User talk:Michael Barera/archives/2015

Active discussions
My user page
My talk page
My userboxes
My awards
My photograph gallery
My photograph category
My library
My vinyl collection
My Wikipedia reading schedule
My sandbox
My menu settings
My slideshow settings
My custom license
My watchlist
My contributions
The Signpost
Current events
My Wikipedia user page
Michael Barera's talk archives
2010s: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2020s: 2020

This Month in GLAM: December 2014Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:RailwaysEdit

Hola. Category:Railways, ya está redirigida a Category:Rail transport. Category:Rail transport by country contiene 161 países, de los cuales Ud. redirige sólo cuatro (Namibia, Italy, Greece y Australia). Mi pregunta es qué debemos hacer con los 157 países restantes? Espero su respuesta. Saludos. --Allforrous (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gracias por la pregunta, Allforrous. Si la categoria exista, creo que redireccion a la categoria correcta es mejor que delecion. Si la categoria no exista, redireccion no es necesario. Si crea Usted que mi idea no es lo mejor y quiere borra las "Railways in" categorias, por favor, no espera por permiso. Tambien, lo siento, mi espanol no es lo mejor. Ten un buen dia! Michael Barera (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to confuse your language. Redirects are fine. Thanks for your cooperation in the encyclopedia. A big hug.--Allforrous 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Puedo hablar espanol, pero solo a nivel intermedio. Mi idioma nativa es ingles. Me gusto hablar un poco de espanol, jeje. Gracias por el conversacion! Michael Barera (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Threshold of originalityEdit

Have you read Commons:Threshold of originality? 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have. But I don't know the Malaysian standard of the threshold of originality, so I'm erring on the side of caution. (Note how in France, for instance, the threshold of originality is much lower than it is in the United States.) Are you sure that the logo in question is below it? What worries me is the star and "swipe" element across the top of the logo. Everything else looks fine to me. I'll defer to your judgment on this one. Michael Barera (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair concern. They seem to have some codified well-defined threshold requirements (see footnotes of this paper), but I haven't taken time to look into it closely yet. I'll flag the image if I find otherwise. Thank you for your patrolling activities, by the way. Cheers. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, sounds good to me. Thanks for the conversation. As I said before, I'll let you make the final call on this one. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:ZephyretteEdit

Take a look here and This is a large scan of it. I think at least some of the ad photos would work for you. I'd cover myself and archive both the blog post it appears in (because it says this is from a 1956 issue of Saturday Evening Post--for dating purposes) and the large scan of the ad at the Wayback Machine. Not long ago, we almost lost a non-free historical photo at en:WP because the complete web page with photo wasn't archived. Just a good thing a similar web page with the identical photo was found. The ad is from before 1978 and Western Pacific didn't copyright mark it, so it's good as PD-US-Pre-1978. File:Norfolk and Western steam turbine locomotive 2300 Jawn Henry.JPG Du Pont Paints didn't mark this one. Ads weren't covered by a magazine or newspaper's copyright, so even if the ad is after 1963 but before 1978, it doesn't matter if the print media it's found in is still under copyright as long as the advertiser didn't copyright mark the ad.

I check registrations & renewals at UPenn. Photos and ads would be under artwork. If you're looking for renewals, though, check both the 27th and 28th year after publication. Some companies have renewed copyrights early. If you're looking at a railroad pamphlet and can't find dating on it, I usually check periodicals and books to make sure there's nothing, whether I'm looking for an original registration or searching for renewal. Most of the railroad material wasn't copyright marked, but it's better to check when you're looking at a pamphlet or booklet that you may not be able to view all pages on. HTH! We hope (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for such a quick and thorough response, We hope. I really, really appreciate it! Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@We hope: I've uploaded the image as File:Zephyrette advertisement February 1956.jpg. I think I have everything under control, but I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and make sure. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's all good! :) The Zephyrettes interacted with most of the train's passengers. Dinner on the CZ was by reservation only and the Zephyrettes would go through the cars to take your dinner reservation. They also knew what to do in an emergency. A man on one of our trips became seriously ill; the train made an unscheduled stop at the next station (we were near the CA-NV border at the time) where an ambulance was waiting. We hope (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help, We hope! And thanks for sharing the story about your trip. I really appreciate it. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Bodek Architects Tiberias Football Stadium AA.jpgEdit

Hello, You have marked this as missing permission, although the user stated it is his own work. I would like if you could reach out to the user next time, or check his user page. He is an architect and this is his own work. Best! matanya talk 13:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought that it had been copied and pasted from an external website, and was hoping to have it go through OTRS to confirm permission. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Michael Barera (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:UK windfarm growth.PNGEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:UK windfarm growth.PNG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:UK windfarm growth.PNG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ellin Beltz. Unfortunately, I simply transfered the file to Commons a few years back, and I won't be able to help you with the proper indication of the source. Sorry. Maybe Debnigo will be able to help. Thanks again for notifying me, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For sure Michael Barera, and I also wrote Debnigo on his talk page. He's confused because while he made the diagram on his computer, the source which is missing is the source of the data. Any computer can make bar charts - educational ones are backed up with information. Thanks for letting me know who to ping. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Ellin. Thanks for your service here on Commons. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:KK Vardar Osiguruvanje.JPGEdit

I would find a license for this media, but this is a logo from dissolved club. I don't know if you need a license in this case, you tell me :D. I found this logo from pdf file and i took a screen picture, then i cut it so just the logo would stay.

OK, thanks for the background information. Presumably, whoever created the logo still has copyright protection over it, and copyright protection extends for a very long time (70 years after the death of the author, in most cases). Do you have any idea who owns the intellectual property of the club since it has been dissolved? I'm guessing probably not, but if you do, they would be the ones to turn to.
More practically, if you can't resolve the permission issues on Commons, where only free content is permitted, try claiming fair use and uploading the file locally on English Wikipedia (click here, click on the large "Click here to start the Upload Wizard" link, and be sure to select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." under "Step 3: Provide source and copyright information"). Also, based on this Meta page, it looks like fair use content is permitted on the Macedonia Wikipedia as well ("Википедија:Подигање на слики"). Unfortunately, I don't speak Macedonian, but it looks like if you do you can follow the instructions on the Macedonian Wikipedia upload form.
I hope this all makes sense. If you need clarification or more help, I'd be happy to give it. Once again, I think you should upload the logo as "fair use" on both English and Macedonian Wikipedians and let it be deleted here on Commons because permission can't be obtained from the rights holder(s). All the best, and happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

ОK, I'm going to upload them through fair use step. Can you tell me what exactly i should write at: portion, low resolution and replaceability as an example? Dandarmkd (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to reinvent the wheel; just copy, paste, and modify as needed the template from an already existing fair use image, such as this one for the New York Knicks. You can do the same in Macedonian, using (perhaps) this Phoenix Suns logo as your starting point. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Images of SE Michigan/SW OntarioEdit

