User talk:MrPanyGoff/Archive

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, MrPanyGoff!

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

Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can see the files you have uploaded in your gallery. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. Only upload freely licensed or public domain content. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. If you're copying files from another Wikimedia project, use the CommonsHelper. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, MrPanyGoff!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Image:StJohn3.jpg was uncategorized on 29 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Image:StJohn1.jpg was uncategorized on 29 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Image:StJohn5.jpg was uncategorized on 29 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Image:StJohn6.jpg was uncategorized on 29 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Image:StJohn4.jpg was uncategorized on 29 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Image:StJohn2.jpg was uncategorized on 29 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:TsarOsvoboditelBlvd_.jpg

File:TsarOsvoboditelBlvd_.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.

 

Justass (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:EvlogiGeorgievBlvd_.jpg

File:EvlogiGeorgievBlvd_.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.

 

Justass (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Rakovska_.jpg

File:Rakovska_.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.

 

Justass (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images on Wikimedia Commons

Hello! Yesterday I made an attempt to explain you on your user talk in Bulgarian Wikipedia that a big part of your uploads are unfortunately ineligible for Wikimedia Commons, though you may transfer them in the English Wikipedia and use in accordance with the Non-free content guideline there. Wikimedia Commons, however, is designed as a resource of free multimedia content and does not host fair use images. I gave you this advice in good faith and understanding of you being an enthusiastic novice who would like to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am somehow disappointed to see that you keep ignoring it. :)

But... these images simply SHOULD NOT remain in Wikimedia Commons, as explicitly written on the official policy page Commons:Fair use. Please, try to understand this. Both Marinov and Beshkov died less than 70 years ago, which is the legally determined term of having their copyrights protected BEFORE they enter the public domain. The priest's image comes from a source with reserved rights.

As I do not want to lay waste your work over these images:

• File:Marinov1.jpg, File:Marinov2.jpg, File:Marinov3.jpg, File:Marinov4.jpg, File:Marinov5.jpg
• File:Beshkov1.jpg, File:Beshkov2.jpg, File:Beshkov3.jpg, File:Beshkov4.jpg, File:Beshkov5.jpg
• File:MitropolitAndrey.jpg

I offer you to transfer them to the English Wikipedia (using the local upload link) and carefully use them there, providing them with the en:Template:Non-free use rationale. I am optimistic that they may remain there, although I suppose that only image per article will be allowed and unused fairuse images will be deleted. Please, note that on Monday evening I will take care to delete these images from here. Thank you for your understanding, →Spiritia 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Own work?

Just to clarify: you describe File:CentralMarketHallSofia2.jpg as your own work. Does this mean that all five photos are your own work, as well as the arrangement of them? Assuming that's the case, could you please say so explicitly on the image page, rather than the vague claim of "own work"? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 07:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that is what one should write on something like this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Dee-snider-on-his-chopper.jpg

File:Dee-snider-on-his-chopper.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!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Flickr uploads

Hello MrPanyGoff!

Thanks a lot for your contributions! Thank you for transferring images from Flickr to Commons! Two hints ahead:

• Always upload the highest resolution of a photograph that is available on flickr
• You can use this tool for your flickr uploads. It makes the hole procedure much easier and faster for you!
  

Thank you for your support! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this tool but... can you tell me what to put in the ID gap?MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:WinonaRyder-1.jpg

File:WinonaRyder-1.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!

Tabercil (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:BlackSabbath-concert-ticket-Sofia-BG.jpg

File:BlackSabbath-concert-ticket-Sofia-BG.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.

 

Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 08:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

QIC

Sign-button

You know the signature-button or rather the code ~~~~? Please use it ofr your identfication. Compare Template:Sign and en:Wikipedia:Signatures for more information. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't saw [1], sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! SvetiSedmochislenitsi-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. Comments good--Jebulon 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! SvetiSedmochislenitsi-church-6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments QI for me, in spite of some remaining subtle distortion effects. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria pics request

Hi PanyGoff - I was wondering, do you get any opportunity to travel round Bulgaria? If you can, it would be very nice if you could get some good photos of wild-origin specimens of Бяла мура and Черна мура better than these cultivated plant photos ;-) A good place to get both is in the Пирин in the valley around 41°46'N 23°25'E (I saw them both there a few years ago, but did not have a good camera then!); now is also a good time as the cones are just ripening. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK to me, all criteria met. A special acknowledgment for the informative description by means of text and annotations. --Myrabella (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! WhiteMahogany (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. Comments Not that exciting, but quality is ok and could be useful. --Cayambe 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! StSophiaChurchNave-Sofia-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. Comments FP ? --Jebulon 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Although more whitespace around it, the building is shown better. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Request I'd tend to agree and could support it if the description (at least in English) was improved to fulfill criterion 4 (Old town? Not a castle?) --Myrabella (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done--MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support--Roberta F. (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Sokac121 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Varaždin - stari grad.jpg: 0 
2. Stari grad Varaždin.JPG: +3 <--
=>
File:Varaždin - stari grad.jpg: Declined.
File:Stari grad Varaždin.JPG: Promoted. <--

--Myrabella (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! TheChurchofStStConstantine-and-Helena.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Very good.--Jebulon 23:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Maybe the word "exterior" could add...  Question What is really special in this church to have its own scope ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Category:Santissima Trinità (Crema) to Category:Santissima Trinità, Crema (exterior) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

