User talk:Clemens Stockner

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, TheRightMaker!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Clemens Stockner!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lagazuoi4.JPG was uncategorized on 19 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lagazuoi1.JPG was uncategorized on 19 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lagazuoi3.JPG was uncategorized on 19 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angst DVD.jpg[edit]

File:Angst DVD.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Yours sincerely, Ies (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to use these pictures on Wikipedia. I did a request to Epix Media AG and they said it would be OK. If you like to see the

full answer email (in German) please tell me. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gerade gesehen, dass du eh aus Deutschland kommst ;-)

--Clemens Stockner (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angst Film.jpg[edit]

File:Angst Film.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Yours sincerely, Ies (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above here. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtrag zur Kategorisierung der Denkmalbilder[edit]

Merci. Ich hätte trotzdem noch die folgenden Anmerkungen:

Bitte COM:OVERCAT generell beachten: also Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kalsdorf bei Graz reicht, Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Styria und Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Austria sind dann nicht mehr notwendig.
Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Austria wird beim Upload aus den Denkmallisten (Naturdenkmallisten, Kunst im öffentlichen Raum, … analog) automatisch versorgt, als Fallbacklösung. Sollte aber weggelöscht werden, sobald das Bild in [[:Category:Cultural heritage monuments in <gemeinde>]] einsortiert ist.
Mir ist wichtig, dass die Objekte auch als Kirchen (churches, chapels), Pfarrhöfe (rectories), Marterl (wayside shrines) Schlösser (castles, palaces), Schulen (schools), Gemeindeämter (municiapal offices, town halls) etc. kategorisiert sind, also ihrem Typ entsprechend. Natürlich passend in die tiefste verfügbare geografische Unterkategorie. Category:Buildings nur für die anderen nicht klassifizierten Objekte (simple Wohnhäuser), und nur, wenn die Kategorie auf Gemeindeebene existiert. Also Category:Buildings in Graz ist sinnvoll und willkommen, darüber, etwa Category:Buildings in Styria sollten eher keine Bilder, sondern nur Unterkategorien befinden. Gibt es keine Kategorie Category:Buildings in Kalsdorf bei Graz in der Gemeinde, dann finde ich es besser, die Bilder in die Gemeinde / ev. Ortschaft einzusortieren, also Category:Kalsdorf bei Graz, als sie in Category:Buildings in Styria verschimmeln zu lassen, dort findet man sie schlecht. Ab einer gewissen Menge an Gebäuden sonstiger Art kann man natürlich auf Gemeindeebene eine solche Kategorie auch anlegen und alles da hineinverschieben, was hineinpasst.

lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gratulation![edit]

Danke für deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Österreich - und herzlichen Glückwunsch! Dein Foto File:Diana Schloss Eggenberg.jpg hat Platz 1 gewonnen. Zusätzlich gehört dein Foto File:Frohnleiten Altstadt.JPG zu den 40 Fotos, die ex aequo Platz 11 belegen. Insgesamt wurden dieses Jahr 7757 Fotos eingereicht. Die Liste der Preisträger findest du hier: http://wikilovesmonuments.at/2015/11/04/gewinner-wiki-loves-monuments-2015-oesterreich/.

Wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn du persönlich an der Preisverleihung teilnehmen kannst, die am 9. Dezember 2015 um 17 Uhr in der Wiener Hofburg stattfindet. Wir werden dich diesbezüglich noch per E-Mail kontaktieren.

Für das Team von Wiki Loves Monuments in Österreich - liebe Grüße --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

schließe mich an, herzlichen Glückwunsch. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke vielmals! Freut mich sehr. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 17:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa in hand.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 03:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 07:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 The trees are quite dark but the composition is fine. --Palauenc05 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angstfrontfinal lbb.jpg[edit]

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content.

We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.

In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files.

Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.

Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ Nederlands ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ русский ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ +/−

--Fenikals (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open![edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Clemens Stockner,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Danke für deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Österreich[edit]

WLE logo

Die Jury bewertet nun alle eingereichten Fotos. Die Preisträger geben wir am 31. Juli 2016 auf der Website wikilovesearth.at bekannt.

Bei dieser Gelegenheit möchte ich dich an die WikiCon 2016 Mitte September erinnern, für die noch bis 30. Juni Programmvorschläge eingereicht werden können. Wikimedia Österreich wird wieder Stipendien für die Teilnahme zur Verfügung stellen, genauere Infos veröffentlichen wir Ende Juni. Bei Fragen dazu kannst du dich gerne an uns wenden: verein@wikimedia.at. Liebe Grüße --Annemarie Buchmann (WMAT) (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

File:Keflavík Airport.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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! Good quality. --W.carter 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments @Moroder: Hope, it's OK now. --Clemens Stockner 19:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Comment It's better but you cut off part of the lamp on the right and part of the car on the left. Besides that you could easily clone the wires top left. --Moroder 13:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Comment Another take: Now the wires are more dominant, but there's more space on the sides. --Clemens Stockner 09:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry but this is worse. Why don't you fix the other, it's not impossible --Moroder 11:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Comment One last try ;) --Clemens Stockner 16:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. Na endlich ;-)) --Moroder 17:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat nunatak 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. --Ajepbah 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat glacier mouth 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 21:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 21:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Beautiful photo in a cold landscape. Person on the photo shows how large things are --Michielverbeek 20:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 14:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Ulrich am Waasen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jkadavoor 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Weak Support - unfortunately this is sharper in the foreground than on the rocks. --Basotxerri 16:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality almost everywhere. -- Ikan Kekek 09:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 --The Photographer 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 --The Photographer 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat nunatak 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, and quite interesting to look at. -- Ikan Kekek 10:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 person may be distracting if you only see this as a pic of the landscape, but as a photo of a person looking out over the fjord it is good. It is a human activity just like selling something or singing in the street, just with a very different background. Good quality. --W.carter 12:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 03:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 03:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ajepbah 06:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pfarrkirche Feldkirchen bei Graz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 21:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! LSF Hauptgebäude 2017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Tsui 03:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tyrnauer Alm Rote Wand.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open![edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Clemens Stockner,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Darby Crash street art.jpg[edit]

File:Darby Crash street art.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 11:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Interesting and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 11:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! GDKW Mellach.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 11:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hann glacier 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 12:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Graz-Neuhart Siedler-Ehrenmal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Above a sharp cut, but okay for me.--Famberhorst 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Graz-Wetzelsdorf Marterl 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. --MirandaAdramin 13:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hohe Rannach 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. --MirandaAdramin 13:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kainach Lichendorf 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. --Manfred Kuzel 15:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.PumpkinSky 22:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Freilichtmuseum Stübing 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 enough. PumpkinSky 22:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Langmann-Stausee 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 17:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hirzmann-Stausee 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.--PumpkinSky 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--PumpkinSky 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gajševsko jezero 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. --XRay 16:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Winterleitenhütte 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 --PtrQs 17:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keflavík Airport.jpg[edit]

