User talk:Rhododendrites/2018a

File:Great white shark scatters mackerel scad.jpg

File:Great white shark scatters mackerel scad.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!

Gprobst (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2017-01-29 'Muslim ban' protests

I note with some surprise that you have yet to fix the damage discussed at User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 1#'Muslim_ban'. Please do so now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I do remember you created an absurdly named category called "29 January 2017 SFO 'Muslim Ban' protest", complete with weird quotes and a lead-off date when there was not yet another event/date to distinguish it from (and, I might add, all of the images we had at the time were for an event on 28 January, not the 29th -- a few of the images were just taken shortly after midnight).

So I changed it to "Protest at San Francisco International Airport against Donald Trump's January 2017 executive order on immigration", standardizing it with the others. You nonetheless complained about "damage", and I told you that I'd check again in a few days, and if we had images from more than one event at SFO, I would reintroduce the date. Then, a few days later, I did just that. People went back to SFO the following evening to stage another protest, and we got some pictures from it. Voila, a parent category for protests and subcategories for two events.

So looking at your category, "29 January 2017 SFO 'Muslim Ban' protest" and the current category, "Protest at San Francisco International Airport against Donald Trump's January 2017 executive order on immigration, 2017-01-29", the only thing that could be perceived as "damage" is, what, that it's longer now rather than 'Muslim Ban'? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Foliage

Yeah, I knew that day was going to be special when I headed up there. This image I took on the way up was how it looked. Of course, all the shutterbugging stops from that trip delayed the start of the hike, to the point that when I finally reached Buck Ridge I passed on continuing on to the summit (not like I haven't been there before), and had to head down early so I could get back to the falls while it was still not quite dark (which I did, but only with my headlamp on. Not the first or last time that's happened when I've gone hiking, either).

I suppose I should at some point drive up to the Catskills just for the pictures, and not try to hike on the same trip. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day media

@Jim.henderson, King of Hearts, RogerMac, Professorcornbread, and IBartlett: @-jkb-, JR11288, Kbwords, Tdorante10, and Deansfa: @Gh9449, Itsinti, ArildV, Daniel Case, and Acroterion: @Juliancolton, Evan-Amos, Ɱ, Jrakis, and Rvguido: @Faith Ergun, Dthalpern, ShuoYan, Theamazingknight, and MusikAnimal:

Hi all. For this year's Wikipedia Day (this Sunday at the Ace Hotel in Manhattan), I've put together some New York-related photos taken by Wikimedians and uploaded in 2017. Pinging you because one or more of your images are included. We'll have a good sized display screen set up somewhere, cycling through them throughout the day. You can see the images at User:Rhododendrites/Wikipedia Day 2018. That page is just a drafting space I used while collecting the images, though. The actual slideshow display in its current version is here. For more information about this weekend's event, should you wish to come, see en:Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2018. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! American sweetgum in New York Botanical Garden (80636).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avon Cinema (62448).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 03:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cornell Tech buildings (42008).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cornell buildings on Roosevelt Island from LIC (41675).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roger Williams statue in Prospect Terrace (62440).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 22:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dyker Lights (62281).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crook Point Bascule Bridge (62351)a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 22:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DACA protest Columbus Circle (90257).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rudbeckia occidentalis on Aspen Mountain (91134).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Strophanthus preussii (70150)a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Playing at Quintain (11166).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apse from San Martín at Fuentiduena (11069).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Descent of the Damned (11162).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 17:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Allegorical Scene of Book Burning (11153).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, Tournasol7 00:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Martyrdom of Saint Jacobus Intercisus (11156).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, PumpkinSky 00:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Saint Dunstan of Canterbury (11150).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, PumpkinSky 00:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apse from San Martín at Fuentiduena (11069).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- PumpkinSky 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with the Blinding of Zaleucus of Locria (11165).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- Ikan Kekek 05:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Saint Peter (11164).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- Ikan Kekek 05:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint Michael (Cloisters) (11198).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Architectural Frieze (11120).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 06:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enthroned Virgin and Child (11130).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blessing Bishop (11135).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Dark background, bright focus to main object, quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corbel with a Pair of Beard-Pulling Acrobats (11103).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Trougnouf 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Xmas light pics

