User talk:Mosbatho/Archive 3

Archives 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Recent discussions

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! East German W50 LS tractor unit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Velvet 08:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ChSDM ЧСДМ B-140 front loader.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Velvet 08:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft in service with South Korea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Should be ROKAF not South Korea. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  ROKAF is the Airforce of South Korea. So South Korea is ok. Mosbatho (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I disagree. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support. I see no reason to decline. What should be wrong? For me this image is useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I'm fine with "South Korea". —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMI Milchwerk Winzer, 2021.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hitachi U106AL crawler crane.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ilyushin Il-76 (CCCP-76511) rear undercarriage.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --VileGecko 13:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Jacqueline Ray Photo

Hi @mosbatho. You removed my image and I 100% agree with you on that. Thank you. I am still learning and want to make sure I do things correctly. I am having a very hard time finding an image of Jacqueline Ray. I searched everywhere and could only find one for-profit site with licenses. Is there any advice or direction you can offer? Should I just let this go and move on. It's not a big deal, but trying to learn. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Table at dorsia (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to hear of you! No problem, you will handle this. Kindest regards, Mosbatho (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. We will see what happens. Table at dorsia (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

They did respond. Unfortunately they did not agree to the release. I feel that's really it as there are not really any photos of Jacqueline Ray. Any experienced advice you can offer? I am assuming just move on, it happens. Table at dorsia (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, Table at dorsia, I'm sorry you received negative feedback regarding the use of the photo. Of course it's always better to have a photo to enrich a Wikipedia entry with, but if one can't find an image that is available under a free license, then there's nothing you can do. Best regards, Mosbatho (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Just wanted to check and make sure there was nothing I was missing. Have a great weekend. Table at dorsia (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi Mosbatho, thanks for all your work here. I would like to ask you to reconsider this. I have uploaded a short series of images: Constant Nieuwenhuys, juli 1966 - (1).jpg, Constant Nieuwenhuys, juli 1966 (2).jpg and Constant Nieuwenhuys, juli 1966 (3) in the same order as they where originally made. Due to my dyslectia I didn't notice the mistake in the coding of the first image. Now they are not shown in the category in the same order as originally taken, which would be prefered. -- Mdd (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have complied with your request and moved the image accordingly because it is also a recent upload. I wish you all the best, Mosbatho (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename Rózsa Ignácz portré

Dear Mosbatho! Please also rename the base file: File:Albert Szent-Györgyi and Eszter Pécsi, Graphisoft Park U4, 2016 Aquincum.jpg. I have written the explanations in the text. I hope it is good and understandable. Thank you very much for your help! --Bizottmány (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bizottmány, no problem, I have just done it according to your request that made sense! Kindest regards, Mosbatho (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mosbatho! Thank you very much! :-)) --Bizottmány (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Comment "Category" shouldn't be visible (see how others avoid showing the word by looking at any other nomination on this page in edit mode), and "new" is not part of the scope, as this might still be a valued image in 30 years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You're right, fixed. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Isn't it premature to nominate it? The building has just been completed and this is the first image of it on Commons. Presumably many others will follow, at which point choosing a VI would make more sense. While this is an important perspective, the view from the Danube side with the main entrance would be more representative. --ELEKHH^T 03:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support The image is currently the only one of this building which we have in the commons, usable and used in an article. Of course, it is possible that there will be still better photos at some time. But here, in my opinion, we do not have to judge what may come, but what currently is. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You realise that this would mean that if you are first to take an image of something, no matter how bad the image, is becoming 'Valued' even if a week later none values it? Doesn't that self-undermine the value of the 'Valued' title? --ELEKHH^T 09:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about a bad picture. The picture is good and perhaps we will have to wait a long time to get a better one from the same perspective. So how long do you want to wait – ten, twenty, fifty or even more years before you think you will find the really most valuable photo? -- Spurzem (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Spurzem is right. This picture is useful. If a more useful picture in scope is uploaded, we can have a Most Valuable Review. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Agree with Spurzem and Ikan that we can only evaluate an image for VI based on whatever is uploaded to Commons at the time of nomination. As long as the image meets the 6 criteria per COM:VIRC, it can be VI, even as the only image. Per Ikan, MVR will take care of the future if a better one is uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRDN711 (talk • contribs)

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

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you for contributing a broad variety of images under free licenses! (Some of them got used for my twitter tweets) JoostWilliams (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --Mosbatho (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ATR 42 of AirSWIFT departing from Palawan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 bit soft, but OK for QI. --Palauenc05 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Deutsche Raumfahrtausstellung in Morgenröthe-Rautenkranz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hillopo2018 07:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Question Do you suppose "aerial" should be in the scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  Well, does that make it better? --Mosbatho (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Better in what sense? The point would be to limit the scope, so that it could be possible to have a VI of a ground-level view of the port as well as an aerial view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I have changed it accordingly. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks. By far best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Großenhain - Öhringer Straße - Sowjetisches Ehrenmal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 unsharp (fixable) --Ezarate 17:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)  Done Thank you. You were right. --Mosbatho 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ezarate 11:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Großenhain - Öhringer Straße - Sowjetischer Friedhof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hillopo2018 12:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 1S32 radar at the National Museum of Military History, Bulgaria.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.Very sharp and many details --Hillopo2018 05:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
1S32 radar unit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The denied renaming request

Hello.