Glad you liked the images I put through the FPC process at Wikipedia. I'm back in Indonesia now, but next year (hopefully) I should visit my hometown again. Might even try and get a ride into Detroit to take pictures of that city. It's a darn shame how poorly represented it and the surrounding area is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Southeast Michigan native, and I always appreciate seeing such great photographs from my neck of the woods. I've always tried my best to photograph Detroit whenever I'm there, but it is not as often as I'd like. There are some real gems in the city, both from a photographic perspective and otherwise, and I always enjoy going to what has always been, for me, "the Big City". Thanks so much for your amazing work and contributions to Commons. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Always glad to help. I was born and raised in Windsor, but I've lived abroad for something like six years now. Shocking to see how much has changed! A lot of the places that were fixtures in my youth have been shut down or moved.
Anywho, if I do go back next year, I'll try and ping you and see if there are any suggestions for places that need some good photographs. Interiors, exteriors, the works (assuming it's permissible to do so). I don't know Detroit as well as I'd like, sadly, as I never crossed the border all that much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Crisco! Please don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience anytime in the future. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Will do! Historical churches would be a good topic, if possible... well, we'll see next year, hopefully! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

It's great to see your article! They were just super ladies. A stewardess only has to be charming, helpful and pleasant for a few hours at most. These ladies had to do their duty for close to three days at a time-not always easy if the train had a lot of energetic kids on it. :) Thanks again! We hope (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Michael Barera/common.jsEdit

Hi Michael Barera, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Michael Barera/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{speedy|User page no longer in use}}
  2. ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'speedy'. - Evidence: {{speedy|User page no longer in use}}
  3. ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{speedy|User page no longer in use}}
  4. ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{speedy|User page no longer in use}}
  5. ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'User'. - Evidence: {{speedy|User page no longer in use}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Code issues in User:Michael Barera/common.jsEdit

Hi Michael Barera, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Michael Barera/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 15: Unexpected identifier

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Sorry for any hassle. I was just filing for deletion of my JavaScript page, which I don't need anymore. Michael Barera (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, as I've now figured out, I do need it, so I have restored the content as it appeared before these notices. Sorry again for any hassle. Michael Barera (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks :-)Edit

for this:   and this iamge  . Are you interested for this kind of images, but I'm wondering why? Best regards and happy Easter. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your uploads, Alchemist-hp. Every week, I read The Signpost on the English Wikipedia, and I always make sure to check out the recently featured pictures. If I'm really, really impressed by an image, I go to its Commons page and thank the creator for uploading it. Sometimes I'll thank creators if I stumble across something really neat on Commons, but I remember that both of my thanks for your images were triggered by their recent promotion to featured status on English Wikipedia. Thanks again for your uploads, and take care! Vielen Dank! Michael Barera (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I understand it now. Thanks for clarification. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Your message for File DeletionEdit

Hi Michael,

You posted a message on my talk page and the file's page also regarding deletion of file Saina Nehwal-During-A-Match.jpg. You seek the proof of permissions to use this file under given license.
If you go on the Source-Webpage you will see the copyright information on the bottom of the page given as COPYRIGHT:-Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

As per my understanding the image is free to use under CC by SA 3.0. Please check once again and let me know if anything needs to be done.

Thanks 4 ur Review :) Shekharhoney (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Shekharhoney. I thought that the CC license on the page only applied to the text of the website, not including the images. I looked for something specific on or around (ie, a caption) the image explaining that it was freely licensed, but when I could not find any such note I thought that the image might not be freely licensed. To be fair, I've come down on the side of caution on this one, and I may well be wrong in my assessment. I've also searched for other images from khabarlahariya.org uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, hoping to find some guidance in the form of precedent, but unfortunately there is none. I'm thinking that perhaps the best way forward would be for me to remove the "missing permission" tag from the image and start a discussion about the licensing of the file at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Would you be alright with that? Michael Barera (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ya sure Michael, please remove the tag and start a discussion at Village pump. Its fine. Thanks Shekharhoney (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done. You can participate in the discussion at the village pump for copyright if you wish. Hopefully you're right about the file being freely licensed. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2015Edit





Headlines


Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Barnstar for your persistent and careful efforts.  samee  03:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Samee. I really, really appreciate your kindness and thoughtfulness! Michael Barera (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

{{By color}}Edit

(Moved to Template talk:By color)
OK, that works for me as well. Michael Barera (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorting StudebakersEdit

Hi Michael, thanks for your thanks. But please make sure to tell me when I get it wrong. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Eddaido. I haven't discovered any mistakes in the sorting-related edits of yours that I've seen, but if I do I'll be sure to fix them. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
See this nice image on the right? Well I think Studebaker started around 1850 and became very big by building wagons and so that near half the lifetime of the business was wagons. Accordingly I think it is extremely disrespectful to leave their wagons in the "Vehicles" heap.
They should have their own category and maybe types of wagon categories within that.
What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Eddaido. We could create Category:Studebaker wagons right now, and then as it becomes more populated we could then create subcategories such as Category:Studebaker Conestoga wagons, Category:Studebaker phaetons, etc. (all of which would be subcategorized by type of wagon, obviously). Or, we could cut to the chase and reduce redundancy by creating the subcategories now as well. I'd be happy to go ahead and create Category:Studebaker wagons right now, but I'd also love to let you have the honors. Just let me know how you want to proceed and we can go from there. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No-no! Thank you. You took the photographs, you will know and understand the subject(s) far better than I. Around 1950 I was bequeathed a heap of Studebaker dealer-only literature, expensive big heavy glossy spiral-bound books. Devoured in detail. I've forgotten almost all of it since then! Sincerely Eddaido (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've now created Category:Studebaker wagons and Category:Studebaker carriages, which I think are sufficient for now. Hopefully they look good to you. I should probably comb through Studebaker-related categories (not just Category:Studebaker vehicles) and populate the two new categories. Feel free to add images to either (or both) as you see fit. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictures up for deletionEdit

It is to my concern that the pictures you've selected has been up for deletion if there is not substantial proof of evidence. The proof is on the bottom the newspaper quoting "The contents within this newspaper may be distributed as long as credit has been given to the respective owners of the media used." You can see it in the newspaper that the media has been taken from http://www.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/pdf/NFL.2015.05.21.pdf Nick2crosby (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick2crosby. I've searched through the PDF that you linked, and the phrase "The contents within this newspaper may be distributed as long as credit has been given to the respective owners of the media used" does not seem to appear anywhere (I used CTRL + F to search). The word "distributed" does appear twice, but both times in a paid advertisement, not in a declaration of the newspaper's policies regarding the free use and reuse of its content. I did see that the paper declares that it is "FREE IN PRINT, FREE ON-LINE" in the masthead, but I believe this is simply the gratis sense of the word "free", not the libre sense. Unless I'm missing something incredibly obvious (if I am, please direct me to it with the page number or via a separate document), I think you'll have to go the OTRS route in order to confirm permission for these images. Michael Barera (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Studebaker vehiclesEdit

