User talk:Grand-Duc

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Commons, Grand-Duc!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png 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.

Icon apps query.svg 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.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics 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, 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
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png 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?)

--Siebrand 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

FP Promotion[edit]

Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 5df67a7f8479a505a789d80316221839[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File source is not properly indicated: File:HMS_Naiad.png[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:HMS_Naiad.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:HMS_Naiad.png]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

dave pape (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Considérations diverses[edit]

J’ai eu le temps de vérifier hier soir l’os temporal, il n’y a pas de problème mais j’ai rajouté le bandeau d’image large. Le délai est passé pour VI, je la représenterai dès que la première image sera effacée.


Tu n’es pas familier de VI, car ton scope pour ta coupe de maïs n’est pas correct. Dans la formulation actuelle tu demandes que cette image soit la référence pour toutes les photos de maïs, ce qui est un peu excessif. Il faut réduire le scope à : « maïs micro structure » ou quelques chose d’approchant.


File:Bellis perennis full plant.jpg Pourrait faire une très belle image VI !

Bien amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour tes "considérations diverses"!
Effectivement, c'était ma première nomination d'une œuvre sur COM:VI, c'est logique que je ne suis pas le plus familier avec les procédures. Je viens de changer le scope vers "Zea mays, Vascular bundle" comme proposé par Llez.
La pâquerette sur VI? Vraiment? J'ai créé cette image pour une sorte de concours inofficiel sur les Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder, les critiques ont été plutôt négatives (profondeur de champ insuffisante: trop grandes portions de la plante floues et les pétales sont surexposées), mais si tu estimes qu'une nomination en vaut la peine, je veux bien essayer ma chance. :-) Salutations amicales, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Zea mays(312, 5x).JPG
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:
Zea mays, Vascular bundle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Bellis perennis full plant.jpg
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:
Bellis perennis (Common Daisy).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Grand-Duc!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving files without good reason[edit]

I see that you are moving files with the reason "anti-spam measure". It is not a valid reason¨for renaming a file. Contributors my require attribution. Please revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the uploader has got attribution, in its right place in the file description. I would not object to an uploader's name as part of a file name, since it is a fine way to get a unique one, as long as it is not prolific as in the case of Schoci, where it is obviously a part of a SEO measure - I've noted that you've read the corresponding village pump thread. I think that my moves are covered by policies: COM:SCOPE, see the quote „Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: [...] Advertising or self-promotion.“, furthermore clarified by Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not a place to advertise, Commons:Watermarks also present a justificating element. Admittedly, there is no clear "go" in COM:FR, but I think that my moves constitute a legit measure against this SEO and advertising try. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What difference is there with for example Shankbone's photos? There are other examples, I believe even some admins. There is no justification in COM:FR; file names are not that terribly important. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess that you mean User:David Shankbone. Well, for the point of putting the name of the uploader in the filename, there is no difference, see my statement from above: "I would not object to an uploader's name as part of a file name, since it is a fine way to get a unique one,[...]". But here, the aim of the fashion of the file name is clear for me: publishing the own name or the own homepage URL as often as possible for advertising purposes. The whole behaviour of the user is fitting to this: only releasing quite small images (compared to the resolution of his Nikon D80), watermarking them and even stating that he do not want to release "unprotected images"! I think that there is (maybe momentarily) no need for "bigger guns" to deal with this matter like asking for a block or something similar ("maybe momentarily" because he tried this namedropping on Wikipedias [at least EN and DE] too: adding his images in suitable articles and writing his name in the image caption), but that I am entitled on the basis of COM:SCOPE, Commons:What Commons is not and Commons:Watermarks to make use of the filemover right to counter situations that I understand as infringements of those policies. Well, that may sound a little bit pompous, I agree (I miss somewhat the feeling of the language and so the ability to express exactly what I mean in Englisch), but on the other hand: are those file moves such a big deal? While moving files, I even put the initials "SG" of "Sascha Grabow" in several filenames, when I thought that there could be possibly another image of the same name, e.g. File:Cactus Flower SG.jpg. Well, I think that I thoroughly explained my reasons for those moves by now, so, may I ask you that you'll explain to me your point of view on how severely if at all I infringed on any applicable policy? I do not see a reason to revert to the "original" file names. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You are infringing on COM:FR, you are changing file names for no other reason than "I don't like it". Compare also File:2011-02-22-modellbahn-by-RalfR-19.jpg: his name in the file name, a link to his company web site, and an extensive licensing section with restrictions. What is allowed to Shankbone and to Rolatschek must also be allowed to Grabow. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware that COM:FR is the exclusive place to get justifications for file moves, I relied upon other policies and reasons named above, so it is simply not true that "I don't like" S. Grabow's file names or that this is a reason at all. Ralf does not use his full name "Ralf Roletschek" in the file name, but only a short ("RalfR") and the URL to his own homepage is in the sole place where it is legit in my eyes: in the file description in the "Author" field. In the case of a Creative Commons license, such a URL could be considered as an "attribution party" as per §4 Section C part 1 of the legal code of the CC-By-SA 3.0, so everything is fine. Neither Ralf Roletschek or David Shankbone are so overtly abusing of Commons as advertising space and SEO environment. Of course, their works do have an advertising effect by the intrinsic quality of them, but this is more than outweighed by the same (technical) quality of the provided works (high resolution and no watermarks) in my opinion. Where do you find huge restrictions in Ralf's licensing templates? He uses the License Art Libre / Free Art License, which is something like a "cousin" to the widespread CC-By-SA, made in French and having similar requirements of attribution for a similar degree of commercial usability, in contrast to the GNU licenses. It is simply not so well known as the GDFL and the CC licenses but even possibly better suited for European users, seen that there is no provision for using "any later version, published by [...]" as in the GDFL, a provision that makes it, the GDFL without any strict version number chosen, arguably invalid as per that fact that you can't agree to a contract of which you do not know the terms... Well, I'm drifting off the subject, so... What do you think about S. Grabow's behaviour? Do you conceive that his use of his name and homepage URL in every available place looks really like SEO and advertising, advertising beyond acceptable levels (as shown by Ralf and David [and Diliff, Fir002 and Noodlesnacks with their GDFL-only files in a "teasing" small resolution])? If you do not, I would put/copy our discussion here to the village pump, as I think that more opinions could be valuable. If you do, there is not really a problem left, isn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Watermarks are a problem, file names are not. Not liking Grabow's behaviour is not a reason to rename. Please remove watermarks instead. If you want to copy this somewhere, that is fine with me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
How about joining the discussion at Commons talk:File renaming#Author or website names in filename? Bencherlite (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Toilettenverstopfung II[edit]