You denied my request to rename the File:Mariolatry, Lady of Fatima Virgin Mary idol procession.jpg because it did not comply with renaming guidelines in your view (and you questioned the title being offensive). I have to disagree on this. As can be seen here, even though everything does not always have to be neutral, neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation. The image is about a Catholic tradition, yet its title uses a word that was created to attack Catholic tradition and directly accuses Catholics of idol worship (which is a pretty serious accusation for Christians, such as Catholics, which makes it offensive) and contains an unnecessary biased view that happens to also be only a minority opinion among Christians. I just see no reason to keep the title as it is. Not only is it offensive to Catholics, Wikimedia Commons is simply not a place for promoting certain religious views when that is completely unnecessary. Finncle (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is it really an offensive against Catholics? Or is just your feeling that it sounds offensive. If you can provide certain evidence for that offensive argument, place a new renaming request and I will move the file. Regards and thank you for your assistance. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for a late response. It is somewhat difficult to give concrete evidence for this but I think that the fact that the word was created by Protestants to describe idolatry (Knowles, E. (2005). Mariolatry. In The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 23 Aug. 2022, from https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780198609810.001.0001/acref-9780198609810-e-4357.) already shows it. But these quotes might give you more context:

By Protestants the word is often employed in an abusive sense of what they consider the excessive devotion to the BVM in the Catholic Church. ("Mariolatry." In The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Louth, Andrew. : Oxford University Press, 2022. https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780199642465.001.0001/acref-9780199642465-e-4534.)

they accuse Catholics of Mariolatry. ("Mariolatry." In Oxford Dictionary of English, edited by Stevenson, Angus. : Oxford University Press, 2010. https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/m_en_gb0500630.)

Of course people can think whatever they want when it comes to honoring Virgin Mary or religious stuff in general, that is not the problem, but again, I just think that Wikimedia Commons should not take a basically anti-Catholic position in its Catholic content. Finncle (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. That sounds convincing to me. The best thing to do is to bring up the postponement request again. Best regards, Mosbatho (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I did that. All the best. --Finncle (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove  Done. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2022

Hallo Mosbatho,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2022 findet zum zwölften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) statt. Dabei können Bau-, Boden- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich gern wieder ein, dieses Jahr mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Sieger 2021 – Schloss Langenburg

Vergangenes Jahr hat Matthias Süßen mit einer Drohnenaufnahme von Schloss Langenburg im Morgennebel gewonnen. Welcher Fotograf wird dieses Jahr sein Nachfolger?

Nach WLM 2022 sind wieder zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden – zum Beispiel die Denkmallisten in Cloppenburg oder in Oldenburg.

Wir haben dieses Jahr unter dem Motto „Klein aber Oho“ drei Sonderpreise für Kleindenkmale ausgelobt. Damit sollen Fotos prämiert werden, die die unterschätzten Kleindenkmale wie Grenzsteine oder Bildstöcke zeigen.

Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Anfang September 2022 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg beim größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z ^thomas 06:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tofaş 131 Şahin 1600 initial version.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 17:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abendmahlsglocke am Lutherplatz, Döbeln.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Jsamwrites 17:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Katholische Dreifaltigkeitskapelle in Pleinting.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Please add some more categories to identify the chapel. --Jsamwrites 16:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Thank you! Some more categories added.--Mosbatho 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ADY VL10-494 in Baku.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hillopo2018 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tour du Mémorial Interallié - le Phare de Liège.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hillopo2018 10:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Großenhain - Mozartallee 182.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hillopo2018 10:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Großenhain - Gabelsbergerstraße 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. --Virtual-Pano 08:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Großenhain - Siegelgasse 9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Totally run down and hardly thinkable that this "building" is a listed one. But The quality of the photography is good. --Hillopo2018 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Großenhain - Denkmal für die Geschwister Scholl.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hillopo2018 06:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cheomseongdae 첨성대.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Drow male 04:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kath. Wallfahrtskirche zum Gegeißelten Heiland (Steinbergkirche).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Terragio67 03:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tatra T4 tram in Sofia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 21:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rothaumühle 1 Museumsdorf Nr. 2 - Kegelbahn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 05:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tupolev Tu-22M1, Riga Aviation Museum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. But a shipload of rubbish around that aircraft. --Hillopo2018 07:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC) TC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for moving files from the khteWisconsin Flickr stream!

These files had really bad names which polluted a lot of searches. Giving them better names was a major effort involving at least 7 file movers. Together you moved more than a thousand files. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you're welcome. Thank you for improving such issues. Regards, Mosbatho (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dornier Do 24 T fuselage on display at the Technik Museum Speyer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 07:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)