• What a question I just can't believe it? If you would like to understand see some of my explanation here. I added the word exterior, just forget to write it the first time. --MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional.... Maybe "unbelievable", but truly in the guidelines. Your explanation (opinion) is very interesting, but does not meet the rules if I'm not wrong. When I see an article in WP (for example) without an image to illustrate it, I just try to find some. No need of VIC for that. Then, I just would like to know, please, according to the VIC rules, why we could accept a scope for this church ? Is it for example a pilgrimage place? Why is it really famous ? Why is it architecturally exceptional ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • it:Crema_(Italia)#Chiese_nel_centro_storico says pregevole edificio barocco, means something like venerable baroque building. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. I uploaded this image of the small church in Ormos Panagias village - Greece so that, in my view to illustrate what I think is the meaning of a local not so significant temple. The difference with The Santissima Trinità is obvious though it is the only photo of the subject in Commons too. I think that, at least, three interesting articles can use the nominated photo: 1. Article about the church in itself. 2. Article presenting the christian temples in Crema and their architecture and history. As far as I know, each of these churches presents some different style and the Baroque is presented mostly by this church. 3. The photo can be included in an article about the Baroque architecture in the province of Cremona. Furthermore, taking a glance at the current images with VI status - section Religious buildings and shrines, I see there about 10 temples (not only christian ones) that are more or less on the Santissima Trinità level of significance if generally these creations can be judged in this way. Not to mention some images in the other topics whose subjects are of far less importance than this one, imo.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• There is no article about the church, not even a red link. Nor any article that mentions the church other than as one item in a long list. Arguments based on articles are best if supported by articles. However, as always, I consider age enough for relevance and  Support it. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I read that this (rococo?) church (architect: Andrea Nono) has two facades ([2]); one can guess this feature but not really see it in this view. However, it may be difficult to find a good angle of view there. --Myrabella (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Web Gallery of Art presents a painting that is in this church ([3]) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Well composed, clear view of face, meets all criteria. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! SvetiSedmochislenitsiChurch-Sofia-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. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! CentralMineralBath-Sofia-8a 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.

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! PublicMineralBaths-Sofia-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. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 06:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! ChurchoftheHolyMother-Plovdiv-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. Comments Not that exciting, but sharp and otherwise technically also good. --Cayambe 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! CentralMarketHall-Sofia-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. Comments QI IMHO, maybe a bit sharper. — Jagro 11:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! StSophiaChurch-Sofia-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. Comments Nice perspective — Jagro 11:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! TheChurchofStStConstantine-and-Helena-Plovdiv-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. Comments Good color and capture of the detail. Jonathunder 23:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope, all crieria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope, well framed, excellent photo. However, the scope should be altered so we know Maribor is in Slovenia. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File uploads

Hi, when uploading files please ensure that you use a new filename and do not overwrite an existing file, like you did at File:Bideford-Devon.jpg - the exception being when its a different version of the same image. I've reverted the upload and I suggest you upload the new image to a new title. I cannot effectively do so as the information you provided in the upload form was lost.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met.  Info I've adjusted the date and the geotag (the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival Party was held on Avril 21, 2009 at the New York State Supreme Courthouse (ref.). The date given by EXIF data is inconsistent but the source makes me think that the photograph was taken during this event effectively, where the famous architect was present according to Vanity Fair :). --Myrabella (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the exact geotagging.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • EXIF data is not reliable as the date recorded is 9 months before this type of camera was announced! :-). Lycaon (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support The STRABAG sign is ugly, but the lesser evil. It's somehow informative, because it indicates thet the interior has changed. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support this one. Furthermore, I like the two persons (in love ?) near the sign...--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Rathaus St. Pölten.jpg: -1 
2. St. Poelten Rathaus 2.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Rathaus St. Pölten.jpg: Declined.
File:St. Poelten Rathaus 2.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Myrabella (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment I am not sure about this one. Quality is certainly the best, however, this one gives a wider view. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you think that this gives more information? The photo that you suggest presents the building as background of some event that takes place on the square. This is very distracting, imo. No good detailed view of the facade.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the tents and structures in front of the building are distracting in the image pointed out by The High Fin Sperm Whale. In fact, I prefer the uniform daylight of File:Piazza Unita.jpg than the more yellowish evening light with shadows of the nominated image, but the bollards in the foreground are terrible. So I support this one, a good illustration of the topic despite the light that change the color of the building, furthermore geocoded and having an informative description. FYI, the most used image of the category in Wikimedia projects is File:PiazzaUnità 1.jpg :-( --Myrabella (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! SvetiSedmochislenitsiChurch-Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments very good, super perspective -- Felix Koenig 18:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support interesting naturalistic approach to a common object--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support this. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Troki - zamek.JPG: 0
2. Trakaifront.JPG: +1 <--
3. Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0
4. Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0
=>
File:Troki - zamek.JPG: Declined.
File:Trakaifront.JPG: Promoted. <--
File:Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined.
File:Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined.

