User talk:MrPanyGoff/Archive 3

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope. I will support this nomination, yet it would be better if the boat was completely over water...--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question You mentioned that there river here is in a high-water period, and I notice that this image shows a small separate fall to the left of the main fall, which does not appear in our other two photographs of this. I assume the separate fall is because of the high water, but I'm concerned that as a result, this image may depict an atypical appearance of the waterfall. Do you have any information about the degree to which the water was high (was it a normal seasonal variance or an exceptional flood?) and the frequency with which the second waterfall occurs? If this is not an atypical appearance for the waterfall, I will support. cmadler (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the separate fall is probably because of the high water but I don't think this is something atypical. I would say that something is atypical if it can be seen once per a few decades. This picture shows something typical for every year, I suppose.--MrPanyGoff 15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If this is just normal seasonal variation, then  Support as best in scope. cmadler (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sofia University

Hi,

The subcategories of Category:Sofia University aren't well named. For example Category:Faculty of Chemistry. "Faculty of Chemistry" is generic, and thousands of universities have one. It should be Category:Faculty of Chemistry, Sofia University. Any objections if I move these?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I'm absolutely agree ;) Some week ago I thought about renaming this gallery but didn't understand how.--MrPanyGoff 12:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Drvengrad

I agree with that. I fixed the scope. You may review it again. Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Oppose I would support this if the scope were limited to photographs of Monet, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a better representation of him than one of his self-portraits or this portrait by Renoir. Certainly a painting is not a strictly acurate visual representation in the way a photograph can be, but a good painter -- and several of the paintings we have of Monet are by great painters -- can capture a truth beyond simple visual duplication. cmadler (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is quite funny :) There are articles about Monet in almost all the wiki languages. Can you count how many of them use some painting instead of the photograph for the title image?--MrPanyGoff 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not going to to check all of them, but out of curiousity, I looked at en and then the first five interwikilinks from there. Of six articles sampled, one used only the uncropped photo from which this was taken, one uses only this cropped photo, two use this cropped photo and File:Pierre August Renoir, Claude Monet Reading.jpg, one uses only File:Claude Monet 049.jpg, and one uses only File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 112.jpg. In any event, I stand by my previous statement of opinion. cmadler (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I support limiting the scope to photograph. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm very surprised and actually cannot fully understand the discussion here. The paintings, sketches and other forms of visualization are never used in VI section „People” if we have a photograph of the person. In this case we have a perfect portrait photo. It is just a great fortune. So what do we discuss now? The same is with the animals. We can nominate drawings and paintings of people in the section „Works of Art” but considering section people we can use them only as substitute in cases when no photo is available. With Regards ;) --MrPanyGoff 10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) OK, I'm going to wait for a day and then I'll open a MVR to compete the photo with some painting.--MrPanyGoff 10:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I misspoke. I think this topic is very important and there must be space for photography and for a pictorial. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK. You mean that some people should be represented with more visual materials in the „People“ section because of their notability. I'm more or less agree. But aside from the photography there are painting, graphic arts and sculpture. Should we generalize all of them with the word „pictorial“. Then we are going to have two: Name (photo) and Name (pictorial). I can accept this. So should we try this way to see if there is some opposition? :) --MrPanyGoff 12:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Personally I prefer photography to the subject at hand. But the idea of ​​being able to promote a table on the same subject is not bad. The two are complementary: they are not mutually exclusive. "Claude Monet Photographic Portrait" is a scope which I think is judicious. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Claude Monet to Claude Monet (portrait photograph) --MrPanyGoff 07:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Best in new scope. cmadler (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I agree too --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

•  Oppose I'm opposed to this one, because the sign is so hard to read. Of "ARBEIT", the raised gate on the left partially obscures the "A", the "R" is hard to see against the window, and the upside-down "B" is hard to see against the underside of the eaves. On the other side, the "T" from "MACHT" and most of "FREI" are lost against the dark leafless trees. If we are going to use an image of this sign, it should be easily legible against the background. cmadler (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not the sign above the gate, it is mostly the view behind it and the atmosphere! The sign is an extra to the whole.--MrPanyGoff 20:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The sign may be an extra, but for me, in this photo, it detracts. cmadler (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I agree. Myrabella (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I support this one.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Scores:

1. Scene of Auschwitz I, Poland5.jpg: +1
2. Arbeit-auschwitz04.jpg: +0 
3. Auschwitz-Work Set Free-new.JPG: +2 
4. Auschwitz I 07.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Scene of Auschwitz I, Poland5.jpg: Declined.
File:Arbeit-auschwitz04.jpg: Declined.
File:Auschwitz-Work Set Free-new.JPG: Promoted.
File:Auschwitz I 07.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Competitors are not as good as this one, indeed. best in (interesting) scope IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Review