I have to tell you I am totally mystified by the abovenamed list. It assumes I know what I'm looking for (my complaint about your categorisation of Wolseley). So I'll tell you my problem. What I want to find somewhere in the list is Studebakers made between 1900 and 1918. Can't uncover any mention of them at all. Can you help? Eddaido (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question, Eddaido. Unfortunately, I'm not a Studebaker subject expect; I was just fortunate enough to visit the Studebaker National Museum last year. Based on what I found in the Museum, I might have a couple of places to look for pre-1918 Studebakers: 1) the Studebaker Electric article and 2) the articles on the E.M.F. and Flanders marques. Unfortunately, it looks like some of the 1900 to 1918 models you're looking for don't have Wikipedia articles (yet): the Model C, the SF-Four Roadster, and the E6 Touring. Sorry I can't be of more use. Michael Barera (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I don't expect to find Wikipedia articles for all their cars but I do think all their cars / vehicles should be on List of Studebaker vehicles. Wagons are vehicles. Maybe I should just wait until an expert comes along who can enter up the missing vehicles on that list. I understand that many of the early cars bore hyphenated names as in Studebaker-EMF but perhaps only when sold by Studebaker. This being so I do think they should get at least a mention on that list. I will try making a note on that article's talk page. Keep up the good work! Eddaido (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Eddaido. I've been doing a little bit of digging, and I've found this page on the Studebaker National Museum Archives. They consist of, according to the website, "the surviving corporate archives of the Studebaker Corporation, the Packard Motor Car Company and local South Bend industries". There is even a direct e-mail listed for the archivist, Andrew Beckman (as well as phone and fax numbers). This might be the perfect place to look for a complete list of Studebaker vehicles, wagons as well as automobiles, although note that research fees may apply. Maybe this isn't of any use to you, but maybe it is. Michael Barera (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It was because I wanted to organise the images in a logical manner and avoid making stupid mistakes but maybe when / if I do try to improve the coverage of that List I will make that contact you suggest. I wonder what their reaction would be. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

CategorisedEdit

Hi Michael, now I see what you have done I leave you to it to continue with your own arrangements. I hope we do not meet again like this. And thank you too for all the work you have done on Commons its nice to see someone like you at work. Eddaido (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Eddaido. I don't mean to step on your toes, but I do think that I substantially improved the naming convention used by the "modified automobiles" categories. And the beauty of a wiki is that if someone else can improve on the current names, said person can change it again. Thanks again for creating these categories, and all the best! Michael Barera (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wish of PicturesEdit

Hello Michael Barera,

do you know someone who can take pictures of US-24 especially this unconventional intersections and interchanges? Maybe it is not easy to take these without panorama wizzard of the camera. See WP articles en:Interchange (road) and en:Continuous-flow intersection. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 03:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Hans. Unfortunately I do not have any knowledge of US 24, or its unconventional intersections or interchanges. I'm guessing I came to your attention with my recent additions to Category:U.S. Route 12 in Michigan and Category:Intersections in Michigan, but I'm far from a content specialist in either of these areas; I was just taking photos of downtown Saline, Michigan yesterday morning. Sorry I can't be of any help. All the best to you, though. Auf Wiedersehen! Michael Barera (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, Michael. Three years ago I also had no idea, but reading Wikipedia and studying the references is having this knowledge to everyone in some minutes. I see You might be a litte interested in. To make the spark of interest jump over, see the articles

Unconventional intersections have no own article, cause the only thing the have is reduce the number of conflicts to emprove traffic flow. So this could be broken down to a category and each variant still has its own article.

There at 42.264893, -83.270701 you can't take a picture animore, the "double trumpet" which was able to keep the hwy clear and in free flowing traffic was demolished in 2005, see this historic areal photo. Now it is replaced by a single-point urban interchange (SPUI). Paste the coords into google maps, to get the exact location.

See this virtual tour along US-24:

  • michigan left 42.313856, -83.272045
  • displaced leftturn 42.326607, -83.273256
  • jughanle 42.327651, -83.273403
  • displaced leftturn and rcut 42.370183, -83.275728
  • displaced leftturn and rcut 42.372305, -83.275654
  • jugjandle with seagul intersection-like onramp 42.423918, -83.276078
  • rcut 42.477734, -83.285619
  • 6-leg interchange with 12 ramps making drivers 3 road accessible each destination 42.489691, -83.284724
on an area from 42.494889, -83.296442 to 42.483763, -83.263260 (i may require a plane oder drone, but don't do this with your camera)
  • michigan left 42.538575, -83.284811
  • quadrant roadway 42.545978, -83.283147 US 24/Maple Rd, Bloomfield Township
  • rcut 42.558776, -83.285655
  • rcut and jughandle 42.603545, -83.292017, Telegraph Rd Bloomfield Hills

The location were taken from google maps an point to the camera's target (object location). I gues these locations are to take most easyly as possible to get the objects in one or two pictures. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 08:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This articles have also links and references to studies and videos of civil engineering. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Hans, this is absolutely fascinating. Being from Michigan, I know about the Michigan left, but I didn't know about anything else. And regarding taking photos of roads, I unfortunately have no experience, aside from a few occasions where I have been photographing the downtowns of cities and towns. Thanks for sharing! Michael Barera (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome Michael, without the internet and books there's hearing and saying, only. The effect You have described is normal. When I were in school, we got free tickets to to visit the local museum. Guess who went not even once to that museum? --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Good points, Hans. I've done a little bit of digging, and found this on Flickr and this on Google Images regarding US 24. I don't know if any of this is of any use to you. Unfortunately, I haven't taken any photos of US 24 myself. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, but what I have seen there and here on commons is still You took the better pictures. Google helps itself by taking lots of pictures for Streetview, which are in focus as well, but does not focus. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 08:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Romaine! Michael Barera (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Chevrolet Chevy II NovaEdit

I see that you noticed my efforts to straighten out the multiple and confusing Nova/Chevy II galleries. It's not perfect in any way, and I welcome further improvements. If you care to discuss it I am more than happy to engage. Obviously the third and fourth generation Nova categories should be renamed to match the common style. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points, Mr.choppers. I'm not quite sure what the best way forward is, but I've already renamed the third and fourth generation Nova categories to match the common style, as you suggested. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Technical Barnstar
For your job for categorize the file!--Granata92 Talk! 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Granata92! This really means a lot to me! Michael Barera (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

BotsEdit


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; hopefully this won't adversely affect any of the tools over at WMF Labs. Michael Barera (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

HelpEdit

Hi Michael, I just ran into some trouble with an ip who for some reason is opposed to certain model years. For instance, he is trying to depopulate Category:1978 automobiles right now, removing a large number of photos for no apparent reason. He then nominates the category for deletion, and admins (who can see no wrong with the request, as the categories are empty) delete them - thereby undoing tons of work. He deleted 1968 and 1969 Mercedes categories, example. I just created a few new ones, would you mind helping to keep an eye on things? Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, mr.choppers. Because I've watchlisted all of my own photos, I've noticed 94.3.63.224's edits on my photos but not necessarily other affected images. One thing that is really odd about 94.3.63.224, though, is that plenty of his or her edits are productive (mostly adding years to make/model categories, as seen here or here) while others are blatant vandalism, usually removing by-year categories for no apparent reason (here or here, as you already know). My only guess is that he or she has strong "loves" and "hates" when it comes to cars. I don't know. I'll try to filter through 94.3.63.224's edits over the next few days and revert destructive edits, but he or she appears to have been really active lately and I (unfortunately) don't have so much free time due to my new full-time job. Thanks again for the heads-up, though; I'll do the best that I can. Perhaps we should contact an administrator about this issue? Michael Barera (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  Done OK, mr.choppers, I think I have it under control now. Thanks for letting me know. All the best, and happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Lovely, thanks for the effort. And I agree that the editor is perplexing, not a plain vandal. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Jongens spelen korfbal.jpegEdit

Hi Michael,

I have added a link to the source of the photo File:Jongens spelen korfbal.jpeg. Here you will see that the photo is part of the collection of the Regionaal Archief Alkmaar (an historical archive in Netherlands). When you click on the shoppingcart so will see the massage (in Dutch) that the photo is property of the Regionaal Archief Alkmaar and that everyone can use it.