File:201708 Reykjavík d06.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, aber ich denke dass die Skulptur links im Bild (rechtlich) ein Kunstwerk darstellt. Leider gibt es in Island keine Panoramafreiheit, weshalb eine Genehmigung des Künstlers erforderlich ist. Eine andere Alternative wäre das Webschneiden des linken Bildteils. --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Winterleitenhütte 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 Could you please compensate that lillte tilt CW and/or the little distortion? --PtrQs 17:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Done @PtrQs OK now? --Clemens Stockner 13:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC) OK now, thank you --PtrQs 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Vengolis 19:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zirbitzkogelhaus 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. --Vengolis 19:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gajševsko jezero 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. -- Ikan Kekek 06:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zirbitzkogelhaus 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. PumpkinSky 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Zirbitzkogelhaus 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. PumpkinSky 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreiskogel 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. --Milseburg 13:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sankt Peter in Villnöß.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 09:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Geislerspitzen 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. --Moroder 11:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schwarzlsee 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 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Hautzendorf 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. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gepringbach 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. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! GKB Kaiserwald 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. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hilmteich 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. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hohe Rannach 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. English description on the file page is preferred and there should be a line between each of your submissions. --Trougnouf 22:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hohe Rannach 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. But: An english description is recommended, categorization could be improved. --XRay 06:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kainach Lichendorf 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 Weak Support Good quality. DoF should be better. An english description is recommended. --XRay 06:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Bierbaum 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. An english descrption is missing. --XRay 06:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forster Teich 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 Might be sharper but still I think it's QI --Halavar 15:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forster Teich 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 --Halavar 15:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Hautzendorf 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. --Ermell 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Hautzendorf 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Reininghaus Malztenne 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. --Pudelek 15:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Reininghaus Malztenne 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 19:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Reininghaus Sonnenuhr 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 --Llez 11:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Zettling 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
A bit Underexposed, but IMHO ok The Photographer Thu, 26 Apr 2018 01:51:26 GMT

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kläranlage Graz 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 15:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hirzmann-Stausee 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. --Uoaei1 04:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Demmerkogel 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. --Billy69150 10:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Unterpremstätten 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
Support Good quality. It looks like leaning in a little bit. --XRay 12:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Zettling 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. An aperture of f/5.6 isn't the best choice, IMO f/8 would be better. --XRay 12:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Unterpremstätten 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.
--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Hautzendorf 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. --Peulle 13:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaiserwald Weitendorf 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. --Ermell 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreiskogel 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. --Ermell 22:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzbergwarte 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. --Uoaei1 04:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzberg (Südsteiermark) 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. --Poco a poco 17:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzbergwarte 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
Too soft, you may try to sharpen it a bit --Poco a poco 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done OK, a bit sharper now, hope it's OK. --Clemens Stockner 13:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzkogel 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
Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Silberberg 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 --Llez 21:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzkogelwarte 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 I consider the image the be well composed, although additional sharpness would have been usefull. For such images, i recommend a rather closed aperture (F>10) and longer exposure which can be realised by using a higher ISO-value. -- Liberaler Humanist 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Silberbergwarte 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 Looks reasonable and appears to be display the site in an authentic manner. -- Liberaler Humanist 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzkogelwarte 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 Support OK. --C messier 13:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDaheim 2018 – Danke![edit]

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb zu WikiDaheim 2018! Von Ende Juli bis Anfang Oktober wurden so insgesamt mehr als 14.000 Bilder hochgeladen und viele Orte in Österreich in der Wikipedia und anderen Projekten mit neuen Bildern versehen, was nur dank der vielen Beiträge wie Deinen möglich war. Aus rund 500 von einer Vorjury ausgewählten Bildern hat nun eine Jury die Preisträger-Fotos dieses Jahres gewählt: Commons:WikiDaheim.

Übrigens: Wikimedia Österreich unterstützt Dich gerne bei Deinen Beiträgen auf Wikimedia Commons, beispielsweise mit Foto-Leihgeräten oder einem Foto-Software-Stipendium. Einen Überblick über die Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten findest Du auf Wikipedia:Förderung.

Mit herzlichem Gruß, für das Team von WikiDaheim, Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wurm Fat House 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. --MB-one 16:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Suchart Wannaset Unser Gartenzaun 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. --Ermell 20:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wurm Fat House 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. --Ermell 20:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Weibel Die Erdkugel als Koffer 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, but I would have prefered a bit sharper corner for not seeing the branches in the background --Michielverbeek 18:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wölkerkogel Madonna 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 to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 15:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wölkerkogel Madonna 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. --Tournasol7 15:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wölkerkogel Madonna 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. --XRay 17:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wölkerkogel 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. --Carlos yo 14:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tischlerhöhe 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. --Ermell 20:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eggenberg Gratkorn 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. --Tournasol7 19:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Großklein 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. --GT1976 20:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Islamisches Kulturzentrum Graz 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. --Ermell 21:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wurm Narrow House 02.jpg[edit]

