User talk:HHahn

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

File:Diagram Reflector GregoryMaksutov.svg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Done – I hope, sufficiently...
It would be a good idea if, especially in the upload form page, more clear explanation – in "everyday's English" – would be given on the effects of different license types. When uploading a file, one is primarily paying attention to things related to the file, its content, its desciption, etc. Then at the bottom of the form or so, all of a sudden a question appears where one has to choose one of quite a few license types, presented in lawyerese that no one understands if he hasn't thoroughly studied this before.
Why not use a selection form, where we can answer questions like "Is everybody allowed to (...) uses this file in any website, but not in print?" or whatever else lawyers can think up. A "tree" of such selection questions would be very helpful when trying to choose the right license.
And when a file turns out to attract a warning message like the one above, I have to edit the page and change the license type by just by modifying this gibberish-like abbreviation. The only thing I could do was copying the license code from another page I created that did not attract such a warning messages – don't ask me what "self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0" means! It would take me hours to check whether or not the license type is correct now. It is not just a matter of reading text. The text is lawyerese, and if there is anything that I am NOT, it's a lawyer... Just fot sure, I am NOT going to check this; I just wait what those bots are going to figure out in the coming months.
So I propose that some form is created that allows the user to specify answers to questions, guiding him through the jungle of lawyerese.
By the way, a similar form should be available for modifying the license type afterwards (as I had to do now).
HHahn (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Refractors[edit]

Waarde ir Hahn, in category:Refracting telescopes horen alleen telescopen thuis die een lens gebruiken om het invallende licht te verzamelen. Met vriendelijke groet, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Weet ik. Ik ben druk bezig de ongelooflijke bende op te ruimen die in de loop der tijd is ontstaan doordat iedereen (inclusief ikzelf!) allelei afbeelingen in "te hoge" categorieën heeft gestopt, tengevolge van een gebrek aan een overzichtelijke weergave van de categorieboom. (Overigens is het met HotCat ook niet goed mogelijk de boomstructuur te overzien.)
Dus graag nog even geduld. Ik moet vele tientallen, zo niet over de honderd, foto's "inschatten" voor de juiste categorie. Daarbij zal heus wel eens wat fout gaan. Ik loop het daarna nog wel een keer allemaal na.
Niettemin bedankt voor de reactie.
Mvg., HHahn (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PNG --> SVG[edit]

Hi, according to our guidelines, the existence of a SVG file is no reason to speedy delete or even regular delete a PNG file. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this. It is always recommended to nprefer SVG over bitmaps. In this particular case, I am the original author of both the bitmaps (PNG) and the SVG. The images are really identical (both are exports from the exactly same source, in Cored Draw), so there is no difference (execpt for some minor textual corrections). I saw to it that the PNGs are no longer used (I changed all references to the new SVG version). (The only three exceptions are files referenced in the Hebrew WP, probably via some template file which I could nog find. I asked a person who know Hebrew to look into this. As long as these references have not been changed too, I will of course not proposes them for deletion.
Also, the SVGs also have the usual PNG versions included, with different resolutions, for those who absolutely want a PNG.
So there is absolutely no reason to further use these PNGs, as compelletely identical SVGs are available. So as far as I am concerned, the PNGs can (and should) be deleted, if not speedy, then "slowly".
HHahn (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion policy: "SVG replacements of raster images are never considered duplicates." - Jcb (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That's OK, but you can never keep people from using the (obsolete) PNG if they are nit aware that an identical SVG is available. So the attempts to talk people into preferring SVGs over PNGs become useless that way! HHahn (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you aware of the existence of {{Vector version available}} ? Jcb (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Not until an hour or so ago. If you had replaced my "speedydelete" with this "Vector version available" it would (1) have saved both you an dme a lot of time, and (b) have drawn my attention to that alternative. That would habe been more effecient and more friendly. HHahn (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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, HHahn!

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) 10:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done HHahn (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Toric lens surface.png[edit]

OK, I deleted it as requested, you can re-upload. Let's see if it works. --Rosenzweig δ 22:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Uploading did work, but the old (and wrong!) thumbnail is shown again. I will now upload it again under a slightly different name and then again request for deletion of the old file.
HHahn (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, no problem, deleted it again. Caching and thumbnail errors can be very persistent ;-) --Rosenzweig δ 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo_MaximaMedischCentrum.gif[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Logo_MaximaMedischCentrum.gif 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)‎ | +/−

Gouwenaar (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo_CatharinaziekenhuisEindhoven.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Logo_CatharinaziekenhuisEindhoven.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)‎ | +/−

Gouwenaar (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hovenring[edit]

I've just seen your photo of the suspended bicycle roundabout. Do you have more photos, or could you possibly take one from a different perspective? This perspective (the one of the top right) would be great to have, as you get more of an impression of the actual roundabout.

Keep up the good work. I'd be great if you could help. I've watchlisted your page, so if you want to reply, you can do so here. Schwede66 02:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The photo you linked to is indeed a nice view. Even better would be a photo from a still higher point of view. However, that would require a crane or a plane of so. I was already considering to try if I can make a photo from a higher-level floor in a nearby building (a hotel). But I am not yet sure if they will allow me access only to take some photographs if I am not one of their customers. Anyway, I'll have to do it under good weather conditions, and during the morning hours, because of the sun's position.
I'll keep it in mind, but it may take some time.
HHahn (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Kennen Sie diese Fotos? Keine Ahnung wie es mit dem Copyright ist. HHahn (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've had a look at Google Images (but not at Google Bilder - that hadn't occurred to me). I've come here because I need a photo that I can use in a report, i.e. without a restrictive copyright. I very much appreciate your help. Schwede66 19:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Google Images and Google Bilder may very well be the same. When I look there (simply by Google search), the list contains some images that link to an image galley with a Dutch user interface. I merely changed the language code "nl" in the URL to "de", and got what I gave you.
You do not say when you need the photo. I will most likely not have time until the end of September or so, and weather may be less nice by then. Suggestion: ask nl:Gebruiker:BenTels; he has written the English article. I do not know him personally, but he seems to live in this area, too. So he may be in a position to make a photo? As he is no longer active on the Dutch WP, you could send him an e-mail (through the Dutch Wikipedia's e-mail function, which he seems to have switched on: on his user page, click on "Deze gebruiker e-mailen", under "Hulpmiddelen" in the leftmost column).
Thanks; I've send a message to BenTels. It would be best for me to have the photo by Tuesday (that's when I submit the draft of the report), or some weeks later (when I submit the final version, but I don't know when that will be). But either way, it would of course be nice for there to be more images available on Commons. Schwede66 22:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)