User talk:Cccefalon/Archives/2016

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mauritius Seven-Coloured-Earths-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Óðinn 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Segaliud Sabah SK-Segaliud-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Melalap Sabah NorthBorneoRailway-13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KotaKinabalu Sabah SMK-St-Francis-Convent-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tawau Sabah The-Lotus-Buddhism-Studies-Mission-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sungai-Mangis Sabah Tamaco-Oil-Mill-2-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Giethoorn Netherlands Channels-and-houses-of-Giethoorn-08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antwerp Belgium Museum-Plantin-Moretus-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Granada Spain Alhambra-Palacio-Generalife-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ulm Germany Court-House-00.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bukau Sabah JambatanLamaBukauLaut-07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah Fishing-vessel-in-Sandakan-Bay-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. May be ratio of 2:1 may be better. --XRay 06:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KotaKinabalu Sabah SRJKC-Chung-Hwa-Kg-Air-Kota-Kinabalu-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bukau Sabah JambatanLamaBukauLaut-06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah Shell-Station-Labuk Road-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

File:HydroelectricitySrilanka.png

Hey there! Sorry, I had somehow missed your comment for the above image at the QI nomination page. May I ask what do you mean by "Please fix the redlinks. The distance of the little blue arrows to the rivers is different over the chart"? I don't get both parts: redlinks, and blue arrows. Thank you, and wish you a very Happy New Year! Rehman 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The redlinks are categories, that have not a mother category (also called overcategory). As this, they do not appear in blue but in red colour. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will fix the categorization. What about the blue arrows? Rehman 23:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

QI Tunisia training

As part of the project Quality images training in Tunisia, the Wikimedia TN user group is looking for a Wikimedia commons User able to organize a training about Quality images, featured pictures, Valued images and Graphic Lab/Photography in Tunisia from February 18th to 22th, 2016. To participate please fill this form --Touzrimounir (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Architektur-Fotos aus mittlerer Distanz

Hallo Uwe,

zunächst: Besten Dank für Dein Engagement beim Thema „Nominierung von Qualitätsbildern“! Dieser Bereich ist erst kürzlich in meine Aufmerksamkeit gelangt, daher habe ich mich erst in den letzten Tagen dort engagiert. Vorher war ich der irrigen Meinung, dass ich nicht selbst Nominierungs-Vorschläge meiner Fotos erstellen kann; jetzt bin ich eines Besseren belehrt. Und ich verfolge mit Interesse, was sich dort tut und wie andere User bewerten. Nun aber zum eigentlichen Thema „Architektur-Fotos aus mittlerer Distanz“:
Mich interessiert, ob man Architektur-Fotos (Außen-Aufnahmen von Gebäuden) aus mittlerer Distanz perspektivisch korrigieren sollte oder nicht, bzw. bei Korrektur, in welchem Maße. Nach meinem Verständnis kann man solche Architektur-Fotos in 3 Gruppen kategorisieren:

1. Kurze Distanz – stürzende Linien liegen in der Natur der Sache, perspektivische Korrekturen sind nicht sinnvoll (und meist gar nicht machbar)
2. Lange Distanz – stürzende Linien sind unerwünscht und können im Allgemeinen einfach korrigiert werden
3. Mittlere Distanz – hier liegt meines Erachtens der Hase im Pfeffer

1 und 2 sind unkritisch, mir geht es um den 3. Fall, die „mittlere Distanz“. Meine Beobachtungen dazu:

1. User:Leit hatte mal dieses Foto als QI nominiert – ein Foto mit einer „rechtwinkligen“ Perspektiv-Korrektur. Zu meiner Überraschung wurde das Foto als QI anerkannt. Daraus hatte ich seinerzeit den Eindruck gewonnen, dass „rechtwinklige Perspektiv-Korrekturen“ hier im Allgemeinen erwünscht sind. Heute vermute ich, dass ich wahrscheinlich einen irreführenden Eindruck gewonnen hatte. Zur Info habe ich mal das Original-Foto hochgeladen, ohne Beschnitt und ohne Perspektiv-Korrektur.
2. Die Bewertungen auf Quality images candidates sind in dieser Hinsicht inkonsistent. Perspektiv-Korrekturen werden unterschiedlich bzw. widersprüchlich bewertet, oft mit lapidaren Kommentaren in der Art „perspective problem“. Möglicherweise habe ich die Bewertungen von Qualitätsbilder-Nominierungen, die in den Bereich der „Architektur-Fotos aus mittlerer Distanz“ fallen, noch nicht hinreichend lang beobachtet. Beim derzeitigen Stand meiner Beobachtungen ergibt sich für mich aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Bewertungen ein konfuses und irritierendes Bild.
3. Aufgrund meiner vorgenannten Irritationen hatte ich die zwei Versionen von Konrad-Zuse-Platz 5 erstellt, um ein Meinungsbild einzuholen. Damit hatte ich sozusagen zwei „Versuchsballons“ aufsteigen lassen. Im Ergebnis fühle ich mich in meiner Einschätzung bestätigt: Version 1 wurde beachtet (und letztlich von Dir als QI bewertet), hingegen hat Version 2 keine Kommentierung erfahren. Beides sind für mich wertvolle Bestätigungen, die sich mit meiner Einschätzung deckt. Leider bist Du bislang der Einzige gewesen, der sich zu einem der beiden „Ballons“ geäußert hat. Das Schweigen der anderen zu Version 1 interpretiere ich als Zustimmung. Das Schweigen zu Version 2 interpretiere ich als Indifferenz (so, wie bei anderen Fotos mit blauem Rahmen) – auch dieses Schweigen ist mir ein wertvolles Feedback.

Ich habe den Verdacht, dass wir (Du/ich/andere Benutzer) uns beim Thema „Architektur-Fotos aus mittlerer Distanz“ einig sind: Solche Fotos können zu einem gewissen Maße perspektivisch „etwas“ korrigiert werden; eine 100-prozentige, rechtwinklige Korrektur ist unangemessen, da sie den Sehgewohnheiten widerspricht und irritiert. Ob, und wenn ja, in welchem Maße die stürzenden Linien „entspannt“ werden, ist individuell zu betrachten, liegt im Ermessen des Fotografen und sollte sich an dessen Erfahrung (und einem „gesunden Menschenverstand“) orientieren.

Ich war auf der Suche in Wikipedia, ob es Richtlinien oder Empfehlungen zu diesem Thema gibt – bislang leider ohne Erfolg. Als maßgebliche Instanz betrachte ich Commons:Image guidelines. Dort ist im „Issue/Common Problems“-Eintrag „Distortions“ wenig Erbauliches zu finden, wie z. B. die lapidare Aussage „Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear“. Es wäre wünschenswert, wenn an dieser oder an anderer Stelle das Thema etwas ausführlicher dargestellt wäre. Eine mögliche Betrachtung könnte z. B. eine Differenzierung nach Kurze/Lange/Mittlere Distanz zum Thema haben. Falls Du diese Auffassung teilst, lass uns gemeinsam überlegen, wo und wie man in dieser Hinsicht Verbesserungen einbringen könnte. Einverstanden?
Ich bin gerne bereit, diese Diskussion an einer angemessenen Stelle auf Englisch zu führen – jedoch bin ich mir unsicher, wo ein adäquater Platz dafür wäre (vielleicht Commons talk:Image guidelines?). Gruß, Hasenläufer (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Singapore Supertree-Grove-in-The-Gardens-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI Dmitry Ivanov 13:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabanan-Regency Indonesia Rice-paddies-08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nusa-Dua Bali Indonesia Tourist-office-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 12:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bali-Strait Indonesia KMP-Trisila-Bhakti-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Funny photo, good quality --Michielverbeek 11:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks! The scenery is much more fun as soon as the ferry is opening the gate and the motocycles swarm out like a band of agressive hornets. --Cccefalon 13:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Teure Kamera, teures Objektiv, lausige Fotos