--Myrabella (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support The criteria are met. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support An outstanding photograph, as basically all the others are hampered by what must be the typical atmosphere at their concerts, i.e. bad lighting and lots of smoke in the air. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not geocoded, while a location is given in the description. Lycaon (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Look again, it is geocoded --MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops sorry, I looked again :-). Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. Not the best possible picture, as I would prefer one of her smiling, but this one is the best among the ones available. Flávio, o Maddox ^go! 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:TadaoAndo-01.jpg

File:TadaoAndo-01.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!

Elekhh (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK to me, all criteria met. Shows the building better than 1 or 2. Side comment: a category "Neo-Renaissance architecture in Bulgaria" is missing, see Category:Neo-Renaissance architecture by country --Myrabella (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. I'm going to make some adjusments.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:HarrisonFord-StarWars.jpg

File:HarrisonFord-StarWars.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!

Martin H. (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ChristopherLloyd-DeathofaSalesman.jpg

File:ChristopherLloyd-DeathofaSalesman.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!

Martin H. (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Request At the review size, maybe my favorite, but not geocoded. Could you please add a getag? --Myrabella (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done geotaged, also and the other candidate.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Better rendering at the review size, showing the location along the sea + the hill with the Alcazaba in a clearer way IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Panorámica de Almería.jpg: +0
2. 2007-12-18-04706 Spain Almeria.jpg: +2
3. Almería aire.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Panorámica de Almería.jpg: Declined.
File:2007-12-18-04706 Spain Almeria.jpg: Promoted.
File:Almería aire.JPG: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support not 100% sure about the scope with the added "general view", but other than that is definitely the best picture in the category and is valued, because it covers the whole building from a decent angle. Jolly Janner (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 22ba7c4ff90c88f1a20e738c2d37fa7f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:GraemeSouness-3.png

File:GraemeSouness-3.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Martin H. (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support I totally do agree, the autograph is very relevant --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

•  OpposeSorry, no source, no author. Is really this photograph (1933) in public domain ? I have to oppose until this question is solved. I'm sorry --Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The unknown author is something usual for historical images, see these valued photos , , , , so withdraw please your charge in this connection. As for the source, everyone can take a shot in the archives in The Bulgarian National Library or in The Historical Museum and can release it wherever he wants absolutely legally. There is no copyright holder. So could you change your vote?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry no, I couldn't. The examples you give are clearly in the public domain (except maybe for Gandhi) for time or legal reasons. Some months ago, I submitted here a photo of 1919 (not 1933!) of Josef Pilsudski, which was rejected. After long researches, somebody here founded the name of the photographer, which was active as photographer in the 40's (less than 70 years ago). If not a special case, the limit in "Commons" is 70 years after the certain death of the author. I know that it is hard, but dura lex, sed lex. My question is: please demonstrate me that this photo is, for legal reasons, out of the rule, or prove me that the author is dead for more than 70 years. But I agree, it is a high valuable photo.--Jebulon (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • What about this [4] - the official Tzar's family site. I think it is a kind of a public domain. All the newspapers take photos from this site.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes I know this site. It is very interesting, but does not answer to the previous questions...I'm afraid I was not clear enough. If I create a web site (world wide visible) with my family photographs, these photographs ARE NOT in the public domain, and CANNOT be used without permission of the author, which has moral and author's rights on these photos. Did you read this ? Well, at the end, I have the same opinion: all of this is a bit stupid. But it is the rule and the law. One of my best friends is a bulgarian lawyer, I'll ask him soon about the bulgarian law, and about this specific picture (furthermore, I think he knows the (former ?) Tzar Simeon Sakskoburggotski, the son of "yours"). --Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, we just waste our time instead of working on something more profitable ;). There was no need of your additional explanation, you know, all we do is to try our best to feint the system :) Maybe there are no alive persons that knows who actually was the photographer that took this shot but ... And if no one finds the real author then what?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! VitoshaPlateau-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. Comments Very good --George Chernilevsky 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support View of the bay and the canyon. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Geograph

When you upload Geograph images, please, please, please use Magnus' tool to upload them. This will ensure that they are properly placed in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project. (If nothing else, it saves having to copy the images to your machine.) Also, I don't suppose anybody really cares, but the correct licence for Geograph images is {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, not cc-by-sa-3.0. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In the fullness of time, I shall correct all your uploads but it would be nice if you could go through this list (slow - be patient) and carry out this edit where needed. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that Geograph is based on geotags, it seems criminal to strip that info when copying images here. Using Magnus' tool will add co-ordinates for you. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sofia's Cathedral

Hello MrPanyGoff
I am a fan of your cathedral, I supported in FPC. Very nice photo, very impressive.
I've tried this for you, removing by cloning (very light) some disturbing elements (the blue crane, the yellow car, the red thing left, and the grey car right). Please feel free to use it, but no worries if not. I hope you'll enjoy. This is only a tribute to your work. Cheers from Paris--Jebulon (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Come on people, wake up! There are only 12 photos in this category. It will takes no more than a minute to review this image ;)--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Even though there are not many images, they are hard to compare because they were taken at various points in the life of Sophia Loren and are quite different. I don't know which is most valued. File:Five Miles to Midnight 1962.JPG and File:SophiaLorenAAFeb09.jpg are used by more articles, but neither is geocoded although the second could be easily geocoded.[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Difficult choice. This one is geocoded, and is quite good. Yann (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but we have color photos from similar period person. (Like this one on the right)
  