Er ist wieder da. Das nervt langsam, sekundierst du? Grüße, --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lohnt ein Mass DR für die ganzen Zeichnungen? Etwaige Fotos würde ich raus lassen nach den Erfahrungen beim letzten Mal, doch könnte ein informeller DR bei den VM nicht zielführend sein. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ich weiß, was du meinst. Warten wir mal kurz ab, wie die Vandalismusmeldung ausgeht. Dann - je nach Lage - starten wir wieder einen Massen-LA mit Verweis auf den letzten.
Was mich unheimlich nervt ist die Tatsache, der der Kerl nicht einmal (egal wie) reagiert oder sich zumindest wundert, warum seine Bilder immer gelöscht werden. Commons verkommt häufiger zum kostenlosen Bilderserver für jeden Scheiß (sozusagen). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

COM:QIC[edit]

Hi Grand-Duc,
wenn du etwas wertungsunabhängig (also wenn es noch ohne promotion und decline abläuft) kommentierst, musst du den Status bei den QI-Kandidaten nicht ändern, die können als "Nomination" stehen bleiben. Denn alle Bilder, die als "Discuss" markiert sind, werden in täglich regelmäßigen Abständen ins Consensual Review abgeschoben, wo es zur Abstimmung und ausführlichen Diksussion unterschiedlicher Meinungen kommt, was ja bei einfachen Kommentaren und Hinweisen noch nicht der Fall ist. Ich habe deswegen die Status bei deinen Kommentaren wieder zurückgestellt. Noch einen schönen Abend --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

AIDAblu Warnemünde 04-07-2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! AIDAblu Warnemünde 04-07-2010.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.

Speedying redirects[edit]

You shouldn't place speedy requests on redirects unless the file was moved shortly after creation. Sources providing links to the original locations at Commons, from outside Commons, require the redirects to remain for proper attribution. Wikis using the InstantCommons feature, to use Commons as their repository, will not have the links updated by CommonsDelinker either. – Adrignola talk 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, normally, I will not ask for a speedy deletion of redirects. But I strongly doubt that there were any outside media making use in the case of my speedyied ones. Do you have checked the contributions of the uploader? In his case, it's frankly more an issue of protecting Commons against some negative publicity than assuring the functionality of any external Wiki: it surely not welcome to have file names that links an innocent e.g. Bolivian child or woman to a more than strange obsession. Please check an old mass DR, read in the last third to get Toilet's MySpace profile for additional clues about it. Also, you may want to confer with the German Wiki admin de:User:Koenraad and the Commons admin User:Bdk with whom I have talked or notified about this matter. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


File tagging File:Steamship Morro Castle on fire.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Steamship Morro Castle on fire.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


File tagging File:Steamship Morro Castle Burned out hulk.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Steamship Morro Castle Burned out hulk.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

AIDAblu Warnemünde 04-07-2010.jpg
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:
Sphinx class cruise ship AIDAblu.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Portalkran im Stadthafen Rostock reworked GD-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portalkran im Stadthafen Rostock reworked GD-1.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Panorama Neptunwerft crane and hall 2010-10-26.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Panorama Neptunwerft crane and hall 2010-10-26.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[edit]