Hallo Uwe, darf ich Deine Aufmerksamkeit noch mal beanspruchen?
Mir sind bei der Beobachtung von Commons:Quality images candidates einige Fotos von Diego Delso in gewissem Sinne aufgefallen. Aus den Metadaten der Fotos von ihm („Poco a poco“/„Diego Delso“) ist erkennbar, dass seine Aufnahmen mit einer „Canon EOS 5DS R“ erfolgte, mit einem Objektiv „EF16-35mm f/4L IS USM“.
Beide Teile, Kamera und Objektiv, rangieren im oberen Preissegment; das Kamera-Modell mit dem „CMOS-Sensor mit 50,6 Megapixeln“ ist selbst im oberen Preis-Segment bzw. im professionellen Einsatz recht speziell.
Ich sehe beispielsweise, dass ein Foto mit einer Belichtungsdauer von 1/15 Sekunden aufgenommen wurde. Wir wissen nicht, ob ein Stativ im Einsatz war, oder nicht. Bekanntlich kann ohne Stativ bei einer solchen Belichtungsdauer nichts Vernünftiges entstehen – egal, wie teuer Kamera und Objektiv waren. Beim derzeitigen Stand der Technik wird in den Metadaten nicht vermerkt, ob ein Stativ im Einsatz war. ... (Scherz beiseite ...)
Ich habe einige Smartphone-Fotos gesehen, die qualitativ besser sind als die Fotos, die ich bislang von Diego Delso gesehen habe. Mit „qualitativ besser“ meine ich primär die Auflösung bzw. Detail-Treue. Ich erwarte von einer Kombination der genannten Kamera und des Objektivs eine vollkommen andere Auflösungs-Qualität/Detail-Treue als das, was ich bisher anhand der Fotos von Diego Delso gesehen habe. Daher sinniere ich, wo das Problem liegen mag. Möglicherweise hat Diego Delso bislang nicht realisiert, dass er ein Problem mit der Qualität seiner Fotos hat (vielleicht auch mehrere).
Das Problem mag in der benutzten Technik liegen oder zwischen den beiden Ohren des Anwenders. Ich möchte nicht falsch verstanden werden: Mir geht es nicht darum, jemanden zu diskreditieren. Ich will verstehen, warum beim Einsatz dieser Kamera und dieses Objektivs solch lausige Ergebnisse entstehen. Bislang kann ich nur spekulieren.
Welche Einschätzung des Themas hast Du, Uwe?
Gruß, Hasenläufer (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Das ist ist schwierig zu sagen. Diego ist ein erfahrener Photograph der weiss, was er tut. Ich weiss, dass er die neue Kamera erst seit kurzem hat. Möglicherweise bringt der Umstieg auf das deutliche größere Pixelformat Schwierigkeiten in der Handhabung mit sich. Das könnte allerdings nur Diego selber sagen. Ich weiss von meinem Umstieg von Halb- auf Vollformat im Jahr 2012, dass ich auch eine Zeitlang mit der neuen Technik zu kämpfen hatte und mir zwingend angewöhnen musste, Situation mit Stativ zu photographieren, die ich vorher locker aus der Hand erledigt hatte. Da Du Diego freundlicherweise verlinkt hast, kann er ja ggf. etwas zu seinen Erfahrungen sagen.

Dass nach dem Kamerawechsel bei Diego auch die Qualität der Bilder in irgendeiner Form anders wurde, ist mir auch aufgefallen. Da bei mir in den nächsten 12 Monaten auch eine neue Kameraanschaffung ansteht, bin ich auch an einer Expertise interessiert.

Generell bin ich aber nicht so der "Kameratechniker", da sind andere, wie z.B. User:Smial oder User:Hubertl besser sortiert.

Soviel erstmal; ich bin gerade ausser Landes und kann mich nicht so ausführlich wie sonst meinen digitalen Verpflichtungen widmen ;) Gruss, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ich kann sowieso wenig dazu beitragen, denn ich fürchte mich schon mit meiner 6D vor jedem Ergebnis, welches nicht mit Stativ zustandegekommen ist. Grundsätzlich will ich dazu sagen, dass die alte Regel: Belichtungszeit ist zumindest das, was die Brennweite fordert, bereits ab der 20MP-Grenze fragwürdig geworden ist. Wer immer mal etwas mehr als 200mm auf die Kamera schraubt, das dann bei einem durchschnittlich luftigen Tag aufs Stativ spannt, dann auf digitale 10x-Vergrößerung zur händischen Scharfstellung geht, wird merken, dass sogar dann (speziell wenn man noch eine Sonnenblende draufhat) nix verwacklungsfrei ist. Meine 800mm-Bilder kommen nur dann scharf zustande, wenn ich mindestens (!) 5x abdrücke (remote und mit vorausgelöstem Spiegel natürlich), den ganz schweren Getriebeneiger von Manfrotto und zusätzlich vorher den nassen Finger dabei hochhalte. Damit will ich aufzeigen, dass das Ergebnis einer Auflösung wie eben Diegos Kamera nur dann wirklich gut ist, wenn man tatsächlich jede Linie auf dem Sensor mit einer anderen Lichtinformation speist. Was eben nur geht, wenn man wirklich den Body nicht schüttelt. Um dieses Problem in den Griff zu bekommen, werden wir uns dieses Jahr in Wien ein wirklich schweres Stativ zulegen, sich den Rucksack dranhängen hilft, aber dann ist plötzlich der Stativkopf die Schwachstelle und macht auf elastisch. Aber so ein Stativ hat dann mit dem Kopf eben fast 10 kg.
Bewundernswert sind die Ergebnisse aus der Hand aus meiner Sicht trotzdem - weil es eben doch geht, denn Christian Ferrer, Johann und Wolfgang (unvollständiger Auszug aus der Pixeloberklassefotografengruppe) sind mit ihren 810er mit 36MP unterwegs und das meistens aus der Hand. Auch ist Wolf im Wald ebenso mit einer 5Ds r unterwegs. Da gibts nicht viel zu jammern, was die zustandebringen. Mit anderen Worten: Pixelwahn ist kein Wahn, sondern fordert einen anderen Umgang mit den Geräten. Das für mich wiederum sehr sinnvolle Gegenüber ist die die Sony α7S II, welche den entgegengesetzten Weg geht, indem sie die Sensorempfindlichkeit hochsetzt - zulasten der verarbeiteten Pixelmenge (12MP). Hier werden geile Innenaufnahmen von Kirchen aus der Hand möglich. Beide Entwicklungen zusammen - vor allem eine Erhöhung der Sensorempfindlichkeit (ISO hochsetzen ist keine Lösung) - wird die Zukunft bringen. Im Übrigen halte ich es für ein Gerücht, Hasenläufer, dass Handycameras bessere Bilder machen können als solche mit guten Objektiven, die Physik lässt sich nicht austricksen. Das 16-35mm von Diego ist nicht schlecht - weil ziemlich praktisch, wird aber generell nicht so hoch bewertet. Hier bleibt die Linse unter den Möglichkeiten der 5Ds R zurück, IMHO. --Hubertl 10:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Und bei all diesen Ausführungen habe ich nicht einmal das Wetter berücksichtigt, welches bereits ab 100m Entfernung enorm unterschiedliche Ergebnisse ausmachen kann. Je nach Luftfeuchtigkeit und Sonneneinstrahlung (es lebe der Fön, mit Kopfweh macht man die besten Bilder!!) haben wir bereits extreme Schwankungen! --Hubertl 11:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Uwe, it is the first time (I've been around for 8 years already) that I see how somebody contacts a third person to approach me (WTF?!). I don't want to say that I find that stupid but it just doesn't find a plausible explanation "between my ears" (maybe there is a leak indeed somewhere here). Instead of starting such a rumor about my capabilities or equipment Hasenläufer could rather provide hints and facts about the the problem he has with my images (which????), otherwise I consider this discussion insulting and a waste of time for everybody. Poco² 12:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diego, I started the discussion in German at the discussion site of an experienced German user, because German is my native language and because it would be a harder task for me to express the things in English. Sorry for doing so! In the meantime, I think it had been better to start the discussion in English at your discussion page. Believe me, it was NOT intendend to be a personal affront! To summarize my theme: I'm wondering about some photos, which have been taken by a combination of a "Canon EOS 5DS R" with a lens "EF16-35mm f/4L IS USM". I expected from such a combination to have more image details. And I was wondering, what could cause the lack of image details. Could a missing tripod be the cause? Please be free to participate at this discussion in English. Again, sorry! --Hasenläufer (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wie schon nebenan angemerkt, bleiben jeder Zoom und die allermeisten Festbrennweiten in ihrem Auflösungsvermögen hinter den aktuellen Auflösungsmonstern, also D8xx, 5 DS R oder Sonys 36-MPixel-Knipse zurück. Dabei muß man bedenken, daß völlig unabhängig von der Qualität der Linse, der Stabilität des Stativs und der Verschlußzeit bei diesen Sensorauflösungen die Beugung schon bei überraschend großen Blendenzahlen zuschlägt. Selbst mit einem theoretisch angenommenen völlig fehlerfreien Objektiv ist bei Kleinbild schon bei Blende 8 Feierabend mit der Herrlichkeit, da werden bereits nur noch etwa 30 MPixel nutzbar sein, bei Cropkameras sind es bei Blende 5.6 nur noch 27 MPixel. Kleinbild und Blende 11: 15 MPixel. Guten Morgen, liebe Pixelpeeper und Schärfefanatiker ;-)
Trotzdem sind diese hochauflösenden Sensoren natürlich nicht völlig sinnbefreit. Mit lichtstarken Spitzenobjektiven kann man bei Kleinbild heutzutage immerhin um die 40 MPixel oder sogar etwas mehr auflösen, das ist doch schon was. Dabei möchte man latürnich keinesfalls unter f/5.6 abblenden, besser mit f/4 fotografieren. Ich sehe schon die Pixelfanatiker bei Architektur draußen im Feld mit Fokusstacking arbeiten, was nebenbei im Bereich der Innenraum-Panoramafotografie im professionellen Bereich schon seit Jahren praktiziert wird, damit bei diesen interaktiven VR-Panoramen beim Hineinzoomen ausreichende Schärfe im gesamten Bild gewährleistet bleibt. Da werden also nicht nur Panoramreihen aufgenommen, sondern zusätzlich Fokus- und ggf. auch noch Belichtungsstacks zusammengerechnet. Ein zweiter Aspekt hoher Sensorauflösungen ist freilich wesentlich Wikipedia-Knipspraxisnäher: Die große Pixelmenge erlaubt erheblich mehr Freiheiten bei der digitalen Nachbearbeitung. Schärfungsartefakte z.B. können besser vertuscht werden und legen sich nicht mehr unbedingt daumenbreit um die Konturen. Moirée kann weitgehend vermieden werden, da der Sensor quasi in Hardware überabtastet - und die nachfolgende Bildverarbeitung kann das (hoffentlich) intelligent herausrechnen. Was bei weniger hochauflösenden Sensoren und sehr scharf zeichnenden Objektiven nicht geht, weil das Moirée gewissermaßen schon in den Rohdaten fixiert ist. Deshalb hatte und hat man ja eben die Streuscheiben aka anti-aliasingfilter vor den Sensoren. Billige Kitzooms haben selten großartige Schwierigkeiten mit Moirée, da ist der Filter schon in der Objektivkonstruktion angelegt - einfach weil die völlig unabhängig von der Beugung eh nur drei, vier oder fünf MPixel auflösen.
Was kann man daraus für QIC folgern? Da landen wir genau bei dem aktuellen Streitthema "downscaling oder nicht downscaling". Real existierende Zooms schaffen laut DXO Auflösungen, die von unter fünf(!) bis um die 10, 12 MPixel reichen, einzelne, meist sehr teure Spitzenlinsen kratzen an den 20 MPixeln herum. Festbrennweiten liegen generell etwas besser, aber über 40 MPixel bei Kleinbild schaffen derzeit meins Wissens nur die aktuellen Zeiss Otusse, die bei 2000$ oder 3000$ anfangen. Wenn nun ein Commons-Knipser mit seiner hochauflösenden Kamera nicht unter optimierten Laborbedingungen, sondern draußen im Feld fotografiert, dabei feststellt, daß sich irgendwo ein Blättchen im Wind gerührt hat und trotz 1/500s dreieinhalb Pixelbreiten Unschärfe zeigt, die aber beim Runterskalieren auf sechs oder meinetwegen acht MPixel verschwindet und ein perfekt auf A4 und mit nur geringen Einschränkungen größer druckbares Ergebnis liefert - soll das dann kein QI mehr werden, einfach aus Prinzip, weil "nicht verkleinert werden darf!!!!elf"? -- Smial (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Ps: Ich habe gerade in letzter Zeit auf QIC dermaßen viel Pixelschrott bei Perspektiveentzerrungen gesehen, die allesamt durchgewunken wurden, daß ich da nur noch sporadisch reingucke. Vielen dieser Bilder hätte eine sinnvolle Skalierung sehr, sehr gut getan - aber die ist ja nicht erwünscht, und der Knipser läuft Gefahr, das begehrte Bapperl nicht zu ernten. Also interpolierten Pixelschrott hochladen. Weil ja auch Zwangssenkrechten verlangt werden. Ach ja, und leises Rauschen im blauen Himmel ist auch nicht erlaubt (obwohl das bei Bayer-Sensoren systemimmanent ist), also wird glattgebügelt, was das Zeug hält. Verflixt, nun sind Kanten unscharf, also die Unscharfmaskierung auf Anschlag drübergenödelt. Und genau so sehen seit einiger Zeit viele, sehr viele, zu viele QI aus. Wie aus der Retorte, aber nicht mehr wie ein lebendiges Foto. Pps: Bei der Gelegenheit schlage ich doch glatt mal wieder einen runterskalierten, zugeschnittenen, rauschenden, mit ausgefressenen Spitzlichtern versehenen Schnappschuß vor...

