User talk:Hydro

Welcome to the Commons, Hydro!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

license violation

You uploaded a new version of the Image:Polyommatus_damon.jpeg and replaced the old version. According to the GFDL you made a license violation because you didn't kept a copy of the original! Thanks to you the Image:Polyommatus_damon.jpeg is no Qaulity image anymore because you reduced the size. And all the attended great composition is gone too. NEVER DO THAT AGAIN WITH ANY OF MY PHOTOS!!!! Fabelfroh 09:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original is still there and can easily be seen by clicking on the date of the version you want. It has never been seen as a GFDL license violation to upload new versions. But it makes no sense to replace images marked Quality Images or Featured picture as the new version needs to be assessed before it can retain that tag. Also it is normal practise to ask the original uploader before replacing an image as one's improvements are often not appreciated (of course sometimes they are greatful for the help). So just re-upload the new version under a different name :-) --Tony Wills 09:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry about the harsh tone. I managed to get the original myself. Fabelfroh 10:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Wappen Lehrte.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wappen Lehrte.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Motopark 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Hydro!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 15:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mylabris variabilis01.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Dascillus cervinus01.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Mylabris quadripunctata01.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Löschantrag

Hallo Hydro, könntest du nicht zuerst die korrigierte Version von File:Buergerhaus Gisselberg.jpg hochladen, damit die Links nicht brechen? --Túrelio (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soeben gemacht. --Hydro (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ich habe nun die alte Version selektiv gelöscht and dann das speedy-tag entfernt. --Túrelio (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! --Hydro (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filemover

Hi Hydro. I've made you a filemover. I did this so that you would have the choice of renaming files on your own. If you'd rather continue using rename requests instead, that would be fine too. INeverCry 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Hydro (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop!

Hallo Hydro, ist dir bewusst, dass du derzeit eine recht breite Fehlerschneise durch verschiedene (?) WPs ziehst? Wenn du ein Bild verschiebst, muss du händisch doch auch eventuelle Einbindungen in den lokalen WPs korrigieren oder nicht? Imho passiert das nicht automatisch oder per WL. Ein Bot scheint sich ja nicht darum zu kümmern, sonst wäre das schon passiert. Derzeit werden zahlreiche Bilder nach deiner Verschiebung nicht mehr angezeigt, ein Beispiel ist de:Liste der Gartenpavillons in Dresden. Bitte gehe deine ganzen Verschiebungen durch und versuche die Fehler zu korrigieren. Gruß, --Paulae (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Paulae, das kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Es werden durchaus Weiterleitungen angelegt und in der Liste der Gartenpavillons in Dresden kann ich keine Lücken entdecken. Vielleicht bei dir ein Cache-Problem? Hast Du mal Strg+F5 gedrückt? Gruß --Hydro (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also ich habs jetzt an zwei Rechnern ausprobiert, hab den Cache geleert und bei mir werden die Bilder nicht angezeigt. Bei de:Alte Kirche (Dresden-Leuben) wird anstelle des Kirchturms ein leeres kleines Feld angezeigt, bei der Liste der Pavillons der Blaulink auf das alte Bild. Das ist dann eben eine Weiterleitung, das Fotos erscheint in der Liste aber nicht. Ich bin noch mit Firefox 15 unterwegs, aber daran sollte das nicht liegen. --Paulae (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Nachtrag: Nach Update auf Firefox 16 und erneuter Cache-Leerung keine Besserung des Problems. Ich wüsste aber ehrlich auch nicht, wie das mit der Weiterleitung funktionieren sollte. Ich habe das auch noch nie erlebt, dass man von de.wp beim Klick auf ein Bild innerhalb Commons weitergeleitet wird. Vielleicht innerhalb von Commons, aber doch nicht von extern?! Hast du deinen Cache mal geleert? Kann ja sein, dass du noch die Version vor dem Verschieben drin hast. Hm, sehr merkwürdig. --Paulae (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In der Tat merkwürdig. Bei mir (auch nach Cache-Leerung) alles in Ordnung. Sonst wären wohl auch schon mehr Beschwerden eingegangen. Vielleicht mal purgen? --Hydro (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Das Wort des Tages heißt purgen. ;-) Das war tatsächlich des Rätsels Lösung, jetzt klappts auch bei mir. Danke für deine Geduld (mit mir) und viele Grüße, --Paulae (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freut mich sehr! Fing schon fast an, mir Sorgen zu machen. :-) Frohes Schaffen --Hydro (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In letzter Zeit tauchen

verstärkt alte Bilder von mir in meiner Beo auf, bei denen Du Schreibfehler korrigierst. Höchste Zeit hierfür einmal "herzlichen Dank" zu sagen! Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Da nicht für! :-) Gruß --Hydro (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Hydro,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 08:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hirsefeldsteg 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Óðinn 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Rollshausen (Lohra) 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. - A.Savin 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kameraposition

Hallo Hydro, ist mir nicht übermäßig wichtig, aber warum verschiebst du die Infos zur Kameraposition bei meinen Bildern regelmäßig aus dem Abschnitt "Beschreibung" (wo es meiner Meinung nach hingehört) in den Abschnitt "Lizenz" (wo es meiner Meinung nach überhaupt nicht hingehört), z.B. hier: [1]. Gruß --Hover dam (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hover dam, mir eigentlich auch nicht wichtig, war es nur aus der Wikipedia so gewohnt, dass die Koordinaten direkt vor den Kategorien platziert werden. Dass sie damit im Abschnitt "Lizenz" stehen, hatte ich nicht bedacht. Danke für den Hinweis, werde das zukünftig lassen. – Schöne Bilder hast du gestern und heute gemacht! Gruß --Hydro (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Friedhof Stausebach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Schwabendorf (Rauschenberg).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 in 2 Mpx preview. A little so-so at full resolution, where the bricks have a bit weird texture - noise reduction? Good light and DOF. Still OK for QI I think. Maybe you could create and add a Schwarbendorf category? --Slaunger 12:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Sindersfeld 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 19:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Niederweidbach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me --The Photographer 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ein Obstkuchen für dich!

Hallo Hydro, für deine Korrektur meiner Fehler, u.a. File:Kreishaus, St.-Apern-Straße Köln - 1316.jpg: Danke und ein Stück Kuchen für den Nachmittag :-) Raymond 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, lecker! :-) --Hydro (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hessische Stipendiatenanstalt Marburg 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 17:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ...

wenn Du schon der Meinung bist, dass Du einzelne Fotos mit der Endung „.JPG“ nach „.jpg“ verschieben musst, dann ersuche ich Dich, auch deren Einbindungen zu akutalisieren. Vgl.: [2], [3]. -- Bwag (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe nur Fotos mit "kiche" im Dateinamen nach "kirche" im Dateinamen verschoben. Die Änderung von JPG in jpg hat die Software ohne mein Zutun durchgeführt. Bisher wurden die Einbindungen immer automatisch aktualisiert. Vielleicht dauert es nur eine Weile. Siehe dazu auch dies. --Hydro (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, da ging es ja gar nicht um das „.jpg“, sondern um das fehlenden „R“, welches ich gar nicht registrierte. Ja, dann ein Dankeschön - ist ein „altes Leiden“ von mir, bei der Kirche das R zu unterschlagen. -- Bwag (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 09:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

File:Black Death Vodka 2.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Black Death Vodka 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. --Kreuzschnabel 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kapelle Dilschhausen 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. --Kreuzschnabel 09:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kiesgrube Steinwedel 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. Despite some minor CA, maybe you can fix it --Moroder 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuerwehr Gilserberg 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. --JLPC 17:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuerwehr Gilserberg 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Nice car in the middle. --Ximeg 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fronhof Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Abendroth-Bruecke Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sharpness just ok --Poco a poco 09:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hauptpost Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Some CA in lower left corner, but still acceptable. --Smial 08:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! WKA Gilserberg 2b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 --Iifar 09:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Marburg-Cappel 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sky bit overexposed but nice overall --Poco a poco 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blickachsen9-BadHomburg-Zwingmann.jpg