File:Wurm Narrow House 02.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Rosecliff (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feldkirchen Salat 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. --Carlos yo 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a perspective correction, both sides are leaning out --Poco a poco 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Should be better now. --Clemens Stockner 19:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Close enough --Poco a poco 14:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Altes Almhaus 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. --Tournasol7 14:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gösting Jungfernsprung 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
Support Good quality. --Aristeas 15:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gösting Jungfernsprung 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
Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kanzelkogel 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
Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kanzelkogel 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 --Michielverbeek 14:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gösting Jungfernsprung 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 04:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kalsdorf Mur 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. --Moroder 04:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kalvarienberg Graz 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. --Moroder 04:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kanzelkogel 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
Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 19:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hohe Rannach 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Graz Befreiungsadler 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. --Seven Pandas 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Graz Befreiungsadler 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. --Seven Pandas 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ermell 06:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Langmann-Stausee 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. --Manfred Kuzel 05:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ermell 06:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Manfred Kuzel 04:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Deutschfeistritz Pfarrkirche 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. --GT1976 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Deutschfeistritz Pfarrkirche 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. --GT1976 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Deutschfeistritz Pfarrkirche 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. --GT1976 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feldkirchen Salat 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. --Manfred Kuzel 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gratkorn Hausberg 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 --Michielverbeek 18:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hauenstein 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. --Isiwal 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDaheim / Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

Hi Clemens!

Vielen Dank für die vielen tollen Fotos zu Objekten in der Steiermark :-) Falls du die Bilder auch für WLM nominieren möchtest, musst du im WikiDaheim-Template {{WikiDaheim|2019|at|topic=Cultural heritage monuments}} eintragen. Über die normale WikiDaheim-Kampagne wird das leider nicht gesetzt :-/ Ich hab das bei ein paar deiner Bilder nachgetragen, es wär aber sicherheitshalber besser, wenn du nochmal selber drüberschauen würdest. LG, Braveheart (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank! --Clemens Stockner (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Dom 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. --Seven Pandas 22:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Festung 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.--Horst J. Meuter 21:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Altstadt 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Altstadt 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 The verticals are straight, but the main tower is still hanging to the left. IMO not possible to correct those kind of distortions --Michielverbeek 06:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Mirabell 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. Would be nice to know the name of the sculptor. Please separate each QI candidate with an empty line. That makes it easier for reviewers. --Moroder 11:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Imberg 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 Ok imo. --ArildV 04:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Bürgerwehr 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. --Moroder 11:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Altstadt 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
Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Altstadt 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. --Cayambe 12:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gahr 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. --Steindy 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gsollerkogel 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. --Milseburg 13:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gösting Ruine 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. --Manfred Kuzel 04:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hochtrötsch Fragnerberg 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 Nice area, exciting perspective, good quality. --Steindy 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kanzelkogel 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 Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Festlbeilstein 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
Support Good quality. --Isiwal 10:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Festlbeilstein 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. --Chenspec 07:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Festlbeilstein 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 Not an interesting composition, but the quality is for me good enough for QI --Michielverbeek 08:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Karlhochkogel 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. --Moroder 08:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Karlhochkogel 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gruber-Hirnkogel 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. Maybe you could add some notes about the mountain´s names. --Milseburg 19:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gruber-Hirnkogel 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
Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gruber-Hirnkogel 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. --Mikmaq 08:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salzburg Dom 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. --Ermell 22:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gruber-Hirnkogel 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gruber-Hirnkogel 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 Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Generalkogel 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. --Manfred Kuzel 06:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ingeringsee 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
Support Good quality. --XRay 11:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ingeringsee 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. --Chenspec 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Blasenbauerkogel 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
Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Vez Teatro ZinZanni.jpg[edit]

