User:NoRobot/FPCTest

Image:Sd.Kfz. 250-1 (alt) 01.png - not featured

•  Info created by Spike78 - uploaded by Spike78 - nominated by Nemo5576 -- Nemo5576 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nemo5576 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Marvelous! Masur 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

{{FPX|too small and lacking proper image description. --[[User:Norro|norro]] 09:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)}}

• FPX can't be used when there are already two support votes. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Info I've just added sources. Render at 2000x1500px is in prograss (it will take a couple of hours). Im waiting for more conclusions, so I could correct/unify rest of my work. Spike78 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Theres a small technical problem with bigger render. Ill try to fix it but ill take some more time. Spike78 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Question Could you please supply more detail about what is shown and why it's of interest, and also about the program you used to create it? I'm a bit concerned about the sources you used; you give ISBNs but not titles and dates of publication. Were the sources within those books photographs or drawings, and are you able to show that they are out of copyright? Otherwise, there may be a copyright infringement problem. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Well, this is a 3D model drawn in Autodesk Autocad 2007, i dont understand Your concerns about copyright: 2D plans were published as well as photos as copyrighted. So I redrawned 2D plans in acad and then made 3D model and then corrected the model by comparing it to several photos... well I think details of whole algorithm isn't worth writing. This picture isn't even similar to any of graphics nor photos published in sources. I will add full (and then redundant) information about sources and anything You like. I've (unfortunately) never disputed seriously about these works so im grateful for Your comments. Spike78 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Has been contructed, as I understand it, essentially from plans and photos published in two recent books. Unless we have a reason to suppose those plans and photos are in the public domain my concerns that this is a copyright infringement remain. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Errrr... if I'd do a photo of modern building would You be concerned if "plans are copyrighted" because building is "recent"? I don't undersand it. Oh, do You have a permission to use this for a photo from the manufacturer? 'cause there may be a copyright infringement problem. Spike78 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  •  Comment Completely irrelevant. 3D based on published 2D plans cannot be a subject of any "copyrights" (regarding 2D plans authors). If so, all models (especially modern ones, like airliners) would be violating these, because we dont think that Boeing has relased its design and plans into PD? 3D modelling of any form is far beyond of any "derivativeness". Please think about it, and verify your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masur (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    • My oppose is based on the copying of 2D plans into another 2D form in acad. That is copyright infringement unless the original plans can be shown to be in the public domain, or you have a licence. The chess example is different since (a) I did not do any 2D -> 2D copying of any original plans, and (b) that design is out of copyright. To answer the question about buildings: yes, buildings do have copyright, which normally expires 70 years after the death of the architect. There are special provisions in some countries, though, which allow photographs to be freely taken in spite of that. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So? Plans were coppied and? We don't have them anymore in the final work. Pls think about those Boeing models. One can say, that capturing and publishing a photo of that models was a copyrights violation of 2d plans, because 2D plans were included in a box with model and "derivative" work (3D model, not even 3D, but photo of it) was finally released under GNU license. Dont be ridiculous. In your oppinion, as far as I understood it, ANY 2D/3D work based on existing template is copyvio... What concerns also buildings, airplanes, models, and so on... photos. Oh, another example - one can buy a architectonic plans and legally build a house based on them. And now, when I take a photo of that house, and relase it, i will make a copyvio? I think that somewhere is a limit of "derivativeness", and it is closer than you think. Otherwise we wouldnt be allowed to build any models! Masur 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Please see Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • So i think all is about: In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works. But creating (because its creating! not reproducing or simply changing media) 3d model basing on 2d plans, is, IMO, not a transfer to a new media. Because I create (build) sth completely new and uniqe, as well as my interpretation of those plans is original (i.e. color schemes, details). And you just gave me the link to that page , but you didnt answer what about other models? Those plastics ones i.e. If this particular work (3D digital construction based on 2D (i dont go deep into how accurate is that reconstruction, cosit may be that changes of original concept from plans can be so large that no copyrights can be potentially aplied anyway) printed plans) is for you copyvio, ANY other model is a copyvio too. Cos in most cases they are constructed basing on plans prepared and sold by certain company (i.e. Italeri, if I remember the name of one of them). Pls notice also that those plan were not intended to be basis of any 3D digital reconstruction, I assume that they were more or less simple profile drawings or projections. And once again - plans are only recipe and NOT a work themselves. Masur 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support PMG 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like it for FP, because it does not WOW me. --Taraxacum 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Wow for me though -βαςε_LXIV™ 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Ala z ^talk 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good modeling but standard rendering & cheap lighting. The wood shader is very poor, same for the metal shader on the tools. The MG 42 has a poor antialiasing same here with the shader. I miss decals. It's 2008 now and there are much better renderer around such as Maxwell or Vray. --Richard Bartz 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Decals hmmm... I've done models with and without them. If theres a need (and I also like them) i can make them. But i wanted to show "standard vehicle". Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice idea for a rendering, but would need a bit more work done on it such as lighting etc. --Freedom to share 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ill try to make better ambient. Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Good but I agree it needs a bit more work. /Daniel78 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Work on what? Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry I should be more clear :) I was mostly thinking about the lighting as mentioned by others. And perhaps there could be some sort of texture on the metal plates ? I do not know how it looks in reality but currently it looks slightly plastic instead of metallic to me. /Daniel78 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ill try to find better texture for it. Using better lightning is now for me out of question. I've rendered this under Acad (and the ambient light is simulated by approx. 100 point lights placed spherically), now i will do it (and the others) on my gf comp under 3dmax. I didn't care about it 'cause I've allways considered these works as "technical" not "artistic". Take a look at my earlier models - they have even more simplified lightning, Ill correct them too after this discussion but I want to "collect" any "cons" so I could do it absolutely-total-good-and-nice. I just want Wiki to have the best pics in this matter all over the net. That's why I'm asking about any "cons" to be precise. And thank You for Your opinion. Spike78 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Neutral for now --Amazing 3D model with lots of details of this vehicle, but some small issues should be corrected as the overall quality deserves it : the lightning could be much better, the dim shadow around the vehicle looks like it has been made with MS Paint and as R. Bartz wrote, some anti aliasing corrections are needed. Well done ! Sting 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor antialiasing and small size. Lycaon 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dull lighting, I am sorry. Barabas