Hello, Pany! Can i ask from you to review another image? That would mean a lot to me... :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to leave it as unassessed for now because the main part of the memorial is not visible. Don't you have a photo like this one for example?--MrPanyGoff 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Info Just to mention that this scope belongs to this section here in the VI project.--MrPanyGoff 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prunus cerasifera blossoms.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 20:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

 Support Here I recognize! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Me too ! --Jebulon (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Nigel Mansell 2007 cropped.jpg: +0
2. Nigelcropped.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Nigel Mansell 2007 cropped.jpg: Declined.
File:Nigelcropped.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Question The trademark is not it a problem? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a problem but there is no way of presenting such a products without seeing the brand. Actually, all cameras which are promoted here also have brands written on them. The same is with other things. Whichever gloves I would choose all have some brand. So what should we do then? --MrPanyGoff 19:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Agree, here seems right to me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Beautiful photo, best in scope. cmadler (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Come on pals, have a look here please! We need your votes!--MrPanyGoff 16:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Support It is best in scope. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I support this one.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Winter Brücke.jpg: +3
2. Riga-Blick von Petrikirche03.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Winter Brücke.jpg: Promoted.
File:Riga-Blick von Petrikirche03.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 06:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Oppose For me, File:Joueur.jpg is our best image in this scope, since it not only shows the shape of the instrument but also illustrates how it is held and the playing position. (I am not opening an MVR, however, because that image is not geocoded.) cmadler (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The photo that you suggest is very good but in another scope which I plan to open the next week anyway. Usually for VI in the section of „Objects“, it is preferable the objects to be presented as a museum exhibit. The photo you suggest is clearly for scopes in the section „Activities / Ocupations“. So, both photographs have their places in the VI project.--MrPanyGoff 11:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Request Come on pals, have a look here please! We need your votes!--MrPanyGoff 16:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good for me too. Agree with MrPanyGoff opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 14:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment Should I remove this «(portrait drawing)» to be only «Vladimir Vysotsky» or there is another thing that confuses you?--MrPanyGoff 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I think the name alone is better for the scope. Yann (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Vladimir Vysotsky (portrait drawing) to Vladimir Vysotsky --MrPanyGoff 08:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Jesse Owens1.jpg

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

review

•  Support Very good topic --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Criteria satisfied. Used in many articles. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Very good work --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Dr.Haus (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria, best in scope. cmadler (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Hole-in-the-Wall, Wyoming - 2.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 20:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Zaragoza church of San Fernando drawing by Tiburcio del Caso (section).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support VI for me; Good scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Al criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Agree. Thanks for the annotations. --Myrabella (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Oppose Scope should be "Muhammad Ali", not "Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr." Ali is the name he chose to use, it is the name by which he is best known, and it was the name in use at the time of this photograph. cmadler (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm partly agree. What about a scope name «Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay)»? After all he obtained popularity under the name of Cassius Clay. This is the name when he won the Olympic Gold Medal in 1960. The last generations know him as Muhammad Ali but the older people knew him mostly as Cassius Clay. (I remember that about 30 years ago my grandfather told stories about him using only the name Cassius Clay).--MrPanyGoff 17:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's a good solution. Yann (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. (Muhammad Ali) to Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) --MrPanyGoff 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg nominated for deletion

This image was awarded a "Valued Image" criteria. However, this is also nominated for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg. What can you do about "Valued Image" criteria? --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 07:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

•  Support Not only does this give a wider (panoramic) view, but I think the color is better here. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support and now inserted in a WP article. --Myrabella (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Chamarel Falls - 5.jpg: -1
2. 2006-10-02 Chamarel Waterfalls.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Chamarel Falls - 5.jpg: Declined.
File:2006-10-02 Chamarel Waterfalls.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

 Support The effort of the musician is also visible ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose The flip folder obscures too much of the right hand placement. Also, it looks like his right hand fingers are slid onto the wrong valves, though this is hard to tell for sure because of the flip folder. Also, his embouchure looks strained to me (perhaps playing a high note, but atypical nevertheless). cmadler (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
•  SupportMatter of taste...--Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. U.S. Army Band Tuba-Euphonium Conference 2008.jpg: +0
2. Aldeburgh Festival 2011.jpg: +1 
3. Dobcross Brass Contest.jpg: +0 
=>
File:U.S. Army Band Tuba-Euphonium Conference 2008.jpg: Declined.
File:Aldeburgh Festival 2011.jpg: Promoted.
File:Dobcross Brass Contest.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 17:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Easily best in scope, shows a good view of the entire island. cmadler (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Estadio José Jorge Conte.JPG