File:El Vez Teatro ZinZanni.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aferer Geisler 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. --Jakubhal 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aferer Geisler 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 --Michielverbeek 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Weißlahngrat 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. --Jakubhal 18:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Weißlahngrat 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. --Jakubhal 18:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schnur Raumdeuten (Detail) 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. --Ermell 06:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schuster Betonboot 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. --Ermell 06:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cinque Torri 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. --Seven Pandas 10:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cinque Torri 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. --Seven Pandas 10:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Graz Science Tower 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. --King of Hearts 00:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maria Straßengel 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. --King of Hearts 00:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rubins Airplane Parts and Hills 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. --S.Hinakawa 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mariatrost Basilika 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. --Zcebeci 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat basin 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
Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 01:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat basin 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
Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 01:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat basin 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat basin 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
Support Good quality. The person is good for scale, but perhaps you could also upload a second version with a tighter crop to remove her? The two versions would complement each other well. --Blood Red Sandman 23:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mittivakkat basin 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 Pretty. Is there a way to identify the species? -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Comment I added the species, I think it's E. scheuchzeri. --Clemens Stockner 08:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 04:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ammassalik 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 --Michielverbeek 13:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ammassalik 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Black Lives Matter fist cropped.png[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Black Lives Matter fist cropped.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Black Lives Matter fist cropped.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

File:Black Lives Matter fist.png

Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Clemens Stockner, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Black Lives Matter fist.png

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 07:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Tromejnik 01.jpg

Yours sincerely, Tokfo (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Piran Prvomajski trg 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. --Carsten Steger 15:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Piran Prvomajski trg 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. --Carsten Steger 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belle Delphine logo.svg[edit]

File:Belle Delphine logo.svg 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ed6767 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Sotinski breg 04.jpg

Yours sincerely, TadejM ^(t/p) 00:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gnom (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charlie Guest signature.svg[edit]

File:Charlie Guest signature.svg 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilfe für Kategorisierung[edit]

Hallo Clemens, beim Versuch, die im Bild [File:Mittivakkat research 01.jpg] sichtbare 'Schneekristallkarte' (Schneeraster?) der Österr. Lawinendienste zu kategorisieren, bin ich komplett gescheitert. Kannst Du mir ein Stichwort oder eine Beschreibung geben, mit der ich vielleicht etwas detaillierteres als 'Avalanche safety' finden bzw. ggf. eine entsprechende Kategorie anlegen könnte? Danke im voraus, -- PtrQs (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, aber da bin ich leider auch überfragt. LG --Clemens (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDaheim 2023[edit]

Hallo Clemens Stockner, ich habe bemerkt, dass du Bilder von und über Österreich hochgeladen hast, etwa Wörschachbach 01.jpg und andere, die wunderbar in unseren jährlichen Fotowettbewerb WikiDaheim 2023 passen würden. Ich finde es schade, dass du deine Bilder nicht für den Wettbewerb nominiert hast, es würde den Wettbewerb bunter und breiter gestalten und deinen Bildern mehr Sichtbarkeit geben. Bilder nehmen automatisch am Wettbewerb teil, wenn du sie über Wikidaheim.at oder über eine der vielen Listen (Denkmallisten, Naturdenkmäler, Public Art, Immaterielles Kulturerbe, etc.) hochladest. Bilder, die nach dem 1. Juli hochgeladen wurden, können nachträglich mit dem Baustein {{WikiDaheim}} im passenden Themenbereich nominiert werden. Beim konkreten Bild wäre das etwa {{WikiDaheim|2023|at|topic=Unspecified}}. Zu Regeln und Preisen siehe bitte WikiDaheim 2023. Der Wettbewerb läuft noch bis 8. Oktober. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, danke für den Hinweis. Ich werde bei meinen nächsten Uploads dran denken! --Clemens (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]