User talk:Massimo Catarinella

English: Welcome to the Commons, Massimo Catarinella!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Filnik 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:PanaromaofAssisi.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Houses at the Rokin

I nominated your photo Image:RokingAmsterdam.jpg as a quality images candidate, but it was declined. This was the comment of User:Sfu: "I don`t understand the idea of cutting bottom of this buildings. Image needs perspective correction and it`s not very sharp. Anyway it`s nice object to picture it." – Ilse@ 11:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am really not a QIC Spot Bot

But I am here to tell you that your panorama which is there right now has no dust spots that I can see on it.

Once, I wanted to claim that these spots (usually I see them in the skies -- they break up the gradients of mostly mono-colors that are there, buildings and such, I might not be able to see them) had a color difference, but the color picker did not find a difference, so it must be more of an interruption in the jpeg artifacts. Anyways, it was nice writing here -- I am going to go now to suggest that Dschwen take some photographs with the camera upside down of just the sky so I can count the dust spots that are on the sensor and then everyone will know, I guess.... -- carol (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ArchesNationalParkDelicateArch.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe some tilt, but for me it's OK. --Lestath 22:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MonumentValleyNavajoNation.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Dschwen 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RockyMountainsNationalParkColorado.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good resolution, interesting mood. --Dschwen 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MesaVerdeNationalParkCliffPalace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The quality and the value!--Mbz1 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BlackCanyonoftheGunnisonNationalPark.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please geocode, and adjust the levels. Dori 04:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Geocode? And which levels? --Massimo Catarinella 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but please don't adjust the levels, just go for faithful reproduction of you visual impression. And check Commons:Geocoding for more info. --Dschwen 14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I have geocoded the image.--Massimo Catarinella 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Good quality. The levels are most likely due to atmospheric haze (visible due to the large dimensions of the canyon). --Dschwen 14:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PiazzadelCampoSiena.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Neutral Did you use automode on this one? I don't understand the choice of 1/1600 and f/4. You should have gone to around f/10 or f/11. I'm on the edge on this one. Dori 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC) -- No, I didn't use automode. The picture was taken two years ago though. I just had my first 'real camera', so I was pretty unexperienced. It is still a picture I like though and it possesses a good quality. -- Massimo Catarinella 10:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) -- Nice view. Sufficient quality for QI. So I'd like to promote this, if Dori agrees... -- MJJR 20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! HerengrachtAmsterdamBrug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Fine. Ukuthenga 20:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PragueCzechRepublicMalaStranaMostecka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharpness is good. Composition is not bad. enough to QI. _Fukutaro 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo sale to easyjet?

Hi Massimo,

I was just wondering if by any chance you have sold your Amsterdam image elsewhere. I was just using [1] when I saw an Easyjet ad on the side about flights to Amsterdam, and I'm fairly sure I saw your photo in the ad. It was a vertical crop of the middle of the picture featuring the bridge, lights, and buildings above. It was a moving flash ad and also displayed a couple more photos and then ended with text, and it didn't cycle through the images again, so I wasn't able to confirm it was definitely your image. Reloading the page brought up different ads. I just wanted to let you know in case they had perhaps used it without your permission. Of course, if you sell it on a stock site then it is nearly impossible to know if they purchased it there! I'd be curious to know what you think though. Diliff (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• PS: That photo above in Prague looks familiar... same view as my image, only with much less people! Diliff (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2008 (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:
Mostecká, Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose uncategorized. Besides, I think that in such cases the name of the city and country should be included in the scope. And I think a street is too narrow a scope for a VI (unless it has something special or is famous for some reason justifying a category). --Eusebius (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment And now it is categorized. I thought the neighborhood would be of enough information, since the city and country are present in it's description, but I can add this to the scope. And yes, this street is world famous and try making a picture of it without people. Wikipedia should be glad to have this picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral The interest of the place is more noticeable now that the picture is categorized. Yet, I am totally unable to determine whether the picture describes the essence of the scope (which appears to be a district and not only the street). There seem to be many buildings of interest in the area, only few are on the picture (the ones in this precise street). And if it is a very popular street, as it seems to be the case, is it representative to show it empty on a VI? (This is not a rhetorical question, I really don't know) --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I narrowed the scope down to the street itself. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK, I stop bothering you! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment In my opinion, we do not have to spell out the scope so much. The neighbourhood, Malá Strana is a unique name on Commons (so far) and already a category. So I think a shortened, linked scope like "Mostecká, Malá Strana" would have been sufficient for anyone to figure out, what it is about. Not a big deal, but just a thought I had. I can accept the current scope as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  Just a remark: Here you inserted a link in your sentence, which is a nice way to show where to find info about Malá Strana, but when the scope is itself a link, doing this is impossible. This is why I suggested the geographical precision. Yet, keeping the scope simple seems like a good guideline. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right. However, on image pages and in pro motion messages the scope is shown with its embedded links, so there it adds value. The issue you are talking about is primarily a problem on Commons:Valued images by scope. The bot also cannot (yet) handle to strip of all kinds of embedded links when linking to the scope on that page. But I would say it is a matter of time the code is being continuously updated to handle new special cases. Linked scopes will also be useful in the proposed subpage galleries, I have just mentioned on the talk page. So, in general, i would recommend using links in the scope if relevant. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