Hi, you've suggested to change the scope of my VIC nomination which is linked above. I've taken you suggestion, so give a vote if you want to. Regards, --Dr.Haus (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

•  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Per Walter Siegmund's opinion in the nomination's page of my candidate.--Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Cariama cristata Schönbrunn Vienna.jpg: +0
2. Cariama cristata -near Goiania, Goias, Brazil-8.jpg: +2
3. Sireima 2 REFON.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Cariama cristata Schönbrunn Vienna.jpg: Declined.
File:Cariama cristata -near Goiania, Goias, Brazil-8.jpg: Promoted.
File:Sireima 2 REFON.JPG: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 11:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

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

review

•  SupportPer above --Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support good for VI --Katarighe (Talk) 00:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Michael Chang.jpg: +2
2. Michael Chang 2009.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Michael Chang.jpg: Promoted.
File:Michael Chang 2009.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 10:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. Totodu74 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/A cute girl celebrating holi festival at Standford.jpg

This image scope is changed for further review. --Yjenith (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope imo. --Dr.Haus (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support cmadler (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Holi festival

Hello MrPanyGoff, For the scope Holi Festival in VIC, I find this image interesting : File:Holi_Participants_-_Howrah_2012-03-08_01033.jpg. Not geocoded, but we know it has been taken in w:Howrah, and its author is active on Commons at the moment, it could be asked a more precise location. What would you think of it? Best regards, --Myrabella (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo location of Holi festival

Dear MrPanyGoff,
The image File:Holi_Participants_-_Howrah_2012-03-08_01033.jpg has been geo-coded and a detail description has also been given. Regards. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --MrPanyGoff 19:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much both of you! I've added this image to the MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 SupportGood idea, good scope. Best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I agree that this is the best image we have showing the high-density portion of Arlington, but I'm not sure it's proper to call this "downtown" Arlington -- based on en:Arlington, Virginia#Geography, what we see here is more of a series of districts rather than a single continuous downtown. I'm also bothered by the lack of any page, page section, or category corresponding with or even relating closely to the proposed scope, which further suggests that Arlington doesn't have a single true "downtown" area. cmadler (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, First of all, I would like to ask all people to be more constructive so that to develop the VI project and not to slow it down. So, as I understand, all of us are agree that this is a valuable photo and some of us are somehow reserved about the formulation of the scope. The urban planning is one of my specialities and everybody who can read the urban structures will be agree that the developed linear structure which we have here is something important, moreover, it is some kind of a spinal column for Arlington (it is clearly visible also on the satellite photos). The misunderstanding is because of its shape - linear instead of the most popular compact square or circle as well as the fact that this Arlington is not actually a city in the conventional sense. Therefore, I spent several days in thinking about the right word which best describes this area. Well, I couldn't think of a better or closer word than a „downtown“. Yes, this structure here is some kind of a downtown. So, if you can suggest a better word, please do it. We should proceed with this remarkably informative view and go ahead. Cheers.--MrPanyGoff 22:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I can only assume the above comment is directed at me. It's certainly not my intention to just slow down the VI project, but I do prefer to go slow and make sure to get things right than to go fast and possibly make mistakes. In this case, I've left a note at en:Talk:Arlington County, Virginia#Naming the high-density corridor? asking for comments -- it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are some Wikipedians from that area watching the article who may be able to offer a better name/term for this part of Arlington. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible the local people also to have no idea how to call it. That's why we should decide it. Again I think that downtown is the best word here but if you cannot accept it for some reason then Let's think about the name: Arlington County urban centre, Virginia. What do you think?--MrPanyGoff 10:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Arlington County urban center, Virginia", "Arlington County urban corridor, Virginia", or "Arlington County high-density corridor, Virginia". I had been thinking that perhaps there would be a term in use referring to one of the major roads on the corridor, or the metro (e.g. "Arlington County, Virginia, metro corridor"). cmadler (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Arlington County Downtown, Virginia to Arlington County urban center, Virginia --MrPanyGoff 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support new scope. cmadler (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Mamelles lighthouse - Dakar - 2.jpg: +0
2. Mamelles lighthouse - Dakar.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Mamelles lighthouse - Dakar - 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Mamelles lighthouse - Dakar.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment I'm not sure about this due to the resolution/size. That's my only concern, it certainly meets all the other VI criteria. cmadler (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The only regulation is: "The image must look good on-screen at the review size..." This photo looks good. It is perfect for title image of wiki-article.--MrPanyGoff 07:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spider.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spider.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 12:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Maybe it would be good to add exterior --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I just forgot. --MrPanyGoff 12:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC).