Hallo Hydro, du hast bei o.g. file einige Kategorien entfernt. Das kann ich nicht ganz nachvollziehen. Das Kunstwerk gehört zur Ausstellung "Blickachsen 9", Niederhöchstadt ist ein Ortsteil von "Eschborn", das Werk ist eine "Skulptur" und die Ausstellung findet in "Hessen", "Germany" statt. Also sind die Kategorien doch korrekt? Grüße Klaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlausOhl (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15. Apr. 2013‎ (UTC)

Hallo Klaus, eine Kategorie "Blickachsen 9" existiert nicht. Und Dateien werden immer nur in die unterste Ebene des hierarchischen Kategoriesystems, also in die speziellst möglichen Kategorien eingeordnet. Die Category:Blickachsen ist eine Unterkategorie von Category:Sculptures in Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, beinhaltet also schon die Skulpturen. Ebenso gehört jede Datei in Category:Niederhöchstadt logischerweise zu Eschborn, Hesse und Germany. Grüße --Hydro (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke

für deine zahlreichen Korrekturen von 'Stadteil' in meinen Bildbeschreibungen (hier und anderswo). Ich will mich bessern... Gruß --Harke (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gern geschehen. :-) Gruß --Hydro (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Nepomuk

Hi, Hydro, die Statue aus Amöneburg, die du heute hochgeladen hast, ist ein Johannes Nepomuk. Category:John of Nepomuk Die Darstellung ist typisch und der Name steht auf dem Schild am Sockel. MfG --Regiomontanus (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klasse, vielen Dank! --Hydro (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Badesee Niederweimar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Berthold Werner 07:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Friedenstein Amöneburg 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. --JLPC 17:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirchhain Stadtkirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --JLPC 17:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gräm dich nicht über "des - dem" kram

hallo hydro, frohes weiterkramen (hoffentlich ohne dich zu grämen!). ;-) dontworry (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo dontworry, kaum denkt man mal zwei Wochen drüber nach – schon hat man’s verstanden! :-) --Hydro (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hunburgturm Burgholz innen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Trace 09:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lindenplatz 12, Burgholz 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Smial 13:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Großseelheim, Marburger Ring x.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Okay. --Florstein 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuerwehr Frohnhausen (Gladenbach).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Steindy 22:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Diedenshausen (Gladenbach) 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. --Smial 18:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke

für die permanenten Korrekturen des fehlenden "t"s in "denkmalgeschütze ...". Ich hoffe, dass ich nach Deiner 99. Korrektur die Schreibweise begriffen habe :-). Gruß --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, Geschütze sind was anderes. ;-) Gruß --Hydro (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Rüchenbach 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support OK --A.Savin 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

denkmalgeschützes vs denkmalgeschütztes

vielen dank für die arbeit :-) ist ja erschreckend, wo ich überall den fehler gemacht habe. gruß --Z ^thomas 12:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Frohnhausen (Gladenbach) 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schweinsberg (Stadtallendorf) (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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Rüdigheim (Amöneburg) 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Steinsplitter 21:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amöneburg von SO (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 A bit oversaturated IMO but still ok --Poco a poco 09:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amöneburg von SO (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Florstein 11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amöneburg von SO (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments I like the composition. It's a sunny day, so I'd expect the background to be a bit hazy. It would look unnatural if it were pin sharp. --Bahnfrend 13:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuz Schafe Amöneburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinmühle Marburg (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --XRay 16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fehlerkorrektur

Hallo! Danke für die Korrektur (Eulenturm). Den Fehler habe ich übersehen, wahrscheinlich weil umgangssprachlich zu oft der Genitiv genutzt wird. --XRay ^talk 11:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Ding. :-) Gruß --Hydro (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Death Vodka 2.jpg

File:Black Death Vodka 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Affected:

File:Black Death Vodka 2.jpg

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 13:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marburger Schloss aus der Rudolf-Bultmann-Straße.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 19:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verschiebung

Hi Hydro, ich schnall das nicht: Ich seh nur einen Unterschied in der Dateierweiterung. Helf mir mal in den Sattel :-) Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightflyer, Ostsee schreibt sich mit nur zwei e. Gruß --Hydro (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kopf -> Tisch -> Aua :-) Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kugelkirche 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 OK. The crop (top/bottom) could be more symmetric. --NorbertNagel 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Störche Steinwedel (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 Poor lighting but just ok --Poco a poco 13:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Damhirschkuh Kopf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Steinwedel innen (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 23:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skulpturen Sophiental (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me --Lewis Hulbert 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brücke Sophiental (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. However, there are two tiny issues where I made annotations. I would appreciate, if you could take care of it. --Cccefalon 11:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Kleinseelheim 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 10:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Geripptes 0,25l.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Well captured. --Tuxyso 10:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kriegerdenkmal Gönnern (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 Fonts could be more sharp, but QI IMO. --Cccefalon 14:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kleines Backhaus Steinperf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 08:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Löwe Marburg 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 --Malchen53 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Figur Firmaneiplatz Marburg.fides.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Lewis Hulbert 12:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Franziskuskapelle Marburg 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 imo OK for QI --Isiwal 13:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pferde Steinweg Marburg 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. --Poco a poco 21:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Turm der Elisabethkirche und Franziskuskapelle Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Moroder 18:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in the categorization of QI

Dear Hydro! Your images were reviewed and have been promoted to Quality Image status. Congratulations! I invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. All new images with this status are automatically placed to the page Commons:Quality_images/Recently_promoted. They have to be manually tagged with relevant categories using the QI categorization tool (see link at the top of the page, the author of this tool is User:Dschwen). Very few users do this job now, so a large number of uncategorizated photos accumulates on this page time to time… --Bff (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Backhaus Cappel Marburg (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. --Cccefalon 11:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verschiebungsgrund?

Hallo Hydro, gibt es einen tieferen Sinn für diese deine Verschiebung? Die ursprüngliche Dateibezeichnung war korrekt, Wohnpark ist wohl eine euphemistische Umschreibung (für das) und die Adresse ist jetzt genauso richtig wie vorher. Mit dem einen Unterschied: Ich würde so eine gruselige Dateibeschreibung (Wohnpark Elsa Fenske) nicht nehmen und stehe jetzt aber genau dort als Autor. Bitte nimm solche Verschiebungen in Zukunft nicht vor, wenn es keine Verbesserungen oder Korrekturen sind. Oder ist mir irgendetwas nicht aufgefallen, was diese Verschiebung unumgänglich machte? Gruß, --Paulae (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Paulae, der Hauptgrund meiner Verschiebung war, dass dort „Fense“ statt „Fenske“ stand. Dann habe ich noch die m.E. falsche Adresse entsprechend [4] korrigiert. Wieso ist diese jetzt genauso richtig wie vorher, kann ein Haus zwei verschiedene Adressen haben? Dass ich aus der „Straße“ ein unschönes „Str.“ gemacht habe, war leider ein C&P-Fehler. „Wohnpark Elsa Fenske“ ist der offizielle Eigenname, aber gefällt mir auch nicht. Was hältst du von einer Verschiebung nach „Elsa-Fenske-Heim Dresden Freiberger Straße 18“? Schönen Gruß --Hydro (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Fense statt Fenske ist nachvollziehbar, der Rest nicht. Der Komplex steht als Sachgesamtheit "Elsa-Fenske-Heim mit Garten u. Einfriedung (Alfred-Althus-Straße 9)" unter Denkmalschutz. Natürlich gibt es da mehr Gebäude, ist ja ein großes Gelände, eben Ehrlichstraße 3 und Freiberger Straße 18. Das ist ein Alten- und Pflegeheim, Wohnpark ist neudeutsches, euphemistisches Werbeheinisprech (sry, aber ist so). Ich fände es gut, wenn bei Verschiebungen von Dateien mit aussagekräftigem Namen wirklich nur echte Fehler korrigiert werden. I.d.R. ist der Uploader ja vor Ort gewesen und weiß, wie der Dateiname lauten soll, damit er gefunden wird. Rückverschiebe bitte entweder auf Elsa-Fenske-Heim Dresden Alfred-Althus-Straße 9 (mir ging es bei der Bildbeschreibung um den Gesamtkomplex, da das das Hauptgebäude & in der Denkmalliste eingebunden ist) oder auf Elsa-Fenske-Heim Dresden Freiberger Straße 18 (das wäre dann konkret das Gebäude auf dem Foto). Gruß, --Paulae (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