Hasenläufer, das ist nicht an einer Person sondern leider ein allgegenwärtiges Problem auf Commons! Was meinst du, wie oft ich als Juror bei WLM/WLE Russland schon drüber gestolpert bin, dass Fotografen mit (laut EXIF Data) vermeintlicher Top-Kamera qualitativ völlig unbrauchbare Fotos hochgeladen haben? ;-) Der Grund kann sowohl billige Optik sein, sehr viel wahrscheinlicher mMn aber vor allem Pfusch beim Scharfstellen bzw. bei Belichtungswahl, sowie mangelnde bzw. fehlende Nachbearbeitung. Das ist übrigens insbesondere bei Massen-Uploadern oft der Fall, ich muss wohl nicht weiter erklären warum... --A.Savin 16:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Mit der Aussage "Ich habe einige Smartphone-Fotos gesehen, die qualitativ besser sind als die Fotos, die ich bislang von Diego Delso gesehen habe" bist du allerdings ungerecht ggü. Diego Delso.

Die Aussage "Ich habe einige Smartphone-Fotos gesehen, die qualitativ besser sind als die Fotos, die ich bislang von Diego Delso gesehen habe" nehme ich wieder zurück. Sie ist unzutreffend. Da sind die Pferde mit mir durchgegangen. Ich wollte das Thema etwas überspitzt darstellen, das ist aber nicht in Ordnung.--Hasenläufer (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Madiun Indonesia Houses and water-tower-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality --Halavar 12:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)  Comment The strong saturation appears artificial. --Hasenläufer 12:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC) As mentioned several times, the light near equatorial countries is different to the light in nothern hemisphere. As a result, you get very saturated colours on sunny days. I do not add saturation during postprocessing. --Cccefalon 13:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)  Comment @Cccefalon: Thanks for your explanation! I wasn't aware of this fact. --Hasenläufer 14:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bali-Strait Indonesia KMP-Reny-II-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Singapadu Bali Pura-Puseh-Desa-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Train-at-Tugu-Railway-Station-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Borobudur-Temple-Park View of the temple-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benoa Bali Indonesia-Bakso-street-vendor-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Syuhada-Mosque-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bali-Strait Indonesia KMP-Niaga-Ferry-II-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tanah-Lot Bali Indonesia Pura-Batu-Bolong-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Singapadu Bali Pura-Puseh-Desa-06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hasenläufer 11:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KotaKinabalu Sabah SMK-St-Francis-Convent-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI. Dmitry Ivanov 07:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KotaKinabalu Sabah Sacred-Heart-Cathedral-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI  Comment But: there are minor CAs, see an image note, please. Dmitry Ivanov 07:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC). Thanks for hinting this, it is not much, but can be enhanced. I put it on my to-do-list and will follow up upon my returnal. --Cccefalon 09:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! District-Kunak Sabah Maintenance-work-at-Sungai-Tingkayu-Bridge-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI  Comment IMO, the sharpness is in “the twilight zone”, but it is acceptable, I think, for a large-size (and interesting) photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitry Ivanov (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Langkawi Malaysia Universiti-Kebangsaan-Malaysia-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! District-Kunak Sabah Malaysia-Federal-Route-13-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a Commoner ?