I'm also an archivist working at the Regionaal Archief Alkmaar, my name is Mark Alphenaar.

Kinds regards,

Mark

Dank u wel! Michael Barera (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcomeEdit

Please let me know if I may of any assistance. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ACBuk.svgEdit

Dobrý den, já jsem autor. http://buk.cekuj.net/index.php/clanky/2013-z%C3%A1pasy/2014/2

Hmmm, File:ACBuk.svg doesn't seem to exist... Michael Barera (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


I am sorry, i's there now File:ACBuk.svg

This Month in GLAM: June 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File with permission problemEdit

Thanks for the message on the permission of this file. I've put a link to the permission and the licence to the original file by the author. I hope this is enough.--Wgarcia (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this issue, and your quick response, Wgarcia. It is much appreciated! Everything looks good to go to me now. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Invitation.jpgEdit

File:Invitation.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi, just drawing your attention to this file, as you appear to be named on the image page. Presumably a sign of misunderstanding by someone, rather than a plan. Thanks -- (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, . Note this version of the image, which was what I was trying to resolve; it looked like an incorrectly implemented case of OTRS permission to me, but it is entirely possible that it never did go through OTRS. I tried to do the right thing with the limited knowledge that I had at the time, and it looks like it was not the correct decision, unfortunately. Sorry about that. Michael Barera (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sabrina A. Parisi.jpgEdit

 
File:Sabrina A. Parisi.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.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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

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

Smooth_O (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remind me again, Smooth_O, what was my relationship to this file? I can't determine anything now that it is deleted. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know now either. This notification on your page was automatically left when i marked this photo as copyvio. --Smooth_O (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe I cropped or rotated it. I know it wasn't an image that I created, and I don't think I transfered it to Commons, either. Anyway, thanks for your help cleaning up problem files, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging your messageEdit

Got your message. I will reply at greater length when I have time to consider it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel; I really do appreciate it. And there is certainly no rush. Michael Barera (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice from CodeEdit

For convenience, I have reproduced part of a conversation between Code and myself that originally took place on User talk:Code:

Hello Michael, of course I'm happy to help you as much as I can. Please excuse my English, I am not a native speaker. However.

It's not easy to tell you generally what you can do to improve your pictures. It depends a lot on what kind of pictures you want to make. Generally you should shoot in RAW file format if your camera supports this option. RAW gives you a maximum of lossless postprocessing possibilities. Concerning this picture the settings look very good, the problem was the composition: you didn't leave enough free space at the top but too much at the bottom. That's why the picture looked a little bit unbalanced. I also think that you should have taken the picture at a different time of day. It's a little unfortunate that most of the building lies in shadows. The picture would be much better if the facade of the building would have been illuminated by the sun.

The other thing is the postprocessing: I don't know which software you are using but I strongly recommend you to get yourself an Adobe Lightroom license. With Lightroom you can easily correct the perspective (see en:Perspective_control for more information). Then you should reduce the lights and brighten the dark parts a little bit because the shadow parts look a little bit too dark and the sky part is a little bit too bright. Finally you should add a little bit of sharpness and voilà - the picture will look much better. If you already have a RAW version of this shot you can send it to me if you want to so I can give it a try (still, the compositional issue will not be fixable without taking the photo again).

If you have other questions I'll be happy to help you.

--Code (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Code! I really do appreciate your advice. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject SportsEdit

Hello, Michael! You're welcome to join the Commons WikiProject Sports. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Michael Barera (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Galway v Dublin 1953.jpgEdit

Hi there, the license of this pic has been given by the author in the Flickr page, as noticed by FlickreviewR bot. Here's the link of CC-SA-2.0 attribution. User:Kanchelskis

Yes, but it is clearly a scan of a 1950s newspaper, which in all likelihood is still copyrighted by its publisher. What is needed is proof that the newspaper content itself is either in the public domain or that it has been freely licensed by its publisher. Cheers! Michael Barera (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

PhotographyEdit

I hate to say this, but I'm not the person to ask about photography. I have exactly one featured photograph which I took myself, and that was just "take fifty images until you lucked into the best" - to be fair, it is an image of my own eye which rather requires some fiddling about like that.

But, honestly, if I'm thinking architectural photographs - and please don't take this as an exclusive list of great photographers - but the first two names to come to mind are Diliff and Livioandronico2013, both of which do consistently excellent work, and whom are highly active. Crisco 1492 is a good general photographer. Lviatour does great animal photography, although I think he's a lot less active anymore, Alchemist-hp does fantastic work on small-scale objects (primarily elements and minerals), and Evan-Amos has his own Wikipedia article due to his work documenting game consoles; he is consistently good at that.

Asking them (or the other excellent photographers on here) would probably be more helpful. Now, if you need advice on restoration of historic media and damaged photographs, there I can help. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! I really do appreciate your response and the rich list of photographers you'd recommend I talk to here on Commons. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not Daniel Case (even though my name is also Daniel), but I hope you don't mind me chiming in with unsolicited advice (even though I am also an amateur myself). Regarding your featured picture nomination, I think that architectural photography is somewhat harder than other kinds of photography. In particular, you must be careful about the following things:
  • Perspective distortion. Vertical lines must be exactly vertical.
  • Barrel/pincushion distortion. Straight lines must be exactly straight. Most zoom lenses have some distortion, but the Sony camera may have removed the distortion automatically.
  • Framing. Take extra care to have enough "breathing room" around your subject, and do not cut off any important aspect. In general, everything sort of "points" in a direction... when composing the photo, frame it so that there's extra room wherever it's pointing to. A photo of a person from the side, for example, should have more room in the direction the person is looking towards. Likewise, the roof of a building pointing towards the sky deserves a bit of room above it. But here your framing was so tight that it actually cut off the lightning rod above it.
  • Random things in the photo. Try to get rid of the dustbin in the foreground -- either by walking forwards, pushing the dustbin out of the way, or growing taller.
  • The weather. Granted, this isn't something you can control --- however, for the stringent requirements of Featured Picture, especially of popular destinations where many people can take photos, it's expected that the subject is photographed under the most ideal situation possible. In your case, there is unfortunately a large, flat, and featureless cloud covering a third of the sky above the building. Also, it would be preferable not to have harsh lighting that causes the roof tiles to glisten white.
  • Exposure and dynamic range. Sometimes it's hard to avoid having blown highlights. If you don't already do this, shoot in RAW mode for serious architecture and landscape --- the raw file contains more data which you can use to recover blown highlights or lost shadow detail, to a certain extent. If this is not sufficient, you can also take multiple exposures to choose the best exposure, or blend different exposures together to avoid blown highlights (although beware the terrible consequences of not properly doing HDR). Also, it's easier to recover shadow detail in raw files than to recover blown highlights, so it's often safer to err on the side of underexposing.
Other than that, your camera parameters seem fine. The attention to symmetry is very good. It really takes a bit of luck to get the perfect shot. Good luck with your future shots! dllu (t,c) 07:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, dllu! I do take multiple exposures, but I don't shoot in RAW mode, which is something that I should look into. I've been trying to do most of the other things that you mention, such as framing, but I don't always get it right, as you've seen in my failed FP candidate. If you look at my photos of cars over the past five years or so, though, I think you'll agree that I have slowly but surely been improving when it comes to framing. Maybe with luck, I could have a successful FP in the future. Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: I love your panoramas! Nice work! Michael Barera (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I would also be ore then happy to help you at any time if you have thoughts or questions. Due to a series of dramatic events, I no longer am contributing to the EN project, thanks for the note about the Palm Springs Airport photo, not too sure how many more of these I will contribute in the future but your welcome to reach out to me via e mail or commons talk any time. Cheers --WPPilot (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, WPPilot, for your kind words as well as your absolutely amazing photography! And I'd like to thank everyone else who participated in this discussion: Daniel Case, Code, Adam Cuerden, and Dllu (hopefully I am not omitting anyone). At this point in my career as an aspiring amateur photographer, I think that quality images is the place for me, not featured pictures. Hopefully I can find success with the quality images process, and then maybe I'll try my luck at valued images. I don't have much (if any) creative touch, so these are probably better venues for my participation than FP.
Maybe someday I'll have a successful FP, but I don't think the time is right. Nonetheless, thanks so much for the FP nomination and the great advice, encouragement, and general kindness you have treated me with over the past few days. I really, really do appreciate it. And, Adam, if you hadn't nominated one of my pictures for FP, I may never have thought about participating in QI. Thanks so much everyone, and all the best! Michael Barera (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of Michigan Museum of Art June 2015 08 (European & American Art Gallery).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 -- Spurzem 20:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Commerce March 2015 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Crisp detail --Daniel Case 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! These are my first two QI promotions, or recognition of any kind for any of my photos; it really means a great deal to me! Michael Barera (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris July 2015 56 (Sam Bell Maxey House).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Vengolis 03:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Weird editor is backEdit