  S L
  I'd give preference to that one. PhotoGenIc (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm not sure that I agree that the 2009 photograph is from a similar period as the nominated 1986 photograph. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant person not period. The perdiod is different of course . What I meant is if there is a good quality B/W and good quiality color pic - I'd prefer color as it's better reflects the subject and gives additional detils which are not available in b/w picture. (Of course BW art is a separate topic, but for valued image I'd choose the one that have more information (color) than another one without (b/w). Sorry - just my 2c. PhotoGenIc (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• But we have no good color pics of Loren in the proper age as in the nominated one. The color pics you suggest are more or less inappropriate for representative photos, imo.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment We have here very good studio portrait of the 52 years old Sophia Loren in the peak of her maturity. I cannot believe that we discuss some accidental public photos of Loren (no matter colour or not) when she is 75 years old!?!? I think that, as a rule, if we have to choose only one image of notable persons it should be exactly from their "high time", not the teenage years and not in theirs old age. Furthermore, for eminent people with long career, there should be three different categories with VI in each of them - 1. At an early youth, 2. Maturity, 3. Old age. But this could be applied if there are plenty of photos from each period.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• It was just my opinion - in no way I wanted to upset you as an author. I agree with the suggestion about three periods. We can suggest this new rule and once passed we can judge by it. But until then... sorry. PhotoGenIc (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just a nominator ;) The author is Allan Warren.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support It think one is the best for main scope because it is from near the middle of her life, i.e., not young and not old. Also, it is of high quality and is geocoded. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:AlexanderNevskyCathedral-Sofia-6.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AlexanderNevskyCathedral-Sofia-6.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! AlexanderNevskyCathedral-Sofia-6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Very good.--Ankara 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support -- The best of the bunch, all criteria met. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Peter Ustinov black & white Allan Warren.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peter Ustinov black & white Allan Warren.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support The best for this scope. Yann (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment And again: What is the relevance of this (church) chapel. There is a parameter reason wich can be used too give a reason when nominating ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done ;) --MrPanyGoff 09:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Think it's the best. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support I think this one gives a better impression. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Mosta Dome 2009-RZ-2.JPG: +0
2. Domen i Mosta.jpg: +1
=>
File:Mosta Dome 2009-RZ-2.JPG: Declined.
File:Domen i Mosta.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

added in the french WP ;)--Jebulon (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Let's see what happens here... Very good photo of Gérard Philipe with a face clearly visible. So far the best free image of the actor in the web. So what's the problem then?--MrPanyGoff 09:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Request I am ready to support, but could you please add the geotag of the Warsaw National Theatre where this photo was taken, according to the file title? --Myrabella (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done OK, the geotag is added.--MrPanyGoff 09:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support OK to me, all criteria met. Description completed. --Myrabella (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope. Used in many articles. All criteria met. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Agree with the reasons given. --Myrabella (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support this one. Not good, but better IMO. The details are better shown, then the scene is better depicted. But not sure for the colours. Only my choice, and I'm not happy...--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Polyptyc last judgment.jpg: -1
2. Rogier van der Weyden 001.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Polyptyc last judgment.jpg: Declined.
File:Rogier van der Weyden 001.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 2b33051331ffc2b29078bbc412e026aa

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

best in scope of Spagnoletto IMO--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Tzar's Palace Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support hard to decide, imho wins by a narrow margin because of the annotations. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Walter Gropius

Hello MrPanyGoff, That one would be very illustrative too and nice to upload but I'm afraid it isn't freely-licensed [6]... Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And I've also found that better version of the nominee. To be uploaded? Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An answer on my talkpage, --Myrabella (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Support this one.--Jebulon (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Wasserturm Luzern LCD.jpg: +0
2. Luzern Kapellbruecke.jpg: +2
3. Luzern.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Wasserturm Luzern LCD.jpg: Declined.
File:Luzern Kapellbruecke.jpg: Promoted.
File:Luzern.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Roman Theatre Plovdiv.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks to Myrabella we found much better quality version of the photo which I uploaded here to substitute it for the previous image. Maybe the title of nomination article should be also changed but I don't know how this can be done.--MrPanyGoff 11:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, as if I managed to do it.--MrPanyGoff 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support A MVR would have been a more appropriate way to choose the VI for that scope ; however, I confirm my support for this version rather than File:Walter Gropius Foto 1920.jpg, previously nominated. --Myrabella (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment I'm curious which criterion is not satisfied here?--MrPanyGoff 15:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 Support Best in scope. Unfortunate crop at the top (see original), but the closest candidate is of lower resolution and oversaturated. Would be great if you can request the photo-lab to blend away the watermark as opposed to the current cropping the top off. Jon C (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Triumph Thunderbird1600 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. Comments  Support --Carschten 10:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question I am ready to support. Just a question: how did you find that the photograph was taken in Belgravia? --Myrabella (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the category there are two more photos that are obviously taken at the same time with the nominated one. Just below the Summary boxes of both of them the quarter of Sellers home in London is specified by the author.--MrPanyGoff 12:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support So I presume that the geolocation is only guessed, that it is a coarse one which doesn't point at the very house where Sellers was living at the time. That should be noted in the description. Otherwhise, the best one in the scope, birdie num num. --Myrabella (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Note that Peter Sellers is not among the notable residents in Belgravia listed in the :en:article. I would like to read a source confirming he lived there, because the flat in the background, in this photo and in the two others, seems rather modest (eg.), and Belgravia is known for "its immensely expensive residential properties" and to be "one of the wealthiest districts in the world". I wonder if it wouldn't have been a sort of joke between him and the photographer... --Myrabella (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Sellers left an estate worth several million pounds when he died so the presumed location is plausible. --Myrabella (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

