N. Johannes

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, N. Johannes!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Copyright status: File:Hunzehaven Groningen.jpg

Copyright status: File:Hunzehaven Groningen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hunzehaven Groningen.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Hunzehaven 1971.jpg
• File:Seatrade logo.png
• File:Seatrade logo.svg

Yours sincerely, JuTa 09:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Have contacted the copyright owner of Hunzehaven pictures, if not successful i will remove the images this week. re: Seatrade pics, you can delete them from the commons. Regards, N. Johannes. 11:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N. Johannes (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hunzehaven Map.jpg

Copyright status: File:Hunzehaven Map.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hunzehaven Map.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Hunzehaven.svg

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected Hunzehaven Map.jpg, should be OK now. Please delete File:Hunzehaven.svg. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N. Johannes (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You can use the {{OpenStreetMap}} template instead of {{Information}}, which puts in the usual Open Street Map licenses (if the map itself came from them). Or you can use the license templates {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} (which is about the map data, not the map design itself) along with a license for map design (usually {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} if it also came from Open Street Map). Should be fine for both files. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Clyde Estuary outbound.jpg

Is there any particular reason you would not want the ship in this photo identified? (The ship in the distance is the Arklow Ruler). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ship is too far/small in my opinion. N. Johannes

I was referring to the ship in the foreground ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Aaah! Getting a bit confusing now :-) Encounter is her name, as written in the description. May have to add her callsign to make it less confusing. N. Johannes

Thanks. I did not see the ship name in the description anywhere, so I was just wondering if you had a reason for that, before I added the ship category. :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, will adjust the description of the image to make it more clear. N. Johannes

Category:Ships registered in Delfzijl, Netherlands

Category:Ships registered in Delfzijl, Netherlands 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 category, 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. 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!

N. Johannes (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Hunzehaven.svg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Hunzehaven.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

JuTa 15:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please delete mentioned file, thanks. N. Johannes 17:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.86.104.246 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi N. Johannes. I noticed that you've made a malformed deletion request. When you want to delete a page by manually using the {{Delete}} template, please remember to follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually), otherwise you will create a lot of work for other people.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, will have a look into it. Thanks. --N. Johannes (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Steinheim ship image

Stenheim (IMO 9261114)

Hello:

Your other image of this ship nominated for QI was good, but I like this one better with the ship coming towards the camera. Consider nominating it for QI and VI.

Best

Gordon

Good evening Gordon, agree, that´s a fine shot too. I do like the colors of the sternview though. Taking pictures on the Clyde river gives always stunning results, if only for the surroundings and scenery. If you´d like to nominate it, please go ahead.

Thanks, Niels N. Johannes (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Steinheim ship image – thoughts on scope for VI nomination

• Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image and you must give the name of the boat in the scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Niels:

Archaeodontosaurus can be sticky on VI scopes but he is right (helps maintain some cohesion in this rating system).

Not sure how much experience you have in this but for Valued Image ship nominations, defining the scope (not too loose; not too tight; just right) is one of the most difficult parts.

Below is my VI Nomination HTML Code for my MV Coho nomination (near bottom in list) where the scope name is the same as and linked to the category.

The VI scope claim being made is that the nominated image of the ship is the most valuable of all current images in the ship category (very definitive and easy to validate by a reviewer with a click on the scope).

The one you have is further limited to a particular location which probably is not needed here.

As more than one ship can have the same name, even within the same year, I tend to add the ship IMO # as part of the scope but that is just my preference and optional.

Essential HTML Code for Ship VI Nomination

|date=2022-01-18 21:25 (UTC)

|nominator=GRDN711 (talk)

|scope=Coho (ship, 1959) - IMO 5076949

|orientation=landscape

|usedin=

|status=nominated

|reason= Best image of this ship.

|review=

}}

REM: Scope must be linked to category.

REM: “|usedin=” is optional but can be filled in. Will default to global usage as listed at image site.

REM: “|reason=” is optional but can be filled in. Is a good idea to promote any positive aspect of image for VI.

Best,

Gordon

Hello Gordon, many thanks for your help and input. Much appreciated. Am fairly new to this VI Nomination, and to be honest, it has a steep learning curve. The amount of info that is presented while uploading an image, the many restrictions...well, here we are. I will have another look at it with your input. Thanks again. N. Johannes (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stenheim (IMO 9261114) B.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Palauenc05 17:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charo B (IMO 9141118).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Golden Cecilie (IMO 9692662).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please remove spot (see note) --Michielverbeek 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 09:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Spot has been removed - re-uploaded file --N. Johannes 10:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CMA CGM GOYA (Bilbao).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 23:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --GRDN711 19:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Stenheim (ship, 2003) - IMO 9261114.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image and you must give the name of the boat in the scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! HELGA 2003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ursula Essberger 2018.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It is tilted cw a little. (See the verticals at the windmills.) --Augustgeyler 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Horizon straightened. --N. Johannes 08:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality now. --Augustgeyler 08:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norstream (IMO 9186194).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Esperanza (IMO 8404599).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 22:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sara Borchard (IMO 9354428) arriving at Dublin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anda Hoge der A.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 23:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ingeborg Pilot.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --GRDN711 04:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norvaag (IMO 9135743).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maersk Ahram (1998).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Palauenc05 10:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Helenic (IMO 9356490).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sven-D (IMO 9302243).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 with categorization and ship info well done. --GRDN711 11:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Scot Mariner (IMO 9243916) Nieuwe Waterweg 2022.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Mike Peel 17:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RHL Augsburg (IMO 9378022).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vestbris (IMO 8410316) sailing from Halmstad.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Palauenc05 15:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Astoria (IMO 5383304) stern view.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --JoachimKohler-HB 21:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cap San Diego (IMO 5060794) in Hamburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments CW tilted and perspective corrections needed (check verticals in achitecture) --George Chernilevsky 13:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks. Perspective adjusted. --Niels Johannes 17:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)  Support Very good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Samskip Challenger (IMO 9114787).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Mike1979 Russia 20:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pollux (IMO 9496953).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tucana (IMO 9455674) River Mersey.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Somewhat soft, but sharp enough for A4-size print. Also good lighting and composition. --Smial 14:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Njord (IMO 9123805).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fähranleger Nobiskrug Juni 2022.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --GRDN711 15:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CMA CGM Goya (IMO 9365972).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Oppose the unfortunate crop (upper part of container gantry) is ruining the shot from my point of view --Virtual-Pano 17:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)  Comment And a bit leaning to the left. --Sebring12Hrs 06:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)  Comment Better crop and horizon uploaded. --Niels Johannes 14:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)  Support support for the new version and my first first voted marked as invalid --Virtual-Pano 17:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Daiwan Wisdom (IMO 9427134).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Drow male 18:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lisa (IMO 9235505).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --AnonymousGuyFawkes 12:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lysvik Seaways (IMO 9144251) at Greenock.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --BigDom 07:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stena Superfast X (2017).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --PantheraLeo1359531 20:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BF FORTALEZA.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BF MELODY 1993.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ARA Atlantis (IMO 9354375) Clyde estuary 2017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Boaventuravinicius 19:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilson Hobro (IMO 9229128) Rotterdam 2023.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vasmar1 17:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BG Sapphire (IMO 9803699) Rotterdam 2023.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tagooty 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Victorine (IMO 9184029) Dublin 2017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Nikride 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)