 Info All negatives ale better than positives for me. I've allways wanted to know how to do it better. I know that 3d-model alone isn't all - but I've got a pretty dull comp, so the lightning is also dull ;) My GF agreed to help me with her hot-machine ;) Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Beyond silence 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Laziale93 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lycaon--Mbz1 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose FRZ 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment If you do a new rendering, I would prefer a version with more space around the vehicle. This version is far to tight for me. It looks like a lot of work to me to create such a model. I am just curious, how much time did you spend? --Chmehl 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Hebster 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vendeuse d'arachides.jpg

original - featured

•  Info created and uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Thermos -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Quite simply, a stunning work of photography, where the colours, composition and athmosphere are perfect. Excellent bokeh too. -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great photo. I really enjoy looking at it --Leafnode 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like the original one. Great job! --Manco Capac 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The colors are off, everything has a red tinge. --Calibas 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Sometimes, at the end of the day, colors and light are just like that and that's what is great. --B.navez 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• temporary Oppose ... until the colors are tweaked correctly. No sandstorms 4 me. --Richard Bartz 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to colour cast. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice mood and atmosphere. I trust the creators statement that the colors in the original best resembles how it really was. -- Slaunger 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The original has a low dynamic range and I don't like the contrast. Unfortunatley, the first edit eliminates this together with it's warm evening atmosphere. Maybe a second edit keeping its original colour temperature would enhance the picture's quality, but in general, a suitable candidate... --Taraxacum 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad contrast --Herrick 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one the best out of the three. I find the colours natural. Popperipopp 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The colours of this one give it all its charm. Colours don't seem natural on first edit, and there is too much light on the two edits. Fred waldron 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

8 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose, odd colour cast, even if it's natural. --Aqwis 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Too late... -- Alvesgaspar 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

edit 1 - not featured

                    