Excuse me but I need explanation on the recent rejection of an image I submitted as Quality Image. You wrote that the nomination was declined because the user was not a Commoner. Can you clarify what is a Commoner ? And what is not ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Max Chiswick is not a registered User in Wikimedia Commons. According to QIC rules, images of a not registered user a not eligible for QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the QIC rules before nominating? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I just did a wrong copy and paste of the user name when I created the nomination. I took the full name instead of the user name. It was pretty easy to check in clicking on the image itself. Accordingly, I cancel you rejection. Please judge the image on its quality. Anthere (talk)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Indonesia Traffic-signs Temporary-signs-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hasenläufer 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Indonesia Traffic-signs Warning-sign-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hasenläufer 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Indonesia Traffic-signs Warning-sign-09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hasenläufer 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Indonesia Traffic-signs Information-signs-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hasenläufer 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benoa Bali Indonesia Ships-in-Benoa-Harbour-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kuta Bali Indonesia Pura-Gunung-Payung-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jakarta Indonesia Jakarta-History-Museum-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jakarta Indonesia Immanuel-Church-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Radio-Arma-11-and-FAKI-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tonle Sap Siem Reap Cambodia Girl-begging-for-money-with-snake-01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tonle Sap Siem Reap Cambodia Girl-begging-for-money-with-snake-01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The merit is for you. ;o) Yann (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KotaKinabalu Sabah SRJKC-Chung-Hwa-Kg-Air-Kota-Kinabalu-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. (質量好) --Rolf H. 04:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Singapore Liondance-at-Marina-Mandarin-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 14:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Singapore The-Float-at-Marina-Bay-05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 14:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nusa-Dua Bali Indonesia Northern-Roundabout-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Bis-Surat-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jakarta Indonesia Hawkers-in- Glodok-08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jakarta Indonesia Business-in-Kota-Jakarta-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kawah-Ijen Indonesia Ijen-Sulfur-Miner-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bukau Sabah JambatanLamaBukauLaut-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Melaka Malaysia Perigi-Hang-Li-Po-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Langkawi Malaysia Universiti-Kebangsaan-Malaysia-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah Fishing-vessels-off-Kg-Kombo-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Jalan-Faridan-Muridan-Noto-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bali-Strait Indonesia KMP-Trima-Jaya-9-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-05a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 04:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taitung-County Taiwan Sansiantai-Bridge-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. FP IMO--Hubertl 04:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Taman-Sari-Roaster-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Kraton-the-Sultans-Palace-02a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jakarta Indonesia Si-Jagur-Cannon-at-Fatahillah-Square-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yogyakarta Indonesia Train-at-Tugu-Railway-Station-05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 10:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Borobudur-Temple-Park Indonesia Statues-of-Borobudu-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support very good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nantou-County Taiwan Ci-En-Pagoda-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Ship-En-Cheng-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Water-Tower-Park-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nusa-Dua Bali Indonesia Northern-Roundabout-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI now, also the WB correction is a plus --Poco a poco 17:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Cihou-Presbyterian-Church-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Onna Okinawa Japan Cape-Manzamo-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Rolf H. 04:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great! --Hasenläufer 06:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Onna Okinawa Japan Cape-Manzamo-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Funny photo, good focus, a Q1one --Michielverbeek 06:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nakijin Okinawa Japan Nakikjin-Castle-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hasenläufer 06:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nakijin Okinawa Japan Nakikjin-Castle-05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beinan Taitung Taiwan Aboriginal-Stilt-House-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Floating-dock-Jong-Shyn-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Forest-Railway-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Gloomy mood and good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Music-pavillon-in-the-Peace-Park-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Nishi-Honganji-Square-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Exhibition-Center-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Taipei-101-Tower-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Taipei-101-Tower-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-85-Building-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Amazing building and very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Fort-Zeelandia-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments What a pity, that I never put a foot on that beautiful island. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Steam-Locomotice-DT-609-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Ship-Crested-Eagle-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Thank you for all the great photographs from Taiwan. It`s a pleasure to promote your high-level images. --Johann Jaritz 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taitung-County Taiwan Sansiantai-Bridge-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Train photo File:Naha Okinawa Japan Monorail-01.jpg

I think this is an excellent composition, but it might have been a better one. Why didn't you put the focus on the first building (instead of the train) and used a higher f-value? The background is a bit blurred and in this case I think it would have made the photo perfect. Or is my judgement not correct? I understand you probably will not return to this place. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I won't return there. The problem for the setting was, that two (considerably fast) trains headed in different directions. To freeze the motion, I needed a shutter time < 1/250s (I had 1/320 available with my presets) which effects in a f/6.3. Also, I had to choose one of the moving trains whereas the closer was the one, my focus finder was pointing to. As a consequence, the background is of course out of focus. Not an excellent photo, but still a good one --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Fort-Zeelandia-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Exhibition-Center-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Fort-Zeelandia-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Beautiful motive and very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Dragon-and-Tiger-Pagodas-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)  Oppose Nice sharp photo, but it needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 07:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)  Comment Sorry, Johann we have a different opinion --Michielverbeek 07:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You`re welcome! Different opinions keep the dialogue alive. --Johann Jaritz 08:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)  Support the vertical are straight for me --Christian Ferrer 08:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)  Comment I disagree, Michielverbeek - I made a exact and total vertical correction for this image. I cannot do more here. --Cccefalon 08:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Okay, Two supports and one oppose, I make it green --Michielverbeek 22:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Ship-Emily-Kosan-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2016 (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:
Tuntex Sky Tower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment - I suggest that the scope be renamed "Tuntex Sky Tower, Kaohsiung, Taiwan". Martinvl (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 Question That would be no problem, however, as there is only one Tuntex Sky Tower worldwide, is it necessary to have this extension in the scope? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Eluanbi-Lighthouse-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 08:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taiwan Traffic-signs Warning-Signs-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anping Taiwan Eternal-Golden-Castle-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 08:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Onna Okinawa Japan Burial-site-at-Onna-Village-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Beinan Taitung Taiwan Aboriginal-Stilt-House-01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beinan Taitung Taiwan Aboriginal-Stilt-House-01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan CHERUB-Ship-Log-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yehliu Taiwan GeoPark-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Naha Okinawa Japan Monorail-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments An excellent composition, but you have kept the focus too much on the first train --Michielverbeek 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC) The moving train needs a shutter < 1/250 s. With continuous focus setting and f/6.3 and two moving trains I have to choose one train and the rest is DoF. --Cccefalon 06:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keelung Taiwan Ship-Durable-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Dragon-and-Tiger-Pagodas-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Eluanbi-Lighthouse-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keelung Taiwan Ship-ROCN-Ching-Chiang-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 08:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kenting Taiwan Kenting-Weather-Radar-Station-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Wow! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Southernmost-Point-of-Taiwan-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Taipei Taiwan Sun-Yat-sen-Memorial-Hall-01.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Sun-Yat-sen-Memorial-Hall-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keelung Taiwan Ship-ROCN-Lan-Yang-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Lighthouse-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Nice! --Rolf H. 05:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Fort-Provintia-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Fort-Provintia-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Tainan-Cultural-Center-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Forest-Railway-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Forest-Railway-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A good sharp photo --Michielverbeek 06:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IRobot-Virtual-Wall-and-Lighthouse-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Oppose A mistake in focus stacking probably, but it is partially unsharp. --C messier 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)  Done I uploaded a new version, C messier, please review again --Cccefalon 18:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)  Support New version is QI. --C messier 19:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anping Taiwan Eternal-Golden-Castle-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI. --C messier 09:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anping Taiwan Old-houses-of-Anping-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support OK. --C messier 09:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Naha Okinawa Japan JAF-Towing-car-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --C messier 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Kenting-Fire-Station-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Forest-Park Yarder-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Martial-Art-Hall Butokuden-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cih-hu Taiwan Chiang-Kai-shek-Mausoleum-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Eluanbi-Lighthouse-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Swallow-Grotto-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xincheng Hualien Taiwan Asia Cement Corporation-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Swallow-Grotto-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Hengchun-Airport-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments How wonderful to be able to visit Taiwan. Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Dehua-Hall-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Hengchun-Tourism-Hospital-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Lighthouse-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan TRA-Tainan-Station-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It`s a joy to see your photographs. They are all of very good quality in any aspect. --Johann Jaritz 08:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tainan Taiwan Fort-Provintia-01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tainan Taiwan Fort-Provintia-01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suao Yilan Taiwan Suao-Railroad-Turntable-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Tianxiang-Presbyterian-Church-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Pudu-Bridge-at-Taroko-National-Park-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Cape-Maobitou-Falun-Dafa-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice motive and very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Police-Station-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yidashao Taiwan Bee-Smoker-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments High quality, sharp to the main object --Michielverbeek 06:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nantou-County Taiwan Sun-Moon-Lake-Ropeway-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Former-Meteorological-Station-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Great-South-Gate-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Swallow-Grotto-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Shangri-La's-Far-Eastern-Plaza-Hotel-Tainan-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Great-South-Gate-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 05:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Rätsel