•  ;) Note that the section Notable residents in this article is not referenced at all. It mentions about 50 names while probably thousands of public persons have dwelt in Belgravia throughout the years. These kind of Wikipedia sections are more or less in the scope of rumours. This picture can be used as the most reliable source for this particular article. As for the casual interior you are worried about, this is usual for some of the movie stars (and maybe most of them) to have not so big common cosy flats in the city which are used as secluded den. This info I read in many official biographies as is the case here.--MrPanyGoff 09:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Triumph Thunderbird1600 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. Comments I like the above view and the sharp reflection in the windshield. IdLoveOne 10:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment What bothers you? Hard to decide which one or you just have no interest in old black&white photos? ;)--MrPanyGoff 15:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral I am at a toss up whether this is the VI, or this one. The latter lacks the gaze, but has less shallow DoF and higher resolution. Jon C (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I tend to prefer this one, because of the gaze. --Myrabella (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support agree with Myrabella.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Mark Twain by AF Bradley.jpg: +2
2. Twain1909 edit.jpg: +0 
3. Mark Twain photo portrait, Feb 7, 1871, cropped Repair.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Mark Twain by AF Bradley.jpg: Promoted.
File:Twain1909 edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Mark Twain photo portrait, Feb 7, 1871, cropped Repair.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

review

This version is the best for me --Pudelek (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Roman Theatre Plovdiv.jpg: +0
2. Antique-theater-plovdiv.jpg: +0
3. Roman Theatre Plovdiv 3.jpg: +1 
4. Roman Theatre Plovdiv 2.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Roman Theatre Plovdiv.jpg: Declined.
File:Antique-theater-plovdiv.jpg: Declined.
File:Roman Theatre Plovdiv 3.jpg: Promoted.
File:Roman Theatre Plovdiv 2.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

HotCat

Hello MrPanyGoff, Thank you so much for the huge work you are doing on VIs by country. May I suggest you the use of the tool "HotCat"? Personally, I find it very useful to easily add / remove / change a category on a page. You can activate it in your menu Preferences / Gadgets / Tools for categories. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for suggested tool "HotCat". I noticed it but I thought it would take time until I explore how it works ;) Now I'm going to try it.--MrPanyGoff 15:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Images Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Triumph Thunderbird 1600.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Triumph Thunderbird 1600.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Congratulations with ! With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wassily Chair (B3) by Marcel Breuer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Best in Scope --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope. With greater pleasure that I really like Tartini. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support good composition, lighting, annotations, resolution --Pjt56 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support To me the most illustrative of the three candidates. --Myrabella (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I saw this before, that bush/tree bothers me. --Mile (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The piers at either end are unobstructed and are important to understand the construction of the bridge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose the left edge is missing --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nominator's vote not allowed, sorry. Only as comment -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1
2. Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +2 
3. Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: -1 
4. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined.
File:Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Promoted. 
File:Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: Declined.
File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support This one, according to the nominator's arguments.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scores:

1. Kairo Hanging Church BW 1.jpg: 0
2. Cairo, Old Cairo, Hanging Church, Egypt, Oct 2004 edit.jpg: +1  
=>
File:Kairo Hanging Church BW 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Cairo, Old Cairo, Hanging Church, Egypt, Oct 2004 edit.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK to me for these macarons from Ladurée. This image shows how various macarons can be. The intent of the nominated image was to depict a single piece, and its structure (and it was a Pierre Hermé macaron :-) --Myrabella (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Good candidate, per Myrabella -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Macaron 2.jpg:  0
2. French macarons, August 2009.jpg:  0
3. A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg:  0
4. Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: +2
=>
File:Macaron 2.jpg: Declined.
File:French macarons, August 2009.jpg: Declined.
File:A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: Declined.
File:Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Best in scope IMO, all criteria met. An other image, File:National-theatre-bulgaria.JPG, is used in more Wikimedia projects, it has a better lighting and some prefer it (1) but the crop is very tight and that image needs perspective correction. --Myrabella (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! IvanVazov National Theatre 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

75x75px

★ 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:
Estonian National Opera, Tallinn (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! StGeorge the Conqueror Sofia 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. Comments Very good! --A.Savin 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

I like these nomination ideas very much, and find this one, another time, very interesting. Could you please explain us why you chosed this picture particularly ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• You can open the linked gallery and you'll see.--MrPanyGoff 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  ??? Thanks for kind answer. That's what I did, but no matter...--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, I gave explanation in the reason section.--MrPanyGoff 20:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do you think that there is a better representation of Conan Doyle in Commons?--MrPanyGoff 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Because it shows today a highlight of what I remember of this great tennis player. Very good !--Jebulon (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon --Matthew Proctor (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: +1
2. US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: +2 
=>
File:John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: Declined.
File:US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)  Support agree.--Jebulon (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: +0
2. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: +2 
3. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: +0 
4. Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: Declined.
File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: Promoted. 
File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 10:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Even if so transformed still best in scope. --Mile (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Best in Scope Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