•  QuestionEusebius, you have voted neutral and support on this VIC. It seems quite evident from your comments that you simply have forgotten to strike out the neutral vote. Would you please confirm that by striking it? Thank you. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   Done --Eusebius (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

FPC Closing procedure

Hi Massimo,

thank you for helping closing FPC :) I noticed you did a few mistakes, just typos, and wanted to let you know. I'm not blaming you, but just tell you so this won't happen again. See you on FPC ;) Benh (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Weevil September 2008-1.jpg

Thank you for your suggestion! I wasn't so sure of the merits of the picture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CharlesBridgeMalaStranaPragueCzechRepublic.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Better crop than the last version, ok for me now. --Eusebius 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RedLightDistrictAmsterdamTheNetherlands.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good composition and mood (but where is the lady?...). I would care to correct the slight tilt at left though -- Alvesgaspar 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Thank you for your comments. I tried to correct the tilt this morning, but I couldn't find one. I also made this picture with a Manfrotto tripod with a build in waterbubble to prevent tilts. As for the prostitute, making pictures of them is prohibited. You normally even get in an argumented if you make a picture of the brothels themselves. --Massimo Catarinella 11:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

On what is important in an image

Hi Massimo,

I noticed you leaving comment on COM:FPC. It is a pity if you would leave Commons on those grounds.

Do you know that there are other projects on Commons which may better suit the aspects of an image, which you find important?

I suggest having a look at Valued images where we can always use new material from new places and of new subjects (people are getting weary of all my plants of arctic flora, so we could use something new and refreshing). Try and nominate an image or two at the candidates page. Do not be scared by all the procedures.

It is a good idea to read our ideas about scope first though. Feel free to ask for help if you need to, and in case you decision to leave Commons is definitive, best of luck whereever you put your energy. One cool thing about Commons is that here you work is useful for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedia, English.

Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see above on your talk page that you have already tried COM:VIC. I also see the process was a little tedious. Sorry about that. I still hope you do not give up... -- Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CannabisCoffeeShopAmsterdam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice colours, night shot well handled, like the composition very much.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Lemon.jpg

Hi Massimo Catarinella,
Refering to your edit
1) If you cross out something it's a good idea if you write the reason also in the summary line below the text field. I always have a look at the summary field. Thats also the reason why I reverted your edit. I didn't had a look at the {{comment}} where I could find the explanation.
2) According to Alvesgaspar "The voting will be implicitly closed on the sixth day even if no message is written by the closer, meaning that the votes after the fifht day won't count." That means that the votes on fp/removal/Image:Lemon.jpg (or any other voting side where the 5-day-rule applies) which appeared after the 31^st of october doesn't count. I crossed out two votes, because the votes appeared after the 5^th day
by --D-Kuru (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (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:
Red-light District, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - This is the atmosphere I remember... The best picture in the scope, in my opinion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (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:
Bridge tower, Charles Bridge, Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Could the scope be made simpler, like "Bridge tower, Malá Strana, etc." or "Charles bridge, Malá Strana, etc."? Is any of these forms suitable for the pic? --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have shortened the scope as you requested, but can't shorten it anymore. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  OK, you're the one who knows the place! --Eusebius (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. Some people may not like the long and detailed scope, but it is not a problem to me. --Eusebius (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Congratulation Massimo ! Benh (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FPC

Hi again Massimo,

Thank you for nominating my picture. I didn't do it myself because I have a three exposures version which I didn't manage to get something acceptable out of (yet ?). The version you nominated has many blown highlights... unfortunately. Let's see what wikimedians will think of it. Benh (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising the bar

Hi Massimo,

You might want take a look at this discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FPC Brooklyn Bridge

Please understand that I do not argue your "Oppose", since I believe the reasons stated by Lycaon are reasonable. However, I can't understand why a downsampled image would be better than a full size one... If you think the full size image is too big, you can always make your own downsampling. And if you think a 3600 X 1000 downsample of the image would qualify as a FP, why would you oppose an image who just have more information? This is not just about my FPC. Too many people bring their picture down to the minimum limit of 2 mpx in order to have a crystal crisp image... but, would you buy a camera that is only doing giving you an incredibly crisp 2 mpx image? I highly doubt (I would not). The tendancy of downsampling FPCs, as much from the nominators than from the advice of voters does not serves Commons purpose IMO, by fullfilling only the current guidelines, at the opposite of creating a long-lasting free media library.

