User talk:Dein Freund der Baum

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Dein Freund der Baum!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour 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 (direct access). You can also contact an administrator (find an active one) on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you're a Wikipedian, you might find Commons:For Wikipedians useful.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. 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 without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply mark it like this: {{rename|the_new_name|numeric_reason_for_renaming}} and wait for an administrator or filemover to rename it. Do you want to have your picture removed, for other reasons? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Hallo Dein Freund der Baum, gilt das nur für File:Julie Monaco 3 (DFdB).JPG oder auch für die anderen Fotos von ihr? --Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, gilt nur für File:Julie Monaco 3 (DFdB).JPG, die anderen dürften passen. Danke! Gruß --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VIC

Hello, Thank you for having nominated a picture as a Valued Image Candidate. There is a request about the scope, could you please look over Commons:Valued image candidates/Surinam toad (DFdB).jpg? Thanks in advance. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! Regards, --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Surinam toad

Ihr Foto ist sehr gut, ist der Anwendungsbereich, die nicht gut war, ich habe mich verändert, und gefördert werden Ihrer Arbeit. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hello, In order to meet criterion 6 (the VIC must be "well categorized at an appropriate level"), I took the liberty of precising the file categorisation (from 'Category:Pipa' to 'Category:Pipa pipa'). I have also reworded the scope according to VI guidelines: "official latin name in italics (vernacular name in brackets)". Last but not least, I have added your image on the page Pipa pipa. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your assistance and support! Regards, --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment about scope: "General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: "official latin name (vernacular name, if applicable)", see Commons:Valued image scope#Animals for further details. --Myrabella (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I suggest that the scope be changed by Pipa pipa --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2010

(UTC)

• or more precisely: "Pipa pipa (Surinam toad)", assuming that the ID is correct (I trust Archaeodontosaurus :-).--Myrabella (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I only know the genus. It said in German "Weibliche Wabenkröte" on the sign, which means female en:Surinam toad or en:pipa, as far as I'm concerned. I thought the picture would be very useful for all species of pipa although we don't know the exactly species because you can see the eggs and hatching animals on the back of the toad. Does someone know whether the toad on this picture is a en:Pipa pipa? Regards, --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Female Pipa or Female Pipa with embedded eggs in the back skin or something similar (I know it's no species but it would be similar to If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a "male" scope and a "female" scope can be proposed for the same species. and Subscopes are often relevant to a higher taxonomy level, in which case the precise species is not to be included in the scope. For instance there is a Valued Image for the scope "head of a fly", which basically illustrates the head of any kind of fly.)? Regards, --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Best picture on the scope. Geocode impossible, very useful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Landscape Puchenau HDR (DFdB).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Great sky :) --Herbythyme 13:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Fuschl am See (DFdB).JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment The scope sounds really narrow to me. How about something wider - e.g. "Nervous system of an Amphibia"? --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, I just changed the scope. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Nervous system of a Bufo bufo to Nervous system of an amphibia --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

•  Support I didn't find anything even nearly as interesting within the scope. Geotag is missing, but that is ok since it is a museum shot. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Request I can not find this scope ??? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I took the liberty to create Category:Amphibian nervous systems and associate the nominated image with that new category and link it to the scope, so I think it is OK now. I am wondering if that category name would be a slightly more adequate name for the scope as well? e Or, if the present scope is kept should it not be ...amphibia -> ...amphibian? --Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help! I'm not a native speaker but I think you're right – my dictionary says "amphibian". --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I understood perfectly, Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Maybe the crop could have a little more tight at the lower edge as there are quite some distracting elements there. On the other hand, cropping more would probably lower the compositional values of the photo. File:Günter Wallraff (Jugendmedientage 2006).jpg has less distracting elements, but this charismatic portrait is much more expressive and of superior quality, so this one wins for me. Scope is relevant. Even I had heard the name of this famous German journalist prior to reading a bit more about him in relation to this review. Other criteria fulfilled. --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sciurus vulgaris (DFdB).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Direct flash a bit harsh but otherwise good. --Iotatau 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Josef Pühringer (DFdB).JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Deserves QI status in my view. --MichaelBueker 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Alter Dom Linz (DFdB).JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Oppose-add geotag--Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I don't know if a geotag of a fish in an aquarium in a zoo is that important, but if you think so here it is. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Support best in scope, criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

