - Cryptomeria japonica.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Votive Church towers - Vienna.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. --NorbertNagel 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chinese Bitter Orange - Poncirus trifoliata.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 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Soap Aloe - Balchik.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 --Iifar 10:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dobrich - 1.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--Lmbuga 15:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Opuntia bergeriana - Balchik.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. --Moonik 10:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Januariuskapelle - Vienna.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 Despite the shadows and cars the light is nice. --Moonik 08:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Minoritenkirche fragment - Vienna.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. Nice composition --Moroder 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St George church - Dobrich.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. --Moonik 08:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Agave victoriae-reginae - Balchik.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. --Moonik 08:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Votive Church transept - Vienna.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. --Moonik 08:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! European larch - Larix decidua.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 --Christian Ferrer 04:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Emperor Franz I - Burggarten.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 IMO would be better with more contraste and improve of luminosity levels but OK --Christian Ferrer 11:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pachypodium saundersii.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. --NorbertNagel 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trieste-CityHall.jpg[edit]

Hello! I inform you that I'm going to use your photo (Trieste-CityHall.jpg) into a collage of Friuli-Venezia Giulia photos to be used on the Friuli-Venezia Giulia page on italian wikipedia. I hope there are no problems for you. Thanks! --Arzino (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK ;) --MrPanyGoff 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Razgrad view.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

 Infestor  TCF 12:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Razgrad at night.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

 Infestor  TCF 12:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:AliceCooper-concert-ticket-Sofia-BG.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sarah (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 1.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 2.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 5.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 6.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 7.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 8.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 9.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]


bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aria - Kavarna - 10.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Zavarych (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 8.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 6.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 7.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 5.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 9.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:Aria - Kavarna - 10.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 09:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Serbian church - Szeged.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. --JDP90 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Juvenile Siberian Husky.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 13:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Handelsakademie I - Vienna.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 --Iifar 12:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schonbrunn Palace detail.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 OK --A.Savin 13:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Eleassar (t/p) 15:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Nyul.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.--ArildV 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kecskemet City Hall - 1.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, but crop is a little bit tight -- MJJR 10:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QI vandalism[edit]

I'm sorry, my mistake. Now is OK --Pudelek (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Styrian Provincial Archives - Graz.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, but I would crop slightly tighter at the top. --Tuxyso 19:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hotel Tisza - Szeged.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. --XRay 16:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]