Some ip idiot, already blocked a number of times, is back again. I am traveling and thus unable to do much about it, perhaps you could find the time to get them blocked again? Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Mr.choppers. It looks like the IP editor hasn't edited (at least with this account) in almost a week, so I think we don't have to worry about blocking the editor and can just concentrate on cleaning up the mess. I'll let you know when I finish... Michael Barera (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
...okay, I've gone through all of the destructive edits and reverted the last few edits that hadn't been fixed yet. Honestly, though, I didn't do very much; you had already fixed the vast majority of the problems. Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged, thanks! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lake Michigan March 2015 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Audie Murphy American Cotton Museum July 2015 43 (Battle of the Bulge diorama).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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.--Famberhorst 04:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Audie Murphy American Cotton Museum July 2015 49 (Wilkins Log Cabin).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
Commerce, Texas
Main Street in Commerce, Texas
.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Thanks so much! This is my first successful Valued Image, and it means a lot to me! Michael Barera (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Romaine! Michael Barera (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rutgers vs. Michigan women's lacrosse 2015 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 21:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2015 Water Hill Music Fest 02 (Corndaddy).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! DFW Airport Station July 2015 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Downtown Rowlett Station July 2015 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Bgag 03:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cooper Lake State Park July 2015 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Jacek Halicki 07:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! DART Light Rail interior July 2015 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 11:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Downtown Rowlett Station July 2015 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Cayambe 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
Sam Bell Maxey House.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Garland July 2015 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Garland July 2015 23 (Garland Landmark Museum).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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.--Famberhorst 04:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! McKinney Avenue Transit Authority July 2015 02 (Betty).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 -- Spurzem 06:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! McKinney Avenue Transit Authority July 2015 08 (Petunia).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 -- Spurzem 06:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Michael Barera (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ford ip editorEdit

Is back again. Is there any way to engineer a range block? It is nearly impossible to stop this sort of vandalism. Happy to assist, but really don't have time for this sort of nonsense. By the way, I feel that the Commons might benefit from requiring registration. It would slow down vandalism considerably, and it is pretty rare for me to see useful edits from ips. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up again, User:Mr.choppers. Unfortunately, I won't be on long tonight and I'm traveling tomorrow, but I might get a chance to look at it later this week. Worst case scenario would be this Sunday.
Your broader points about range blocks and requiring registration to edit Commons are interesting, but not anything I can do anything about. Perhaps you can go back to the same administrator you contacted last time this nonsense automobile category editing popped up? Just a thought. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: I sifted through this IP editor's edits, User:Mr.choppers, and all I could find that was destructive in terms of categorization was one Ford edit that you already reverted. The vast majority of it appears to be related to European car marques that don't have their own "by year" categories, and much of it was actually really productive, such as moving images of Trabants from the general category to specific model categories. I think we're good, at least for now... Michael Barera (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I reverted many more than that. Also, making 95% useful edits do not excuse 5% vandalism. Also, this ip has already moved on to another address (176.26.255.252), so we are always going to be a few paces behind. I hate to think how many destructive ip edits go unnoticed entirely... mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair points. I think that you're right about always being "a few paces behind"; I'm happy to chip in and revert whenever I notice this kind of activity (or you inform me of it), but there must be a better way to deal with this issue... Michael Barera (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lead Belly publicity shot.jpgEdit

 
File:Lead Belly publicity shot.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I checked on this last night. Unfortunately, the news isn't encouraging. Tineye has more than 100 sites where the photo is online. None of them provided any concrete information about who took the photo, when and where it was first published. I also tried LOC, Getty and Corbis--none of them have copies of it. Getty has the Michael Ochs archive which has many photos of musicians. However, Michael Ochs was not a photographer--he was a collector of musicians' publicity photos, so any claims from Getty about a copyright registtered to Michael Ochs archive would be false. Ochs only owned copies of these photos which were taken by many, many other people. I took the chance that this photo might be among them but it wasn't.
The Smithsonian used the photo for a volume of his music released by him. They now own the surviving masters of his from Moses Asch's New York studio. However, if they own the photo, I couldn't find it listed in their online collections. Checked front & back covers of it and I found no credit re: the photo--only a credit for the cover design. The photo is also here and it's described as Lead Belly with his guitar, Stella. The organization may be the owner of the photo but they didn't provide any information about when it was taken and who took the photo. We hope (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, as always your work is amazing, We hope! Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into my query. I will reproduce your post on the deletion request page so that Calliopejen1 and other users can see it as well. Thanks again; I really, really do appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on your picturesEdit

Per your request a while back, now that I've had the chance to look at some of your QI submissions.

  • As you seem to have understood, keep submitting there even if most of yours don't get promoted (You might also want to consider Photography critiques, which is a great place to get feedback and suggestions for improvement without any sort of recognition at stake). That's how you'll learn from mistakes or imperfections and get better. It's what's worked for me and, I suspect, a lot of the other FPC regulars.

    And review images. You'll start learning how to spot things like perspective problems and dust spots to the point that you won't need someone to point them out anymore.

