User talk:Horst-schlaemma

Welcome to the Commons, Horst-schlaemma!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak 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 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?)

SieBot 23:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Berlin Komische Oper Fassade 1912.jpg

Hallo Horst-schlaemma, du hast zwei Postkarten der Komischen Oper in Berlin hochgeladen. Die Beschreibung war aber total falsch, denn die Komische Oper in der heutigen Form gibt es ja erst seit 1947, und zwar im ehemaligen Metropol-Theater (Glinka-/Behrenstraße). Wenn eine Postkarte von 1912 also "Komische Oper" betitelt wird, muss das zu denken geben... die Lösung: das ist ein ganz anderes Theater an anderer Stelle, und zwar an der Friedrichstraße bei der Weidendammer Brücke. Es wurde von 1905 bis in die 1920er Jahre als "Komische Oper" betrieben und zeigte Operetten und Revues. Irgendwann sind die Aufführungen dort wohl eingeschlafen, im 2. Weltkrieg wurde das Gebäude dann wohl zerstört (oder vielleicht schon vorher abgerissen? diese Information konnte mir bisher noch niemand geben). Mehr Bilder siehe http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/carthalia/germany/berlin_komischeoper_weidendammer.htm Die heutige Komische Oper (Behrenstr.) sah vor dem Krieg so aus: http://www.kultur-fibel-magazin.de/Images/Bilder%20htm/Theater/Metropol-Frontal.jpg Ich habe die Bildbeschreibungen korrigiert und die Bilder aus dem Artikel w:de:Komische Oper Berlin herausgenommen, weil sie schlicht nicht dazu passen. Ein gut recherchierter Artikel über die alte Komische Oper an der Weidendammer Brücke wäre aber natürlich sehr willkommen. --AndreasPraefcke 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zecheriner Hafen.jpg

Achte bitte auf Urheberrechte!

Image:Zecheriner Hafen.jpg wurde als urheberrechtsverletzende Datei gekennzeichnet. Auf den Wikimedia Commons werden nur Dateien, die unter freien Lizenzen stehen, akzeptiert, das heißt Bilder und andere Mediendateien, die von jedem für jeden Zweck verwendet werden dürfen. Für genauere Auskünfte lies bitte Commons:Lizenzen. Fragen zu Commons können auf Commons:Forum gestellt werden. Die Datei, die du hochgeladen hast, wird bald gelöscht werden. Wenn du der Meinung bist, dies sei keine Urheberrechtsverletzung, erkläre dies bitte auf der Bilddiskussionsseite.

Patrícia ^msg 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Diese Datei könnte gelöscht werden.

Vielen Dank, dass du File:Usedom_Karte_map_big.PNG hochgeladen hast. Du hast eine Quelle für das Bild angegeben, aber leider fehlt eine Bestätigung, dass der Autor oder Bildrechteinhaber des Bildes der Nutzung unter der angegebenen Lizenz zustimmt. Bitte gib den Link zu der Webadresse an, die die entsprechenden Lizenzinformationen enthält. Solltest du über eine schriftliche Genehmigung zur Nutzung des Bildes verfügen, sende bitte eine Kopie davon an OTRS. Bitte beachte, dass das Bild ohne die Bestätigung nach einer Woche schnellgelöscht werden kann. Vielen Dank.

 

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.  

Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted content, reply

The content I was referring to (apologies for not including link in template) was the galleries Putz (Baustoff) and Stolpe auf Usedom, both deleted as galleries with no mediafiles. I've restored the pages now for your reference, and in case you were intending to add mediafiles to them. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kategorien

Frage mal, wenn du Kategorien für ein Bild erstellst, dann hast du noch ein paar Bilder auf Lager, die du einstellen wirst, oder wo liegt der Sinn?

Und nur als Hinweis: Wenn eine Kategorie erstellt und in weitere Kategorien eingeordnet wird, so müssen im Bild diese weiteren Kats nicht nochmals aufgeführt werden. Viele Grüße Niteshift (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ja, für die Kategorien habe ich entsprechende Bilder. Ich will erst einmal abstecken, wozu ich demnächst etwas hochladen will. Aber das hatte ich auch schon an anderer Stelle erörtert ;)

Zu deinem Hinweis: Dessen bin ich mir natürlich bewusst. Aber entweder sind die Bilder schon so kategorisiert und ich verändere daran nichts bzw. ich nehme die Kategorien dann raus. Und bestimmte Schlüsselbilder ordne ich dann sowohl in Über- und Unterkategorie ein, um Auffindbarkeit und Relevanz zu steigern. Mag komisch klingen, funktioniert aber, darfst du mir ungeprüft glauben :)

Na dann, schönen Sonntag noch & Grüße, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Luebbersdorf Gutshaus Front DRK Pflegeheim.JPG

---

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 10:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gutshaus?

Hallo, ist dieses Gebäude in Zepkow MÜR ein Gutshaus? Es ist zumindest im Internet nirgends erwähnt oder ich habe nicht ausdauernd genug gesucht. Gruß Niteshift (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anhand der Architektur, der formalen Ansätze und der Präsenz selbsthin würde ich ein Gutshaus nicht ausschließen. Es könnte aber auch eine großbürgerliche Villa sein. Burgeninventar und gutshaueser.de spucken leider nichts aus, das macht es aufgrund deren Vollständigkeit schon sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass es sich hier tatsächlich um ein Gutshaus handelt. Gruß, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Waldorf_Astoria_Hotel_main_entrance_Park_Avenue.jpg

File:Waldorf_Astoria_Hotel_main_entrance_Park_Avenue.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

 

Multichill (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Waldorf_Astoria_Hotel_main_entrance_frontal_Park_Avenue.jpg

File:Waldorf_Astoria_Hotel_main_entrance_frontal_Park_Avenue.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

 

Multichill (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Waldorf_Astoria_Hotel_historical_postcard_Park_Avenue.jpg

File:Waldorf_Astoria_Hotel_historical_postcard_Park_Avenue.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!