•  Comment a great composition, I also noticed it in the QICs. I added a new version. I am not the best concerning colour-balancing...maybe someone can make it better (Richard..are you there? ;)) but i thought that the sky is too brown in the original version. --AngMoKio 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 Comment _Please_ link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it. /Daniel78 10:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit looks good. --Richard Bartz 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice new balance but the "true" colors are more like in the original ; sky isn't blue in Ouagadougou. --Romanceor 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At 18:18 under tropics night is very soon, you can also see that by the enlightening of the cushion very horizontally. And you can have dusty clouds in the background but not necessary around you. --B.navez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Support have to rethink --norro 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment This edit copleteley changed the photo. In the original version the day light is close to a rainy day and wich is great with the colors of the dress of the lady. But in the edited version it is a sunny day and I didi not liked the colors in that way. --Manco Capac 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose artificial change of colors --B.navez 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The moody atmosphere in the original is lost for me. -- Slaunger 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose as it was said, colors are unrealistic now --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

edit 2 - not featured

•  Question What is your opinion to this version? --Taraxacum 07:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This one works for me too. -- Slaunger 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This is also fine for me. --Manco Capac 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose ALL versions. Not enough wow, aesthetically not very strong, and I do not like the tree in the background (composition). Barabas 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info - Sorry, but each nominations has its own poll. The vote only counts for this one -- Alvesgaspar 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ischgl church interior from below.jpeg

Original	Edit2 by wau

•  Info Self nom -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Info The inside of the St. Nikolaus Catholic Church in Ischgl. -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Unless the GIMP's grid is wrong, this image is not tilted from what I saw, although I could be wrong. -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Original - not featured

•  Support -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment What do you say if we cropp a little bit more more left and right (Just few pixels) in order to let the window lights out of image? --Manco Capac 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting idea. I thought about that while stitching and even tried it, only to see that such a crop did not show the grand nature of the inside of the church. --Freedom to share 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit - not featured

•  Support Thanks for the edit. It is very impressive. --Freedom to share 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose The picture is of good quality, but in this case, HDR would help giving the dark parts more brightness and color. Personally, i don't like the shabby carpet and the interior of the church is not that extraordinary. --Taraxacum 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - A very difficult subject due to the high dynamic range. What I really don't like is the extreme geometric distortion, maybe that could be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - ultimately, I appreciate the artistic technique applied so far as the capturing of the subject. I like it. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Much better now, in my opinion. I liked the dark parts and the other parts equal. The darkness of these parts is the part of the atmosphere, and without them the room will be different. --Manco Capac 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a very beautiful image, but nowhere enough wow factor. Barabas
•  Support FRZ 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disturbing stitching errors (e.g. bench down left, window right). Lycaon 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cello study.jpg - featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs. -- MichaelMaggs 15:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- MichaelMaggs 15:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent composition (Excuse the pun) ;) What lens did you use? --Freedom to share 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Canon EFS 17-55 IS. --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Support - By the position of the arch I would guess it is Bach's BWV 1010 (the Courante, of course!) ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support well done! --AngMoKio 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nice shadows and color display. Cirt 09:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Jon Harald Søby 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Chmehl 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --D kuba 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I have to admit that I am not too keen on still life photos, but this is excellent. --Thermos 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode 06:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Humboldt penguin 5080.jpg - not featured

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Dori - Talk 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This one is great. Especially colours and composition --Simonizer 22:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Per Simon. The strong overexposure over a wide area on the breast is a tad 2 much 4 me to support. Do you took RAW images ? --Richard Bartz 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I did, but ... --Dori - Talk 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
•  until Richard submits his edit which I think is better. --Dori - Talk 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coat of arms of the British Indian Ocean Territory.svg - not featured