  • If you have software for it, edit in camera raw. All of my QIs (as well as my so-far one FP) that I've uploaded in the last two years from my Nikon D3X were edited mostly that way before I went into Photoshop and put the finishing touches on the .NEF file and saved it as a .jpg. I would be willing to bet this is true of almost all our other featured pictures created by Wikimedians themselves. If you don't have camera-raw editing software, get it somehow, however.
  • Worry a lot more about the image composition before you shoot than about the ISO/speed/aperture triangle (there is a saying, and it's utterly true, that 95% of the editing should be done before you hit the shutter). Yes, you need to know about those things, but you can compensate (at least partially) for those things in post in a way an otherwise perfectly exposed image can't be if it's poorly composed. And with a DSLR and lots of memory, you can experiment with a shot and bracket not only exposure but aperture, ISO and other settings until you find what works best for you and your gear.
  • If you feel like you don't understand composition, take a class. Or better yet, take an art-appreciation class or at least read a book on the subject. I always feel I learned the most about image composition from an art-history class I took my senior year of high school.
  • Read, or at least browse, the photo magazines, especially those directed at users of your particular camera type. Their tutorials often have about 90% "I knew that" or "I didn't need to know that", but if you read through them you'll come across the 10% that's really useful that you didn't know, or had forgotten.
  • If you want tips on photographing a particular type of subject, especially something you don't usually do, look online. There's usually something you can work with out there as at least a primer.

Hope you find these useful, and feel free to ask me more. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel! It will take me a while to digest your suggestions and put them into use, but I really do appreciate it. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

Thank you for uploading your trove of Cleveland photos. Hope you enjoyed the conference and your time in town! - Eureka Lott 00:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and yes I enjoyed both the SAA conference and Cleveland. Thanks for all your work on Commons and Wikipedia! Michael Barera (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dallas July 2015 09 (Texas School Book Depository).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Basically a good picture, but tilted and rotated. Also the shadows on the right are a little harsh. Can you fix that? --Tsungam 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)  CommentSuch a historical building deserves the improvements requested by Tsungam...--Jebulon 21:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done I have attempted a tilt and perspective correction. Dllu 17:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)  SupportThanks--Jebulon 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a pink frame, needs a tighter crop. --C messier 09:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 02:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you very much! Michael Barera (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please create a color navigation-boxEdit

for cats :Category:Females with..... dresses in art. Thank you--Oursana (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Here is the template, and here is the category I created to go along with it. Unfortunately, because of the complex naming structure of the categories, I can't use the awesome universal template {{By color}} (and its numerous advantages). Oursana, you'll probably want to work on the categorization, though; there don't seem to be any viable parent categories for the new category at the moment (unless I just couldn't find them). Hopefully this helps you. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you--Oursana (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cleveland August 2015 24 (Detroit–Superior Bridge).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2015Edit





Headlines


  • UK report: QRpedia AWOL; RSC holds another edit-a-thon
  • Special story: New toolkit on Photo Events documents best practices, strategies and more
  • Open Access report: Wikipedia as an amplyfier; horse face recognition, rhythm perception, fossil rodent teeth
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata this month
  • Calendar: September's GLAM events



Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Romaine! Michael Barera (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Commerce August 2015 18 (Sweeties Donuts).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Vengolis 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cleveland August 2015 16 (The Arcade).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 07:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Comment IMO the image is tilted CW. --XRay 04:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  Tilt corrected. Michael Barera 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak   Support Better, but not the best sharpness and contrast.--XRay 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Commerce August 2015 41 (Lone Star Eatery).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality --Шухрат Саъдиев 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris Junior College July 2015 01 (Louis B. Williams Administration Building).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support OK --Шухрат Саъдиев 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Michael Barera (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
DART Light Rail train interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
DART Light Rail Blue Line train at Downtown Rowlett Station.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Aerial view of Dealey Plaza.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 15:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 15:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
Aerial view of the interchange between Interstate 35E and Texas State Highway Spur 366.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Media deletionEdit

Hry there, although I understand wikimedia's strict copyright policy and like you I don't want them to get sued, but the deletion of the file I uploaded is total nonsense (File:Huldiging van AZ 17-05-2015.jpg). If you want people to make an effort in creating good and readable wikiarticles, this is not the way to go. I won't put in the effort of asking my personal friend to be so nice to send me a letter/email in which permission was stated (in English, which he hardly speaks), while he already sent me the picture purposely for putting it online on the wikipedia page we are both contributing on. Actually, I doubt I will put any more of my own pictures online now, seeing how shortsighted wikimedia apparently is. I'm not going to put in all the effort for nothing at all. Thanks for ruining that for me. Grifo (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your frustrations, Grifo, but please remember that all files on Wikimedia Commons need to be properly licensed and, if the file is not your own work, proof of that licensing needs to be given (OTRS is typically ideal for this). You can also go through OTRS to have a file restored after it was deleted, which I would recommend in this case. The major issue at hand is proving that permission has been granted to freely license the image in question; I tagged your upload because there was no proof. There is no fair use on Commons, although some Wikipedias allow it locally (English does, but I don't think that Dutch does). Again, sorry for the irritation. Please understand though that this is nothing personal against you, but rather a case of enforcing basic policies. I certainly don't harbor any hard feelings. Thanks for your contributions. Michael Barera (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I do understand a strict policy on licensing and I don't take anything personal at Wikipedia. Yet if you put effort in receiving a picture from a friend to use on wikimedia, edit your way through the pages and find that picture is deleted because of the inefficient way wikimedia deals with such licensing issues, its quite frustrating indeed. I'm not gonna ask my friend to explicitly give me permission in english on a mail, while he already gave me that face to face because the wikimedia police demands it. I can also just claim the picture as my own in a few weeks from now, surpassing your silly rules. Is that the way wikimedia wants us to deal with such basic things as copyright ruling? I would have creditted the picture to the wikiuser in question if the software allowed me to. Unfortunately you cannot credit another user with the stuff you upload. And most of all, it's wikimedia's loss, not mine or yours.

Thanks for your detailed reaction though, it's appreciated.Grifo (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Grifo. I've never gone through the OTRS process myself, so I can't comment about how difficult it is. Anyway, all the best. Michael Barera (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View from Reunion Tower August 2015 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments

  Comment Which way do you think it is tilted? I was trying to shoot straight to the right-hand part of the hotel that is directly facing Reunion Tower, and to both my eye and the grid lines in GIMP it is just about dead straight. Michael Barera 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC) see notes, Michael! --Hubertl 15:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)   Done now; thanks Hubertl. Michael Barera 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) *   Support Good and QI. --Hubertl 08:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

IP vandalismEdit

I just saw your note on my talk page (sorry, busy with school). Vandalism continues apace, see here for instance. I don't have the time to find and then go through literally thousands of ip edits to stop this kind of nonsense. I would be able to make time for arguing that IP's ought not to be able to edit the Commons at least. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 07:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, mr.choppers. Unfortunately I don't have as much time to edit as I used to either; I'll do what I can (chiefly when I notice something on my watchlist or you alert me of something), but I don't think I'm going to be all that effective in this situation. Sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cleveland August 2015 36 (USS Cod).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cleveland August 2015 37 (Mark 14 torpedo).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 02 (Boeing B-47E Stratojet).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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.--Famberhorst 04:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 05 (Republic F-84F Thunderstreak).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 06 (North American P-51D Mustang).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 07 (North American P-51D Mustang).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Left crop improvable, but still QI to me --Poco a poco 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 09 (Boeing B-17G Flying 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. --Hubertl 05:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 10 (Boeing B-17G Flying 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. --Hubertl 05:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 12 (Consolidated B-24J Liberator).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 imo.--ArildV 07:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 13 (Consolidated B-24J Liberator).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 15 (Douglas C-47A Skytrain).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. Minor CAs at the wires. --XRay 06:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 16 (Douglas C-47A Skytrain).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 17 (Beechcraft C-45F Expeditor).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. Minor CAs at the wires. --XRay 06:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 18 (Beechcraft C-45F Expeditor).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. Minor CAs at the wire. --XRay 06:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 19 (Beechcraft AT-11 Kansan).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 05:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 20 (Beechcraft AT-11 Kansan).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. Minor CAs at the wire. --XRay 06:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 21 (Beechcraft AT-11 Kansan).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. Minor CAs at the wire. --XRay 06:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 24 (Convair B-58 Hustler rocket sled).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 05:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 25 (General Dynamics FB-111A Aardvark).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 29 (Lockheed T-33A Shooting Star).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 30 (Lockheed T-33A Shooting Star).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 31 (Lockheed T-33A Shooting Star).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 05:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 32 (Boeing B-29 Superfortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. Sharpness could be better. --XRay 08:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 37 (Boeing KC-97G-L Stratofreighter).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