Leicaflex SL2 2.jpg
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:
Leicaflex SL2.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Auch so ein Fall..[edit]

Abend Grand-Duc, das hier wollte ich dir zeigen. Dagegen ist unser Toilettenbenutzer noch harmlos. Mann,mann,mann...--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dass die Porzellanschüssel harmloser sei, würde ich so nicht sagen, Menschen mit einem Sendungsbewusstsein können gefährlich sein. Ich habe mir mal ein paar Bilder angeschaut, ROFL. Allerdings könnte so ein generalisierter LA gegen alles so wirken wie DDT in der Landwirtschaft, nämlich Kollateralschäden hervorrufen / den MDR erfolglos werden lassen. In der Summe haben wir es klar mit einem Menschen mit exhibitionistischen Trieben zu tun, doch finde ich nicht alle Bilder sicher out of scope. Ein Katheterbild und ein Windelbild könnten, wenn es keine Alternativen gibt und bei sparsamerer und akkuraterer Kategorisierung durchaus eine hiesige Daseinsberechtigung haben. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Findest du? Ich denke, Leute mit so einem eindeutigen Benutzernamen (kleines Baby), die zig Varianten ihrer - wie soll ich sagen - Neigung darstellen, natürlich nicht zu einer anderen Mitarbeit sich bemüßigt fühlen, und demonstrativ "no dick" auf ihre Platikwindel schreiben, doch sehr fehl am Platze hier. Da kommt's auf eine Windel auch nicht an. Toilette hat immerhin noch "normale" Landschaftsbilder und brauchbare Artikelbilder geliefert.
Eines der Hauptrprobleme hier bei commons ist sicherlich, dass hier alles kostenlos ist, und ne gewisse Fernwirkung hat. Was ich immer bemerkt habe: Je seltsamer der Name (Bild, Uploader) im Bereich Sexualität/Körper, desto löschfähiger seine Uploads.
Viele Grüße, --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Stitchinggesuch[edit]

Unbearbeitet, runterskaliert mit EXIF

Hi,

du scheinst ganz gut mit Hugin umgehen zu können. Kannst Du mal probieren, ob Du diesen beiden Dateien [1] fehlerfrei zusammengefügt bekommst? Bei mir ist im Ergebnis der linke Pfeiler nie ganz zusammen zu kriegen. Vielleicht hast Du mehr Erfolg als ich. Danke und Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Taxi, hui, das ist eine ganz nette Knacknuss. Ich versuche mich mal dran. Kann ich aber noch ein Bild mit heilen EXIF bekommen? Das erleichtert/ermöglicht die automatisierte Übernahme von Bildwinkel, Brennweite und Crop in Hugin. Selbst wenn das eine HDR-Montage ist, kann ich mir mit EXIFTool die EXIF aus einem der Ausgangsbilder in das Stitchingmaterial reinschreiben. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Anbei die gewünschten Daten. EXIF kopiere ich grundsätzlich nicht beim HDR, wenn dann schreibe ich sie von Hand rein, da es sich ja um Belichtungsreihen handelt. Gruß --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Reminder[edit]

Please refrain from editing other users signed comments. --  Docu  at 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't do it unless there is a good reason, like an appearance of a double vote. I did not modify the content of your contribution, only the formatting. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Even if you have the possibility to edit any users comment on a Wiki, it's not something you may do. Especially when you have been asked not to and reverted.
BTW, it would help if you would respond to the proposal at hand rather than voting based on some "I believe" assumption. --  Docu  at 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I was never asked not to do it. As for the revert, I assume that you refer to [2], well, I talked with Tryphon about this very subject without getting an opposing opinion, I am not alone with the assumption of a double vote. Regards, Grand-Duc 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point, you are ask not to edit signed comments now. You must have noticed though that your previous edit was restored. Rehman is known to do inappropriate edits to discussion pages, thus they are hardly a sample to follow.
Personally, I think it's a bit insulting to others to assume that they can't assess discussions. Besides that, you should still try to express an opinion in regards to the proposal instead of purely voting based on an idea that is not being proposed. Consider revising or removing your own comment. --  Docu  at 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Chroicocephalus ridibundus high key Kabutzenhof 2011-01-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Larus ridibundus high key Kabutzenhof 2011-01-25.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.

File:Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg[edit]

Hallo Großherzog;) Da die Bearbeitung für das Bild offenbar gesperrt ist: Könntest du bitte Cat. Ports of Rostock bitte in Stadthafen Rostock ändern und Cat. Winter in Rostock dazufügen. Gruß. --Schiwago (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Screen_defektes_Monobook.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Screen_defektes_Monobook.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Broc (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Screenshot_histogramm_Larus_ridibundus_Low_Key_2010-10-18_Crop_rule_of_thirds-GD.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Screenshot_histogramm_Larus_ridibundus_Low_Key_2010-10-18_Crop_rule_of_thirds-GD.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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Broc (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Weil am Rhein - Friedenskirche.jpg[edit]

Hi,

die Verzerrungen sind bei diesem Bild unvermeidbar, will man den Glockenturm und das Haupthaus zusammen zeigen. Geht man weiter weg stehen einem unvermeidbar noch mehr Bäume im Weg. Ich finde die Realität durch die Verzerrungen aber vertretbar; sie entrücken die Realität nicht derart, dass wir das Bild für enzyklopädische Zwecke unbrauchbar wäre. Die Brückenbilder von der Dreiländerbrücke dürften stärker verzerrt sein als dieses. Das Rauschen kann ich leicht beseitigen. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Taxi! Mich stören nicht so sehr die geometrischen Verzerrungen, die beispielsweise aus einem (Tür-)Rechteck ein Parallelogramm machen, da korrigierend einzugreifen kann gar kontraproduktiv sein. Was ich aber meine, ist, dass man dennoch eine Korrektur von geometrischen Verzerrungen durchführen sollte, und zwar eine Korrektur mit einem auf das Objektiv ausgerichteten Korrekturprofil (automatisiert in Photoshop oder Capture/View NX oder wenn nicht verfügbar halt händisch) mit dem Ziel der Reduzierung der Tonnenverzerrung vornehmen sollte. Magst Du mir mal das RAW mailen? Ich würde mir gerne mal ein paar selbst ausprobierte Entzerrungen anschauen. Die Brückenbilder sind wohl sicher ebenfalls etwas verzerrt, aber in einer gleichmäßig erscheinenden Weise ohne groß sichtbare "Tonne", und das macht den Unterschied, wie ich finde... Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Auf den Unterschied bin ich dann mal gespannt. Wenn ich dazu kommen, schicke ich dir die RAW-Daten heute Abend. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Besser spät als nie: [3] Viel Spaß --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Plateumaris sericea GER-Saxony 2011-06-10.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plateumaris sericea GER-Saxony 2011-06-10.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.

Galilée[edit]

Bonjour.
Merci pour ton examen de ma photo de la tombe de Galilée.
J'ai suivi tes conseils, avec lesquels je suis d'accord.
Le résultat te convient-il ?
Amicalement depuis Paris,--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oui, c'est bien mieux, ainsi. Je supporte la nomination, à présent, comme tu peux voir sur QIC. Salutations de Rostock, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

University Rostock Department of Anatomy single shot cropped GD.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University Rostock Department of Anatomy single shot cropped GD.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Male Anas platyrhynchos breeding plumage three-quarter profile.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Male Anas platyrhynchos breeding plumage three-quarter profile.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Bellis perennis single Macro.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bellis perennis single Macro.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.

File:Pollau_Ansicht.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pollau_Ansicht.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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Schwäbin (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Huhu, Grand-Duc, nachdem ich vor einigen Tagen darauf aufmerksam gemacht wurde und das Teil klasse finde, wollte ich es Dir (anscheinend auch von-de.WP-nach-Commons-Rüberschieber) nicht vorenthalten: Dieser äußerst praktische Feudel könnte auch Dein Commonsleben erleichtern. Vor allem für Nachnutzer (die auf den Button Use this file on the web klicken) ist es wichtig, dass der ursprüngliche Autor an richtiger Stelle genannt wird. Das erlädschd das Script unter anderem auch. --Schwäbin (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Near miss ;-)[edit]

Knapp daneben: [4] - trotzdem danke. Gruß, --Burkhard (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ja, das war mir auch aufgefallen, deswegen hab' ich dann auch gleich bei den hiesigen Adminanfragen um Reparaturhilfe gebeten... ^^ Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Astyanax mexicanus en "Most Valued Review"[edit]

Bonjour Grand Duc, Au sujet de tes images candidates pour le label VI, sous le scope Astyanax mexicanus : le label VI n'étant pas attribué indéfiniment, il est tout à fait possible à une image challenger d'essayer de détrôner la VI en cours pour un "scope" donné. Il suffit simplement de ré-ouvir à la discussion la VI courante et de l'ajouter à la Most Valued Review, ce que j'avais fait, cf. Commons:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list#Astyanax_mexicanus. Pour ce poisson-là, cependant, la VI actuelle reste défendue. J'espère que cela ne te découragera pas ; n'hésite pas à proposer d'autres images au label ! Cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:FNR.RotaremisVehiculum.RomanEmpire.CE390.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FNR.RotaremisVehiculum.RomanEmpire.CE390.SvenLittkowski.001.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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Coatilex (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Neptunwerft - Max-Planck-Institut für Demografie Rostock 2011-06-13.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neptunwerft - Max-Planck-Institut für Demografie Rostock 2011-06-13.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Two port cranes of Stadthafen Rostock upstream 2010-12-28.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Two port cranes of Stadthafen Rostock upstream 2010-12-28.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.