I would like you to understand that I am firm on my ideas about downsampling, but that I did not wrote this note with a confrontation mindset. I know that to oppose a picture is often a lot harder than to support it and I thank you for taking the time of evaluating my FPC. I do not expect you to change your vote, but I would like you to take my point into consideration for future votes. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you should bring down your picture to 2 mpx, but a little bit smaller should be better. Down sampling increases sharpness reduces noise and increases sharpness. Take a look at some the panorama's of other users. My oppose concerns the overall quality of the picture btw. It is not sufficient enough to become a FP. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:PanoHardangerfjorden1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:PanoHardangerfjorden1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! OudezijdsKolkAmsterdam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good for QI. Lycaon 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RokinAmsterdamTheNetherlands.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice composition, good exposure, some perspective distortion but I like it that way. Overall, good enough for QI.--PieCam 15:41, 3 November 2008 (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:
Rathausplatz, Düsseldorf, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question On the german WP I find references for Rathaus in Düsseldorf, but not for Rathausplatz? I don't understand german, however. --Eusebius (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Rathausplatz means the square in front of the town hall. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I feel like the scope is too narrow (is this square of "more than local interest"? The townhall has an article on its own on the german WP, but the square seems not to be mentioned) but I'm not convinced enough to motivate an oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This square is one of the most important squares in the city of Düsseldorf. I could however always change the scope to the Rathaus itself, since it is also the best picture available of that building. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The statue would be much distracting for such a scope. I think it is better as it is. --Eusebius (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looks ok to me --Eusebius (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

Benh (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Confederate 100 Dollars.jpg

I have cleaned the image background as you requested. Would you please review this image again?

Thanks Swtpc6800 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please link images

---

Hello Massimo Catarinella!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:GoldenGateBridgeSanFranciscoCalifornia.jpg is uncategorized since 24 November 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image:NewYorkCityManhattanRockefellerCenter.jpg is uncategorized since 3 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:NYSEWallStreetManhattan.jpg is uncategorized since 14 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:RedDeerStag.jpg is uncategorized since 15 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:ZuidasAmsterdam.jpg is uncategorized since 26 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Image:KoninginnedagPrinsengracht.jpg is uncategorized since 4 May 2009.
• Image:Phila skyline pan copy.jpg is uncategorized since 21 July 2009.

Dots

Hi Massimo, could you please explain why you are putting dots at the end of the Hungarian templates? According to Hungarian orthographic rules they are not needed at all. Thanks! Pasztilla (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that is true, of course we also use dots, but in current text only where sentences follow each other. According to the rules we have in our orthography, titles, captions, etc., are not considered to be sentences, therefore these are not ending with a dot. I guess that is the same in Italian, too, at least for the titles. Pasztilla (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FPC discussion

Hi Massimo, A big discussion is taking place in WP:FPC about the promotion and closing processes (various topics). You may be interested in participating and help improving things there. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I have uploaded a restitched version of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2a.jpg - take a look! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ZuidasAmsterdamNederland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice clean lines, interesting architecture. Mattbuck 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KroonluchterEsnogaAmsterdam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 pretty good to me. No obvious photographer in the brass reflections. --Eusebius 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AnneFrankHouseAmsterdamtheNetherlands.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Clean photo. Wasn't she living in the backyard house? --Coyau 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, that is were they tried to hide and succeeded doing so for a couple of years. This (photo) is the part of the house, in which the offices and warehouse of here father were located and through which you could enter the "achterhuis". --Massimo Catarinella 17:06, 9 March 2009 (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:
Anne Frank House.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Could you please link the articles and, if you could please link the scope to Commons category.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Scope formatted according to the guidelines, overcategorization sorted out. --Eusebius (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  Done again, after links were removed... --Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palazzo Cavalli-Franchetti.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Mbdortmund 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! GardenStreetBridgeSchuylkillRiverSkylinePhiladelphiaPennsylvania.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice panorama. --kallerna 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ItalianMarketPhiladelphia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Dori 00:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LuzLissabon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice! --kallerna 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Munttoren Amsterdam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. Maedin 10:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CastelDelMontePugliaItalyEurope.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Marcok 23:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! JeronimosLisbon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Cayambe 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CastleSaintGeorge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Really nice and great size. Maedin 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FietsLeidsestraat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Maedin 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DomTorenUtrechtNederland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It is a shame about the strong shadow on the rest of the church, but the tower itself is very good. Maedin 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RotterdamMaasNederland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good cityscape. --Iotatau 08:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! GroteWerfMarkenNederland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice place, excellent shot. --Cayambe 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SchreierstorenAmsterdam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. -- Smial 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

File:GirlPortugal.jpg

File:GirlPortugal.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured sound candidates

		We request the honor of your presence at Featured sound candidates
		Dear Massimo Catarinella, Featured sound candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating sounds for the FS tag. You can start reviewing/nominating sounds now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)