User talk:Someone35/Archive 1

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, Someone35!

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) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:5615446545.jpg was uncategorized on 4 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:545164848.jpg was uncategorized on 4 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Victoria falls, zambia.jpg was uncategorized on 4 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Little geyser in Iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shoreline in iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Melting glacier (Skaftafellsjökull).jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Flying ducks.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thingvellir, Iceland landscape.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:The lower part of Gulfoss, Iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Yellow blossom in israel.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Southern iceland volcanic cliffs.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gulfoss, Iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:A clouds covered mountain.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cape cod, Massachusetts .jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Houses with grass on the roof.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:River in Thingvellir, Iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Skogafoss, iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Watkins Glen, New York.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gulfoss, Iceland overview.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Piled rocks, iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lake reflection.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Red blossom in israel.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rocks coming out of the water.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thingvelir, Iceland.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fixed panorama from Har HaAri.tif was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fixed panorama from har haari.jpg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Har haari stitch 3.jpg was uncategorized on 9 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Har haari stitch 1.jpg was uncategorized on 9 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Har haari stitch 4.jpg was uncategorized on 9 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Har haari stitch 2.jpg was uncategorized on 9 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stupid_flag.png[edit]

File:Stupid_flag.png 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 ∙ +/−

Fry1989 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorise pictures[edit]

Hi Someone35, I have noticed that you have uploaded some pictures of Iceland. When ever uploading pictures, please do not categorise in the top category like e.g. "Iceland", "Water", "Glacier", "Cost" or "Beaches" etc. Please be more specific like e.g. "Jökulsarlón" for some of your Icelandic pictures, or "Glaciers of Iceland", even the name of the glacier like e.g. "Vatnajökull". It does not help anybody if users fill top categories with a flood of pictures and someone looking for a specific one cannot find it. Otherwise: Keep up your good work! -- Simisa (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in some pictures i haven't seen any category that isn't general (there wasn't even a category of vatnajokull), you can categorize it in more relevant categories if you want to--Someone35 (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can do so if I want; but I want YOU to do it! We are all aware that sometimes it is not easy to find the appropriate category. I suggest that you start with the country - e.g. Iceland - and then break down to the objects you have photographed. Therefore you have to go through the categories like e.g. "Bodies of water in Iceland", "Cities and villages in Iceland", "Glaciers of Iceland" etc. and then you will definitely find suitable categories. Good luck! -- Simisa (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reykjavik's church.jpg[edit]

File:Reykjavik's church.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 ∙ +/−

Fingalo (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ?[edit]

1) please sign your messages

2) I'm sorry, I cannot accept the word "flooding" regarding my uploading of pictures and my choice to submit them in QIC.

3) For every picture I upload, I review one other (at minimum). Please do so, there are many "old" pictures to review "below" (previous days).

4) There is no rule in QIC project about your request (already discussed by the community, and rejected).

5) You are not obliged to review all pictures, and not to review all pictures in one day, you've got the time.

6) I hope you've send your message to some other uploaders... Please notice that my pictures are all different (landscapes, details, monuments...), and could have been taken by different photographs... I'm very careful not to annoy the reviewers, it seems that it is not the case for everybody in this page...

7) Please upload and submit in QIC all of your pictures you wish, some are beautiful, and I'll be happy to promote them if I think they deserve the label.

8)The more picture I see, review and like, the more I feel happy, and feel that "Commons" is really a nice project !

9) A tip : Don't mind about the uploaders, enjoy the pictures only !

10) As you are not very old among us (but welcome !), you shall maybe discover soon all the nice pictures one can see in QIC page, and maybe learn a bit from them ?

11) Do not forget that saturday and sunday are week-end days in France. I upload less pictures the other days of the week, because I'm at work. But sorry for tomorrow...

12) Time to close : I've other pictures to upload before dinner, now...

Regards,--Jebulon (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re-. Have a look: you will see that at the end, every picture is reviewed, even 15 or 20 days after nomination. The problem IMO is not the number of uploads, but the number of "pack-upload" of pictures of the same subject, the same object, the same location, with almost the same name. This is very difficult for reviewers (as you've maybe seen i've told recently to another friend (a specialist...) in QIC....) If you forget my signature, you will see that all (almost) my pictures are different, with different names and different subjects or themes. For instance, I try to never upload two picture of landscapes one besides the other.--Jebulon (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loire River[edit]

Hello Someone35 Were did you take the fotographies File:Loire river.jpg and File:Loire river .jpg (Département + Village) ? Tank you Benchaum (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the sunset was taken in a place in France called Saint Florent but there are at least 5 saint florents in France and those pics were taken in western France, so it should be either here or here, and I don't remember where I have taken the second one with the cliff

Sorry the one with the cliff does not show the Loire river, but the Dordogne river, in Category:La Roque-Gageac, Dordogne department, France. You may find geocoded pictures of mine in the category. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

k fixed, I replaced the category "Loire river" with the one that you mentioned above--Someone35 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here was taken the "bad quality" picture !

--Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QIC page[edit]

Hi Someone35.

This is to explain to you, shortly, what is really the QIC page.

It is not a contest of the most beautiful picture, it is not a contest of beautiful pictures at all. There are many other websites for this.

The goal is to offer to users of wikimedia projects some pictures labellized by members of the "community of Commons", with a reasonnable good quality.

Since I'm probably the "recordman" of QI, maybe I'm not the less able to say that the goal is not to accumulate. We can all improve, everyday, the quality of our pictures. Me first, obviously.

Then, we all need help from others, not only for "promotions", but we need photographical tips, technical infos and so on. May I help you with two important customs (not mandatories) among us ? They are:

-No ask for a promotion. You may ask a reviewer on his/her talkpage for a new review, or for another look, you may argue or defend your work, or disagree with an opinion if you have valuable arguments, but ask for a promotion is not appreciated.

-No need for further explanation in case of a "pro" vote. But if you decline, you must have arguments for that, you must be able to explain why you decline. In order to improve a next attempt, we all need to know why (technically) a picture is declined. "Good quality" is enough (even if I personaly dislike), but "Bad quality" is not enough, and is useless because the photographer does not know how, where and why it is (is it , really ?) "bad".

I've promotted as QI your picture of the plant, because I think it is fine now, and because you improved the quality after my first review. Not because you asked me for a promotion ! What should you think if I had at first declined, and written only "Bad quality" ? So did you with one of my pictures (I do not care about a "decline" vote, but I would have been happy to know why you find this picture "bad", because it is interesting to me as an amateur photographer...

Thank you very much, and have a plaesant evening. Cheers from Paris--Jebulon (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: "CA" means

chromatic aberration.--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COM:QIC[edit]

Please, if you just comment a picture at QIC, don't change the status to "discuss", hold "nomination". If some image is supported and you don't think it should be a QI and you want to oppose it (and vice versa), then you should use "discuss", because then it will be moved in the consensual review, for more see here. Thanks! :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Har Ari 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! -- M 93 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nice house in ramot naftali.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 --PS-2507 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Young Drimia maritima, near Ramon crater, Israel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice, but underexposed maybe.--Jebulon 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)It was taken in late afternoon so maybe that's the problem, I'll fix it in Photoshop--Someone35 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Better after correction. QI now IMO.--Jebulon 14:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename suggested[edit]

In case it missed your watchlist, I suggested renaming File:American battleship from WWII in a naval museum in massachusetts .jpg to File:USS Salem, rear starboard view.jpg - because it's not a battleship. NVO (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- oops, it was a battleship, Category:USS Massachusetts (BB-59). NVO (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks I didn't think that ship actually took parts in serious battles, I'll now add it to the article--Someone35 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments great! --Ralf Roletschek 12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Waterfall in plitvice lakes national park, croatia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments very good composition --Carschten 14:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first quality image!--Someone35 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ! Nice beginning ! Keep going !--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 little bit too white in the sky but QI. --Ralf Roletschek 12:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! A beach in maine on a clear day.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good composition and nice foreground. (The skyline seems tilted on the thumbnail but it's not).--Vassil 16:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC) yeah somebody fixed the tilted background when I nominated it to FPC--Someone35 16:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpaca in the Alpacas farm near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.jpg[edit]

Hi Someone35, sorry, I've seen your comment yesterday. I didn't mean that you edited the picture, but actually the main subject is cut, and the right of the picture is empty, so I think the composition isn't so good, especially for a domestic animal; but of course you may ask for other reviews for this picture. Regards. --Vassil (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never spoke about both ears, I edited my first comment above because I understood that you want to show only the face. But I'm still thinking that the composition with the cut hair is not the best. --Vassil (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a square should be better, perhaps with a little crop at the bottom to shorten the disturbing yellow-white place on the right. But it won't fix the top of the picture. --Vassil (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I answered on the QI candidates page and I put the picture back on Nomination, with a comment. Let's wait and see...