•  Best in Scope Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Difficult choice because the scope is rich --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment This is my favourite.--MrPanyGoff 10:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Agree: actually, it can be said the most illustrative. It is a big production unit of a big company ([7]), and now this image is geocoded. In addition, it shows transport facilities linked with the cement works, which are important for that industry. --Myrabella (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Not bad neither. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. 06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: +0
2. Schelklingen 1288.jpg: +2
3. Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: +1
4. Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: +0
=>
File:06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: Declined.
File:Schelklingen 1288.jpg: Promoted.
File:Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: Declined.
File:Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support True. --Mile (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

75x75px

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

review

 Support Difficult choice because in general it favors the facade of a building. But the added notes are very useful and justified my support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment "Ankara" does not seem useful, but add "Exterior" rather --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, it is changed.--MrPanyGoff 17:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Possible competitors are not good enough. This one needs a restoration, but is for now the best in scope IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support --Mile (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)  Support agree--Jebulon (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores:

1. ByzantineTower Ouranopolis2.jpg: -1
2. TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg: +2
=>
File:ByzantineTower Ouranopolis2.jpg: Declined.
File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Battenberg Mausoleum Sofia 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope IMO, far much better than the other one --Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Sofia University panorama 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. Comments very good...--Jebulon 10:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in its category. --Coyau (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Battenberg-Mausoleum Sofia 4-1.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. Comments Good. --David Perez 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Best in Scope I agree with the nominator. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Oppose Very bad photo, lack of composition, quality (iPhone users !)...couldt vote to represent town such Tripoli. --Mile (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment As nominator of an alternative candidate, You can only comment, not voting -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I agree with the nominator. It meets criterion 3. The sky is overexposed on the right in File:Tripoli_cityscape.jpg with about 100,000 pixels saturated in the red channel. No detail remains. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores:

1. Tripoli cityscape.jpg: +0
2. Tripoli Skyline edit.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Tripoli cityscape.jpg: Declined.
File:Tripoli Skyline edit.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 07:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Tzar Liberator Monument Sofia 1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments maybe a bit dark, but good enough --Carschten 15:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I was hesitating with File:Katse Dam-001.jpg (no big shadow) but the nominated image gives a better idea of the whole site and on second thought, the shadow brings a graphical touch... and some further information about the structure. All criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

75x75px

★ 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:
Dobó Square, Eger.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Very informative and atmospheric photo but who cares...--MrPanyGoff 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Quite informative indeed, thank you for the added geotag and annotations. What bothered me was that this square hasn't an article on its own in any Wikipedia (not even in the Hungarian one) but I read further that Dobó Square ("Dobó ter" in Hungarian?) is the main square of the historical town of Eger. Then it's OK to me, the most illustrative one for the scope IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for supporting this beautiful image. As for the lacking of an article about it I would like to remind you that, aside from the en.wiki, all of the others wikis are still not developed well even the French one ;)--MrPanyGoff 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I wanted to do this morning but is not it a bit late to sde view the expiration date? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope, good arguments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Earth and Man Museum Sofia 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. Comments Good quality. --Jovianeye 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Faculty of Chemistry Sofia University.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 09:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Holy-Mother-of-God Church -Plovdiv 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. Comments Good quality and nice --Taxiarchos228 09:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Very difficult choice, because the scope is rich, but I mean this picture is best. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Park Hotel Moskva Sofia 3.jpg

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Park Hotel Moskva Sofia 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support best in skope an I think it is true that the Camels add skale to the photo. -- Kersti (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Al Khazneh.jpg: 0
2. Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: 0 
3. Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Al Khazneh.jpg: Declined. 
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Agree with all reasons mentioned. --Jovian Eye _talk 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Sofia Synagogue 11c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Kajetán Josef Tyl Theatre

I hope you do not want me to Kajetán Josef Tyl Theatre. We animate the Label VA, but I did not mean. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Only portrait on Commons. Meets all criteria. --Jovian Eye _talk 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Difficult choice. Very good panoramic view compared with very good aerial view. Both of them presents the entire structure. Both are very informative...--MrPanyGoff 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support This one, but matter of taste, I agree with MrPanyGoff...--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Culloden Viaduct01 2007-08-22.jpg: +2
2. Nairn railway viaduct near Culloden - geograph.org.uk - 1801643.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Culloden Viaduct01 2007-08-22.jpg: Promoted.
File:Nairn railway viaduct near Culloden - geograph.org.uk - 1801643.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best pic representing the city of Bitola, according to the scope.--Jebulon (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. BitolskiKorzo.JPG: -1
2. BitolaPanorama.jpg: +1 
=>
File:BitolskiKorzo.JPG: Declined.
File:BitolaPanorama.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