es warat …

… deswegen. Hallo Hydro, ich halte es nicht für günstig, wenn diese Doppelkategorisierung als COM:OVERCAT verstanden wird. Siehe auch die Beschreibung der Wurzelkategorie. Denkmalschutz ist eine versteckte, nicht offensichtliche Eigenschaft, die alternative Einteilung in denkmalgeschützte Objekte und den Rest macht es mE schwierig, instinktiv in der richtigen Unterkategorie zu suchen (v.a. dann wenn man nicht den Bias auf Denkmalschutz gesetzt hat). Wir schieben die Bilder und Kategorien ja auch nicht in Unterkategorien nach Bauzeitpunkt, Stil, innen mit Fresco oder ohne, usw und erwarten vom Suchenden, dass er genau weiß, unter welchem Stil er ein gesuchtes Gebäude finden wird. Nicht mal für blaue und gelbe Gebäude, offensichtliche Eigenschaften, macht es Sinn die Gebäude in Category:Blue buildings und Category:Yellow buildings innerhalb einer Stadt zu unterteilen. DS ist eine zusätzliche Eigenschaft, die sich mE nicht zur Strukturierung in DS und die Differenzmenge innerhalb einer Gemeinde eignet. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leuchtet ein. Danke für den Hinweis, werde ich zukünftig berücksichtigen. Schönen Gruß --Hydro (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinmühle Marburg Wehr (6).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 06:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schwengelpumpe Bruchenbrücken.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Cccefalon 07:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzlichen Glückwunsch!

Hallo Hydro,

Du hast beim Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Deutschland teilgenommen, wofür wir Dir herzlich danken. Ohne jeden einzelnen Teilnehmer, ohne jedes einzelne Bild wäre Wiki Loves Earth nicht so erfolgreich. Mit den vielen neuen Bildern können jetzt einerseits zahlreiche Wikipedia-Artikel bebildert werden, andererseits schaffen sie Anreize, neue Inhalte zu erstellen, die sich mit ihnen illustrieren lassen.

Von den mehr als 14.000 eingesandten Bildern hat die Jury eines oder mehrere von Dir in die deutschen Top 100 gewählt.

Das Ergebnis mit den Top 100 ist hier einzusehen: Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2014/Deutschland/Top100

Die ersten zehn wurden schon für den internationalen Ausscheid gemeldet: Wiki_Loves_Earth_2014_winners#Germany

Es war der erste Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth in Deutschland und wir als Jury sind vom Erfolg überwältigt. Daher würden wir uns sehr freuen, wenn Du dich nächstes Mal erneut beteiligen würdest!

Herzlichen Glückwunsch von der Jury und vielen Dank für Deine Unterstützung! --Indeedous (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Haus Florstädter Straße 34, Ossenheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 fine to me --Poco a poco 21:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Deine Spaetgotische Schnitzer-Ei

Moin Hydro! Schaust Du mal bitte hier? Ich kann die Datei nicht umbennen, weil der Dateinamen bereits belegt ist. Nein, nicht mit Wurscht. :-) Was tun? LG, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hedwig in Washington, welche Datei möchtest du denn wie umbenennen? Ich kann's ja auch mal versuchen, aber spontan fällt mir dazu nichts ein. Schönen Gruß --Hydro (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nee, nee. Du hast edit-protect reingesetzt. :) Deshalb frage ich. LG, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanu. Sieht tatsächlich so aus, aber ich habe meines Wissens nichts weiter gemacht, als die Datei ganz normal zu verschieben. Da muss irgendeine Automatik in meinem Namen gehandelt haben. --Hydro (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab's ge-nowikit. Oder no-ge-wikit? Egal, ist wech. :) Tschulligung fuer die Stoerung. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danké! --Hydro (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Wisselsheim 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 Good quality. --XRay 11:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spritzenhaus Wisselsheim 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Kadellar 10:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuerwehr Niederwetter (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Please apply perspective correction. --Cccefalon 03:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded an improved version. --Hydro 21:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good for QI, thank you. --Cccefalon 19:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stiftskirche Wetter (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. --Ralf Roletschek 13:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Diebsturm Wetter (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --XRay 12:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Ossenheim (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wohnhaus Lindenhof Amönau.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Livioandronico2013 20:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gerichtslinde Amönau (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amönau Tal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 08:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rapunzelturm Amönau (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Elisabethkirche (Marburg) Türme aus SW.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amönau Wehr und Kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Crisp detail all around --Daniel Case 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alter Friedhof Marburg (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 For me QI --Hubertl 07:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Liebfrauenkirche Marburg 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 10:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Unibibliothek Marburg (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. --Jacek Halicki 12:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schlauchturm Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 12:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Werner-Wicker-Klinik Eingang.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 09:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gerichtslinde Amönau (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 11:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rapunzelturm Amönau (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 10:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Werner-Wicker-Klinik Vorderseite.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 --Christian Ferrer 08:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuerwehr Niederwetter (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good and nice.--ArildV 09:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rapunzelturm Amönau (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 10:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Werner-Wicker-Klinik Rückseite Frühjahr.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 10:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMP museum

Thank you for fixing all my "musuem" → "museum" typos (well, one type + copy and paste file naming!). Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinweg 38 Marburg Gartenlaube (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. --Hubertl 11:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missverstehst du das Quality Image System

oder willst du einfach nicht?

QI funktioniert so, dass man sich gegenseitig Bilder beurteilt. Das hat damit zu tun, dass man ein breiteres Spektrum an Meinungen bekommt. Das bedeutet auch Arbeit. Man muss die Bilder aufmachen manche auch runterladen etc. Wenn man es ernst meint. Und dann in Folge eine Entscheidung treffen. Du scheinst das offenbar völlig anders zu sehen: Du stellst unzählige Bilder auf QI und gibst aber im Gegenzug nichts zurück. Du hast in den letzten drei Monaten nicht ein einziges Bild eines Kollegen oder einer Kollegin beurteilt. Erwartest dir aber im Gegenzug, dass die Kollegen hier das für deine Bilder machen.