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

If you would like to nominate another 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 little bit too white in the sky but QI. --Ralf Roletschek 12:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:American battleship, massachusetts.jpg[edit]

Hi Someone35, could you please specify why you want this image deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, can you please just delete it? I took it (compare the resolution and camera model to my other pics if you don't believe me) and I would like this picture to be deleted, thanks.--Someone35 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't? Well, 2 months ago you released this image under a free license. Now, you suddenly want it deleted just because you want so. (Besides, nobody questioned your authorship) --Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to change the license or delete it myself? Even with a free license, it is my picture, isn't it?--Someone35 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, again. If you read the legal code of the license under which you released this image, you will see that the license is perpetual. It is our (Commons) understanding that you cannot revoke such a license. So, there is no legal basis for your request. You may ask for deletion out of (our) courtesy, of course, but we do expect to get some rationale for such a wish. (if this would be critical information, you may either mail it to OTRS or to any admin of your confidence) Besides, even in case the image is deleted from Commons, anybody who downloaded it already can use it according to the original license. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dupe of what? I can't see a similar image in Category:USS Massachusetts (BB-59). --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of this image--Someone35 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now if I claim that I copied it by mistake from a website that I don't remember and that it is copyrighted and can get Wikipedia into legal issues, will it be deleted?--Someone35 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we playing games now? Look at your very first comment in this thread! I will now remove the speedy tag from the image, as there is obviously no rationale for it. Feel free to file a regular deletion request. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the website from which this image came from. Please delete the image.--Someone35 (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and here it says that it was "Posted by imddd8@yahoo.com on 15.09.2011" (i.e., today). Sorry, no longer interested in this. EOD. --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone35, your recent edits in File:American battleship, massachusetts.jpg are vandalism and have been reverted. Either file a regular DR or leave this image alone. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my image and I am allowed to do whatever I want to do with it--Someone35 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My files about[edit]

You are quite right that my lense makes CA. My problem is that I dont see the mistakes just after loading. They are emerged in some time. And nobody could explain this effect! Sincerely, should I see them, I never that load.

Now I have 17 QI. So what is your mind : must I throw my lens, or let it alive? --Vitold Muratov(talk) 10:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Are you from Canary islands?[edit]

No, I'm from Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. In august, I was seven days in Lanzarote, the Canary Islands. I did 700 photos (some of those photos are quite deficient) in this seven days. My work is not photographer, it's a hobby. Greetings--Miguel Bugallo 11:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpaca in the Alpacas farm near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.jpg (the end)[edit]

According to Jebulon's advice, I added "Vicugna pacos" to the description and promoted the picture. --Vassil (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Versailles gardens with a fountain.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alpaca in the Alpacas farm near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Crop at the top. --Vassil 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Cropped.--Someone35 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)The general composition is way better. The cut hair at the top is less disturbing now, so I don't oppose any more, but I should like a review by someone else.--Vassil It is a mandatory in QIC to indicate for living species the correct ID at least in the file description page, not only in category. Can be promotted otherwise IMO.--Jebulon 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Done --Vassil 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice.--Vassil 22:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2 locals in a canoe in the Zambezi 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 Very good.--Vassil 17:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Support Good and useful pic. --A.Ceta 12:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list[edit]

Hello,

I reverted your last edit. You messed up with the whole page. Please try editing or adding one image at a time. Best regards, Yann (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.Vitold Muratov(talk) 10:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a tip for reviews[edit]

Hello Someone35,

Please notice that you have to put the ( | ) only when you are the first reviewer. If not, don't put this little sign, otherwise one cannot read your comment. I don't know why, it is a mystery of the "wiki" writing IMO. But it is so. Cheers, --Jebulon (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I noticed that already and I stopped doing it when I discovered it, sorry if I did it by mistake.--Someone35 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cliffs in judea desert, israel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK --Airwolf 17:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! A giraffe in Chobe national park, Botswana.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The head is unsharp and it's in shade (or only in shade to me, I say this because I'm not sure)--Lmbuga 22:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I think that its head is dark because of the angle of the sun, I'll try to fix it now--Someone35 06:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Done.--Someone35 06:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, good work, QI to me now--Lmbuga 21:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Snow in mount hermon, israel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good definition, sharp, but noise on the sky, centered image, little CA (green on stones) and in my opinion a bit dark and vigneting--Lmbuga 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Done, I removed the noise in the sky and brightened the picture.--Someone35 06:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good now--Lmbuga 20:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jokulsarlon 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 Nice, QI to me--Lmbuga 12:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Truck wheel signs in iceland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice. I think that it must be QI in spite of the noise. The problem is to me that it's a little tilted. See the horizon. What do you think--Lmbuga 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
QI for me --Anghy 09:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment not bad, but it definitely needs a cropping --Carschten 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Done--Someone35 17:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a version by myself (wb, contrast, rotation). Maybe it's better? --Carschten 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I think that they both can be quality images, but yours has a better composition so I put it and added a credit for you--Someone35 11:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, Support now --Carschten 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beach in maine on a clear day[edit]