•  Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

F-16 VI

I think nobody else will participate in the discussion. Let's arrange the set together and submit it together for voting. What do you think? Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 OpposeSorry no, this picture does not show "Empress Elisabeth of Austria", but "Erszébet, queen of Hungary", and was taken during the day of her coronation in Budapest, 8 of june 1867. The fact it is the same person does not matter, but the difference is very important historically, especially for this sovereign and for that time. The portrait is very good, and very representative of the person, but IMO, the scope should be different...--Jebulon (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you suggest the idea some individuals to have separated scopes for, let's say, every period of their life? Would you accept the generalized scope name: «Elisabeth of Austria - Sisi» ?--MrPanyGoff 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You understand me very well, dear ;)... Your picture does not show an "Empress of Austria", but a "Queen of Hungary", I don't say nothing else. You know what ? The scope Sisi should be sufficient for me ! Or you use a very short scope, or you use the long one, to be complete (maybe Elisabeth of Wittelsbach, duchess in Bavaria, Empress of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Illyria ; Queen of Jerusalem ; Archduchess of Austria ; Grand-duchess of Tuscany and Cracovia; Duchess of Lorraine, Salzbourg, Würzburg, Franconia, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukovine ; Grand princess of Transylvania ; Margravin of Moravia ; Duchess of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, Friul, Ragusa and Zara ; Countess-princess of Habsbourg and Tyrol, Kybourg, Gorizia and Gradisca ; Princess of Trenta and Brixen, Berchtesgaden and Mergentheim ; Margravin of Upper and Lower Lusatia, Margravin in Istria ; Countess of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, and Sonneberg ; Dame of Trieste, Kotor and Windischgraetz  ; Grand voïvoda of Voïvodia of Serbia), but maybe it is a bit long... Well. Elisabeth of Habsbourg-Lorraine as family name after wedding, is good too.--Jebulon (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Empress Elisabeth of Austria - Sisi to Elisabeth of Austria - Sisi --MrPanyGoff 16:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Comment sorry to still disagree with the scope. She was born bavarian, and here she is shown hungarian. By the way, the related article about this person in the french Wikipédia is entitled fr:Élisabeth de Wittelsbach...--Jebulon (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Elisabeth of Austria - Sisi to Elisabeth of Bavaria - Sisi --MrPanyGoff 06:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Comment i'm terribly sorry again. As she was not a direct member of the royal family of Bavaria, she never was named Elisabeth OF Bavaria (von Bayern), but she had the courtesy title of Duchess IN Bavaria (in Bayern). You may read this, for instance, on the signboard in front of her sarcophagus, recently promoted as VI.--Jebulon (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the meaning of this project: Elisabeth of Austria - Sisi or Elisabeth of Bavaria - Sisi are the only good and legitimate names for this scope. 98% of the wikipedia articles use one of these names. All other names just going to mislead the audience since they are not so popular. So please, choose one of the two suggested titles and stop the intentionaly spaming the project. Actually there is one more possibility: Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary - Sisi, there are two or three articles named with this title. So these are the 3 names under which this person is known. --MrPanyGoff 13:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The name Élisabeth de Wittelsbach is used in only one wiki article and this article is under a serious suspicion since there are a lot of issues standing in the lead of it.--MrPanyGoff 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

-First, please notice I'm only trying to do here the best job possible.

-Considering the meaning of this project, which is trying to build something encyclopedic enough, your suggestions are not the only good nor legitimates names for this scope, sorry. Please, DO NOT accuse me of intentionaly spaming only because I disagree for parts with you, and because I'm trying to be as precise as possible.

-The so-called suspicion about the french WP article does not concern the title of it, which is not discussed in the related discussion page (I may put moreover a banner too, or discuss the names of other articles in other wp, it has not a very high significance, it's a wiki !). By the way, in my poor opinion, the banners of suspicion are very severe and a bit excessive (they are essentially for -relative- lack of sources, and wiki-style).

-Elisabeth of Austria - Sisi is not admissible as scope because you show a picture of Erzsébet kiralyne, name of the photo/file, meaning in magyar "QUEEN Elisabeth", not "EMPRESS", and queen is for Hungary, please see argumentation above, and please read this if you are interested about this sensitive issue (and why this picture is important for the hungarian history of the year 1867).

-Elisabeth of Bavaria - Sisi is not admissible as scope simply because she has never borne that name. ([see here], in french, sorry, and here, for note and signboard.).

-Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary - Sisi is admissible by me as a good enough compromise: it is good for the person, and good for the special picture too. I'd support this one.

I'm afraid I can't add nothing more in this discussion, my intention was not to generate a conflict--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Elisabeth of Bavaria - Sisi to Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary - Sisi --MrPanyGoff 09:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Good scope, opposition removed. Best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria satisfied, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Is here some remarks?--MrPanyGoff 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Both have minor compositional flaws, e.g., the roadbed is centered vertically and the left end is not visible. A higher, or lower, camera location may have been more interesting. This image shows 6.5 spans; the other, a bit more. However, both "illustrate its subject well" (resolution, illumination and exposure), I think. I choose this one because of the drama conveyed by the ripples in the river and the recession of the bridge into the distance. Also, this one shows more of the east approach thereby providing a bit more context for the structure, and it lacks the large foreground shadow in the lower left. Finally, it works better as a thumbnail, I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Kuldiga bridge.jpg: +1
2. KuldigaBridge.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Kuldiga bridge.jpg: Promoted.
File:KuldigaBridge.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 21:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Mont Tondu 2.jpg: +0
2. Mont-Blanc, Mont Tondu, Aiguille des Glaciers.jpg: +1 
3. Mont Tondu.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Mont Tondu 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Mont-Blanc, Mont Tondu, Aiguille des Glaciers.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mont Tondu.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 21:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all crieria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/F-16 Fighting Flacon

Ready. And I would strongly advise you make an archive of this page, becuase it's immensely long. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, nobody is interested. :) Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support It may seem foolish to nominate an alternative and vote for another one... However, I finally support this one, because it shows participants throwing powder of different colors at each other, with their faces and clothes smeared of coloured powder, and that illustrates Holi well IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC). P.S.  Request The geotag points at a building, whereas the scene takes place outside. To be checked, but I assume that what's most important in this respect is to indicate that the photo was taken in the Transvaal neighborhood of The Hague. --Myrabella (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved a bit the geotag in the local park which is usualy mentioned as the place of celebrating this fest in Transvaal.--MrPanyGoff 08:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. A cute girl celebrating holi festival at Standford.jpg: +0
2. Holi Phagwa.jpg: +0 
3. Holi Celebrations at UC Berkeley, April 3 2010.jpg: +0 
4. Holi Feest 2008 meisjes.jpg: +1
5. Holi Participants - Howrah 2012-03-08 01033.jpg: +0
=>
File:A cute girl celebrating holi festival at Standford.jpg: Declined.
File:Holi Phagwa.jpg: Declined.
File:Holi Celebrations at UC Berkeley, April 3 2010.jpg: Declined.
File:Holi Feest 2008 meisjes.jpg: Promoted.
File:Holi Participants - Howrah 2012-03-08 01033.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 21:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 17:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Good reason. Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Question VI, certainly, but what is the correct scope name? File name and scope are given as "Smolny Convent", but the category is "Smolny monastery". Which is correct? cmadler (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both are correct.--MrPanyGoff 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. 85.11.173.130 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

François Fillon

Hi! I've added the camera location to File:UMP regional elections Paris 2010-01-21 n13.jpg and to the whole category. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Hole-in-the-Wall, Wyoming.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Hole-in-the-Wall, Wyoming.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I don't like the lighting (de gustibus...) but despite that I find it to be easily best in scope. cmadler (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for Khajuraho Group of Monuments

Hello,

Reference to your comments, regarding geo-coordinates. I have the coordinates only for Khajuraho, but not for the exact temple location. Will it help.

Rajenver (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Added geotagging information. Also removed some files from nomination.

Rajenver (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope. Totodu74 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Ikarus 31.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Ikarus 31.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met. A link to the city Jogjakarta in the English Wikipedia within the description would be convenient. HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope, meets all criteria. cmadler (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Egyptian palmiform capital.jpg: +0
2. Sahure-Pyramid - Temple 04.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Egyptian palmiform capital.jpg: Declined.
File:Sahure-Pyramid - Temple 04.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 16:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell in South Africa

 Scope changed - Cheers. ;-) Angelus^(talk) 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Best regards. Angelus^(talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Candidates: Lakshaman Temple

Changed 3 Images as per suggestion. Included 2 of yours as well, putting you out of voter's list.

By the way, i am still planning to upload around 40 images for same temple for sculpture groups. I would nominate those as well.