Hallo! Da muss ich dich doch mal um Hilfe bitten und bevor ich mich mit der englischen Sprache Mühe, wende ich mich mal ausnahmsweise direkt an dich. Das Bild File:Haltern am See, Bootssteg -- 2016 -- 0490.jpg habe ich korrigiert. Zuerst hatte ich es blöderweise an der Pforte im Hintergrund ausgerichtet. Das war nicht korrekt, da diese logischerweise schief stehen muss, damit sie von allein in's Schloss fallen kann. Jetzt ist es am dem Ponton im Wasser ausgerichtet, da dieser eigentlich horizontal im Wasser liegen müsste. Und jetzt gerade habe ich es noch weiter senkrecht getellt, damit auch die Pfosten senkrecht sind. Es wäre nett, wenn du noch einmal aus das Bild schauen könntest und wenn's nicht passt, mir noch einmal einen Tipp geben könntest. Vielen Dank schon einmal. --XRay ^talk 09:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So, die weißen Keile sind weg und ich habs promoted. Generell ist natürlich das Motiv selbst ohne richtigen Hintergrund nicht so prickelnd. ich könnte mir aber vorstellen, dass man das im letzten Tageslicht passend hinkriegen könnte. Das Farbrauschen im oberen Teil ist grenzwertig, falls Du nicht daran schon gedreht hast, würde ich mal den Regler "Color" unter "Noise reduction" auf 50 stellen. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Die Regler stehen schon so. Ideal ist das Bild nicht, ich weiß. Danke für deinen Hinweis. Manchmal bin ich ein wenig betriebsblind ... --XRay ^talk 10:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! No fishing and no trespassing signs, Singapore - 20150220.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah SJKC-Cheng-Min-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cologne Germany Bundle-extractor-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luang-Prabang Laos Lao-Airlines-at-Luang-Prabang-Airport-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cologne Germany Overheating-marks-at-a-bearing-shell-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Naha Okinawa Japan Garbage-truck-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan TRA-Tainan-Station-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-85-Building-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xincheng Hualien Taroko-Gate-Bridge-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments What a prosperous country! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaohsiung Taiwan Cement-mixer-truck-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Dehua-Hall-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A good photo, but not an excellent one --Michielverbeek 08:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (I know. Among 3000 shots from Taiwan and Japan with suffcient sharpness and correct settings, there can't be only excellent ones --Cccefalon 08:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Hengchun-Airport-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Fort-Provintia-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Great motive and very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan Tainan-Minzu-Road-Presbyterian-Church-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Very good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antwerp Belgium Museum-Plantin-Moretus-05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Giethoorn Netherlands Channels-and-houses-of-Giethoorn-12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Liufang-Bridge-at-Taroko-National-Park-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hualien Taiwan Farmer-with-his-water-buffalo-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks like a happy man and a good quality.--Famberhorst 06:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xincheng Hualien Taiwan Asia Cement Corporation-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan Taiwan West-Central-District-Office-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Elegant cold:warm-contrast. Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hengchun-Township Taiwan Cape-Maobitou-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tawau Sabah Jalan-Tiku-Bridge-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Milano Italy Duomo-Milan-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 06:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Milano Italy Duomo-Milan-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xinyi Nantou Taiwan Bunun-Monument-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great legend, beautiful motive. --Johann Jaritz 05:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah SJKC-Cheng-Min-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoping Taiwan-Cement-Corporation-Hoping-Plant-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah SM-St-Michael-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Jiaozi-Restaurant-14th-avenue-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice.--Famberhorst 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buis Telupid Sabah SK-Buis-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telupid Sabah Oilpalm-Plantation-along-Buis-Kiabau-Road-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tuaran Sabah GerejaBasel-06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cologne Germany Church-St.Maria-Königin-05b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tawau Sabah SMK-Jambatan-Putih-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fengbin Taiwan Tropic-of-Cancer-Marker-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Donghe-Township Taiwan Old-Tungho-Bridge-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zhangyuan Taiwan Boat-shaped-Presbyterian-Church-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taitung Taiwan Radar-Station-of-Taitung-Air-Base-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Forest-Railway-03a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Enough of what needs to be in focus is --Daniel Case 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah OldChristianCemetery-05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kg-Liningkung-Sabah Wooden-roadbridge-over-Sungai-Liningkung-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 12:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandakan Sabah SJKC-Cheng-Min-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 12:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Habonim Spring-Return-Valve-Handle-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cologne-Germany RheinEnergieStadion-06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cologne Germany Church-St.Maria-Königin-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nantou-County Taiwan Sun-Moon-Lake-Ropeway-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alishan Taiwan Alishan-Forest-Railway-03b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tawau Sabah Kubota-Power-Station-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Itoman Okinawa Okinawa-Peace-Memorial-Hall-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality --Shansov.net 06:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xinyi Nantou Taiwan CCPC-Petrol-Station-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tawau Sabah Onika-Quarry-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xinyi Nantou Taiwan Restaurant-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Unfortunately a cloudy sky, but happily sharp enough for a Q1one --Michielverbeek 07:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo request

Hi Uwe,

I was wondering how if I can contact you via email to discuss a photo. I am editing a book on mountains and very much would like to propose one of your photos for the cover.

Best wishes,

Carina Hoorn (The Netherlands)

Of course. Please use the link at the left side of my User page or simply click https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Cccefalon

Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Mauritius "Post Office" stamps

Is this image File:Mauritius One-Penny-and-Two-Pence-famous-stamps-01.jpg a photo of the original stamps the Mauritius Postal Museum own or the copies? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegedly, it is the original which is displayed at the Mauritius Postal Museum behind security glas. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

They have the originals that, as I understand it from the literature, are seldom on display and usually the copies are displayed according to what I read. I'll have a closer look. I wonder if they let the public know which is actually being shown. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nakijin Okinawa Japan Nakijin-village-Center-for-History-and-Culture-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cologne Germany Church-St.Maria-Königin-06a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan Ximending-Party-World-Building-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nürburg Germany Fahrsicherheitszentrum-Nürburgring-04a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Code 06:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nago Okinawa Kouri-Rock-Formation-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xingchang Taitung-County Taiwan Xingchang-Presbyterian-Church-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tainan taiwan Tainan-Municipal-Jiansing-Junior-High-School-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough to be a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 15:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neuss Germany Prikker-windows-in-Dreikönigenkirche-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taroko-Gorge Hualien Taiwan Cihmu-Bridge-at-Taroko-National-Park-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 07:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! EMCO-WHEATON Todo-Matic Dry-Break-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dulan Taiwan Sugar-Factory-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice composition. Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tawau Sabah Danlop-Hotel-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 07:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dies und das

Hallo Uwe! Danke für deinen Vorschlag beim Bild File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Klettergarten -- 2016 -- 1081.jpg. Ich möchte es ehrlich gesagt nicht beschneiden, denn gerade die unscharfen Bereiche habe ich absichtlich gemacht, um ein wenig die Höhe zu demonstrieren. Aber es muss ja auch nicht unbedingt QI werden. Ich versuche halt momentan ein wenig zu experimentieren. Noch etwas anderes. Bei einigen deiner Bilder habe ich "Quality images of buildings in Germany" entfernt. Da ist "Quality images of churches in North Rhine-Westphalia" bereits drin. Ich hoffe, du siehst mir die Änderung nach. Unlängst hatte ich übrigens die riesigen Kategorien mit Churches, Buildings und Sculptures mal nach Bundesländern aufgeteilt. --XRay ^talk 05:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Guten Morgen, Dietmar. Ich habe mich einfach mal neutral positioniert. Unterschiedliche Auffassungen der kompositorischen Idee sind ja nichts negatives, sondern bringen Vielfalt. Für Deine Kategorisierungsarbeit danke ich Dir. Du hast ja bereits bemerkt, dass ich an Deiner Systematik nichts auszusetzen habe und es ist in der Tat sinnvoll, eine weitere Untergliederung zu schaffen, wenn die Unterkategorie bereits wieder mehr als 200 Einträge hat. Manchmal tauchen bei mir overkats auf, das hängt allerdings damit zusammen, dass ich beim Hochladen ein template benutze und danach noch Feinjustierungen vornehme. Da rutscht mir dann gelegentlich die eine oder ander overkat durch. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Alles gut. BTW: Es wäre auch kein Problem, wenn du das Bild abgelehnt hättest. --XRay ^talk 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks a lot for your comments on QIC although my nominations were declined. Carrotkit (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Do you have a "real" camera? Would be great to see you contributing to QIC. Also, it might consolate you, that a lot of "first nominations" fail but most users which stay with us collect experience. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I was one of those ;) Poco² 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Diego, for seconding me. By the way, I just returned from Borneo and have to catch up a little bit with reviews. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