Hi Someone35, I came across your image File:A beach in maine on a clear day.jpg at stock.xchng. Were you to release it there as well or is it a copyvio? If you are the same user, pls note that there is a copyright inconsistency. --ELEKHH^T 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's me and I can prove it if you want, I don't care about copyrights (personally I think that copyrights are a stupid thing and that nobody puts a sh*t on them anyway). --Someone35 (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red-footed Booby[edit]

Hi Someone35, you made a coding error on the QI page when promoting the booby from the Galápagos. Could you please fix it? :-) Cheers, --Cayambe (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed.--Someone35 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QIC[edit]

Hi Someone35,

Congratulations for your last pictures P.S. I have made the change in the file File:Moulbaix MV1fJPG.jpg

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

k, thanks--Someone35 (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fagus sylvatica 'Atropunicea' - Mariemont 2.jpg[edit]

What do you suggest to improve File: Fagus sylvatica 'Atropunicea' - Mariemont 2.jpg Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the sky is overexposed and there's CA on the tree--Someone35 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by CA

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

w:Chromatic aberration--Someone35 (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:American_battleship,_massachusetts.jpg[edit]

File:American_battleship,_massachusetts.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 ∙ +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View of NYC from Empire state building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 06:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Houses with grass on the roof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 06:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! A bridge in Plitvice lakes national park, Croatia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 be sharper, but the composition is really good. --Elekhh 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris from its main 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 Quality is good for a QI. Please add coordinates! --Carschten 16:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice. --Vassil 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mount ebal, near nablus 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Mattbuck 12:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Houses in the marble neighborhood, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Carschten 11:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments I don't much like the rope. Mattbuck 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Do you want me to crop it?--Someone35 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --Carschten 11:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Western wall and its square, jerusalem.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue of liberty from staten island ferry.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Needs maybe a bit more light, but good for QI.--Jebulon 13:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Southern Manhattan from Staten Island ferry.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Please correct the perspective.--Jebulon 13:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC) please do`nt distort the picture. --Ralf Roletschek 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)... It is already distorted...--Jebulon 13:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done corrected distortions, adjusted contrast and levels --Carschten 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) thank you very much carschten--Someone35 16:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Good now.--Jebulon 15:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Please see annotations--Jebulon 13:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC) You mean I should tilt it?--Someone35 17:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC), no, only correct the perspective aberration. --Jebulon 13:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done corrected distortions, adjusted contrast and levels --Carschten 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) thank you very much carschten--Someone35 16:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Good now.--Jebulon 08:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:545164848.jpg[edit]

File:545164848.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 ∙ +/−

Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what's that file?--Someone35 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A photo showing The international Juliaca airport you uploaded in May 2011. Is it possible that this file and File:5615446545.jpg, your first two uploads, are test uploads with false information on source and authorship and that you forgot to care about removing this copyvios yourself? --Martin H. (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that I uploaded these pictures, you can delete them if you want. Also, if you delete them, can you please also delete this one as well?--Someone35 (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill delete the unfree file, but not the other. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to delete the other file too?

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View of Wadi Qetalav, Jerusalem mountains.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, Someone35!

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) 13:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jerusalem map Green Line2.png was uncategorized on 9 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Someone35/Archive 1

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

File:Stupid_flag.png[edit]

Categorise pictures[edit]

File:Reykjavik's church.jpg[edit]

Sorry ?[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Loire River[edit]

QIC page[edit]

COM:QIC[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Rename suggested[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

File:Alpaca in the Alpacas farm near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.jpg[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

File:American battleship, massachusetts.jpg[edit]

My files about[edit]

Re:Are you from Canary islands?[edit]

File:Alpaca in the Alpacas farm near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.jpg (the end)[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list[edit]

a tip for reviews[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

A beach in maine on a clear day[edit]

Red-footed Booby[edit]

QIC[edit]

File:Fagus sylvatica 'Atropunicea' - Mariemont 2.jpg[edit]

File:American_battleship,_massachusetts.jpg[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

File:545164848.jpg[edit]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Navigation menu

Search