There is, to be honest, an extremely low likelihood that I will ever find myself with enough free time/be motivated enough to actually put the whole DR list together. I give myself too much to do that will not be so controversial. If I actually do, I will give you a heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I hope you can see why this might be frustrating. Rather than assessing based on an image's merits, you're opposing at FPC based on the belief that images violate FOP rather than go through the proper channels that actually determine whether Commons considers them to violate FOP. I will take the risk of nominating one or more myself to resolve this. Presumably, if there is not support for deletion, and if the nature of the image is generalizable, then that would remove the need to oppose (for that reason anyway)? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cooper's hawk (52530).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 nice PumpkinSky 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cooper's hawk (52541).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 nice PumpkinSky 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cooper's hawk (72491).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 nice PumpkinSky 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Under Crook Point Bascule Bridge (62393)a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cooper's hawk (52550).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cooper's hawk (52547).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Green-Wood Cemetery (62021).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (41031).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Land Rover in Makhtesh Ramon (50807).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Total Solar Eclipse 8-21-17.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Total Solar Eclipse 8-21-17.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00079).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00761).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, Tournasol7 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00331).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality -- Sixflashphoto 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00628).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 15:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Maroon Bells (11678).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maroon Bells (11678).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00521).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00640).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Conveys a rambunctious mood quite well --Daniel Case 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow dragon fruit (50831s).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow dragon fruit with spoon (50847s).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yellow dragon fruit (50815s).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 00:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00081).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, one of my favorites that you posted. -- Sixflashphoto 00:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2018 Women's March NYC (00322).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality -- Sixflashphoto 00:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 7 Bryant Park (61146).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Stepro 06:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryant Park fountain down W 41st (61126).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Stepro 06:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

New upload

@Rhododendrites: I've uploaded a new version of my paddy fields, cropped following your suggestion Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Blond_and_green_rice_fields.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

a heads up

You wrote, "We have a dedicated "author" field that looks to have been properly filled out."

With regard to the reliability of the author field... I did a google search for images associated with WMF contributor Rhododendrites, re-used by people outside of the WMF. A quick glance didn't show any obvious instances where Rhododendrites was credited for images you had merely uploaded.

My experience is different. A similar google search for images credited to me shows lots of good faith re-users, who want to comply with their obligation to properly credit the images they re-use, get it wrong. A considerable fraction of the time people re-use images I merely uploaded, that were taken by someone else, they credit me, not the actual photographer.

I've called for a redesign of how we present images to our readers. Even putting the content of the author field in a larger font, or in bold, would make a big difference. Geo Swan (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Thanks for the note. The point I wanted to make at Anna Frodesiak's page is just that I don't think the wording of a user category is very consequential in this regard. When an external site gets it wrong, it's almost certainly because they looked at the uploader field at the bottom of the page, not that they turned on hidden categories and looked at the little text there. Ultimately, they were just lazy, and it's hard to account for that. :) Maybe there's something to be said for your proposed strategies (e.g. making the font bigger). Or maybe a big "use this media" button, that copies the information to the user's clipboard or something.

On the google search tangent, I had to scroll pretty far down before finding something that I uploaded but didn't create being credited to me: this one (File:Zazel3 edited.jpg) despite the wording of my usercats. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. I found several including this one. There must be many more. Rhododendrites, thanks for sticking up for me, but I think Geo Swan makes a good point. I'm so sorry for all of this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I'm sticking to my story. :) I cannot imagine a usercat is to blame, but the point is nonetheless well taken. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. But are there cases with Category:Files uploaded by Mary Jane, Source:Bob Tographer and the image gives credit to Mary Jane? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Google is blocked here in China. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't say, re: Mary and Bob. I think for that to be likely you would need an improperly formatted usercat (not hidden), and for someone's eyes to slip to the bottom of the screen past all of the more obvious content. Not saying it's impossible, though, and I agree it's better to name them properly.

Out of curiosity, what's your preferred image search engine? I don't think I've used anything other than here, Flickr, and Google. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood about your first point. About your second: Bing images and Yahoo images. Terrible, I know, but no choice. I do miss Google. By the way, Flickr is blocked here to. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply Rhododendrites, I am going to strongly disagree with your comment "When an external site gets it wrong, it's almost certainly because they looked at the uploader field at the bottom of the page..."

When end users make the same mistake, over and over again, the person to blame, is not the end user, but the team who designed the original interface, and didn't fix it, when repeated mistakes indicated its design flaws caused it to be a regular trigger for end user errors.

Surely it would be trivial to render the contents of the author field in bold? In a font twice as large as the uploader field?

Are you familiar with the long-running RISKS digest? I've been reading it for over thirty years. This is an issue the experts who comment there return to, again and again. The Airbus 320 is a good example. It was the first airliner designed with "fly-by-wire" control system -- like a high-performance jet fighter. Old-fashioned planes, even the 747, have a mechanical connection between the pilot's control stick, pedals, and the planes control surfaces, the flasp, rudder, etc.