knallblauer Himmel in Jerusalem

Ich bin bei den meisten Bildern selbst erschrocken. Aber ich hab da wirklich absolut nichts getrickst. Hab nur einen etwas besseren UV-Filter vor dem guten 2,8er Objektiven. Egal ob 24-70 oder 70-200, immer ist der Himmel strahlend blau. Als ich in Jerusalem ankam, war mir besonders auffällig, daß es dort sehr hell ist (meine Augen brauchten einen Tag, sich anzupassen, trotz selbstverdunkelnder Brille) - und die Belichtungswerte der Kameras haben das bestätigt. So extrem habe ich das weder in Abu Dhabi noch Mexico, Hongkong oder sonstwo erlebt. Bei dem QI-Kandidaten hatte ich auch noch die Sonne fast direkt hinter mir. Mit Polfilter wäre das wohl Richtung Schwarz gegenagen ;) Ehrenwort, nix Schummelei, ich kann dir gern die Rohdateien schicken. --Ralf Roleček 21:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ich glaube Dir, Ralf :) Ich hab ja häufig das gleiche Problem mit der Ostküste in Sabah, dass zu bestimmten Tageszeiten die Farben dermassen aufdringlich werden, dass ich regelmässig gefragt werde, ob mir der Regler für die Sättigung ausgerutscht ist. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

EXIF data

Hi Cccefalon, thanks for this comment you added to my QI nomination. I wondered why you think the EXIF data should be left on. DeFacto (talk). 06:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The EXIF date are useful to assess the quality of the photo and deciding, what the photographer did right and wrong in them. Vice versa it is an asset to learn from skilled photographers how the photo was shot.

QIC in first instance is not a place to collect QI labels but to learn and improve skills. Under that angle of view, providing the EXIF date is a benefit both for photographer and reviewer. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cccefalon, good answer - it makes sense now. I'll try to include it in the future. DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for your constructive comments on my fully-EXIF'd nomination today! Your advice is very much appreciated. . DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nakijin Okinawa Japan Nakijin-village-Center-for-History-and-Culture-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neuss Germany Prikker-windows-in-Dreikönigenkirche-16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proboscis monkey

Hi - I have reverted your edit as the animals are not in captivity. None of my images show animals in captivity. Charles (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it was not taken in the fenced perimeter of Labuk Probioscis Reserve? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Papar Sabah Railway-Bridge-Papar-08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beaufort sabah Masjid-Daerah-Beaufort-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 05:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weston Sabah Sekolah-Cina-Che-Hwa-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weston Sabah Masjid-Nurul-Iman-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 05:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limbahau Sabah Holy-Rosary-Church-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Borobudur pictures

Hi there, or should I say Selamat pagi? Incredibly, there are no Featured Pictures of Borobudur. Every single one of the Quality Images of Borobudur is by you, and several of them look featurable. Do you have any couple of favorites that you'd like to be nominated first? I have several other users' photos that I want to nominate, but I'd like to nominate at least one of your Borobudur pictures within 3 weeks or so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Selamat pagi dari negeri Sabah. Cuti di sini. Thank you for your kind offer to nominate one of the Borobudur images. However, as I don't have a reliable monitor with me, I first have to check carefully which of the photos is suitable to survive a FP challenge. I will do that after being back home in the first week of April. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. When you do, please ping me, so that your reply gets prompt attention. Selamat jalan! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just following up on this. Do let me know when you've had a chance to look at the photos. I'm free to nominate one at the moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zürich Switzerland Tram-Line-6-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tambunan Sabah Opening-of-Kaamatan-2015-50.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cih-hu Taiwan Chiang-Residence-Courtyard-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taipei Taiwan National-Palace-Museum-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 06:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Semporna Sabah Regatta-Lepa-2015-20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness. Nice photo, thanks for uploading it at commons. :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - June - Manufacturing/Winners

	Photo Challenge Winner
	Congratulations! Your picture Sandakan Sabah Sawmill-20.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Manufacturing, in June 2016. You can find the results of the challenge here.

--Jarekt (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - June - Rock formations‎/Winners

	Photo Challenge – Second Place
	Congratulations! Your picture Gozo Malta Azure-window-01.jpg won the 2nd place in the Photo Challenge Rock formations, in June 2016. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Category Quality images Userkategorie "Quality images by User:Cccefalon"

Zahlreiche Uploads von dir enthalten Kategorien "QI", obwohl sie keine sind. Warum? Ich habe keine Zeit, die alle rauszusuchen und zu entfernen; tust du das bitte selbst? Danke. --A.Savin 15:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bitte genau hinschauen, es handelt sich um user categories. Da gibts von Deiner Seite nichts rauszusuchen und zu entfernen. Falls Du allerdings ein Photo findest wo z.B zu Unrechrt Category:Quality images of Sweden draufsteht, darfst Du m ich gerne darauf hinweisen. Danke. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Beim Bild von der Handwerkskammer ist allerdings ein copy&paste Fehler unterlaufen, der muss natürlich raus.--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ja und nein: Quality images by country -> Q.I. of Sweden -> Q.I. of Sweden by user -> Q.I. of Sweden by Ccccefalon. Die letztere sollte also schon nicht ohne Review rein. --A.Savin 16:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dann in dubio pro reo. Du kannst die Bilder aber gerne auf QIC einstellen, wenn Dir das weiterhilft. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A.Savin:Warum Cccefalon das überhaupt macht, das ist dir aber schon klar? Mobbing bis in Wikipedia rein, inklusive Kurier-Artikel. Nur weil er angemerkt hat, dass man in QI nicht einfach seine Bilder abladen sollte wie auf einer Müllkippe, nur weil grad irgend ein WikiLovesxxx fertig ist. Ich kann mich nämlich nicht erinnern, dass sich irgendwer an der Diskussion beteiligt hätte. Na ja, ich hab meinen Senf dazugegeben. Aber in WP war mir das dann auch ziemlich wumpe. --Hubertl 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Da ich die letzten beiden Repliken nicht so wirklich verstanden habe, kommentiere ich die mal nicht und hier noch einmal meine Bitte (an dich, Cccefalon, wohlgemerkt). Bitte entferne die zu Unrecht eingefügten "QI by country" Kategorien, solange die Fotos noch nicht das Review passiert haben. Und reverte bitte nicht, wenn ich das in gutem Glauben mache, damit die Anzahlen der QI nach Land nicht verfälscht werden. --A.Savin 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Doch ich werde das revertieren. Userkategorie ist Userkategorie. Damit machst Du einen tiefen Eingriff in die Regeln von Commons. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Noch einmal: Was sagst du dazu, dass deine "Userkategorie" in einer normalen Projektkategorie drin ist? Also, nach meinem Verständnis (und ich bin schon was länger hier unterwegs) ist es so: "reine" Userkategorie = kannst du nennen wie du willst (solange nicht gegen die guten Sitten verstoßend) und so viele deiner Fotos reintun wie du willst. "Gemischte" User- und Projektkategorie wie hier offenbar der Fall: Kannst neennen wie du willst (s.o.), sollte aber auch nicht dem Rahmen der drüber stehenden Projektkategorie widersprechen. Ansonsten können User, die über die Projektkategorie hierher gelangen, in die Irre geführt werden. Die Logik sollte doch klar sein? Oder ist dein urplötzlich aus dem Nichts kommendes Platzhirschgehabe gar ein Selbstzweck? --A.Savin 16:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Definiere "Platzhirschgehabe". Wie kann jemand Platzhirsch sein, der einigermassen zurückgezogen arbeitet? Der einzige, der mich hier ans Licht zerren will,bist doch DU ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ein durch QIC bewertetes Bild wird durch das QIC-Label markiert, nicht durch eine Userkategorie. Da ist nichts irreführendes. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Noch einmal: Was sagst du dazu, dass deine "Userkategorie" in einer normalen Projektkategorie drin ist? Also, nach meinem Verständnis (und ich bin schon was länger hier unterwegs) ist es so: "reine" Userkategorie = kannst du nennen wie du willst (solange nicht gegen die guten Sitten verstoßend) und so viele deiner Fotos reintun wie du willst. "Gemischte" User- und Projektkategorie wie hier offenbar der Fall: Kannst neennen wie du willst (s.o.), sollte aber auch nicht dem Rahmen der drüber stehenden Projektkategorie widersprechen. Ansonsten können User, die über die Projektkategorie hierher gelangen, in die Irre geführt werden. Die Logik sollte doch klar sein? --A.Savin 16:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Du wiederholst Dich. Es steht Dir aber frei, eine Änderung der QIC-Regeln herbeizuführen, die den Begriff "Qualitätsbild" allein für QIC reklamiert. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Statt Dich hier aufzuspielen, kannst Du das Thema ja im QIC talk diskutieren und sehen, ob sich dort eine breite Mehrheit findet, die Deine Sicht der Dinge auch so sieht. Meine Userkategorien einfach löschen, davon würde ich Dir strikt abraten ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Na mit deinem Umgangston ist es eher an der Zeit, das auf COM:ANU zu melden. Woher diese Aggressivität kommt, bleibt wohl ein Rätsel. --A.Savin 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dass Du auf sachliche Vorschläge nicht eingehst, wundert micht nicht. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hast ja auch nichts vorgeschlagen, nur stumpf revertet. --A.Savin 17:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Doch, hab ich: Ich schlug vor, dass Du das auf QIC talk diskutieren lässt und eine Mehrheit für Deine Sicht der Dinge suchst. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Hieltest du es nicht für angebrachter, die Situation nicht gleich eskalieren zu lassen. Im Endeffekt müssen wir uns schon klar sein, dass wir im selben Boot sitzen. Ich kann deinen Einwand verstehen, ich kann aber auch Uwes Reaktion nachvollziehen. Was können wir tun, damit Leute, die sich wirklich aktiv und konstruktiv um QI bemühen bzw. bemüht haben, nicht von - ich sags mal, wenn auch ungern, weils nicht wirklich stimmt - "Aussenstehenden" derartig runtergemacht werden. Ich denke, dass es der völlig falsche Weg ist, nun dem Uwe den Weg zu nehmen, wie er es für sich und seiner Mitarbeit in Wikimedia halten will. Nachdem was passiert ist. Es gab damals, als sich Atamari deswegen beschwerte, niemanden außer mir, der bereit gewesen wäre, sich diese Sache überhaupt anzuhören. Und es betrifft alle, welche in QI und FP mitmachen. Wir haben genug Schönwetterabstimmer! Wenn die Kritiker nicht unterstützt werden, dann kann QI wirklich nur noch als Abnickverein verstanden werden. Damit tritt dann genau das ein, was völlig zu Unrecht unterstellt wurde, dass QI nämlich tot wäre. Das sagen Leute, die vielleicht 50 Nominierungen haben in 5 Jahren. Und die dann beleidigt sind, dass nicht alle 50 enthusiastisch-orgiastisch gefeiert wurden. --Hubertl 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Was soll an meinem Einwand, dass Fotos erst nach erfolgreichem Review in QI-Kategorien einzusortieren sind, so dramatisch sein bzw. wieso sollte es Uwe davon abhalten, hier mitzumachen? --A.Savin 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mit anderen Worten: Du weißt nicht, warum Uwe das macht? Stimmt das, A.Savin?? Ich frage nur mal nach, damit man, falls es sich hier in dieser Diskussion um ein Missverständnis mangels Information handelt, dieses zuvor löst. Vielleicht findest du dazu dann eine Lösung. Oder kannst diese Vorgangsweise akzeptieren. Das setzt aber voraus, dass @Cccefalon: die Sache noch einmal aufs Tapet bringt. --Hubertl 17:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nein. Ich beobachte weder den IRC, noch die Mailinglisten, noch die Intrigen aus der deutschen Wikipedia. Habe ich was verpasst? --A.Savin 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ich fürchte, dass du was verpasst hast. Nicht weil es etwas großartiges gewesen wäre, es war Teil des ziemlich untauglichen Versuches, die Anforderungen, welche von der Foundation über WMDE (oder AT ,aber da hamma weniger Diskrepanzen) bzgl. der Klassifizierung von Bilderprojekten (Bitte viele QIs abliefern) vorgegeben werden, umzusetzen.

