User talk:Jacek Halicki/Archive17

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 10:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 08.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Mielec, ul. Rzochowska, kapliczka III 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, ogrodzenie 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 10.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 11.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Kościół św. Antoniego w Gołogłowach, 07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Kościół św. Antoniego w Gołogłowach, 11.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Sala Królestwa Świadkow Jehowy w Kłodzku.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 08:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 22 Batalion Piechoty Górskiej, tablica.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Klub 22 Batalionu Piechoty Górskiej.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 08:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Tarnobrzeg, ul. S. Orła, cmentarz 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Porst Reflex CX6.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 14:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Minolta Dynax 404si.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 14:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Kościół św. Antoniego w Gołogłowach, 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
44 Market Square in Wrocław, deer sculpture.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose I can see no justification for having a VI of a part of a building shown perfectly adequately in another submission, unless it is of particular importance, but there is no mention of its creator etc. Charles (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As per Charles. Martinvl (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: , @Martinvl: Quote of the rules: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I think in this case it is worth an own scope --Llez (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment it would be useful that this image is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Comment @Jacek Halicki: : An exceptional proposal requires a good justification. To date, no justiciation, good or bad, has been made why an exception should be made. Who is the sculptor of this deer? When was it made? Why is it notable? Remember, this is a Valued Image submission, not a Quality Image submission. Martinvl (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support, it is a valuable image - and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment @Palauenc05: , @Llez: , @DeFacto: I am unhappy that @Jacek Halicki: has not responded to my questions. This image shows the market square as it was between 1890 and 1900. No 44 is shown quite clearly - it is the second building on the right and has the name "Alexander Markt". ALthough it has no number, Numer 45 can be seen on the adjoining building "Korte ....". There is no golden deer in this photograph from which I deduce that the golden deer is a 20th or 21st century addition and therefore needs a very good justification to be classed as a "Valued Image". To date I have not seen a justification and for all I know, this might just be a glass-fibre molding that one can see in any high street in any town. Martinvl (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Martinvl: I think that's number 46 you are looking at, as the next one along is 47. Also, as I understand it, Wroclaw (Breslau) was all but completely flattened in WWII by the Red Army, and was totally rebuilt, so most, if not everything, was rebuilt in the late 20th century. DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
39-40 Market Square in Wrocław, gable.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose You should propose a scope of the whole façade, not just the gable. Charles (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Quote of the rules: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Jacek Halicki: I love these images of the intricate ornamentation on the buildings in Wroclaw, and the history they represent. As these building are listed as monuments in Poland, I wonder if there are any references you can cite that describe these special features to help establish why they are more than just of local interest. That might convince other editors that they represent a worthy valid image scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment it would be useful that this image is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2014 Cenzura.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Cenzura.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, stare miasto 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 17.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 41.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2016 FED 5C 01.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 FED 5C 01.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment please remove the untilting leftover bottom left --Cccefalon 09:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Done --Jacek Halicki 09:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 14.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Why do we get today a bunch of downscaled images (here from 7 to 3 MPix)? --Cccefalon 08:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC) To increase the sharpness, the camera was poor, then I did not have SLR camera. --Jacek Halicki 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) weak  Support --Cccefalon 09:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 19.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kosciół św. Jana Nepomucena, 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --A.Savin 09:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, not great, but I got better and now is QI to me --Poco a poco 10:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Minolta Dynax, Minolta Dynax 404si.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful --Ezarateesteban 22:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Photo Porst, Porst Reflex CX6.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 32.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 08:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, kościół św. Michała, 65.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 08:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, szkoła ewangelicka, 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bystrzyca Kłodzka, mury obronne, 15.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 09:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Wielka Grodowa Górka 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Wielka Grodowa Górka 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura Chrystusa w Laskówce 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 09:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura Chrystusa w Laskówce 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- George Chernilevsky 09:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 09:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 06.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 08.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Laskówce 09.