Meinst du, hier sind bezahlte Dienstleistungskräfte am Werk welche für dich die Arbeit machen und du holst dir die Rosinen aus dem Kuchen? --Hubertl (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ich kann mich natürlich irren und die falschen Schlüsse aus deinen Bearbeitungen gezogen haben. Aber du wirst es mir sicher erklären. --Hubertl (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das war mir in der Tat nicht bekannt. Ich dachte, auch hier gilt das Wiki-Prinzip, dass jeder das tut, was er am besten kann. Ich habe in den Commons über 24.000 Bearbeitungen getätigt und an die 1500 bearbeitete Bilder hochgeladen, da wirst du mir kaum vorwerfen können, ich lasse Andere für mich arbeiten. Ich habe nie mehr als zwei Bilder auf einmal in den QI-Kandidaten und stelle diese auch nicht ein, um mich damit zu rühmen, sondern der Gemeinschaft die Auswahl der Bilder zu erleichtern. --Hydro (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auf der Diskussionsseite gibt es ausreichend Gesprächsstoff darüber. Stell dir vor, es gäbe nur ein paar Wenige, die sich den Beurteilungen annehmen. Das wäre fatal. Es wird zumindest erwartet, dass Einsteller eine ähnliche Menge an Beurteilungen vornehmen, wie sie auch selbst Bilder einstellen. Und es geht ja nicht nur um ein ja/nein, sondern durchaus tiefergehend mit Hinweisen zu eventuellen Verbesserungen, wenn einmal der Weißabgleich nicht passt oder ein Bild unvorteilhaft beschnitten ist. --Hubertl (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ich kann in den Richtlinien nichts Derartiges entdecken. Ich fühle mich in anderen Arbeitsbereichen kompetenter. Soll ich nun keine Bilder mehr zur Diskussion stellen, nur weil du das so willst? Ich denke, damit wäre unserem Projekt nicht geholfen. --Hydro (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Baustelle Pilgrimstein Marburg 2014 (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
Support I don't like building sites but the quality is good. ;-) --Hockei 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Franziskuskapelle Marburg 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 Needs a slight perspective correction but overall good for QI. --Cccefalon 09:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already corrected it as good as I could. --Hydro 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --C messier 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Erzaufbereitungsanlage Gräveneck.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. There is one small isuue (see note) which should be corrected however. --Cccefalon 11:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very attentive! Thank you. I uploaded an improved version. --Hydro 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kath. Kirche Gräveneck.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Nicolai-Kirche (Hannover-Bothfeld)

Hallo Hydro, du hattest doch vorgeschlagen Category:St.-Nicolai-Kirche, Hannover-Bothfeld nach Category:St.-Nicolai-Kirche (Hannover-Bothfeld) zu verschieben, oder? Denn folgendes verstehe ich nicht im Zusammenhang "Wieralee moved page Category:St. Nicolai-Kirche (Hannover-Bothfeld) to Category:St.-Nicolai-Kirche, Hannover-Bothfeld: requested move". Kannst du es aufklären? Danke. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Jean11, nein, ich hatte die Verschiebung von Category:St. Nicolai-Kirche (Hannover-Bothfeld) nach Category:St.-Nicolai-Kirche, Hannover-Bothfeld vorgeschlagen. Im ursprünglichen Namen befand sich ein Deppenleerzeichen und die Spezifizierung erfolgte fälschlich in Klammern. Gruß --Hydro (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zusätze die einen deutschen Ort beinhalten sind generell in Klammern, deshalb sehe ich das Entfernen der Klammern als falsch an. Die Richtlinie schreib bei strittigen Ändernungen eine Diskussion vor, u.a. um das hin und her verschieben zu verhindern. --Jean11 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irgendwie kann ich es nicht mehr recht nachvollziehen. In der Tat finde ich jetzt nur noch den eingangs von dir erwähnten Verschiebevorschlag (siehe hier), also nach Klammerlemma, der dann aber von Wieralee scheinbar anders umgesetzt wurde. Das falsche Leerzeichen ist dort nicht mehr ersichtlich. --Hydro (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Biergarten Spiegelslust (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spiegelslustturm frontal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Tilted due to perspective. I suggest that if you want to keep the tower upright, correct the horizontal perspective so that the horizontals are in fact horizontal. Mattbuck 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I tried it, but then the foreground is trimmed too strong. --Hydro 20:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quality is good. The perspective is what it is. --Ram-Man 23:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dammelsberg von Süden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schloss und Kirchen Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sonnenuhr Steinhude (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 19:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rinne und Schloss Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 20:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Waschstraße (1) ohne Logo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 would be better if the car were cropped out, but it's fine as is. --Ram-Man 03:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Beringbrunnen Marburg (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 21:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dammühle Marburg Haupthaus 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. --Ralf Roletschek 19:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Straße in Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Cccefalon 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Behring-Mausoleum (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. --Ralf Roletschek 10:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Landratsamt Marburg-Cappel 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schafe in Kirchhain.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 and QI for me -- Spurzem 10:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umbenennung Kategory Clemens Franz nach Files bei Clemens Franz

Hallo Hydro,

ich habe nichts gegen eine Umbenennung. Muß ich dafür etwas tun, oder erledigt das ein Bot?

-- Clemens Franz (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Clemens Franz, das freut mich. Überlass die Arbeit lieber einem Bot, denn es sind ja wirklich viele Bilder. Ist "Files by..." in Ordnung? Möglich wäre z.B. auch "Photographs by..." oder "Images by...". Gruß --Hydro (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Files by ..." ist schon in Ordnung. -- Clemens Franz (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done with VisualFileChange. Green Giant (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grabsäule Bortfeld.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments SupportGood quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hydro

bitte lösche aus dem QI-Nominations keine Bewertungsprozesse raus. Wenn du etwas beenden möchtest hast du die Möglichkeit entweder mit "Withdrawn" (anstatt Diskuss oder Promotion), dann schiebt der Bot das am nächsten Tag in das Archiv. Oder du wartest einfach die Entscheidung ab. Ich habs wieder zurückgestellt. lg aus Wien --Hubertl (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, das wusste ich nicht. Danke für den Hinweis. --Hydro (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinwedeler Teich abends.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 nice and good quality. --Code 08:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wilhelmstein (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 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinhuder Meer, Skulptur Tanz der Winde (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinhuder Meer, Skulptur Undines Traum (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Reflections unavoidable, considering this is stainless steel. --Crisco 1492 08:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wilhelmstein (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 Comment Clearly tilted cw. Sharpness could be better as well (but still sufficient IMHO). --Code 20:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded an improved version. --Hydro 08:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok now. --Code 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Selbstportrait

Vielen Dank das du mein Portrait nachbearbeitet hast. Eine wahre Herkulesaufgabe unter Berücksichtigung der Tatsache, das die Urkunde so stark dominiert.

Falls du noch Kapazitäten frei hast ... auch hier könnte ich besser zur Geltung kommen ... -- Gerold Rosenberg (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinwedeler Teich Sonnenuntergang 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good sunset detail --Daniel Case 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wilhelmstein (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 Not sure whether it is a bit tilted but fine --Poco a poco 11:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinhuder Meer, Skulptur Tanz der Winde (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. --Jacek Halicki 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steinwedeler Teich Sonnenuntergang 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. --Poco a poco 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wilhelmstein (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. --Cayambe 07:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Weißstorch Steinwedel (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. --Poco a poco 09:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Störche Steinwedel (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Weißstorch im Anflug auf Nest (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very nice and QI -- Spurzem 09:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Seems overexposed and unsharp to me. --Charlesjsharp 09:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kurpark Bad Nauheim 13 Teichhaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kurpark Bad Nauheim 11 Teichhaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Cccefalon 00:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kurpark Bad Nauheim 06 Insel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Moroder 20:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kurpark Bad Nauheim 03 Teich Fontäne.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 -- Der Wolf im Wald 08:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kurpark Bad Nauheim 05 Insel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Heilig-Geist-Kirche (Friedberg) 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. --Code 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Richtstätte Rabenstein Marburg (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 16:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marburger Schloss von Südwest (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.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marburger Schloss von Südwest (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A bit hazy, but good quality. --Cayambe 15:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Richtstätte Rabenstein Marburg (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 09:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Umspannwerk Ahlten (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Freiwillige Feuerwehr Ahlten (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 QI for me. --Cccefalon 08:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sebbeterode 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 10:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Auf der Weide 2, Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Barely OK, but your photos often suffer from overexposure - window frames are overexposed at tiny parts. Probably you should try a -0.7EV correction in your camera and correct the shadow parts later on in your RAW file. --Tuxyso 07:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Soldatendenkmal Wehrda (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. --Moroder 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alter Eisenbahnwagen Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 (but only the photo) -- Spurzem 07:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sebbeterode 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Soldatendenkmal Wehrda (08).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Treppenhaus im Anatomischen Institut Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 07:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allein im letzten halben Jahr

hast du annähernd 100 Bilder von Dir nominiert und hast dich sicher gefreut, dass andere hergehen und dich die Mühe antun, diese zu bewerten. Du bist bislang, seit du beim QI mitmachst, damit auch auf über 130 Quality images gekommen.