Multichill (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickrreview

Hi Horst-schlaemma. Please do not add the {{flickrreview|File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)|October 18, 2009}} yourself [1]. You should first check if license on Flickr is ok (must not be "All rights reserved" or "Noncommercial" or "No Derivative Works"). If it is ok just add {{flickrreview}} and wait for a bot or an admin to check the license. The images above and a few others was not free on Flickr and has been marked for deletion. If you have a permission you can send it to the OTRS-system. --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the licence on Flickr not being acceptable, I've now deleted this image. Adambro (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no clue about this flickrreview thing. But I don't get why you deleted those photos.

They were CC-BY-SA tagged so free for Wiki publishing and I even asked the users. Don't see the problem.

Regards, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Flickr. Only images released under a Creative Commons licence that doesn't have a no commercial use or no derivative works restriction are permitted on Commons. Flickr Review is a method by which the status of a Flickr image at a particular point in time is archived due to the ability of Flickr users to change to a more restrictive licence later in time. Each of the three images I deleted either had a commercial use or derivative works restriction. Adambro (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Dresden Semperoper Heizkraftwerk Hotel Bellevue Theaterplatz Vogelperspektive.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Dresden Semperoper Heizkraftwerk Hotel Bellevue Theaterplatz Vogelperspektive.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. 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!

--Túrelio (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Overcategorization

Please read COM:OVERCAT. If a parent category is already categorized (for example, Category:One King Street West is in Category:Postmodern architecture in Canada), you shouldn't also put the individual files or subcategories within Category:One King Street West into the same category. So, for that reason, this sort of edit is not encouraged, especially when it reverts an earlier attempt to comply with COM:OVERCAT. I hope that helps. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I? The main category is a showcase of postmodern architecture in Canada, so it serves its purpose there.

Avoiding over-categorization is a fundamental principle on Commons. The purpose of the category structure is to allow people to find images easily, not to act as a showcase. Any over-categorizations that you do will all eventually be undone by other editors. --skeezix1000 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good edit -- you put the entire subcategory in Category:Streamline Moderne architecture in Germany, and avoided adding the individual images within Category:Großsiedlung Siemensstadt to the same category. --skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying this for me. Commons is pretty messy. It's hard to understand what order is prelevant there, esp. since everybody seems to have another pov on this. Really confusing. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Bathing"

I've removed Category:Piers from Category:Bathing structures. Most piers are not bathing structures. A pier can just as readily be a type of wharf for commercial shipping, or a place to dock in a pleasure-boat marina. In either of those cases, swimming would be rather ill-advised.

Also, I suspect there is an issue here with a false cognate between English and German here. "Bathing" in English (or at least in present-day American English) pretty specifically means washing to get clean; if one is just going into a lake or sea for recreation, we usually call that "swimming" or "going for a swim", even if no energetic activity is involved. So, Category:Swimming pools is under Category:Swimming, not Category:Bathing.

You might want to create a Category:Swimming piers under Category:Piers and Category:Swimming (and probably Category:Docks because the floating ones are often called that, even if no boats dock there). I wouldn't object if you prefer to call it Category:Bathing piers (which sounds a bit archaic to my American ear), and even put it under Category:Bathing as well, but it is a distinct subcategory of piers, not the entirety of Category:Piers. And maybe while you are doing that, you might want to add a Category:Swimming platforms for the free-floating ones that don't connect to shore. There is no quick way to find what existing pictures belong in each of these, though, so I haven't started on it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Neubrandenburg Luftbild historisch Altstadt 1932.jpg

Hallo, ist der Quelle irgendwo zu entnehmen, dass das Bild frei nutzbar ist? Wenn der Autor unbekannt ist, kann man jetzt noch nicht davon ausgehen, dass er schon 70 Jahre tot ist. Das könnte u.U. problematisch werden. -- Niteshift (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ja, laut Archiv sind die Inhalte aus dieser Galerie allesamt frei verfügbar (auf Nachfrage). Die Bilder wurden automatisch von Flugzeugen der Generalbauinspektion aus aufgenommen, im eigentlichen Sinne gibt es also keinen "Fotografen" als Person. Der Dateiname müsste allerdings geändert werden, das Foto ist natürlich erst 1943 entstanden. Gruß, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, ich weiß nicht, ob Du diese Diskussion wahrgenommen hast bzw. dort etwas dazu beitragen beitragen kannst? Du scheinst ja ebenfalls Kontakt mit dem Archiv gehabt zu haben, zuumindest interpretiere ich Deine Aussage so. Freundliche Grüße, --Emha (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.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. The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Flusswasserkunst_Hannover

Category discussion notification

Category:Flusswasserkunst_Hannover has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.JPG

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.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!

X-Weinzar (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_unzerstoert_1930.jpg

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_unzerstoert_1930.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!

X-Weinzar (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Uppsala_aerial_view_1940_Cathedral_University_old_town_photo.jpg

File:Uppsala_aerial_view_1940_Cathedral_University_old_town_photo.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!

X-Weinzar (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.JPG

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_Foto_Möbius_1937.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!

Ben.MQ (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_unzerstoert_1930.jpg

File:Dresden_Neues_Rathaus_unzerstoert_1930.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!

Saibo (Δ) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mars One 2025 - Mars City made of SpaceX Dragon Capsules - self-sustaining colony.jpg

File:Mars One 2025 - Mars City made of SpaceX Dragon Capsules - self-sustaining colony.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!

Dereckson (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment the DR, you've an OTRS-related question awaiting you. --Dereckson (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)