•  Info created by Demidow - uploaded by Demidow - nominated by Demidow -- Demidow 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Demidow 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Is this coat of arm official and legitimate. Don't forget inhabitants of this territory had all been deported and the island transformed in a US military base. Which assembly decided of this drawing ?--B.navez 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Hello B.navez! According to the book "Flaggen und Wappen der Welt" (Flags and Coats of Arms of the World, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1992, p. 60) the arms along with the new flag (also on Commons) were granted on August 2, 1990 by the British Government in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the territory's establishment (see also the description of the arms at English Wikipedia). The arms were also printed on an UK 24pc stamp issued in 1990 (see [1] and [2]). Although the US Army leased the island of Diego Garcia as a military base, the territory remains in British possession (see here).
  •  InfoOk, thanks for official information. It is a good drawing but apart the fact the territory is disputed, is a page of shame for UK and so featuring could be considered as not NPOV, the turtles are not credible. The left one is clearly a Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) but the right one looks like a terrestrial tortoise with marine members. Information about stamps say it should be Caretta caretta but I doubt (not known nesting there) and I'd rather think it intends to be a Green Turtle(Chelonia mydas) because of the green color and being common in this area. The original coat of arms was so badly drawn it was of no importance, but with a good drawing, accuracy of the representation makes it paradoxically wronger.--B.navez 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    •  InfoGood to know, but the turtles you see are just the ones depicted in the book cited above. I stuck closely to the drawing in this book because it is based on official documents and I myself am not too much into zoology. --Demidow, 19:34, 23 March 2008 (CET)
•  Support Nice, detailed work. Following NPOV my vote is not affected by political issues. --norro 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - IMO if the original image have correct colors, this image isn't correct. --D kuba 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose FRZ 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Beyond silence 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Inca road system map-en.svg - not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Manco Capac -- Manco Capac 12:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Manco Capac 12:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Umnik 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support-- Good work. --Dsmurat 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose graphically I don't think this map is one of the best historical maps we have in commons, this yellow is realy agressive, the paths of the lines are not always regular (see for exemple the coast line) but my strong opposition is not based on graphics aspects, this map is not historicaly correct, that's the problem, we can see that in the maps provided as sources of this creation, that the actuale en:Loreto Region is not included in the Inca empire, but it is on this map and I'm quite sure that there is other amazonian areas that shouldn't be included in this map or at least there should be a gradient showing that Incas had fewer authority in the easterns areas--Kimdime69 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all thanks for your comments. Please note that this is not the map for Inca Empire borders. The yellow color does not show the Inca Empire and it is just used for indicating the land of South America. It is not complete because it is my artistic way of drwaing wich you may not like. As this is not a map of Inca Empire borders and this is a map for Inca Empire Road System (please check the name of the file for a better understanding) the borders of the modern countries is shown only to give a better understanding of the area and for this reason the en:Loreto Region is the map cause it is in the borders of modern Peru. And Peru is the main modern country which covers most of the lands of Inca Empire. And this map is drawn mainly from this image and this image is exactly taken from image in the book Inca Road System by John Hyslop who is one the best scholars worked on Inca Road System. Therefore, I kindly ask you to show me and other Commonians the wrong parts of the map (with prooves of course) in order to let me correct them. Please do not forget the main reason for voting of the Featured pictures is not not to choose but Choose, so with your helps or other peoples help we can change the pictures and by this way we can gain one more featured picture. But at the end if it is not choosen by the group than we can think that we did our best but unfortunately we did not manage to have one more FP. For the yeloow color, if you can show me an example of a better yellow color that you find less agresive, I will be more than glad to change the yellow color on the map. Thanks for your comments again. --Manco Capac 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have softened the yeloow I hope this will not give you an agresive look. --Manco Capac 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I would recomend you to use the #FCF5E3 for the lands or if you want a darker color the #F4E2BA. Then you have to understand that this representation of the lands is really disruptive, if I made the mistake others will make the same so what I would suggest is first to make a normal representation of the lands covering all the lands of South America wich are present in this map, if you desagree with this option to make a regular representation of the area you want to highlight (the area with inca road system), you shoud then draw it on the east as a circular arc but you don't have to follow the borders, eventualy you may add a gradient showing that the influence of inca empire is decreasing on the east, then I have other coments to add, I don't understand why the coast line is so complicated in your work, I would suggest you to use a single line with a #27AAEA colour (but it may depend on the colour you used for the sea), for the borders I would suggest you to use a #787878 colour and to use the system of broken line you can see [[:Image:Kosovo map-fr.svg|there]. Regards--Kimdime69 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination cause I have re-draw the image by the help of Kimdime69 and I will re-nominate it. I appologize to the supporting votes of this image and I kindly ask them to re-evaluate the new image I will nominate later. Thanks all. --Manco Capac 07:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)