QI reviewsEdit

Hello! I've seen you like the Quality images. You've nominated a lot of images reviewed by others. It would be very kind of you to review the same number of images of other photographers. It's usual to do so. Thanks a lot for participating QI. --XRay talk 03:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, XRay, I'd love to, but I'm not sure that I understand the technical requirements well enough from a reviewer's perspective. How should I go about learning how to properly review images? To be honest, I'm not always exactly sure why my images pass or fail at QI, but I have a vague sense that at least some of them are good enough.
Full disclosure: I used to vote at Commons:FP, but another user called me out on not really knowing what I was doing as a reviewer (which was a valid criticism), and I have refrained from reviewing any FPs since then. Sorry, I didn't realize the understood quid pro quo for QI, although it certainly makes sense. I guess I should probably stop nominating images, at least until I really get a grasp on the reviewing standards. Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@XRay: Based on what I've learned from the QI process so far, I've tried my hand at reviewing a nomination, specifically File:Pittsburgh Light Rail Siemens SD-400 leaving First Avenue Station.jpg (after looking it over at full resolution, I believe that it passes the test and marked it as such). I am very willing to participate in QI reviews, but I don't want my lack of technical knowledge to compromise the process. Would you be willing to keep an eye on my reviews and let me know how I'm doing? I'm especially worried of not being discerning or perceptive enough. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I think all other QI reviewers will do the same with new reviewers. My first steps were the same. A lot of "Discussions" at the first time. --XRay talk 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thanks, XRay! I'm looking forward to participating more at QI as a reviewer! Michael Barera (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 35 (Boeing KC-97G-L Stratofreighter).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
GQ. --Palauenc05 11:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

AlvisEdit

Hi Michael, it seems we need to go through some kind of dispute resolution process over this. Do you have a recommendation? Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought that Commons:OVERCAT was pretty clear about it. Feel free to start a discussion about it at the village pump or any other onsite forum of your choice. My only request is to notify me of where it is so that I may voice my opinion. Thanks. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind very much explaining how you get to see my correction as an infringement ? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. Sure. By removing "Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus" from "Category:Alvis 12/75" and then adding the latter category to all of the images in the first has simply made all of them less efficient, needless adding a second category that covers the same scope, except more generally and less precisely (think of it like a Venn diagram where the second circle is drawn entirely around the smaller, more precise first circle).
  2. Then, removing the latter category from the former category renders the former completely isolated from the latter, even though from the name itself it is obvious that the category that "Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus" most closely relates to is "Category:Alvis 12/75". So, that is the second part: the categorization hierarchy itself has been damaged by removing the latter category from the former.
  3. I'm not sure what your intention with these edits was, but I strongly suspect it was to create a single category in which to keep all Commons images of the Alvis 12/75. If you want to do this, please do this in the gallery space with Alvis 12/75. But please, please do not make the categorization of individual images less efficient (and more redundant) and also damage the hierarchy of the categories on Commons (thus making it more difficult to browse effectively).
I hope this makes sense. I don't mean to take this out on you personally, but I do believe this is a clear application of the Commons:OVERCAT policy. Once again, all the best. Michael Barera (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have just found it and will need to give some serious thought to your thoughts. It is personal to the extent that you amend this type of edit when I make them so the latest example was not made by me without some consideration. Will be back. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive me for numbering your points above. Let me say I have noted your occupation and know that among the minor matters archivists need to know about is where to put things so they may be found again. I often search in online catalogues of the world's major archival institutions - though none in the US - but when I get into trouble a brief phone call sorts me out. There's no such customer-friendly facility for a WP reader.
  1. What is it that is distinctive about the subset of FWD Alvis images you have singled out for their separate special category?
  2. Hierarchy damage? I have simply placed those images alongside the other images of exactly the same thing on the same piece of floor of the same building but left you your special category - see my 1. above. I meant you (or your views) no harm.
  3. Suspicion would suggest to me you felt doubtful yet it is exactly what I did so where does your suspicion come from??
I very strongly challenge this statement of yours "But please, please do not make the categorization of individual images less efficient (and more redundant) and also damage the hierarchy of the categories on Commons (thus making it more difficult to browse effectively)." Might this be a personal view?
I feel this will have been a matter fully discussed when the Wikimedia category system was inaugurated or quite soon after. Can you point me to the part of the discussion which led you to your views as expressed above? If you would do that this will save time for you and it will stop me fretting (I really do) about a moderately important matter. I am very aware that much in these two projects is not as rational as one might expect. If I can see the thinking that went into it I might be obliged to go quiet mightn't I. Eddaido (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for the reply. Once again, I'd recommend taking a look at Commons:OVERCAT. And I quote: Over-categorization is when a file, category or other page is placed in several levels of the same branch in the category tree. The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly the issue we're discussing here? Your edits regarding the Alvis have taken images that were properly placed "in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those" and then placed them "in several levels of the same branch in the category tree". To me, this appears to be a very clear issue.

A previous case may be worth remembering, that of File:Wolfsburg Jun 2012 091 (Autostadt - 1924 Bentley 3 Litre Speed).JPG. This was resolved, as you may recall, by the addition of a sort key ("1924XR7787") to the more general Category:Bentley 3-Litre, while the more specific Category:Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus was kept. But what I don't understand, in that case or this one is why the most important parent category of the subcategory was removed in both cases (see here and here). If there is a reason for keeping the images in question in the more general, less specific category when a more specific one exists, please let me know and I'll be happy to keep it in said category. But please remember that Commons:OVERCAT is official policy on Commons, so there really needs to be a reason for deviating from it.

At this point, I would advise appealing to a third party or two on this issue. I'd recommend Mr.choppers, OSX, and Llann Wé², as all are knowledgeable about how automobile categories function on Wikimedia Commons. If you can establish consensus that I am in the wrong on this point about overcategorization, I will certainly abide by the decision and stand down. At the end of the day, I want what is best for the project, as I'm sure that you do as well.