•  Best in Scope --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best within the scope. Yann (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Pilsen-Opera.JPG : This image gives a better idea of building --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the nominated photo shows the entire main facade perfectly lit up by the sun with almost no distortion. The image which you suggest has strong perspective distortion and doesn't present any whole facade. Moreover, the visible part around the entrance is in shadow. But OK, the choice is yours ;) I'm going to open it in a MVR.--MrPanyGoff 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support To see them side by side I agree with your opinion. I'll also do all my exucuses for the inconvenience. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's OK, the important thing is to light up for the audience one more valuable subject. ;) --MrPanyGoff 17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Better view. -- Kersti (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Opera Plzen 176.JPG: +2
2. Pilsen-Opera.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Opera Plzen 176.JPG: Promoted.
File:Pilsen-Opera.JPG: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 07:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Bulgarian-Academy-of-Sciences 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 10:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

QI category header

Hello,

Please use a template for this sort of category headers − it makes it possible to have the message translated. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I've considered creating a template for this kind of headers (QI and VI) but for some reason I've not proceeded to it yet.--MrPanyGoff 08:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Good derivative work, best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Location is wrong. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Please notice that the "Town Hall" is only the central building--Jebulon (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Logically the main subject is at the centre of the composition. ;)--MrPanyGoff 08:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Photo of poor quality but still the best in the scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support I wish all face could be seen, there was one more good, BW, but this is far more represantive. --Mile (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Bulgarian-Academy-of-Sciences Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Support. Sugar-Baby-Love 21:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

I'm not fully convinced by the so called restoration. I prefer this version of the same pose. The resolution is not so high, but the picture looks better to me. Furthermore, the autograph of Andersen adds a lot to the value IMO. Thoughts about ? --Jebulon (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Actually these are reproductions of one and the same portrait with different colour balance. I nominated this because it is somehow clean and with more real Black&White balance but I would accept the other version too. As for the script below I'm not sure what is it actually. Why do you think that it contains Andersen' autograph?--MrPanyGoff 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • because of the signature.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is a difficult task to read these letters.--MrPanyGoff 14:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• yes but we have a transcription on the file description page.--Jebulon (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Yann (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Its better, yes. --Mile (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. HCA by Thora Hallager 1869.jpg: +2 <--
2. HCA 1869 by Thora Hallager.jpg: +1 
=>
File:HCA by Thora Hallager 1869.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:HCA 1869 by Thora Hallager.jpg: Declined.

--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Classical Antiquity

Hello MrPanyGoff, Would you consider a "Classical Antiquity" VI gallery? We miss your comment here :-) Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Sofia Old TV Tower edit.jpg

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Sofia Old TV Tower edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Finally supporting this one, where Gebrselassie is competing. The date and the geotag were inaccurate in the file description (fixed). --Myrabella (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Haile-newyork-cropforfocus.jpg: +0
2. 20090601 Haile Gebrselassie.jpg: +1 
3. Haile Gebrselassie Dubai 2010.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Haile-newyork-cropforfocus.jpg: Declined.
File:20090601 Haile Gebrselassie.jpg: Promoted.
File:Haile Gebrselassie Dubai 2010.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 07:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I prefer this one. --Myrabella (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Turning Torso 1.jpg: +0
2. Turning Torso 2.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Turning Torso 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Turning Torso 2.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Totodu74 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Bulgarian Academy of Sciences fragment 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. Comments Good quality, but tends a little to overexposure --Niabot 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 12:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Old Slaveykov School Targovishte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Too bad because work is in progress in the gardens, but has the most recent image that exists in COMMONS. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope, meets all criteria, and beautiful lighting! --Matthew Proctor (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Best in Scope All criteria satisfied. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Here I see the roof. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Archaeodontosaurus, and the perspective from this height give a better feel of the actual shape of the building. Jovian Eye _talk 23:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: +1
2. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: +2
3. Flatiron 1.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: Promoted.
File:Flatiron 1.JPG: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think view from the ground is better. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Torre Monumental (Buenos Aires) edit.jpg: +1
2. Torre Ingleses Buenos Aires.jpg: +0
=>
File:Torre Monumental (Buenos Aires) edit.jpg: Promoted.
File:Torre Ingleses Buenos Aires.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

The image seems to me well chosen by the train shows the scale. But why not use the scope: Category Göltzschtalbrücke? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a rule I take the Wikipedia title (en:Göltzsch Viaduct) but OK I'm going to change it.--MrPanyGoff 18:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope (I think that is the scope of reference that matters most.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support good scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Veliko-Tarnovo-Cathedral 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. Comments branches are disturbing a little but, but QI --Taxiarchos228 09:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Cultural-Centre Sevlievo 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 09:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I agree, this is a better crop. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Kafka portrait.jpg: +0
2. Kafka1906 cropped.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Kafka portrait.jpg: Declined.
File:Kafka1906 cropped.jpg: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 22:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support The best image of this scope very poor --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Supportbest in scope --Archaeodontosaurus 07:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

There is no geocoding. Coding focused on the island should suffice. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Geotag and Description added. Sorry for omitting.--MrPanyGoff 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Veliko Tarnovo Ivan Vazov 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Statue of Liberty Sevlievo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Please increase the brightness a little more. --Jovianeye 05:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)  Done-Brightness increased.--MrPanyGoff 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)  Support figure on the statue still a bit dark, but otherwise very good --Carschten 12:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Malaga bullring.jpg: +2
2. Málaga La Malagueta 01.jpg: +0
3. Plaza toros La Malagueta 2006.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Malaga bullring.jpg: Promoted.
File:Málaga La Malagueta 01.jpg: Declined.
File:Plaza toros La Malagueta 2006.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Ilarion Makariopolski Memorial Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! G.S.Rakovski ComprehensiveSchool Sofia 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. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Bell Tower of St Iliya Church Sevlievo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 19:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions for VI