Rajenver (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Two of your images do not have geo-tagging. Rajenver (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support criteria met. The date of the picture should be corrected to 27. Jul. 2009. A link to WP would be nice. HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done The date is corrected.--MrPanyGoff 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment I have two concerns, one technical, one of value. The technical concern is of two minor artifacts near the top middle (by themselves, these would not prevent a VI, I think) and a large section of glare or reflection above the building on the left. The value concern is whether these high-rises -- spectacular, to be sure, are typical of 1st Avenue. en:First Avenue (Manhattan) says it passes through "mostly residential neighborhoods". cmadler (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm sorry for the reflection in the left part of the sky but I think it is not unpleasant and it is not obstructive at all.--MrPanyGoff 14:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. 1st Avenue - Manhattan.jpg: +1
2. First Avenue in New York by David Shankbone.jpg: +0 
=>
File:1st Avenue - Manhattan.jpg: Promoted.
File:First Avenue in New York by David Shankbone.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 07:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Adinath Temple - Khajuraho.jpg

File:Adinath Temple - Khajuraho.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!

Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 18:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria, best in scope. cmadler (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Luzhniki stadium - Moscow.jpg

File:Luzhniki stadium - Moscow.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!

Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Agree with MrPanyGoff. Totodu74 (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 07:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Easily best in scope. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. Not so easy to take a good illustrative photo like this in that urban environment. --Myrabella (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support I find this one the best, partially because of the good lighting. cmadler (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  Just to explain: my rational for nominating the other one is that I find that on Jastrow's image, Fillon seems to be switching from one facial expression to another, and I hardly recognise him; while on the other one he is performing his typical "I'm being photographed" face, and looks much more familiar. Of course this is quite subjective and I'm really not the best person to judge, since I have now grown too accustomed to my portrait to be objetive. I do find that Jastrow's image is a very strong contender, and I can only envy its technical merits. -- Rama (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Francois Fillon IMG 3405.jpg: -1
2. UMP regional elections Paris 2010-01-21 n13.jpg: +2
=>
File:Francois Fillon IMG 3405.jpg: Declined.
File:UMP regional elections Paris 2010-01-21 n13.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 06:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Incandescent light bulb E27.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Is this scope too boring to attract reviewers?--MrPanyGoff 08:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Yes I was confused by the scope: E27 is difficult to understand.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality, no disturbing background or shadow. Best in scope for me. Totodu74 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support It's a very useful depiction of a light bulb, no problems with the image Scope and categorization are also clear and it is a featured picture to boot. -- S_peakF_ree (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think any VI for Kings Cross must show the characteristic tubular roof, and this is the best such. cmadler (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Happy to see trains in a railway station...--Jebulon (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg: +0
2. Kings Cross Station Platforms, London - Sept 2007.jpg: +2 
=>
File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg: Declined.
File:Kings Cross Station Platforms, London - Sept 2007.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 21:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Probably the best in scope, but not geocoded. Yann (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• But these kind of photos are usually not geocoded in this project.--MrPanyGoff 18:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support VI for me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Best in scope for me too. Totodu74 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 04:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to vote in administrator request

I requested for administration. Please vote in my request.Please give your view about me. If you oppose no problem But please vote in this. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/sridhar1000

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Khajuraho India, Devi Jagadambi Temple - Full View.jpg: +0
2. Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Khajuraho India, Devi Jagadambi Temple - Full View.jpg: Declined.
File:Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Bobby charlton elgrafico.JPG: +1
2. Bobby Charlton.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Bobby charlton elgrafico.JPG: Promoted.
File:Bobby Charlton.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's Station fort, Wilderness Road State Park VI

Commons:Valued image candidates/WRSP2.JPG -- scope changed per your request. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Not only best in scope, but hard to imagine one better! cmadler (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 07:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Why not this one ? ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the composition is better and the light is better. On the other image as if the sea and the island are on the slope. Also, the nominated photo gives information about the connection, in terms of situation, between the main object and the nearby important Thompson Island as well as the mainland where important buildings and structures are visible.--MrPanyGoff 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support VI for me; The picture describes well the island and its environment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't oppose, but I think that the fact there is another island in the picture could be disturbing and confusing. Confusion is avoided only by annotation.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • MVR opened, since I'm not sure.--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support COM:VICR #3 is better for this one, I think. The color and lighting are better. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Spectacle Island - Massachusetts.jpg: +2
2. Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Spectacle Island - Massachusetts.jpg: Promoted.
File:Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criterie met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saints Peter and Paul monastery.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Church with satelite TV - QI. --NorbertNagel 21:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aleksandrovo village - Targovishte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Dull light but QI. --NorbertNagel 18:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman Stele - Lyaskovets.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rooster - Gallus gallus domesticus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Is there something that bothers you? Some criterion not satisfied?--MrPanyGoff 06:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I'm not expert on this matter. I was wondering if the recent picture was no better. but it seems more important to see, in appearance, of 70 years. :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support this is not the best resolution but this is the best image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Marinov.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marinov.jpg. 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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Stefan4 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support This one is widely used in Wikipedia articles in 10 languages. I think it is very slightly better. cmadler (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think this one is better. Yann (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Piedra del Sol. Museo Nacional de Antropología, México. MPLC 01.jpg: +0
2. Monolito de la Piedra del Sol.jpg: +2
=>
File:Piedra del Sol. Museo Nacional de Antropología, México. MPLC 01.jpg: Declined.
File:Monolito de la Piedra del Sol.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Razboishte monastery.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Iifar 09:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominating

Hello, please, try not to delete any existing nominations when you enter one, there is place for everybody :) Poco a poco (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ok, digging into the history of the page I found this and I assume that you refer to that. To be honest I don't know how that happened, probably due to the extreme slow Internet connection I have right now during my vacation. I'm sorry for that, but please, don't "pay with the same coin" and do that intentionally, that's not fair and not the way we should deal with among colleagues. A message like the one I left you would have been enough and would have helped me. What refers to me I will make sure that it does not happen again. Poco a poco (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St John Aliturgetos church - Nesebar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--ArildV 06:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think this is the best one. --Bgag (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope. cmadler (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Arch of Marcus Aurelius - Tripoli.jpg: +0
2. Tripoli - Marc-Aurel-Lucius-Verus-Bogen 163 erbaut.jpg: +0
3. Marcus Aurelius Arch Tripoli Libya.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Arch of Marcus Aurelius - Tripoli.jpg: Declined.
File:Tripoli - Marc-Aurel-Lucius-Verus-Bogen 163 erbaut.jpg: Declined.
File:Marcus Aurelius Arch Tripoli Libya.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 08:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Godech central square.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support - Best in scope! --Angelus^(talk) 18:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria, best in scope. cmadler (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint Demetrius church - Godech.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 quality for me. --Florstein 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Godech Town Hall.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyaskovets central square.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. - A.Savin 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Reval Hotel Latvia.jpg

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nesebar old town.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 to me. --Iifar 09:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyaskovets town.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Mattbuck 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support The images in this scope are of low quality. This is the "best" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria; best in scope. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think this image is better; the rock structures are more easily visible thanks to the lighting in this photo. cmadler (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Domes de Fabedougou MS 4589.jpg: +0
2. Domes de Fabedougou.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Domes de Fabedougou MS 4589.jpg: Declined.
File:Domes de Fabedougou.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museumsquartier courtyard.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mariahilferstr. 73, Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 a little bit more contrasted, but good enough -- MJJR 06:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belvedere gardens statue - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 unsharp but nice composition and light --Moroder 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vase - Schönbrunn gardens.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vase sculpture - Liechtenstein Palace - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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'd prefered a better centered version, but this is good for QI.--Jebulon 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schönbrunn metro station - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Iifar 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Columbary - Schönbrunn palace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 for me. --Jkadavoor 06:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church of the Resurrection - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--ArildV 18:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Window - Liechtenstein Palace - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 12:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bugi Barabata - 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, 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 for QI IMO. For another time, I'd suggest framing him a bit to the right, because he's facing left. --Kadellar 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kunsthistorisches Museum entrance.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- JLPC 21:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palmhouse Burggarten - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 05:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holy Mother of God Church - Nesebar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 dark. High quality sharpness, and funny details (bird, moon...). QI.--Jebulon 10:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St John Aliturgetos church - Nesebar - 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 08:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goethe monument - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 great (white sky), but good enough. It clearly shows the monument for documentation. --Misburg3014 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint Elijah Church - Ilientsi - Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Capuchin Church - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--JLPC 09:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Single picture of the scope with a correctly perspective. All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support--Paris 16 (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support--Paris 16 (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support because Austria august2010 0238.jpg is too noisy. Totodu74 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Stephen's Cathedral - Vienna - rose window.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Stephen's Cathedral - Vienna - detail.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Two images in the competition is the best --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Epitaph - St. Stephen's Cathedral - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Mattbuck 13:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johann Rudolf Graf von Puchaim Epitaph.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --JLPC 08:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Innsbruck: City tower