Vertikales Stitching[edit]

Hi Grand-Duc,

wenn Du mal Zeit und Lust hast kannst Du dich gerne an einem Stitching von drei Einzelbildern versuchen, die zu einem vertikalen Pano zusammengefügt werden sollen. Ich erhalte am Schaft leider immer wieder (wenn auch nur leichte) Verwerfungen. Vielleicht kriegst Du das mit Hugin sauber hin [5]. Danke vorab und Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

MS Georg Büchner HBP 2011-06-28.jpg
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:
Georg Büchner, IMO 5068863.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Sorte de sécurité par obscurité[edit]

En fait je suis heureux du résultat (le Wiktionnaire est vraiment plus important pour moi que Commons). De là à dire que j'ai fait exprès de torpiller cette candidature... en fait c'est probable, même si ce n'est pas volontaire lol.

--Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Verwendung Bild Teichfrosch[edit]

Guten Tag Gran-Duc Ich arbeite für das Naturzentrum Thurauen in der Schweiz. Gerne würden wir das Foto „Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG“ für unsern Erlebnispfad verwenden. Ziel des Erlebnispfads ist es, den Besuchern einen lebendigen Eindruck eines Auenwalds zu geben. An einer Station kann man verschiedenen Arten in einem kleinen Weiher beobachten. Als Input werden kleine Tafeln mit Bildern der zu erwartenden Arten aufgestellt. Dafür würden wir gerne das genannte Foto verwenden. Wären Sie einverstanden? Hätten Sie das Foto auch in grösserer Auflösung? Wen sollen wir als Fotografen angeben? Wir sind Ihnen sehr dankbar für die Unterstützung unserer Arbeit. Gerne erwarte ich Ihre Antwort (hier im Forum).

Freundliche Grüsse A. Brütsch

Sehr geehrter Herr Brütsch, ich freue mich, dass Sie einen Nutzen für das Bild haben, denn selbstverständlich dürfen Sie es benutzen. Leider gibt es keine größere Auflösung als 2.592 × 1.944 Pixel, das entspricht der nativen Auflösung meiner Kamera. Als Urhebernennung wünsche ich mir die Angabe meines Namens und der Lizenz, also "Helge Busch-Paulick, Lizenz CC-By 3.0". Falls Sie es vom Platz her einrichten können, wäre ein Verweis auf Wikipedia und meinen hiesigen Benutzernamen "Grand-Duc" schön (also in etwa so: "Helge Busch-Paulick (bei Wikipedia: Grand-Duc), Lizenz CC-By 3.0"). Die erstgenannte Kurzform ist für mich aber völlig ausreichend. Danke für die Anfrage! Freundliche Grüsse, Helge Busch-Paulick alias Grand-Duc (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you re-name the Timema image from T. cristinae to T. californicum?[edit]

If you look at the images of both species posted by C. Sandoval here, that photograph (File:Timema californicum (Santa Lucia Range, California).jpg) looks more like T. cristinae than T. californicum. Sharktopustalk 10:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not in any way an entomologist specialised in North American entomological fauna and I processed a rename request made by the uploader. Per COM:FR 1, that's always a valid reason, additionally, the rationale given was good, so I assumed good faith. My apologies if that was a mistake. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I am sure the uploader is the best authority for the location where that photo was taken. I am just concerned that the uploader may not be an entomologist any more than you are or I am. Here is a large image of male and female T. californicum: http://phasmida.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/ShowImage.aspx?TaxonNameID=1004463&ImageID=2115. They do not look like the image we are now claiming is T. californicum. Here is the research webpage of somebody who has written many papers about T. cristinae, with a bunch of photos at the bottom of the page: http://ebio.colorado.edu/labs/nosil/timema/ . Those pictures look more like our photo, although I'd really like an entomologist to identify the species in our image before we do. Until then, could you please rename the photo "Timema stick insect (Santa Lucia Range, California).jpg Sharktopustalk 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There are some quite knowledgeable folks on DE-WP at the biology desk, so I asked for identification there. I guess that we'll have some definite answers in a few days. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Any response yet to your enquiry? Sharktopustalk 03:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...[edit]

Could you please be more careful?

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rana Nakul Sinh Doad.jpg you characterized the use of that image as vandalism. Your nomination offered the wrong diff. When the correct diff is examined I think it is crystal clear that the inclusion of the image was part of a very large and substantive edit that was definitely not vandalism.

I will not urge you to apologize to the uploader for unfairly characterizing their efforts as vandalism, as, in my experience, apologies that are not spontaneous generally don't seem sincere, and the person who makes apologies under pressure resents doing so for a long time, and can even be waiting for an opportunity to get even.