The Airbus 320's controls were connected solely to a flight control computer system. The computer system interprets the pilot's use of the traditioal controls, and decides how to move the plane's control surfaces. It can over-ride the pilot's intent. It can basically outsmart the pilot.

Hubris.

First, the designers did not understand the full complexity of the skills an experienced pilot can bring to piloting, Second, they didn't fully take into account the human factors issues in their design.

Guess what? The Airbus wasn't safer than airliners piloted in the traditional fashion. There was great pressure on crash investigators to blame the pilot -- not the interface.

The Airbus interface had a complex suite of audible warnings. During some emergencies a dozen audible warnings would sound -- often with none of them having to do with actual trigger to the emergency. After the crash Airbus would say (paraphrasing) "Clear pilot error! Why the pilot should have realized that the ABC warning was a clue that the DEF system had failed. A dozen warnings are distracting, when eleven of them are largely or entirely irrelevant.

We have something similar here. While the uploader's name is in the same font as the author field, from a human factors point of view, it is much more prominent. The author field is surrounded by text a potential re-user probably isn't paying attention to, in the middle of a very long page. The uploader field is not surrounded by as much distracting text, and it is right at the end pf the page. Like movie credits, the very beginning is the most prominent place, and the end is the second most prominent place. That is why when a movie has a really well known star, in a cameo, or smaller role, than the lead actors, the credits will list the lead, followed by the ordinary supporting actors, and, at the end, it will say "with Marlon Brando". Actor's agents fight tooth and nail for whom gets listed in the second most prominent spot, but we give it to the uploader -- not the author.

So, when our end users make the mistake of crediting the uploader, the fault lies with our design. Sorry, I think there is really no two ways about this. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I don't disagree with you. :) It sounds like a good idea to restyle the page to make it clearer. The only point I wanted to make through al of this is about the likelihood of the usercat to cause misattribution (that it's very unlikely, but more likely that it's because someone looked at the uploader field). Fine to reframe the discussion to say it's not the user's fault at all, but this started with a usercat issue, not a redesign issue. :) Do ping me if you propose a redesign and I would likely support. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manhattan at night south of Rockefeller Center (11239).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roundel with Sorgheloos with Easy Fortune (11158).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manhattan at night north of Rockefeller Center (11226).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Monarch butterfly (70387).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monarch butterfly (70387).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ebola Virus - Electron Micrograph.tiff, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ebola Virus - Electron Micrograph.tiff has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Wow! Wow! Wow! Your images are absolutely amazing! Thank you so much for this fantastic contribution to the project! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Thanks! But I don't know if I deserve it. :) If you're going by the FP promotions above, three of the most impressive (the tornado, eclipse, and ebola images) aren't mine. I was on the jury of the Wiki Science Competition in the US, and nominated a few of my favorites uploaded for that competition. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You deserve it. I'm referring to your lovely butterflies and cityscapes and all those others. They are great! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice. Thank you. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Contest Blue January Voting

Salud Rhododendrites, not sure if you can work and support with this issue. I added this in comment, but have "delete entry" --->

Hello, I miss some entries at "2018 - January - Blue/Voting" and I see double entries. I submitted "File:Hotel Pyramide 001 (Fürth).jpg" this is a missing image, from me. Doublettes areː 106. Twilight in Goa Late evening on the Mandovi, Goa 109. Kochi Harbour Bolgatty Palace as seen from Marine drive, Kochi " Sorry for asking, but I don´t know someone else ;-)Regards, Hans-Jürgen Neubert

@Hans-Jürgen Neubert: Hello. I looked into your missing image. It looks like it was removed because the contest is only open to images uploaded during the month of January. File:Hotel Pyramide 001 (Fürth).jpg was uploaded in December, so would not be eligible, sorry to say. As for the duplicates, I will ping Jarekt as I am not sure the best way to remove them. He may know better. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

ː@Rhododendrites: Hello, Rhododendrites. Thanks for your supportǃ Bad thing with upöoad-Time, something new for me. We will see what Jarekt can correct. Nice WE, Hans-Jürgen

sorry about the discualification of the image. Software processing those pages rejects images outside of upload window. We should craft some message to notify photographers, but there are always many images rejected in each challenge. I will fix the duplicates Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Painted lady (70421).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Queensboro Bridge from the south (41939).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roaring Fork River in Aspen (91197)a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- Ikan Kekek 06:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roosevelt Island Bridge from the south (41860).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Snowy egret (12030).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 good. Is that a shrimp that it has caught? -- Ikan Kekek 06:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Snowy egret (12049).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Snowy egret (12033).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oak apple (01845).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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! Focus level could be higher (apperture for deeper view) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turkey vultures (01731).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - Looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turkey vultures (01736).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, and for VIC, "Cathartes aura (turkey vulture) with nictitating membrane visible" might be a good scope. -- Ikan Kekek 05:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bothe-Napa Valley State Park (01867).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adventure Playground (11997).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 nice. What are those little dark spots near the upper left corner? -- Ikan Kekek 05:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Great horned owl at ACES (11799).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Too bad its left eye isn't visible, but nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manhattan at night south of Rockefeller Center (11215)a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 good. -- Ikan Kekek 05:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turkey vultures (01725).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The thumbnail looks too dark but it is o.k IMO --Ermell 09:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FPC dahlia