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Laskówce 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Laskówce 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2016 Porst Reflex CX6.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Porst Reflex CX6.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Laskówce 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --A.Savin 11:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Laskówce 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Halavar 08:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Pomnik Trójcy Świętej w Laskówce 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Pomnik Trójcy Świętej w Laskówce 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Pomnik Trójcy Świętej w Laskówce 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rafandrynka.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 Kościół św. Antoniego w Gołogłowach, 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 07:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Pomnik Trójcy Świętej w Laskówce 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Halavar 10:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Wojciechowicach 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Wojciechowicach 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Wojciechowicach 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 08.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 06.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 12.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 13.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 11.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 20:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 15.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 16.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 17.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 18.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 10:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bardzkie Mountains, Wielka Grodowa Górka.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Pierre André (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Laskówka, exposure from NW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 25 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 25 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 25 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Dzbanowie 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Dzbanowie 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Many dustspots. Elsewhere good. --Cccefalon 08:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Done--Jacek Halicki 10:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2016 Yamaha XV1600 Wild Star.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Yamaha XV1600 Wild Star.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Dzbanowie 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Some dust spots on the upper-left side (see the note) --Halavar 13:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Done --Jacek Halicki 14:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Support Good now. QI for me --Halavar 15:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Dzbanowie 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dwór w Dzbanowie 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Brzeźnicy 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Leaning clockwise --A.Savin 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Done--Jacek Halicki 14:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Support Good now -- George Chernilevsky 19:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Brzeźnicy 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 10:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Laskówka, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose The guidelines state that 'Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional... ' So it is debatable if this church qualifies. I cannot see the justification for architectural details like this. Charles (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Some years ago, when I began at Wikipedia, we had only a few VIs and also much lesser articles in Wikipedia. So the mention of "cathedrals" perhaps made sense. Nowadays we have much more articles to be illustrated, not only articles on cathedrals, also of "normal churches", at least in articles on villages. So I think, it is useful, also to have pictures to illustrate such articles. A single picture of a church can't describe all. Some details are better illustrated in a close up. I addition, we are service providers for the Wikipedia authors. We provide pictures for their articles. And I think, that we should not wait with our pictures, until an article is written, but to offer a pool of pictures for the autor, who writes the article. When we have already VIs, before an article is written, it will be easier for the autor, to select good pictures. And perhaps an article (or a part of an article) on a detail of a church (or somewhat else) is written only by the fact, that we have appropriate illustrations for demonstration, for the autor is inspired by the picture. So I think, our aim should be: first the pictures, then the article. --Llez (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
4 Wolności Square in Bardo, exposure from N.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
27 Główna Street in Bardo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Are we going to have VIs approved for every house in Bardo? Have the VI guidelines been changed? Charles (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Charles: see above in the line of reason. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Hi @Jacek Halicki You say these are 'Cultural heritage monuments'. If an individual building is listed by the state or some other reputable body as a 'Cultural heritage monument' then I naturally agree there should be a VI scope. Which body has designated these buildings? In the UK we have formal Grade I, II etc. so these can be checked. A building is listed (The National Heritage List for England) [[1]] when it is of special architectural or historic interest considered to be of national importance and therefore worth protecting. I don't know the system in Poland, so can you point me to the list please. The link to 'monument in Poland identified by the ID 599886' doesn't work on my computer. Charles (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Charles: look here and here. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks very much. @Jacek Halicki: . I now understand. I hope you can see why I was sceptical. Charles (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
31 Główna Street in Bardo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Are we going to have VIs approved for every house in Bardo? Have the VI guidelines been changed? Charles (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Charles: see above in the line of reason. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 1 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 1 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 1 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 1 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Karta parkingowa.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Du erhältst einen Orden!