I will strongly encourage you to be more careful, not to bite newbies, and to be make sure you don't characterize good faith efforts as vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I agree, the wording was not the best, the next time and in a comparable situation, I'll use a phrasing like "not so useful/sensible contribution". As far as I recall it, when I was filling in the deletion form, I did not include the EN-WP link in the first place, only then when I saw the media inclusion in said article. BTW, it's not a truly wrong diff-link. Admittedly, it does not show the inclusion of the file, but it is the last one where it stood on the EN page. The next contribution is the revert of Nakulrana87's edits - I guess that I wanted to take a link to an old version but took the sub-optimal diff instead... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

question[edit]

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birth of alpaca.jpg you told participants User:Toilet was coming off of a 3 month block. Why did you do that? After a block aren't contributors supposed have a clean slate? In general, in deletion discussions shouldn't the discussion focus solely on concerns over the image(s) in question? Aren't concerns over other images uploaded by the same uploader generally off-topic?

I remembered, after your reminder, that User:Toilet had uploaded many crudely drawn out of scope images of people sitting on toilets. If he or she was prepared to return after such a long block, and make a good faith attempt to upload brand new images that didn't have the problems that triggered the block, that should be welcomed.

You are free to subject the images that marked his or her return to extra scrutiny. But, I think you should know, the comment you put in the deletion nomination looked like you were picking on them. While you are free to subject the images that marked his or her return to extra scrutiny I think it was a mistake for you to say so, unless he or she had returned to uploading very problematic images. Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, most of my DR have a rationale that is worded putting some effort for using a neutral language. But Toilet has somewhat exhausted my supply of AGF (this is a pictorial representation common on DE-WP). This man (there is a MySpace profile that could be linked to the Commons contributor: some identical toilet drawings, save their deletion, could be found here and there; additionally, he has provided what seems to be his real name in some EXIF data and file descriptions) has apparently a habit or feels the vocation of teaching the world some things. Among others, there is a video on his MySpace profile where he talks about the properly fashion of wiping the butt clean for women, another clip seems to be intended as teaching on how to cast a flyfishing rod. He also has photo albums where he writes about his POV on third world sanitaries. On other pictures found on this MySpace account, it is discernible that several walls of rooms serving as photo background are plastered with said "crude drawings", so, I hope that you may understand that I am not convinced at all that this user wants to contribute here in a good faith - I am more inclined to think that people like him are better of in psychological care than entangled in internet sites providing hosting place for user created content, for their and our sake. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have ideas about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. I find your health-care advice for <Toilet> highly inappropriate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not use his given name, I prefer to refer to this user by his screen name, that's why I modified your comment above. And I did not give him the advice to actually go for health care, but I am thinking that it could be helpful to do it. I am surely a bit oversensitive, but a lot of aspects in T.'s behaviour remind me other people where the story ended sadly with murderers, sexual assaults, shout-outs or other bodily injuries (I do not know what e.g. Armin Meiwes would have shown in these times of the Social Networking Internet 2.0). He seems (or at least seemed) to tend something that I want to call "fetish" (backside views of women, defecation and fighting woman), he never depicts women with a front view, taking always side or backside views (I know one exception on Commons: a depiction of a local female politician), he is concerned in some kind with likely physically handicapped people, he has some obsession in teaching. This combination is weird - so I hope that my huge scepticism about his person is somewhat understandable. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons, and the various wikipedias, are not intended to serve as occupational therapy. If the needs of contributors who cannot claim 100 percent mental health interfere with the project, the needs of the project should come first. We would need to use mentoring, topic blocks, participation blocks, etc to eliminate those negative effects. But, I suggest, discussing other contributors possible mental health issues is a mistake, when it is not actively degrading the project.
Now, if a contributor, who has previously been blocked, because they persistently uploaded out of scope images, possibly due to less than perfect mental health, returns to the project, and starts uploading compliant images, that genuinely contribute to the project, that is a good thing. That is how blocks are supposed to work.Now, the uploading of those compliant images may be serving as occupational therapy, may be helping our theoretical contributor. That help is not the goal of the project. But the compliant images now being uploaded are worth encouraging.
I had very limited contact with the toilet images. I am strongly inclined to continue to give a second chance to this contributor, given that he served his 3 month block, and the images uploaded so far have all been compliant.
Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If you do not remove the association with criminals, I will report this to the admin board. This is really beyond the pale. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pieter, I took the liberty of placing your comment above so I can respond to the "crime" portion of it, in sequence, and readers can understand who is responding to which comments.
  • Grand-Duc, I think Pieter intended the comment preceding this one to be a response to your comment about mental health and murders. I am not sure about that, and I would appreciate clarification as to what comment(s) concerned them. If I got that wrong I don't think policy authorizes me to remove comments I left on your talk page. If Pieter clarifies his concern applies to my comments, would you please excise my comment?
  • WRT mental health and serious crimes, Grand-Duc, I believe that very few individuals with mental health issues "go postal" or otherwise commit serious crimes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no link between "anal" and "postal". My comment was about Grand-Duc's utterances. He must retract. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonntag soll das Wetter schlecht werden[edit]