review

• Outside views from elevated position, high enough to see most of the building without obstacles. Two other images that show the complete church, File:NeuerDom.vomWissensturmaus.Linz.E.JPG and File:Neuer Dom Linz.jpg, have less good perspectives. Documented, categorized and geocoded.  Support --Ikar.us (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Info I have formated the scope properly. Side comment: is there an error in the category name? According to the website of the city of Linz (see [1]), the Old Cathedral in Linz was called "Ignatiuskirche", not "Mariä Himmelfahrt". --Myrabella (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the wrong category – I couldn't find a page saying Alter Dom is called "Mariä Himmelfahrt"; Category:Alter Dom (Linz) is better and analogous to Category:Neuer Dom (Linz). Regards --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks for the fix. It's a pity not to see the Baroque facade in a VI for this scope; however the nominated image is the most valuable of its category IMO, the other views being very partial. Lesser comment : adding an "Object location" might be useful. --Myrabella (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Could you tell me where/how to add the object location? --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as you have added {{Location}}, add {{Object location}} with coordinates of the dome. Is useful for long distance photographs of single objects. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in the scope and the most complete, all criteria are met.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Perhaps the scope should be "Red Bull company headquarters". I thought about a sports team first. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Request about scope As Ikar.us, I was misleaded. I'd suggest to slightly reword the scope, in "Red Bull GmbH headquarters" (it's the company name in fact, see [2] or [3]). --Myrabella (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment GmbH is the same as Ltd. or S.A.R.L.. Will international readers understand it as denoting a company? And often there is a KG or AG with the same name and the same address, so a general "company" is som etimes more comprehensive. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds sensible. Not everybody reads economic press. A problem is that "Red Bull company" was also the name of a theatre troupe (see: [4]). But I may admit that I am really quibbling here. --Myrabella (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I see. Include the word beverage somehow? --Ikar.us (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Request about scope (reformulated) Per Ikar.us, I'd suggest to slightly reword the scope, in "Red Bull company headquarters". --Myrabella (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed the scope to Myrabella's suggestion, is it ok now? --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Red Bull Headquarters to Red Bull company headquarters --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

---

• Confirm my  Support. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Most valuable for the scope, all criteria met. + Info : artistic designer added in description. I learnt that for this project, "he designed an ensemble reminiscent of craters after a volcanic eruption." (see [5] p.20) among various works for this company. --Myrabella (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm my  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

• Added category. Very good image.  Support --Ikar.us (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! But do you really think it is useful to have this image tagged with Category:Peuerbach? I would say that there is nothing to see which could be connotated with Peuerbach, you can not even see the thearpy institution – only Josef Pühringer. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It was an event in Feuerbach, and somehow important for Feuerbach, I thought? --Ikar.us (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It was a normal opening of a new part of the therapy center where the governor hold a short speech about how important this center would be for disable people and expressed his gratitude. So I think the picture shows Pühringer at a speech that could be hold any other day at any other place (I think he does such things nearly every day). What do you think? --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, it was no special event for him - but for the town? I don't know, feel free to remove the category. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on my picture I hope it becomes quality image. Letartean (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't do that much. And I'm quite shure it will become a QI! Regards --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Neuer Dom Linz (DFdB).JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments DOF imo a bit short but main object is in focus --Mbdortmund 13:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Patroller !

Counter Vandalism Unit

Hi Dein Freund der Baum !

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller ! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As might know already, the patrolling functionality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users on Commons.

We could use you help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by checking an Anonymous edits checklist and patrol a day-part. There is a short video tutorial which addresses some things you may not know.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC: #wikimedia-commons. –Krinkle^talk 23:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Lemur catta (DFdB).JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Good and useful. --Cayambe 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Komma

Nach der neuen Rechtschreibung ist dieses Komma nicht notwendig. Aber schaden tut es auch niemandem :-). --Dschwen (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Agoncillo_-_Würth_Rioja,_Museo_28_-_Christo_crop.JPG

File:Agoncillo_-_Würth_Rioja,_Museo_28_-_Christo_crop.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

h-stt !? 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)