Was aber vermisst wird, ist dein Beitrag zu den Arbeiten der anderen. Es gibt hier keine bezahlten Dienstleister, es ist ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt. Dass du in der Lage wärst, die Bilder von anderen zu bewerten, wird wohl keiner bestreiten. Du musst es einfach nur tun. Als Akt der Kollegialität.

Gruß aus Wien --Hubertl (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich war der Meinung, es reicht in anderen Bereichen der Commons mitzuarbeiten. Habe immerhin über 1.300 bearbeitete Fotos hochgeladen und 28.000 Bearbeitungen getätigt. Aber o.k., ich werde versuchen, mich auch mal bei den QI-Kandidaten mit reinzuhängen. Habe gerade drei Kommentare abgegeben. Sind die so regelkonform? Gruß --Hydro (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine rasche Antwort. Leider ist es so - siehe auch die Kurierdiskussion auf WP - dass es ein ziemliches Missverständnis gibt, was eben die QIs betrifft. Dass dieses Instrument eine hervorragende Schule sein kann für Fotografen, wird nicht bestritten. Generell sind wir aber der Ansicht, dass dieses Instrument ausgebaut werden sollte, das liegt auch im Interesse derer, welche für die Finanzierung einzelner Projekte überzeugt werden müssen. Unmittelbar aber auch der Verbesserung der Skills. Das Problem sehe ich darin, dass, wenn ein paar wenige zuviele Bilder bewerten, deren Rolle dann ähnlich kritisch wird, wie die von ein paar einzelnen Admins in WP. Ein paar machen die Arbeit, aber diese werden dann gebasht. Die, welche nix tun, kommen gut weg (auch nicht auf Dauer).

Der Punkt ist der: Du bist erfahren genug, zu bewerten. Wenn nicht, dann wirst du es ja eh bemerken. Was ich gesehen habe seit gestern war völlig korrekt. Man darf nicht als Bewerter auf den Punkt kommen, vielfach für eventuelle Negativbewertungen geprügelt zu werden. Weil sich die anderen nicht trauen und dem entgehen um gemocht zu werden. Falscher Ansatz. Wenn die Arbeit auf viele Schultern gelegt wird, dann wird es einfach besser. Wenn jeder so viele Bilder bewertet, wie er selbst einstellt, dann haben wir das Ziel erreicht. Dann bleibt nur noch die gemeinsame Diskussion im Consensual Review-Bereich.

Danke jedenfalls für deine freundliche Reaktion! --Hubertl (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Töpferhaus Marburg (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. --Uoaei1 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Bridge in Sophiental

Cccfalon has asked for a perspective correction. I have already done this for you and I have done some other improvements. Please let me know if you are not satisfied about it. --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bridge looks much better now. The forest and the water I liked better before, but that's less important. Thank you! (If you are a perfectionist i can email you the RAW file.) --Hydro (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brücke Sophiental (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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neuer Steg über den Mühlgraben in Marburg (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kriegerdenkmal_in_Dosdorf_2.JPG&curid=36663393&diff=176540888&oldid=167590185

Hallo Hydro, was ist der Grund für die Änderung der Koordinaten? Gibt es Rundungsregeln? Wenn ja sollten wir diese auch in den UploadWizard einbauen. Gruß, --Arnd (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Aschroet, alles was über die 6. Dezimalstelle rausgeht, ist im Millimeterbereich oder weniger (6. Stelle ist auf 11 cm genau), macht also keinen Sinn. In den UploadWizard einbauen ist eine gute Idee! Gruß --Hydro (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schützenpfuhlbrücke (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. --Code 08:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Martinskirche Wehrda Turm (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. --Ermell 23:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jüdischer Friedhof Marburg (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. --Poco a poco 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jüdischer Friedhof Marburg (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. --Medium69 15:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Biedenkopf, Schenkbarsches Haus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Blühender Baum Biedenkopf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schloss Biedenkopf (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 08:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schloss Biedenkopf (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. --XRay 12:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Elisabethkirche Biedenkopf (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. Maybe a bit overexposed. --Uoaei1 10:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

„region“-Parameter bei Geokoordinaten

Hallo Hydro,

offenbar bist Du ein Freund der Verwendung des „region“-Parameters bei Geokoordinaten. Mit hat sich der praktische Nutzwert dieses Parameters noch nicht erschlossen, auch nicht nach Lektüre von Template:Object_location. Kannst Du mir vielleicht einen Tipp geben? Gruß, --Hasenläufer (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hasenläufer, liefert eben zu den xy-Werten noch die Information zum Staat und der Region hinzu, siehe de:Vorlage:Coordinate#region. Der praktische Nutzen ist mir auch nicht ganz klar. Meine, mal etwas von spezialisierten Kartenwerken gelesen zu haben – tun wir’s doch der Vollständigkeit halber. Gruß --Hydro (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Hydro, offenbar haben wir zum Thema ein vergleichbaren Wissensstand. Die Bedeutung von „region“ ist mir bekannt. Bislang habe ich noch nie die de:Vorlage:Coordinate genutzt, daher interessiert mich „region“ bei dieser Vorlage nicht. Mir geht es lediglich darum, welchen Nutzwert der Parameter „region“ bei den beiden Vorlagen Template:Location und Template:Object location hat – Vorlagen, die wir beide gerne nutzen. Mich irritiert in der Dokumentation der Satz „Information attributes - used to pass to GeoHack server metadata about the coordinates. Apart from heading, this information is not used by {{Object location}} (bzw. {{Object location}}) template.“ Was mag in diesem Kontext „… this information is not used …“ bedeuten?

Offenbar geht es im Wesentlichen um eine Parameter-Übergabe zu GeoHack. Ein Anwendungsbeispiel konnte ich in einer Doku finden (derzeit finde ich die Stelle nicht mehr). In den Beispiel diente die Schweiz als Beispiel für „region“. GeoHack hat dann zusätzlich eine Tabelle mit Schweizer Kartendiensten eingeblendet.

Vielleicht mache ich mich mal an anderer Stelle zum evtl. weiteren Nutzen des Parameters „region“ schlau.

Wenn es um das Thema Vollständigkeit geht, liegt mir der Parameter „heading“ bei {{Object location}} viel mehr am Herzen, da ich meine, dass oft die Blickrichtung bei der Kamera-Position von Nutzen ist. Gruß, --Hasenläufer (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Biedenkopf Ludwigshütte Lahn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Medium69 15:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template „Geogroup“