	Der Fleißorden
	4000 Quality images are just fantastic! Hubertl 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Laskówka, spire.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The guidelines state that 'Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional... ' So it is debatable if this church qualifies. I cannot see the justification for architectural details like this. Charles (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Charles, what guidelines for VI do you refer? For me the picture is useful --Ezarateesteban 23:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Some years ago, when I began at Wikipedia, we had only a few VIs and also much lesser articles in Wikipedia. So the mention of "cathedrals" perhaps made sense. Nowadays we have much more articles to be illustrated, not only articles on cathedrals, also of "normal churches", at least in articles on villages. So I think, it is useful, also to have pictures to illustrate such articles. A single picture of a church can't describe all. Some details are better illustrated in a close up. I addition, we are service providers for the Wikipedia authors. We provide pictures for their articles. And I think, that we should not wait with our pictures, until an article is written, but to offer a pool of pictures for the autor, who writes the article. When we have already VIs, before an article is written, it will be easier for the autor, to select good pictures. And perhaps an article (or a part of an article) on a detail of a church (or somewhat else) is written only by the fact, that we have appropriate illustrations for demonstration, for the autor is inspired by the picture. So I think, our aim should be: first the pictures, then the article. --Llez (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Comment You make a useful point @Llez: , but an article on a non-notable church (or person etc.) would not necessarily be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Perhaps of course the guidelines could be amended? @Ezarate: The quote I used above is copied from the guidelines. Charles (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
1 Wolności Square in Bardo, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment Are we going to have VIs approved for every house in Bardo? Have the VI guidelines been changed? Charles (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
25 Główna Street in Bardo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment Are we going to have VIs approved for every house in Bardo? Have the VI guidelines been changed? Charles (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brzeźnica, Lower Silesian Voivodeship.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Przyłęk, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, John of Nepomuk sculpture.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wojciechowice, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, John of Nepomuk sculpture.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 1 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 1 06.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, pl. Wolności 4.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good. --Peulle 08:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 27 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --A.Savin 00:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 27 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 31 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 31 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  SupportPerfectly sharp and well composed.--Jebulon 08:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Bardo, ul. Główna 31 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Strange idea for a photograph (ugly), but technically flawless --Jebulon 08:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brzeźnica 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of St. Michael the Archangel in Wojciechowice, exposure from S.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of St. Michael the Archangel in Wojciechowice, belfry.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of St. Michael the Archangel in Wojciechowice, nave.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Przyłęku 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Przyłęku 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Przyłęku 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Halavar 09:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Anny w Przyłęku 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 10:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Anny w Przyłęku 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 14:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of St. Michael the Archangel in Wojciechowice, altar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of St. Michael the Archangel in Wojciechowice, pulpit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Laskówka, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, sculpture of the Holy Trinity.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Droga krajowa nr 8 w Dębowinie.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Anny w Przyłęku 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Anny w Przyłęku 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Anny w Przyłęku 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Anny w Przyłęku 06.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Wojciechowicach 14.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good now. --Hubertl 09:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Wawrzyńca w Braszowicach 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 07:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Wawrzyńca w Braszowicach 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Wawrzyńca w Braszowicach 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 08:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Wawrzyńca w Braszowicach 04.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Wawrzyńca w Braszowicach 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
31 Główna Street in Bardo, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Potworów 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 12:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Zajazd "Złote wrota" w Dębowinie.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 09:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Droga w Boguszynie.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Boguszynie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Boguszynie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kaplica św. Anny w Ławicy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kaplica św. Anny w Ławicy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kapliczka przydrożna w Ścinawicy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 09:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kopalnia szarogłazu w Młynowie.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Ignacego w Kłodzku.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 09:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Zamek Bierzglowski - tympanon.JPG