Sorry if I got your hopes up too much. The photo is very good for QI but just short of FP. I've also noticed, sometimes to my dismay, that I've become increasingly picky at FPC. :-( Becoming more seasoned is good when writing articles, but I'm not sure if losing that sense of wonder for beautiful photos because of some small thing is progress. --cart-Talk 09:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

While walking down memory lane with your photos, I gave two of my favorites some TLC. (File:Xiangqi in Sara D. Roosevelt Park (00185).jpg & File:Golden eagle at ACES (11738).jpg) Please revert if you don't like it and tell me to mind my own business. IMO they are now good to go for FPC. I will nominate them later if you don't beat me to it. Right now I'm on a "one of mine and one by someone else" run. ;) --cart-Talk 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@W.carter: to the first point: nothing to be sorry for. Took a shot; didn't work out. :) Feedback is useful regardless of whether it's for the purpose of FPC.

To the second, that's very interesting. I do remember you commenting on the xiangqi pic. As usual, though I do like both, neither of these are the sort that I would've thought to send to FPC. Figured not every person being in focus in the first and the bird partially covering her face in the second might be practically disqualifying. We shall see. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

While you may not know it, you are one of the few people here who take good photos of events and people in their daily lives. That is actually your strength and perhaps you should focus more on that for good shots rather than flowers. There are so many of us snapping flowers but very few who go out and photograph events like you do. Given that you have easy access to NY, you are also more likely than most to get really interesting documentary photos. Like these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], a fixed-up version of this [7] would be wonderful, as would this [8]. Most of these may not be slam-dunk FPs, but the "eye" behind them can certainly deliver. Keep shootin'! --cart-Talk 22:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Stephencdickson's collages

Looks like this thread got autoarchived after a week with no responses. What's the best thing to do from here? Restarting the conversation at the Copyright Pump? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Not sure what the best route would be. I did post to that thread after it had largely died down. I also happened across another user's page which had similar images displayed: File:Zoe Lund.jpg, File:Miranda Kerr drawing.jpg, and File:Malcolm X drawing.png are clear copies of (and do not even provide attribution to) this, this, and this, respectively. Worth bringing back to VP, or just to DR? I hate to nominate people's hard work like this, but these seem pretty egregious. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to put them up for deletion without seeing the "specific requests from other wikimedia/wikipedia authors and senior editors to use the technique" that the user was telling us about, in case we're all missing something, but I assume there must have been some kind of misunderstanding here. I'll raise it on the copyright pump. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Raised here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Balloon animal guy in Washington Square Park (00947).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - A moment nicely captured. Anticipating a possible argument, I don't think the crop of one of the man's shoes ruins the photo, because it's his balloons and the girl's smile that are really the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 01:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dragon dance meets bird at NYC Lunar New Year parade (52336)e.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 - Great moment. The highlights are bright, but I don't think they're too bright. -- Ikan Kekek 01:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dragon dancers after the NYC Lunar New Year parade (52464).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 20:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NYC Lunar New Year parade (52182).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blackwell Island Light (41757).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 09:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maui in Oakland Inner Harbor (91604).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some minor CAs on the bridge, but nice colors and definitely QI! --PtrQs 02:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Container cranes in Oakland Inner Harbor (91560).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eftichia in Oakland Inner Harbor (91582).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bay Bridge (91690).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ships in the San Francisco Bay (91657).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyard in Napa Valley (01934).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Some green CAs on the left side (see the note). Also, right side of the image is leaning; verticals are not straight. Image needs perspective correction. --Halavar 01:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)  New version uploaded. I struggled to find much CA there, but went over it anyway (and removed a couple flecks of CA elsewhere in the image). Right side straightened, image cropped to rebalance accordingly. Also removed a spot in the sky. Rhododendrites 15:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)  Support Looks good to me now. --Halavar 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bay Bridge (91696).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! National School Walkout Rally (42491).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --PJDespa 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! National School Walkout Rally (42539).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --PJDespa 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! National School Walkout Rally (42565).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --PJDespa 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! National School Walkout Rally (42615).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)