Hallo Hydro,

erst kürzlich habe ich das Template {{Geogroup}} entdeckt, als ich über Category:Quality images of Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf gestolpert bin. Bis September 2014 hieß es {{GeoGroupTemplate}}, dann wurde es in {{Geogroup}} umbenannt. Mir war das Template bislang nicht bekannt und ich bin begeistert davon! Insbesondere gefällt mir von den 3 alternativen Kartendarstellungen die von Google, denn sie bietet die meisten Features: differenzierte Darstellungen von Objekt- und Kamera-Positionen, Darstellung der Blickrichtung (falls vorhanden) und Links zu den Fotos. Insbesondere gefällt mir, dass man gut überblicken kann, ob Koordinaten falsch gesetzt wurden. Wie Du vielleicht mitbekommen hast, habe ich in der genannten Kategorie Unterkategorien eingefügt. Dabei habe ich auch {{Geogroup}} genutzt. Wie sind Deine Erfahrungen beim Einsatz des Templates? Ich erwäge, das Template vermehrt zu nutzen. Jedoch habe ich noch Unsicherheiten, ob und falls ja, in welchen Fällen ich den Parameter „level“ nutzen sollte. Hast Du vielleicht hilfreiche Erfahrungswerte? (@Leit: Vielleicht interessiert Dich das Thema?) Gruß, Hasenläufer (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hasenläufer, muss zugegen, dass ich das auch noch nicht benutzt hatte. Ist aber in der Tat sehr hübsch. Könnte nur etwas besser dokumentiert sein. Den Sinn der drei verschiedenen Symbole konnte ich mit Hilfe Deiner Erklärung erschließen. "Level" dürfte angeben, ob/und/oder wieviel Unterkategorien mit dargestellt werden. Besten Dank für das Erstellen der Unterkategorien! Gruß --Hydro (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hydro, schönen Dank für Deine Antwort! Die Bedeutung von „level“ ist schon klar, nur wo man welchen Level sinnvoll setzt, dazu interessieren mich praktische Erfahrungen. Falls nicht, ist es auch kein Drama; das werde ich mit etwas Grips und Herausprobieren schon hinkriegen. Gruß, Hasenläufer (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hydro, zur Info: Angeregt durch Deins Bemerkung „Könnte nur etwas besser dokumentiert sein. Den Sinn der drei verschiedenen Symbole konnte ich mit Hilfe Deiner Erklärung erschließen.“ habe ich die Vorlagendoku ergänzt. Gruß, Hasenläufer (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klasse, danke, Gruß --Hydro (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Windkraftanlagen Achenbach (Breidenbach).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok for QI --Milseburg 12:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbach Biedenkopf

Moin Hydro! Engelbach gibt es auch in Bayern. Ist allerdings ein Fluss. Biedenkopf einfach so lassen? Was es alles so gibt.... ;-)) LG, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moin Hedwig in Washington, jo, so lassen. Schöne Grüße --Hydro (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kapelle Breidenstein (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Eifa (Hatzfeld) 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 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Niederasphe (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. --Uoaei1 05:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tugenden Firmaneiplatz Marburg (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 11:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gallotia galloti male 2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Berthold Werner 09:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cineplex Kino Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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 better with reduced (empty) street at the bottom. --XRay 17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kruzifix bei der Elisabethkirche Marburg (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 07:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hexenturm Kirchhain.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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! --W.carter 20:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wakeboarding im Seepark Niederweimar (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 Support Good quality--Lmbuga 10:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hexenturm Marburg (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. --W.carter 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bauerbacher Kreuz (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland!

Hallo Hydro!

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments 2016! Das Organisationsteam freut sich über 38.988 Bilder von deutschen Bau- und Kulturdenkmalen, die in diesem Jahr hochgeladen wurden, und möchte sich ganz herzlich bei Dir für deinen Beitrag zum weltweit größten, von Ehrenamtlichen organisierten, Fotowettbewerb bedanken!

Du hast noch bis zum 18. Oktober die Gelegenheit Wettbewerbsbeiträge anderer Fotografen im Rahmen der Vorjury zu bewerten. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du dich daran beteiligst und mithilfst die besten Bilder des diesjährigen Wettbewerbs auszuwählen. Alle Informationen zur Vorjury findest Du hier.

An dieser Stelle sei noch auf die Preisverleihung von Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland hingewiesen: Diese findet am 25. November 2016 ab 20 Uhr in den Räumen von Wikimedia Deutschland in Berlin statt. Alle Interessierten laden wir ganz herzlich zur Teilnahme ein. Für die Fotografen der Top-10-Bilder und die Sonderpreisträger werden Reisekosten sowie eine Übernachtung durch Wikimedia Deutschland übernommen.

Nochmals vielen Dank für deine Beiträge. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch in Zukunft die Wikipedia bebilderst! Solltest du Fragen haben, so kannst du dich gerne an infowikilovesmonuments.de wenden.

(DCB im Namen des Organisationsteams von Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland, 01.10.2016)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bauerbacher Kreuz (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. --Dirtsc 05:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sharp photo from which quality is high enough to be a Q1one --Michielverbeek 20:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Betziesdorf 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 08:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alte Kirche Bürgeln 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Haeferl 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rinder Ebsdorfergrund 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. --Poco a poco 08:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rinder Ebsdorfergrund 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Telefonzelle Niederweimar 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. --Ermell 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rauischholzhausen Amöneburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 09:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Rauischholzhausen 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 Good quality. --Ermell 08:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Rauischholzhausen 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.--ArildV 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Rauischholzhausen 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. --XRay 13:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Hydro!

Happy New Year!

Hydro, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahle Wurst

Hallo Hydro, mir wurde die Wurst als Ahle Blutwurst verkauft (rewe fleischtheke :-) ) darüberhinaus wurde noch Ahle Leberwurst feilgeboten. ist das etwas anderes als Ahle Wurst? Viele Grüße --Z ^thomas 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Z thomas, naja, ist schon eine "ahle", also alte, Wurst, aber DIE Ahle Wurst ist ein ganz eigenes Rezept. Lecker sind sie alle! :-) Schönen Gruß --Hydro (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immenser Teich (08).jpg

Hallo Hydro,

diesen speedy-del-Wunsch konnte ich nicht nachvollziehen. Du weißt doch, wie man bessere Bilder drüber klebt. --Hystrix (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hystrix, hätte eben lieber eine saubere Versionsgeschichte. Das sollte doch bei einem frisch hochgeladenen, eigenen Bild kein Problem sein. --Hydro (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immenser Teich (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. --Poco a poco 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immenser Teich (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 Sharpness could be better but OK for me. --Basotxerri 18:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right. I uploaded a sharper version. --Hydro 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immenser Teich (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 10:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immenser Teich (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. --Jacek Halicki 10:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immenser Teich (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
The bottom is sharp enough, however the other sight of the lake is not sharp enough for me for Q1 --Michielverbeek 09:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Comment[reply]
I uploaded a sharper version. --Hydro 11:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Indeed it is looking better, a weak support --Michielverbeek 15:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immenser Teich (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 Good quality. --Ermell 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kolshorner Teich (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. --Ermell 12:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kolshorner Teich (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 A bit soft at the sides and not much to see where the focus is but overall ok. QI. --W.carter 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rathaus Lehrte (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 Comment Please have a look to the right. IMO it is a touch of magenta (CAs). May be sharpness could be improved too. --XRay 08:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a sharper version. --Hydro 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you. IMO acceptable now. --XRay 06:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserturm Lehrte (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. --Poco a poco 16:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserturm Lehrte (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 07:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Affected:

File:Krugerrand Gold 1 oz 2015 Avers.jpg

Yours sincerely Sreejith K (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Änderungen in Cat. Ruhland

Hallo Hydro, danke für zumindest eine Deiner Änderungen betr. Ortsteil Arnsdorf von Ruhland. Kannst Du mir bitte erklären, wieso Du die Object location entfernt hast? Die hätte ich gern behalten, da es hilfreiche Tools für Kategorien mit Object locations gibt. Viele Grüße --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR, die Koordinaten befinden sich ja im verlinkten Artikel, für die Kategorie war die Object location somit redundant bzw. eine unnötige Informationsüberfrachtung. Schönen Gruß --Hydro (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Turm Kirche Roßdorf (Amöneburg) 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 Schönes Foto, aber könntest Du bitte den Turm in die Vertikale bringen?--Manfred Kuzel 15:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Comment Danke, Du hast recht. Habe des Bild gedreht. --Hydro 19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfekt, Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 04:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Friedhof Schröck Kruzifix.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 07:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Schröck (Marburg) 3b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 16:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kruzifix Schröck 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 12:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Villa Arpker Straße 14, Immensen (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Villa Arpker Straße 14, Immensen (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 07:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St.-Antonius-Kirche Immensen innen 1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Haddamshausen (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 11:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Evangelische Kirche Fronhausen 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. PumpkinSky 00:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Haddamshausen (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. --Hilarmont 22:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Haddamshausen (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. --Peulle 07:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Haddamshausen (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. PumpkinSky 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