Kolejny raz dziękuję. Tym razem to było ewidentne niechlujstwo z mojej strony. Albertus teolog (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 15:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. But please add a better category (Epitaph or Crosses at...)) --Hubertl 08:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Done --Jacek Halicki 12:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. But please add a better category (Epitaph or Crosses at...)) --Hubertl 08:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Done --Jacek Halicki 12:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Kamieńczyku 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 11:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Domaszkowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 07:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Domaszkowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Domaszkowie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Domaszkowie 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Międzylesie, ul. Sobieskiego 2-4 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 09:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Międzylesie, ul. Sobieskiego 2-4 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 11:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Międzylesie, ul. Sobieskiego 2-4 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Atmospheric. --Cccefalon 11:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Papiernia w Młynowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Papiernia w Młynowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Plantacja chmielu w Kłodzku 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Boguszyn, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, statue of John of Nepomuk.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kamieńczyk, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, the upper part of the village.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ławica, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Saint Anne chapel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ścinawica, roadside chapel, former memorial to the victims of World War I.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Michael Archangel church in Kamieńczyk, exposure from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Michael Archangel church in Kamieńczyk, sculpture of crucifixion group.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Domaszków, exposure from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
2-4 Sobieskiego Street in Międzylesie, exposure from E.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Plantacja chmielu w Kłodzku 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 09:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Plebania w Domaszkowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Plebania w Domaszkowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Podtynie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Podtynie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Zajazd Metro w Boguszynie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Zajazd Metro w Boguszynie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Łochow.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2015 Kaplica św. Krzyża w Boguszynie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2015 Kaplica św. Krzyża w Boguszynie 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
2-4 Sobieskiego Street in Międzylesie, wooden shingles.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rectory in Domaszków, exposure from E.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brzeźnica 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Comment I'd be happy with more information about the copyright status of this picture.--Jebulon 10:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Brzeźnicy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Strange distorsion of the bell tower.--Jebulon 10:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Done--Jacek Halicki 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Support Far much better, thank you. The white sky is so-so, but QI.--Jebulon 13:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Brzeźnicy 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Brzeźnicy 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI imo.--ArildV 13:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Brzeźnicy 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Christian Ferrer 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Maksymiliana Kolbego w Grodziszczu 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Baszta Bramy Górnej w Niemczy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Just good enough to be a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 11:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Baszta Bramy Górnej w Niemczy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Baszta Bramy Górnej w Niemczy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Plebania w Niemczy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Plebania w Niemczy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 07:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, ul. Królowej Jadwigi 1 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, ul. Królowej Jadwigi 1 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, ul. Królowej Jadwigi 1 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Dolna w Niemczy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Michael Archangel church in Kamieńczyk, crucifix.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 05:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Boguszyn, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Łochów.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Brzeźnica, exposure from N.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 05:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Brzeźnica, spire.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Brzeźnica, penitence cross.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Dolna w Niemczy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Dolna w Niemczy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Dolna w Niemczy 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Dolna w Niemczy 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Mury miejskie w Niemczy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Maximilian Kolbe church in Grodziszcze, spire.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tower of the Upper Gate in Niemcza, exposure from NE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tower of the Upper Gate in Niemcza, exposure from S.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rectory in Niemcza, exposure from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rectory in Niemcza, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Mury miejskie w Niemczy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Mury miejskie w Niemczy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Koscioł Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP w Niemczy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Koscioł Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP w Niemczy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 12:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Koscioł Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP w Niemczy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
1 Królowej Jadwigi Street in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lower Gate in Niemcza, exposure from N.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lower Gate in Niemcza, exposure from S.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support -- Mathieu MD (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lower Gate in Niemcza, wicket gate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Koscioł Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP w Niemczy 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, ul. Królowej Jadwigi 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 07:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rynek w Niemczy 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rynek w Niemczy 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 06:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rynek w Niemczy 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Immaculate Conception Of Blessed Mary (Niemcza), belfry.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Immaculate Conception Of Blessed Mary (Niemcza), apse.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Immaculate Conception Of Blessed Mary (Niemcza), porche.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
6 Królowej Jadwigi Street in Niemcza, exposure from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rynek w Niemczy 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality. --SKas 07:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rynek w Niemczy 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 5 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 5 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 10:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Immaculate Conception Of Blessed Mary (Niemcza), spire.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
5 Market Square in Niemcza, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
5 Market Square in Niemcza, stuccos and pinnacles.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• --Pierre André (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Support Useful