Hi Grand-Duc,

Sonntag soll das Wetter schlecht werden, d.h. ich werde nicht fotografieren und wäre zu Hause, z.B. hätte ich auch mal Zeit für die von uns angedachte telefonische Hugin-Lehrstunde, die bei Dir bitter nötig habe. Wenn Du es mir richtig beibringst nerve ich Dich auch nicht mehr mit Stitchingaufträgen. Apropos, was macht der Auftrag? ;-)

Ich habe seit vorletztem Wochenende einen ultra-hardcore-geilen Supercomputer. HDR/ Stitching laufen verglichen mit meiner sechs Jahre alten Möhre, die ich bis dato noch hatte, richtig flott. Ich habe mir Hugin installiert und die GUI lehnt sich an gängige Stitchingprogamme an. Aber ich bin selbst mit dem verbesserten GUI zu blöd um zwei einfache Bilder ordentlich gestitched zu bekommen. Habe diverse Einstellungen und Projektionen ausgewählt aber es kommt stets Müll dabei heraus. Sag Bescheid, wann Du mal Zeit hast. Falls Sonntag nicht geht gerne auch mal wann anders. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wlady, darf ich Dir für einfache Stitching-Sachen den kostenlosen ICE empfehlen? Da stellt man ganz wenig ein, kann ruckzuck in der Vorschau sehen, ob es passt und schnell noch beschneiden lassen. Für einfache Fälle echt nervenschonend und manchmal auch erstaunlich gut. --Schwäbin (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ich arbeite derzeit mit dem ebenfalls simpel zu handhabenden PTGui und bin mit 95 % der Stitchings sehr zufrieden. Da ich aber ein notorischer Perfektionist bin will ich die restlichen 5 % auch noch haben und dafür gibt es m.W. keine Alternative außer Hugin. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Na dann — ich hatte mich von dem Teilsatz zwei einfache Bilder ordentlich stitchen irreführen lassen. Hätt' es mir aber eigentlich denken können, dass Du das Stitchen schon kannst ;-) --Schwäbin (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Grundsätzlich klappt das schon, selbst mit z.B. 27 Einzelbildern, aber es gibt ein paar Spezialfälle, die wohl nur Hugin aufgrund seiner irren Einstellmöglichkeiten bewältigen kann. Danke trotzdem. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Falls meine Frau nichts besonderes als Unternehmung vorhat, müsste sich ein Telefonat arrangieren lassen. Ich melde mich noch mal per E-Mail. :-) Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Just wondering if I am missing something. Is there a Commons policy that forbids users to add required attribution if it is missing from a media file, and instead requires them to nominate the image for deletion per copyright violation even though attribution is the only missing item? Because I deliberately left out the author's name (actually, that shouldn't be a real issue because images in Wikipedia are used without attribution but I think that the WMF legal team has said it is perfectly OK because we link back to the description pages) after attributing the source file to see if you or someone else would add the simple little itty bitty ten second edit of a username, and it seems no one did.

If there is such a policy that requires the uploader to provide attribution and forbids all other users from trying to fix someone's little omission, could you please point me to it?

Thank you,

fetchcomms 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your comment, I will try to explain my point of view on this subject. Omitting an attribution for the source of a derivative work is not a "little omission", but the pivotal point about being plainly illegal and subject to indemnity and retroactive usage fees or behaving correctly and making a legal use of intellectual property. Think about possible media users outside the Wikimedia space and the usage of tools like "use this file on the Web", where you'll get totally wrong attribution links if you omit the original author from the file description! Second point: I think that is was not the wisest thing to word a deletion rationale based upon a faulty attribution. If you check the DR that I made, you'll see that I invoked other valid deletion reasons: bad quality and lack of educational usefulness due to the artefacts of a (quite poorly made) blow-up. So, there is of course no policy that binds the uploader of a derivative work and no one else to provide the attribution of the original author, but it's a matter of good sense and workmanlike practice not to gamble with "attributions yes or no", "let's see if somebody else will do it for me" or the like. Making mistakes like unintentionally blundering attributions or licensing schemes is only human, but deliberately acting in this way is disruptive and on the edge of vandalism for me as it harms the trust that is needed between each Commoner for that Commons could be a working thing. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't actually care for the image (and I did want it to get deleted anyway due to the poor quality), but I see your point. If the image had been of a good quality and of educational worth, however, would you personally have added the attribution information rather than nominating it for deletion? That is what I am more curious about. fetchcomms 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I likely would have added the attribution information, or asked for that the original uploader do it, but without the use of deletion threatening templates and with an individual and polite wording on the uploader's talk page. My reasoning behind asking the uploader for the information is that this contributor is placed in the best position for knowing all the needed details, details that others may not know. There is no indication for a deletion so far as an image of enough quality (educational, technical, artistical) is concerned. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Großpanorama[edit]