„needing“

Hi Hydro, danke, dass Du Dich auch an der Kategorisierung der vielen Panoramio-Bilder beteiligst. Mir ist dabei aufgefallen (konkretes Beispiel: File:Dutenhofen_-_panoramio.jpg), dass Du zwar Kategorien vergibst, aber die beiden Wartungskategorien Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of 2017-07-07 und Photos from Panoramio ID 1372576 needing categories nicht entfernst. Ist das Absicht? Viele Grüße, --Emha (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emha, nee, war keine Absicht. Ist mir aber auch irgendwann aufgefallen und seitdem habe ich die Kategorien in der Regel entfernt – es sei denn, die Kategorisierung erschien mir noch ausbaubar. Aber danke für den Hinweis! Schöne Grüße --Hydro (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Friedhof Fronhausen (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 Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Evangelische Kirche Fronhausen 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 Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Evangelische Kirche Fronhausen 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 -- Spurzem 09:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eingang HNO-Klinik Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 21:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserband Ketzerbach Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marburg Biegenstraße Kurve.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Basotxerri 15:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Deutschland!

Hallo Hydro!

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments 2017! Das Organisationsteam freut sich über mehr als 20.000 Bilder von deutschen Bau- und Kulturdenkmalen, die in diesem Jahr hochgeladen wurden, und möchte sich ganz herzlich bei Dir für deinen Beitrag zum weltweit größten, von Ehrenamtlichen organisierten, Fotowettbewerb bedanken!

Du hast noch bis zum 15. Oktober die Gelegenheit, Wettbewerbsbeiträge anderer Fotografen im Rahmen der Vorjury zu sichten und zu bewerten. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du dich daran beteiligst und mithilfst, die besten Bilder des diesjährigen Wettbewerbs auszuwählen. Gern kannst Du auch deine und andere Bilder in Wikipedia einbinden.

Fotos bewerten »

Bilder in die Wikipedia einbinden »

Nochmals vielen Dank für deine Beiträge. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch in Zukunft die Wikipedia bebilderst! Solltest du Fragen haben, so kannst du dich gerne an infowikilovesmonuments.de wenden.

(Martin Rulsch (WMDE) im Namen des Organisationsteams von Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland, 9. Oktober 2017)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skulptur Marburg Gerhard-Jahn-Platz (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. --Capricorn4049 15:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skulptur Marburg Gerhard-Jahn-Platz (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. --Berthold Werner 10:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elisabethkirche (Marburg) Modell (6).jpg

Moin! Bei dem o.a. Bild kann ich leider keine nennenswerte Verbesserung in der Schärfe erkennen. Entweder habe ich Tomaten auf den Augen, mein Cache verarscht mich oder Du hast die gleiche Version wie vorher hochgeladen. Hilf mir bitte mal ein wenig auf die Sprünge. Das Bild und das Motiv sind wirklich richtig gut, aber ich sehe im rechten Teil immer nur unscharfe Modellteile. ;-) Viele Grüße --Dirtsc (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moin! Nee, das neue Bild ist schon ein gutes Stück schärfer. Die Dateigröße ist durch die Schärfung auch von 13 auf 16 MB angewachsen, vergleiche unten die beiden Versionen. Aber in der Tat könnte es rechts noch etwas schärfer sein. Da hätte ich die Blende mehr schließen sollen. Weitere Nachschärfung würde unnatürlich wirken. Schöne Grüße --Hydro (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Häuser am Rudolphsplatz und Pilgrimstein Marburg (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. --Basotxerri 09:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Hallo! Danke für deine Korrekturen u. a. bei File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 6796-8.jpg. Ich hätte vielleicht früher eine Info geben, aber auf deine erste Korrektur hin (Danke!) habe ich bereits alles angepasst. Die Quelle ist mein privater Datenbestand und damit die EXIF-Daten. Mein Bot benötigt nur leider bis zu rund sechs Wochen, bis die Korrektur zieht. Und dann ist es auch sichtbar. Solche Dinge mache ich lieber per Bot. Das ist gründlicher und weniger langweilig. Auch wenn es wohl die letzte Korrekturrunde sein wird. (Sei bitte nicht enttäuscht, der Bot fügt auch die Leerzeile hinter DEFAULTSORT wieder ein. Daran wird allerdings sowieso ständig geändert, einer setzt die Leerzeile, der nächste entfernt sie wieder.) --XRay ^talk 14:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Häuser am Rudolphsplatz und Pilgrimstein Marburg (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --GT1976 12:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moschee in Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The typical traditional German mosque . Sharpness could be better but OK for me. I think I would crop out the disturbing balcony on the left handside. --Basotxerri 19:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hexenturm Kirchhain (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herzlichen Glückwunsch!

Hiermit überreichen wir

Hydro

die Urkunde für die erfolgreiche Teilnahme am Wettbewerb

Wiki Loves Monuments
2017 in Deutschland

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hexenturm Kirchhain (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. --Trougnouf 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hexenturm Kirchhain (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 09:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sonnenforum Cölbe Wagner (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Opel Oldtimer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 00:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Benetton Ford Schumacher.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 11:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ferrari Vodafone Schumacher (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. --Peulle 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ferrari Vodafone Schumacher (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 09:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What type is it? -- Spurzem 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mercedes F1 W03 Petronas Schumacher (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 Could be a little sharper, and less noisy, but alright --Daniel Case 23:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! DVAG Marburg Brunnen (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 Support Good quality. (Composition could be better. Disturbing elements in the background.) --XRay 13:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mercedes 300 SL Cabrio.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --GT1976 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! VW-Bus T1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 22:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Citroën Kombi Oldtimer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 20:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Opel GT Dreihausen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 --Halavar 21:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Renault 4 Dreihausen (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Peulle 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schloss Friedelhausen (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 trifle more exposed than it needs to be, though, IMO --Daniel Case 04:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QIC

Wie hab ich mir diese Aktion zu erklären? --Code (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ablehnende Begründung war mir einleuchtend, deshalb Vorschlag zurückgezogen. War das Verfahren so nicht in Ordnung? --Hydro (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normalerweise verwendet man das Template {{withdrawn}} und lässt den Bot das Bild beizeiten entfernen. Dann landet es auch als zurückgezogen im Archiv. Zumal auch ein zurückgezogenes auf das 5-Bilder-Limit pro Tag angerechnet wird. Das von Dir neu nominierte Bild weist im Übrigen die gleichen Probleme auf. --Code (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das hatte ich auch irgendwann schon Mal versucht, bin da aber an der Syntax gescheitert. Ein reines |{{withdrawn}} --~~~~ reicht da jedenfalls nicht. --Hydro (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kugelkirche Marburg 01 Orgel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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--Lmbuga 09:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Sichertshausen (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 Quality is high enough for Q1, but the tree at the right side is very shadowed --Michielverbeek 08:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koordinaten gerundet