Auf der einen Seite muss man das Engagement der Kollegen bewundern, welche stellvertretend Bilder nominieren, auf der anderen Seite ist damit auch die Gefahr gegeben, dass das Niveau absinkt, weil bei einem Einspruch der Nominierer blöd dasteht und keine Möglichkeit hat, an die Raw Bilder zu kommen um irgendwas zu verbessern. Es ist ein kaum lösbares Dilemma.

Leider ist es ja so, dass wir in Dilemmafragen und deren Lösungen normalerweise nicht wirklich gut sind und dann gleich ins Streiten kommen. Was aber dann niemanden wirklich nützt. siehe hier, hier, und hier(siehe Artikel “QI-Spammer?”)..

Ein darauffolgender Vorwurf, dass sich der Uwe wie ein Platzhirsch verhält, den finde ich jetzt nicht. Es war jedenfalls ziemlich unappetitlihc und unnötig, meiner Meinung nach. Aber auch Teil des vorhandenen gegenseitigen Missverständnissses zwischen den Artikelschreibern und den Fotografen. --Hubertl 17:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Eigentlich wollte ich das Thema nicht nochmal hochkochen. Ich hab meinen Platz in QIC für diejenigen freigemacht, denen ich im Weg war. Ich kann gut ohne QIC leben. Ich bin aber trotzdem der Meinung, dass ich in der Lage bin, Photos zu machen, die den höchsten Qualitätsansprüchen genügen. Für diese Bilder beanspruche ich selbstverständlich, dass es Qualitätsbilder sind - wenngleich auch keine, die an QIC teilgenommen haben. Diese werde ich auch zukünftig mit dem QIself-Template versehen und in meine Userkategorien einsortieren. Sollte sich auf QIC eine Mehrheit finden, die das unlauter findet, dann kann man nochmal mit mir darüber reden. Allerdings möchte ich nochmal klar herausheben, dass ich durch die Userkategorien mir weder Lorbeeren anhefte (meine Name ist seit den Vorwürfen nicht mehr in der Rankingliste enthalten) noch wird diese Userkategorie zu Verwechslungen führen, da 1) die QIC-Bilder mit dem grünen QI-Label versehen sind und 2) die Funktion "good pictures" lediglich QIC-gelabelte Bilder anzeigt und 3) sich sowieso niemand freiwillig so tief in den Dateibaum verirrt, dass er davon irritiert wird. Mehr gibt es dazu meiner Meinung nach auf meiner Talkpage nicht zu sagen; wenn es unbedingt sein muss, dann bitte ich darum, auf dem QIC talk weiter zu diskutieren. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Category Quality images Userkategorie "Quality images by User:Cccefalon"