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
10 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 03:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 8 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 9 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very sharp quality photo, good perspective, realistic colours, good composition for this kind of building --Michielverbeek 10:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 9 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --A.Savin 13:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 10 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 07:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Rynek w Niemczy 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 13:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
14 Market Square in Niemcza, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
14 Market Square in Niemcza, corbels.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
14 Market Square in Niemcza, windows.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
16 Market Square in Niemcza, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
16 Market Square in Niemcza, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 10 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 10 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
18 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
19 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
24 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
25 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Molly Malone

Hi Jacek,

Thank you for your comments regarding the Molly Malone statue. I have now moved it to the MVR section.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Wodna w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --C messier 07:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Schronisko PTTK „Na Śnieżniku” 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 12:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 13:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --C messier 07:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --C messier 07:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
31 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
33 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
34 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 14 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 09:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 15 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 15 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --ArildV 09:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 15 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 15 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
35 Market Square in Niemcza, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
35 Market Square in Niemcza, stuccos.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
37 Market Square in Niemcza, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
37 Market Square in Niemcza, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Message from Martinvl

Hi Jacek,

You seem to be unhappy with me. Can I ask you to please read this page in English or in Polish. The important sentence is in §2:

en: Valued images are less about technical quality and more about your ingenuity in finding good and valuable subjects which matter, and about the usability of the information on the image page.

"pl: Przy wyborze wartościowych grafik mniej chodzi o jakość techniczną, a bardziej o inwencję w znajdowaniu wartościowych obiektów grafik i ich użyteczności do zastosowań online.

I hope that this explains what I am doing. Martinvl (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 16 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 16 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 16 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 09:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments What is actually the target: the door, or the trash bin? If it's the trash bin, something like Category:Trash bins in Poland (or more specific) should be added. If it's the door, then why didn't you chose a better position? --A.Savin 12:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Done --Jacek Halicki 13:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) OK. --A.Savin 13:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
38 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
49 Market Square in Niemcza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
36 Market Square in Niemcza, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful. Shuvo Mazumder (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