Hi,

habe die Dateien jetzt runter geladen. Aber hast Du das Bild nicht selbst gestitched? (File:Gantry crane Museumshafen Rostock Panorama.jpg) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Die gute Nachricht: habe das Bild gestiched. Es hat 12 Minuten (sic!) gedauert. Ich musste es allerdings als TIFF (Maximum darf 4 GB nicht überschreiten) mit nur 8 Bit Farbtiefe (16 bit wäre zu groß geworden) speichern. Die Bilddatei hat nun trotzdem 3,11 GB und eine Auflösung von 48.811 x 17.140 Pixel. Schlechte Nachricht: ich kann sie mit dem Uploaddienst nicht uploaden. Ein Idee, wie die Datei zu Dir kommt? Könnte sie natürlich auf DVD brennen und sie dir postalische schicken. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Wlady, ja, ich habe es selbst (sogar 2 Mal) gestitcht. Schau dir aber mal in der 100%-Ansicht die Streben und die Kranseile an, da sind in der auf Commons hochgeladenen Alpha-Version viel zu viele Bildfehler wie Farbflecke und Maskierungslücken drin. Nimmt Megaupload Dateien in solcher Größe an? Eigentlich müsste es irgendwelche Hoster geben, die das machen. Kann man eine so große Datei nicht auch in gesplittete ZIP / RAR-Archive packen? Bei großen ISO-Images wird das ja gemacht... Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Nein, Megaupload hat eine Begrenzung auf 2 GB große Dateien, deswegen frage ich ja, wie ich es dir zukommen lassen soll. Bildfehler habe ich beim ersten anschauen des Ergebnisses nicht gesehen, werde es mir aber nochmals genauer anschauen und prüfen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ich habe mal etwas gegoogelt und bin dabei auf http://www.filedropper.com gestoßen, dass bis zu 5GB erlauben soll. Schaffst Du aber den Upload ohne Internetverbindungstrennung à la 24h Zwangsneueinwahl? Ansonsten lautet die Alternative: Splitarchiv mit WinRAR oder IZarc erstellen und mehrere Einzelteile hochladen. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, das versuche ich dann mal und gebe Dir Bescheid. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Habe es vorgestern hochgeladen und Dir den Link per Mail geschickt. Schon gesehen? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ja, ich habe mir das RAR auch schon wieder runtergeladen. Ich habe es mir aber noch nicht angeschaut, denn abgesehen von einem sehr regen kleinen Sohn haben meine Frau und ich auch noch einen 12 Wochen alten Golden Retriever im Haus, so dass immer gut Leben in der Bude ist. Außerdem harren noch einige Tausend Bilder ihrer IPTC-Verschlagwortung... LG Grand-Duc (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Umbenennung File:Flattertier.jpg zu passendem wissenschaftlichen Namen.[edit]

Moin Grand-Duc, nachdem Olei den Falter als Hopfen-Zünslereule identifiziert hat, möchte ich um eine Umbenennung auf den wissenschaftlichen Namen "Hypena rostralis" bitten. Vielen Dank sagt der Mogelzahn (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Aber gerne doch: File:Hypena rostralis by user Mogelzahn HH-Dulsberg.jpg, falls dir der Dateiname nicht passt, gehe ich gerne nochmal ran. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Alles gut. Vielen Dank. --Mogelzahn (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished[edit]

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−

Dear Grand-Duc,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Panorama Stadthafen Rostock Museumshafen HBP 2011-07-04.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Panorama Stadthafen Rostock Museumshafen HBP 2011-07-04.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.

Löschantrag FN-Browning 1900[edit]

Ich habe dieses Bild aus: "Moderne Faustfeuerwaffen und ihr Gebrauch" publiziert 1911 Autor Gerhard Bock, Charlottenburg Verlag J. Neumann übernommen. Das Bild stammt nicht von Bock, sondern ziemlich sicher von einer Zeichnung von 1899, entsprechend der geöffneten Waffe in der US Patentzeichnung. Ich sehe deshalb nicht ein, warum es gelöscht werden sollte. Gruss --Hmaag (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Eine Löschung ist auch gar nicht mein Ziel. Bei so einer alten Zeichnung, dir noch dazu technischen Normen folgen muss, sind die Lizenzen bloß falsch angegeben - das Bild sollte als PD-old (Urheberrechtsschutz abgelaufen) oder als nicht schützbar angegeben werden. Auf DE-WP hätte ich die DÜP angerufen, hier auf Commons geht das nur mit so einem Baustein, der gleich eine Löschdrohung ausspricht. Falls Du magst, besprich dich mal mit de:Benutzer:Ralf Roletschek, der könnte mehr zu den rechtlichen Hintergründen erzählen; außerdem kannst Du den Baustein von mir aus auch mit {{PD-old}} oder {{PD-Germany}} ersetzen. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Moscow-Bolshoi-Theare-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moscow-Bolshoi-Theare-1.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.

Modell SMS Viribus Unitis[edit]

`nabend, wollte schon seit geraumer Zeit mal Fragen, warum Du mein Bild verändert hast?...Wasserzeichen? Gruß Colin Pelka.

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze[edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Hallo Grand-Duc,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)