Zahlreiche Uploads von dir enthalten Kategorien "QI", obwohl sie keine sind. Warum? Ich habe keine Zeit, die alle rauszusuchen und zu entfernen; tust du das bitte selbst? Danke. --A.Savin 15:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bitte genau hinschauen, es handelt sich um user categories. Da gibts von Deiner Seite nichts rauszusuchen und zu entfernen. Falls Du allerdings ein Photo findest wo z.B zu Unrechrt Category:Quality images of Sweden draufsteht, darfst Du m ich gerne darauf hinweisen. Danke. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Beim Bild von der Handwerkskammer ist allerdings ein copy&paste Fehler unterlaufen, der muss natürlich raus.--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ja und nein: Quality images by country -> Q.I. of Sweden -> Q.I. of Sweden by user -> Q.I. of Sweden by Ccccefalon. Die letztere sollte also schon nicht ohne Review rein. --A.Savin 16:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dann in dubio pro reo. Du kannst die Bilder aber gerne auf QIC einstellen, wenn Dir das weiterhilft. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A.Savin:Warum Cccefalon das überhaupt macht, das ist dir aber schon klar? Mobbing bis in Wikipedia rein, inklusive Kurier-Artikel. Nur weil er angemerkt hat, dass man in QI nicht einfach seine Bilder abladen sollte wie auf einer Müllkippe, nur weil grad irgend ein WikiLovesxxx fertig ist. Ich kann mich nämlich nicht erinnern, dass sich irgendwer an der Diskussion beteiligt hätte. Na ja, ich hab meinen Senf dazugegeben. Aber in WP war mir das dann auch ziemlich wumpe. --Hubertl 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Da ich die letzten beiden Repliken nicht so wirklich verstanden habe, kommentiere ich die mal nicht und hier noch einmal meine Bitte (an dich, Cccefalon, wohlgemerkt). Bitte entferne die zu Unrecht eingefügten "QI by country" Kategorien, solange die Fotos noch nicht das Review passiert haben. Und reverte bitte nicht, wenn ich das in gutem Glauben mache, damit die Anzahlen der QI nach Land nicht verfälscht werden. --A.Savin 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Doch ich werde das revertieren. Userkategorie ist Userkategorie. Damit machst Du einen tiefen Eingriff in die Regeln von Commons. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Noch einmal: Was sagst du dazu, dass deine "Userkategorie" in einer normalen Projektkategorie drin ist? Also, nach meinem Verständnis (und ich bin schon was länger hier unterwegs) ist es so: "reine" Userkategorie = kannst du nennen wie du willst (solange nicht gegen die guten Sitten verstoßend) und so viele deiner Fotos reintun wie du willst. "Gemischte" User- und Projektkategorie wie hier offenbar der Fall: Kannst neennen wie du willst (s.o.), sollte aber auch nicht dem Rahmen der drüber stehenden Projektkategorie widersprechen. Ansonsten können User, die über die Projektkategorie hierher gelangen, in die Irre geführt werden. Die Logik sollte doch klar sein? Oder ist dein urplötzlich aus dem Nichts kommendes Platzhirschgehabe gar ein Selbstzweck? --A.Savin 16:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Definiere "Platzhirschgehabe". Wie kann jemand Platzhirsch sein, der einigermassen zurückgezogen arbeitet? Der einzige, der mich hier ans Licht zerren will,bist doch DU ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ein durch QIC bewertetes Bild wird durch das QIC-Label markiert, nicht durch eine Userkategorie. Da ist nichts irreführendes. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Noch einmal: Was sagst du dazu, dass deine "Userkategorie" in einer normalen Projektkategorie drin ist? Also, nach meinem Verständnis (und ich bin schon was länger hier unterwegs) ist es so: "reine" Userkategorie = kannst du nennen wie du willst (solange nicht gegen die guten Sitten verstoßend) und so viele deiner Fotos reintun wie du willst. "Gemischte" User- und Projektkategorie wie hier offenbar der Fall: Kannst neennen wie du willst (s.o.), sollte aber auch nicht dem Rahmen der drüber stehenden Projektkategorie widersprechen. Ansonsten können User, die über die Projektkategorie hierher gelangen, in die Irre geführt werden. Die Logik sollte doch klar sein? --A.Savin 16:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Du wiederholst Dich. Es steht Dir aber frei, eine Änderung der QIC-Regeln herbeizuführen, die den Begriff "Qualitätsbild" allein für QIC reklamiert. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Statt Dich hier aufzuspielen, kannst Du das Thema ja im QIC talk diskutieren und sehen, ob sich dort eine breite Mehrheit findet, die Deine Sicht der Dinge auch so sieht. Meine Userkategorien einfach löschen, davon würde ich Dir strikt abraten ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Na mit deinem Umgangston ist es eher an der Zeit, das auf COM:ANU zu melden. Woher diese Aggressivität kommt, bleibt wohl ein Rätsel. --A.Savin 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dass Du auf sachliche Vorschläge nicht eingehst, wundert micht nicht. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hast ja auch nichts vorgeschlagen, nur stumpf revertet. --A.Savin 17:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Doch, hab ich: Ich schlug vor, dass Du das auf QIC talk diskutieren lässt und eine Mehrheit für Deine Sicht der Dinge suchst. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Hieltest du es nicht für angebrachter, die Situation nicht gleich eskalieren zu lassen. Im Endeffekt müssen wir uns schon klar sein, dass wir im selben Boot sitzen. Ich kann deinen Einwand verstehen, ich kann aber auch Uwes Reaktion nachvollziehen. Was können wir tun, damit Leute, die sich wirklich aktiv und konstruktiv um QI bemühen bzw. bemüht haben, nicht von - ich sags mal, wenn auch ungern, weils nicht wirklich stimmt - "Aussenstehenden" derartig runtergemacht werden. Ich denke, dass es der völlig falsche Weg ist, nun dem Uwe den Weg zu nehmen, wie er es für sich und seiner Mitarbeit in Wikimedia halten will. Nachdem was passiert ist. Es gab damals, als sich Atamari deswegen beschwerte, niemanden außer mir, der bereit gewesen wäre, sich diese Sache überhaupt anzuhören. Und es betrifft alle, welche in QI und FP mitmachen. Wir haben genug Schönwetterabstimmer! Wenn die Kritiker nicht unterstützt werden, dann kann QI wirklich nur noch als Abnickverein verstanden werden. Damit tritt dann genau das ein, was völlig zu Unrecht unterstellt wurde, dass QI nämlich tot wäre. Das sagen Leute, die vielleicht 50 Nominierungen haben in 5 Jahren. Und die dann beleidigt sind, dass nicht alle 50 enthusiastisch-orgiastisch gefeiert wurden. --Hubertl 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Was soll an meinem Einwand, dass Fotos erst nach erfolgreichem Review in QI-Kategorien einzusortieren sind, so dramatisch sein bzw. wieso sollte es Uwe davon abhalten, hier mitzumachen? --A.Savin 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mit anderen Worten: Du weißt nicht, warum Uwe das macht? Stimmt das, A.Savin?? Ich frage nur mal nach, damit man, falls es sich hier in dieser Diskussion um ein Missverständnis mangels Information handelt, dieses zuvor löst. Vielleicht findest du dazu dann eine Lösung. Oder kannst diese Vorgangsweise akzeptieren. Das setzt aber voraus, dass @Cccefalon: die Sache noch einmal aufs Tapet bringt. --Hubertl 17:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nein. Ich beobachte weder den IRC, noch die Mailinglisten, noch die Intrigen aus der deutschen Wikipedia. Habe ich was verpasst? --A.Savin 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ich fürchte, dass du was verpasst hast. Nicht weil es etwas großartiges gewesen wäre, es war Teil des ziemlich untauglichen Versuches, die Anforderungen, welche von der Foundation über WMDE (oder AT ,aber da hamma weniger Diskrepanzen) bzgl. der Klassifizierung von Bilderprojekten (Bitte viele QIs abliefern) vorgegeben werden, umzusetzen.

Auf der einen Seite muss man das Engagement der Kollegen bewundern, welche stellvertretend Bilder nominieren, auf der anderen Seite ist damit auch die Gefahr gegeben, dass das Niveau absinkt, weil bei einem Einspruch der Nominierer blöd dasteht und keine Möglichkeit hat, an die Raw Bilder zu kommen um irgendwas zu verbessern. Es ist ein kaum lösbares Dilemma.

Leider ist es ja so, dass wir in Dilemmafragen und deren Lösungen normalerweise nicht wirklich gut sind und dann gleich ins Streiten kommen. Was aber dann niemanden wirklich nützt. siehe hier, hier, und hier(siehe Artikel “QI-Spammer?”)..

Ein darauffolgender Vorwurf, dass sich der Uwe wie ein Platzhirsch verhält, den finde ich jetzt nicht. Es war jedenfalls ziemlich unappetitlihc und unnötig, meiner Meinung nach. Aber auch Teil des vorhandenen gegenseitigen Missverständnissses zwischen den Artikelschreibern und den Fotografen. --Hubertl 17:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Eigentlich wollte ich das Thema nicht nochmal hochkochen. Ich hab meinen Platz in QIC für diejenigen freigemacht, denen ich im Weg war. Ich kann gut ohne QIC leben. Ich bin aber trotzdem der Meinung, dass ich in der Lage bin, Photos zu machen, die den höchsten Qualitätsansprüchen genügen. Für diese Bilder beanspruche ich selbstverständlich, dass es Qualitätsbilder sind - wenngleich auch keine, die an QIC teilgenommen haben. Diese werde ich auch zukünftig mit dem QIself-Template versehen und in meine Userkategorien einsortieren. Sollte sich auf QIC eine Mehrheit finden, die das unlauter findet, dann kann man nochmal mit mir darüber reden. Allerdings möchte ich nochmal klar herausheben, dass ich durch die Userkategorien mir weder Lorbeeren anhefte (meine Name ist seit den Vorwürfen nicht mehr in der Rankingliste enthalten) noch wird diese Userkategorie zu Verwechslungen führen, da 1) die QIC-Bilder mit dem grünen QI-Label versehen sind und 2) die Funktion "good pictures" lediglich QIC-gelabelte Bilder anzeigt und 3) sich sowieso niemand freiwillig so tief in den Dateibaum verirrt, dass er davon irritiert wird. Mehr gibt es dazu meiner Meinung nach auf meiner Talkpage nicht zu sagen; wenn es unbedingt sein muss, dann bitte ich darum, auf dem QIC talk weiter zu diskutieren. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016_-_October_-_Water_Supply_Infrastructure/Winners

	Photo Challenge Winner
	Congratulations! Your picture Hong Kong China Water-supply-01.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Water Supply Infrastructure, in October 2016. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)