Again, all the best. Michael Barera (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And all the best to you too Michael. I'm watching with interest. Eddaido (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been asked to step in here to give this discussion some fresh eyes. Based on my interpretation of Commons:OVERCAT, the various photos of the Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus should be in Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus because placing them in this category AND Category:Alvis 12/75 is redundant. As per the example given on the policy page, it would be akin to placing a photo of the the Eiffel Tower in both Category:Eiffel Tower and Category:Eiffel Tower at night.
In my view though, categories such as Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus are probably over-the-top in many circumstances. If this category were to be deleted, and the images placed in Category:1920s automobiles in the ZeitHaus instead, then we could also supplement this by placing them in Category:Alvis 12/75. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with OSX on all points. As for Eddaido, these extremely granular categories irk me a bit, but since there are likely to be lots more images of this particular car, I propose leaving everything antebellum. Meanwhile, all of the Bonhams Auction photos uploaded by Thesupermat have their own categories - can we rectify those before we get into arguments about where exactly to draw the line? Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 05:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Eddaido, Michael Barera, OSX, Mr.choppers:
I'm not sure to be the one you expect. My knowledge about cars is better than about cat's. If I move many pictures to the closer cat' I can find I do it and it makes me discover new cat's every day. So for the Category:Citroën 2CV I've decided to sort in the better way this overcrowded cat' to be able to remove {{Category diffuse}}. To do that I spent many hours searching in many vehicle cat's to find the good ones and apply them. May be I've overcat'ed some (feel free to check) but sometimes the snake has to bite its own tail (as we say in French). In many cases I can't create the good cat because of the language barrier for technical terms that I'm not sure in English (French user...). So do you still think I'm a good referee?  
IMHO actually Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus is well sorted or may be I din't understood all what you're talking about...
Have a good weekend. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 20:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks so much for contributing to such a thoughtful and collegial discussion on such short notice, everyone (and a big merci to Llann Wé²!). I'd be happy to either leave the "in the ZeitHaus" (and similar) categories as Llann Wé² and Mr.choppers propose, or delete these more granular categories and move the images back to their parent categories, as proposed by Eddaido and advocated for by OSX. If we go the latter route, however, I'd like to request that the affected images be added to all of the appropriate parent categories if and when the more granular categories are deleted; in the case of Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus, this would include Category:1928 automobiles and Category:Red roadsters in addition to Category:Alvis 12/75 and Category:1920s automobiles in the ZeitHaus. Thanks again, everyone; and especially to you Eddaido, for starting this discussion and putting up with me. All the best to all of you! Michael Barera (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, have had my head down over on the other side, unwilling to go look what you were saying. Seems a bit equivocal doesn't it. I do have some further thoughts tied to this subject. I will clarify them and return. Thanks everyone, Eddaido (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 36 (Boeing B-29 Superfortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 01:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Romaine! Michael Barera (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 44 (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21F).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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.--Famberhorst 06:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 47 (Boeing B-52G Stratofortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 09:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 48 (Boeing B-52G Stratofortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 09:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 49 (Boeing B-52G Stratofortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 09:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture NominationEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Northeast Texas Rural Heritage Museum August 2015 32 (Ezekiel Airship).jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck!

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture NominationEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Northeast Texas Rural Heritage Museum August 2015 33 (Ezekiel Airship).jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck!

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture NominationEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Northeast Texas Rural Heritage Museum August 2015 34 (Ezekiel Airship).jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! Maile66 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile66! I'd be surprised but obviously elated if any of them are promoted to FP status. Thanks for thinking so highly of my photography! All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The correct link to the discussion is Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Ezekiel_airship. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks once more! Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 38 (Boeing KC-97G-L Stratofreighter).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Looks good. Dllu 07:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 42 (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21F).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support OK. Dllu 07:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 39 (Avro Vulcan B.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. --Carschten 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 33 (Boeing B-29 Superfortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Dirtsc 11:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 34 (Boeing B-29 Superfortress).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Dirtsc 11:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 51 (Boeing KC-135A Stratotanker).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barksdale Global Power Museum September 2015 41 (Avro Vulcan B.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
  Comment I think the framing could be improved by leaving more space in front of the aircraft. Dllu 07:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  Support --Iifar 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Romaine! Michael Barera (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Texas Woman's University September 2015 24 (Hubbard 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. If you raise the shadows, it would be even better. --Hubertl 02:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Michael Barera (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Shreveport September 2015 074 (Texas Street).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 07:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Shreveport September 2015 075 (Texas Street).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wolfe City October 2015 05 (Main Street).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris July 2015 50 (Red River Valley Veterans Memorial).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trinity Mills Station September 2015 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pittsburg August 2015 10 (Pilgrim's Pride feed mill).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pittsburg August 2015 32 (Witness Park).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Northeast Texas Rural Heritage Museum August 2015 32 (Ezekiel Airship).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Just ok given the lighting conditions --Poco a poco 10:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Denton September 2015 02 (Union Pacific freight).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Downtown Denton Transit Center September 2015 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lake Tawakoni September 2015 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 now --Hubertl 01:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Interurban Railway Museum October 2015 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 01:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls October 2015 18 (Hello Again! and "world's littlest skyscraper").jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ermell 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Denton September 2015 01 (Union Pacific freight).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 15:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Denton September 2015 03 (Union Pacific freight).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 07:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Downtown Denton Transit Center September 2015 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 07:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of North Texas September 2015 11 (Hurley Administration Building).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of North Texas September 2015 40 (pedestrian bridge).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Texas Woman's University September 2015 50 (The Green House).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. Would be even better, if you repair the perspective distortions. Also at the other pics. --Hubertl 09:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sulphur Springs September 2015 2 (Courthouse 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. --Hubertl 09:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris July 2015 51 (Red River Valley Veterans Memorial).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 09:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brashear September 2015 (The Brashear Store).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 09:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of North Texas September 2015 42 (Interstate 35E).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 08:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of North Texas September 2015 61 (Murchison Performing Arts Center).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ermell 23:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bois d'Arc Bash 2015 31 (parade).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bois d'Arc Bash 2015 32 (parade).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bois d'Arc Bash 2015 56 (parade).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Interurban Railway Museum October 2015 14 (Texas Electric Railway Car 360).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality --Llez 05:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Shreveport September 2015 045 (RedRiver District).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 now. --Hubertl 00:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

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:
Ezekiel Airship replica.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Interurban Railway Museum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Lake Tawakoni viewed from West Tawakoni City Park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Thank you! Michael Barera (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2015Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Thanks, Romaine! Michael Barera (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls October 2015 06 (The Falls).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plano October 2015 26 (Magnolia House).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 19:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of North Texas September 2015 41 (Interstate 35E).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 for me --Hubertl 19:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of North Texas September 2015 62 (Gateway Center).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 20:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls October 2015 14 (Green's).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls October 2015 05 (The Falls).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls October 2015 07 (The Falls).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:University of North Texas September 2015 40 (pedestrian bridge).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:University of North Texas September 2015 40 (pedestrian bridge).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! --Ivar (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Ivar, for this good news and your nomination! This is my first ever Featured Picture, and as you can probably imagine I am very, very happy! Michael Barera (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the first FP is always very special. Best of luck in the future! --Ivar (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls Railroad Museum October 2015 01 (Missouri–Kansas–Texas EMD NW2 No. 1029).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 23:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls Railroad Museum October 2015 11 (Missouri–Kansas–Texas EMD NW2 No. 1029).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 23:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wichita Falls Railroad Museum October 2015 04 (Fort Worth & Denver ALCO 2-8-0 No. 304).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Ermell 07:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Campbell November 2015 1 (Main Street).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

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

Comments
Good quality. --Hubertl 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fate November 2015 2 (Fate Main Place).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. This is, how we think, Texas looks like everywhere. Exept the Southfork Ranch ;-) --Hubertl 18:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Michael Barera/archives/2015".