Hi Mr PanyGoff,

sorry, but I did not get your explanation (Toronto should be there because there is one more CN Tower). There is in fact the category CN Tower existing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The existing category is not correctly named. The location (place) should be indicated in the title when the name of the structure is not unique. In Edmonton (Canada) there is a building with the same name. Probably there are even more structures in the world named CN Tower that's why we should add the name of the place so that to differentiate them - to create an unique scope (category) for each of them. For instance The Eiffel Tower in Paris is somehow unique name so there is no need to add Paris in the scope name. Pay attention that the Wikipedia and Commons are still under construction and there are considerable number of categories that are not well defined. --MrPanyGoff 13:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but why is this so important for VI candidates? And the CN Tower is clear because it is defined here at Commons to be the tower in Toronto and not somewhere else. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just say what is correct in my view. The so created categories in commons are not determinative. The scopes in the VI project should be more precisely defined. There is no problem, you can write only CN Tower as a title and there is a probability no one to notice that there are other buildings with the same name. Imagine that at the same time someone nominate this photo under the same scope name. Who is right then? VI is the most illustrative image in a specific scope. The scope defined by the name CN Tower includes all structures in the universe called CN Tower. This is against the rules of the project where is clearly stated ...the scope cannot be too broad. Anyway, the problem is that there is no suitable scope for your photo to be the winner. --MrPanyGoff 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see and sorry for my perpetual questions. This was my first VI-nomination and I try to find it out if this subject is just reasonable in my eyes. For sure I can create for example a category named Antennas of CN Tower or technical facilitys of CN Tower (this would be even expedient because in the main-category CN Tower are many pictures and in this way the images could be rearranged. But if I not create a category which the candidate does fit in it is already the same: the picture is valuable because helicopterflys are not common and this picture isn't it too - with or without an adapted category. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Vabel Church Targovishte 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. It looked a little tilted to the right for me. But it is not. --Elektroschreiber 06:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support I agree, very rich scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 08:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! St Iliya Church Sevlievo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality and nice --Taxiarchos228 11:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Russian church Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments QI for me, nice shoot --J. Lunau 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! StNikolaySofiyski church Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 06:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Former Post Hall Veliko Tarnovo 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. Comments Good. Intresting building.--Ankara 15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! St Nikolay Sofiyski church, Sofia, fragment..jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Jovianeye 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Town Hall Veliko Tarnovo 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! StNikolaySofiyski church Sofia 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. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mühle im Weiler

Thanks for your comment. I changed the scope to this specific mill: "Stühlingen, Mühle im Weiler, Exterior", which I just was intending to do, then I saw your comment. I agree, this is a better scope than "gypsum mill". --Llez (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Veliko Tarnovo Cathedral 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. Comments Good quality and very nice --Taxiarchos228 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Rich scope. Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. AlbanyNYCityHall.jpg: +1
2. Albany City Hall twilight.jpg: +0
=>
File:AlbanyNYCityHall.jpg: Promoted.
File:Albany City Hall twilight.jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

75x75px

★ 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:
El Cajón Dam, Mexico.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mühle im Weiler 2

Thanks for your comments and the examples. Sorry, it is my first picture of a building I nominate as VIC. I think, now all should be correct. --Llez (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Viola x wittrockiana (Pansy).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support This image is the same as the next, if I'm not mistaken.[8] The only difference is that the next image is compressed more. The first image is lower resolution and includes xray emission (blue) so that the extensive distribution of extremely hot gas is visible. Also, the field of view is somewhat larger and less dynamic ranges is shown (little detail is visible in the bright emission nebulae). I think this one is the best illustration of the mainscope. The first image is a valuable illustration of the xray emission of this object. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Galactic spectacle.jpg:  0
2. Antennae galaxies xl.jpg: +1
3. Antennae, Hubble images.jpg:  0 
=>
File:Galactic spectacle.jpg: Declined. 
File:Antennae galaxies xl.jpg: Promoted.
File:Antennae, Hubble images.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment - Doesn't the photo meet the criteria?--MrPanyGoff 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me but I am not very expert in this matter --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Dubrovnik 042.jpg: +0
2. DubrownikPanorama.JPG: +0 
3. Dubrovnik centre fortificat.JPG: +1 
4. Dubrovnik1 (js).jpg: +0 
5. Dubrovnik .jpg: +0 
=>
File:Dubrovnik 042.jpg: Declined.
File:DubrownikPanorama.JPG: Declined.
File:Dubrovnik centre fortificat.JPG: Promoted.
File:Dubrovnik1 (js).jpg: Declined.
File:Dubrovnik .jpg: Declined.

--MrPanyGoff 22:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support tiled but best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Cell phone tower Lozen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Black Elder Sambucus nigra flower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 16:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! St Nikolay Sofiyski church, Sofia, fragment 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. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 17:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Sofia-Seminary main-entrance.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 16:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Grand Hotel Veliko Tarnovo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. Comments Good quality, nice shot and very interessting architecture --Taxiarchos228 08:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All crieria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)