Du hattest kürzlich bei c:File:04103-Kamenz-1903-Kirche_und_alter_Wallturm-Brück_&_Sohn_Kunstverlag.jpg die Koordinaten gerundet und ein paar unnötige Zeilenvorschübe gelöst. Ich war mir nicht bewusst, dass das locator tool soviel unnötiges reinschreibt und hatte es einfach genutzt ohne es zu kontrollieren. Müsste das jetzt nicht bei allen Bildern erledigt werden, die mit diesem Tool mit Koordinaten versehen wurden? Das würde in meinem Falle fast alle Dateien der c:Category:Postcards of Kamenz published by Brück & Sohn betreffen. --PaulT (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn man Wert auf Feinheiten und Ästhetik legt, ja. Aber im Grunde genommen sind das ja "nur" Schönheitsfehler. Ich hatte diese auch nur als Beiwerk einer Rechtschreibkorrektur behoben. --Hydro (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Wolfshausen (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 -- Spurzem 11:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Wolfshausen (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 Quality is high enough for Q1, but whole photo is a bit overexposed --Michielverbeek 23:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mercury Cougar Oldtimer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 11:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wehr in Marburg-Wehrda (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. --XRay 05:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hessisches Staatsarchiv Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Haus Universitätsstraße Marburg (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 messy picture. But good enough for me.--Famberhorst 15:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bahnhof Marburg Portal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Berthold Werner 10:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Alte Universität und Universitätskirche Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Bgag 01:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bahnhof Marburg 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 Composition is okay and QI for me. --Milseburg 15:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kinos Studio Cinema Edison Capitol Marburg (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality --PJDespa 21:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fünfstämmige Rosskastanie Marburg 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 No good background but good quality and VI as I think -- Spurzem 20:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Martin-Luther-Schule (Marburg) 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Support A little pale, but OK Daniel Case Wed, 02 May 2018 03:39:04 GMT

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Baum Grindelmühle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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. --Moroder 11:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hämeenlinna Market Square

Hi! In ”Category:Hämeenlinna Market Square” you had reverted my key edit from "Hämeenlinna" to "Hameenlinna" (Häme means Tavastia region, hame means a skirt). Is there a specific reason for this choise of a letter? A and Ä are two different letters in Finnish alphabet, and this particular town is indeed Hämeenlinna with "ä". Is there some wiki rule that we should use A instead of Ä and O instead of Ö? Thanks! Niera (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)~[reply]

Hi! Yes, there is a rule, see en:Help:Category#Sorting_category_pages. Greetings --Hydro (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brunnen Kastanienrondell Bad Nauheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Podzemnik 14:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Johanneskirche Bad Nauheim 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sprudelhof Bad Nauheim (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 Q. --Lmbuga 11:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sprudelhof Bad Nauheim (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. --Peulle 11:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sprudelhof Bad Nauheim (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. --Jacek Halicki 21:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sprudelhof Bad Nauheim (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, missig exif --Trougnouf 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am using a good sharpening program, which unfortunately removes the Exif information. --Hydro 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bilder Lizenzhinweis

Sehr geehrter Hydro,

wir würden gerne einige Bilder auf unserer neuen Internetseite verwenden.

Leider haben wir nicht die Möglichkeit den Lizenzhinweis direkt unterhalb des Bildes zu platzieren.

Bitte kontaktieren Sie mich per Mail, dann zeige ich Ihnen gerne eine mögliche Variante.

Vielen Dank!

Stefanie Krämer, Hotel Marburger Hof, [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarburgerHof (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserspeier Elisabethkirche Marburg (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Support Good quality. EXIF data would be nice. --XRay 05:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I use a good sharpening program, which unfortunately removes the exif data. Thanks to your comment I searched and found a program to insert these again. Thank you! I uploaded a new version. --Hydro 20:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserspeier Elisabethkirche Marburg (5).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserspeier Elisabethkirche Marburg (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 03:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bewachsene Straßenlaterne in Marburg (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Support Good quality. --TheRunnerUp 20:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bewachsene Straßenlaterne in Marburg (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment looks oversharpened to me --Carschten 21:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it looks oversharpened in the previews, but in my opinion it is well sharpened in full size. --Hydro 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral seems also oversharpened in full size to me. But I'm not really sure about it, someone other may evaluate this image. --Carschten 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --Yann 13:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Riesenrad Elisabethmarkt Marburg (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality, but the car at the left spoils the composition a bit --Michielverbeek 08:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bahnhof Marburg 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. --George Chernilevsky 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fünfstämmige Rosskastanie Marburg 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Isiwal 08:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Riesenrad Elisabethmarkt Marburg (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Noise reduction recommended. --Ermell 07:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I uploaded an improved version. --Hydro 19:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marburg Elisabethmarkt 2017 (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Isiwal 14:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marburger Schloss und ehemalige landgräfliche Kanzlei.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, 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 04:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brunnen Skulptur UKGM Marburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another 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. --Basile Morin 04:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Easter Bunny

@Hydro: imo this category indeed should be renamed Category:Easter Bunnies. Can you take care of that? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the renaming and wait for a bot to do it. Because of the numerous pictures in the category, I can not make the shift myself. Best regards --Hydro (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
To perform file name swaps.
When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dateiverschiebung

Hallo,

auch wenn's relativ lange her ist und ich auch nicht mehr aktiv bin, so finde ich es doch etwas unangenehm, wenn jemand mit der Begründung eines Dateinamensfehlers die von mir hochgeladenen Dateien verschiebt, ohne genau hinzuschauen.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:St%C3%A4dtische_Stra%C3%9Fenbahn_Karlsruhe_Linie_E_DSC_6756.jpg&oldid=87314044

Wenn ich in Dateinamen keine Umlaute, kein ß und Sonderzeichen verwende, denke ich mir schon was dabei.

Grüße --Eva Kröcher (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, der Umlaut und das ß waren nur Beiwerk, die Verschiebung erfolgte aufgrund des fehlenden s in "Karlruhe". Grüße --Hydro (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niederwetter (2).jpg

File:Niederwetter (2).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

2003:DD:9F2F:8D00:990C:E445:7106:528D 22:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article § 59 of the German copyright law, which states that "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance."

As with all other “limits of copyright by legally permitted uses”, no changes to the actual work are permitted under § 62 of the German copyright law (UrhG).

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama for more information.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Hydro (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niederwetter (1).jpg

File:Niederwetter (1).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

2003:DD:9F2F:8D00:990C:E445:7106:528D 23:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article § 59 of the German copyright law, which states that "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance."

As with all other “limits of copyright by legally permitted uses”, no changes to the actual work are permitted under § 62 of the German copyright law (UrhG).

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama for more information.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Hydro (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Roßberg (Ebsdorfergrund) 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3M für Hütten-Lemma

Hallo Hydro, wärst Du bitte mal so nett, auf de:Wikipedia:Dritte Meinung#Wilhelmshütte bei Biedenkopf bzw. auf de:Diskussion:Wilhelmshütte bei Biedenkopf#Lemma-Wahl vorbei zu schauen, falls Du dazu eine Meinung hast und diese kundtun magst? Ich schreibe Dich an, weil Du in der Gegend schon mal fotografiert hast. Beste Dank und Grüße, --Emha (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mardorf (Amöneburg) Kruzifix (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
Support Good quality. --Carschten 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File(s) appeared in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter

Hello Hydro, it seems that your latest changes or uploads of the file(s) Miłakowo10.p.jpg broke a template. This assumption has been made because the file(s) appeared in the maintenance Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. To fix this issue please check this category for further information. If the file(s) is/are not contained in the maintenance category anymore someone else already did the work and you can ignore this message. Thank you for your cooperation. --ArndBot (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Thanks & sorry --Hydro (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why moved

Can't figure out why you did this. If moved at all, the grammar should have been fixed: "Crown Prince" etc not "crown prince" etc. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "in" was double. --Hydro (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. See that now. Next time you move it (?) use "Crown Prince" if still in English! Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlton Kette grüner Hintergund.JPG

File:Carlton Kette grüner Hintergund.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: CSD G2 (Unused and implausible, or broken redirect))

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Meno25.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:074 Vokswagen Golf GTI.jpg

File:074 Vokswagen Golf GTI.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 77.166.197.200.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prälat Moll bei Präsentation des Martyrologium des 20. Jarhunderts.jpg

File:Prälat Moll bei Präsentation des Martyrologium des 20. Jarhunderts.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: None)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Vladislav Khebnikov.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]