Hello MrPanyGoff,

I have changed the scope. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ironwork - Belvedere - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 10:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Good choice, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria; best (only) in scope. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Best in scope especially if we add (exterior) :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support This view is most emblematic --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Voidokilia Beach1.jpg: +1
2. Voidokilia.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Voidokilia Beach1.jpg: Promoted.
File:Voidokilia.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 09:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gloriette detail.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 to me.--JLPC 08:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Stephen's Cathedral north tower - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Looks like it has minor green CA on the upper part, but nevertheless QI to me. --Iifar 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope change

Commons:Valued image candidates/Shiprock.snodgrass3.jpg has had a scope change since your last comment. Hohum (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Dushanbe 2010 03 National Museum.jpg

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support. Best in scope. -- JLPC (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Good scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Servite Church detail - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality; geoloc would be nice. --Coyau 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Geolocation added.--MrPanyGoff 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! D.Mollov House Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Imo you can add a bit exposure. --Iifar 16:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC). OK Yes, better now, QI to me. --Iifar 05:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Russian centre - Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 15:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austrian parliament fragment.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Kadellar 12:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orangery - Lower Belvedere.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support--Paris 16 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support--Paris 16 (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support--Paris 16 (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support. Best in scope. -- JLPC (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met. Only image in scope. -- Joydeep (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Good choice, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Liechtenstein Palace - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 technical quality. --NorbertNagel 16:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadtpark Metro Station.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 13:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakovska street building - Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 16:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tsar Liberator blvd building - Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please 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 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leopold Wing - Hofburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Iifar 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jeroen van Veen - Sofia 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 Good quality. --High Contrast 15:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope IMO. -- JLPC (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:National Library - Sofia.jpg

File:National Library - Sofia.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!

128.250.5.250 08:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Doogie White - MSG.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Danrok 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Capra-Time-38.jpg

File:Capra-Time-38.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!

We hope (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:DragonBridge Statue Ljubljana.jpg

File:DragonBridge Statue Ljubljana.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yours sincerely Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saints Apostles Peter and Paul church - Balgarevo - 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Veliko Tarnovo - fragment.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JDP90 08:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Renominating at VIC

Hi MrPanyGoff,

I formatted a bit on the renomination Commons:Valued image candidates/Théâtre Graslin.jpg to make it compliant with the renomination procedure. Yeah... I know it is tedious and clumsy... and the not a terribly important point, it just cleans up the review page a bit. You might want to do the same for the other double VI MVR, just to practise. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Time to archive your talk page? --Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaliakra Fortress.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JDP90 17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Bat's Head, Dorset.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Bat's Head, Dorset.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Stuborness

Thanks for your work and your advice in the VI nominations, but I think your mention of stubbornness is out of place.

I've nominated only a few VI images in the last years, and I did some reviewing some time ago. I know the basics of the process but I'm not very familiar with it. In the review process, you asked for more information and I just answered with more information. I didn't notice that in one place you mentioned description page, and I didn't realize that this was also mentioned in criterion 4.

Since then and until a few hours ago, I've been away. Then I couldn't do any edit in nominations, images or anywhere else.

I know I must improve the way I check images before nominating them, to produce better nominations, but this is not related to stubbornness.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to offend you with this „stubbornness“. I'm sorry if you feel like this. I just wondered what are the difficulties in adjusting this easily to solve problem. After all, you could ask for some help or something...--MrPanyGoff 09:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I could have asked for help if I had realized that there was a problem and I had been here. Now, I know for next time.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

removed Category:Quality images of England; added Category:Quality images of people of the United Kingdom using HotCat

I saw this. First off, because it's a person does not make it not of England, secondly, at least one of the ones you did is actually Peruvian. Or something. I forget, but she's definitely not English. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

However, good work generally. I have tried to help by county-categorising my QIs, but I noticed a lot of them didn't get categorised in your run-through, so I think a manual search through QI archives may be necessary to pick everything up. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Theatre fragment - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --JLPC 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Ljubljana Cathedral - side door.jpg

Yours sincerely Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope; Very good job of caption on the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Sofia Old TV Tower edit.jpg

File:Sofia Old TV Tower edit.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!

128.250.5.250 05:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Park Hotel Moskva Sofia 3.jpg

File:Park Hotel Moskva Sofia 3.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!

128.250.5.250 05:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: London Aquatics Centre (interior).

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
London Aquatics Centre (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 SupportMeets all criteria. --JLPC (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Café Griensteidl building - Michaelerplatz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Bgag 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grillparzer monument - Vienna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JDP90 14:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met; It would be useful to put in the caption of the image the land. Personally I do not know where was the Warwickshire...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree - next in the administrative divisions rank is England ;) --MrPanyGoff 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Itom 50cc racing motorcycle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 00:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Other images might be slightly better, but resolution makes this oner far more useful. All criteria met.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)