 Thank you. for your corrections (tilt, barell distortion, perspective) on my .- --Pierre André (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 10:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 19 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 19 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 19 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
37 Market Square in Niemcza, side entrance.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope.--Pierre André (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
36 Market Square in Niemcza, stuccos.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
36 Market Square in Niemcza, gable.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Laski, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, church of the Assumption.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Śnieżnik Mountains, Czarna Kopa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 25 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 25 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 25 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 25 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 31 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
House number 127 in Wilkanów, exposure from E.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
House number 127 in Wilkanów, exposure from SSE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
House number 130 in Wilkanów.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
House number 138 in Wilkanów.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Why is this house a cultural monument? A note in the image description would be useful. Martinvl (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Martinvl: I'm not an art historian or an architect, and I don't know. You always have some strange problems. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Jacek Halicki: I visdited the Wikipedia page :pl:Wilkanów and saw some text that included the number "138". Sinced I do not read Polish, I copied the associated text into the Google translate tool and it gave me the following "hospital, now house no 138, wooden, half of the nineteenth century." I suggest therefore that the scope should be "Former hospital, Wilkanów" and that its age should be included the the description of the building. Will you please confirm that "połowa XIX w" means "middle of the XIX th century". In future, please remember that if a VI is to be useful to a writer, it must be properly described and indexed. If your image is good photography and nothing else, it should be submitted as a QI, not a VI. Martinvl (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going with you carry empty discussions that do not lead to anything. I prefer to spend my time on more profitable activities. Besides, I do not know English, and every time I have to use a translator so in the future, do not ask me any questions. If you feel that this nomination is contrary to the rules to vote against and get it over with. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support No problem for me, useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Inappropriate scope - the scope should include the words "former hospital". (I have updated the description on the image and added the category tag "Former Hospital"). Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment, the scope is already very specific - I don't think that it was a hospital in the past is at all relevant. DeFacto (talk). 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope.--Pierre André (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 31 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 33 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 33 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 09:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 34 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 34 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
18 Międzyleska Street in Domaszków.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
22 Międzyleska Street in Domaszków.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wilkanów, John of Nepomuk statue.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful. --Pierre André (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Śnieżnik Mountains, Igliczna, exposure from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 35 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality high enough for a Q1photo. However I would rotate the camara a bit to the left; right crop is not interesting, while at the left part the car is cut in 7/8 --Michielverbeek 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 35 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 35 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 35 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 36 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 8 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cemetery chapel in Domaszków, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cemetery chapel in Domaszków, interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Śnieżnik Mountains, Chapel of Four Patrons on the Śnieżnicka Pass.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trinity Column in Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Holy Trinity.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 36 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 36 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 36 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 36 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 37 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trinity Column in Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Saint Joseph sculpture.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trinity Column in Bystrzyca Kłodzka, St. Joachim sculpture.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trinity Column in Bystrzyca Kłodzka, St. Michael sculpture.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of the Assumption in Nowa Wieś (Kłodzko County), exposure from W.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 37 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 37 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 37 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 38 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 38 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trinity Column in Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Immaculata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of the Assumption in Nowa Wieś (Kłodzko County), statue of the Assumption.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of the Assumption in Nowa Wieś (Kłodzko County), portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Barbara church in Jaworek, exposure from W.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Niemcza, pl. Rynek 49.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Florstein 08:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 08:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Florstein 08:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Florstein 08:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp photo, white parts are not reflecting too much, perspective not perfect but acceptable --Michielverbeek 09:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Barbara church in Jaworek, gate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint Barbara church in Jaworek, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Cmentarz w Rudawie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Cmentarz w Rudawie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Cmentarz w Rudawie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Piotra Kanizjusza we Włodowicach 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 11:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół św. Piotra Kanizjusza we Włodowicach 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Market Square in Niemcza, western frontage.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
13 Sanatoryjna Street in Międzygórze, exposure from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
13 Sanatoryjna Street in Międzygórze, exposure from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Villa Gigant in Międzygórze, southern part.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Remiza OSP w Porębie.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Radmor 5102 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Poręba, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, fire station.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Międzygórze, mountain rescue station.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Śnieżnik Mountans, trig point on Śnieżnik.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 09:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 09:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Rudawie 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Narodzenia NMP w Mostowicach 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 09:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kościół Narodzenia NMP w Mostowicach 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Brama Wodna w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Chmura Cumulus congestus 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 127 w Wilkanowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Halavar 08:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 127 w Wilkanowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Halavar 10:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 127 w Wilkanowie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 15:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 130 w Wilkanowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 15:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 130 w Wilkanowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Śnieżnik Mountains, Średniak and Smrekowiec.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 138 w Wilkanowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Dom nr 138 w Wilkanowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Domaszków, ul. Międzyleska 18 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Domaszków, ul. Międzyleska 18 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Domaszków, ul. Międzyleska 22 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Domaszków, ul. Międzyleska 22 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Domaszków, ul. Międzyleska 22 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments This is very strange: the green parts of the door almost seem to be noisy. However, I believe that this is dirt or worn painture as I cannot see any other hints of noise, so I give it my  Support. --Basotxerri 09:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Wilkanowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Figura św. Jana Nepomucena w Wilkanowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Śnieżnik Mountans, Żmijowiec and Czarna Góra.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)  Support Useful --Pierre André (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Mostowice, exposure from S.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Exaltation of the Holy Cross church in Rudawa, exposure from NW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Igliczna 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kamieńczyk 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 08:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kamieńczyk 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 08:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kaplica grobowa w Domaszkowie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016 Kaplica grobowa w Domaszkowie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)