User talk:Ireas/archive 2014

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:BRUMMTOPF02.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

ThomasO. 10:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

temp-Entlöschung

... Gib mir bitte kurz bescheid, wenn der Transfer gelaufen ist. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, danke dir fürs Wiederherstellen! Leider war das wohl ein Missverständnis: Ich beziehe mich in dem undeletion request auf den zweiten Abschnitt. Die Aufnahmen im ersten Abschnitt sind wohl allesamt auf dem Dach oder im Inneren des Gebäudes erstellt worden, fallen somit nicht unter die Panoramafreiheit und können nicht nach dewiki verschoben werden. Die Fotografien im zweiten Abschnitt, vor allem die von Ralf, sind jedoch zu einem großen Teil oder komplett von außen aufgenommen und somit in dewiki in Ordnung. Entschuldige die Verwirrung! Grüße, --ireas (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
O.k., dann betrachten wir das als Probelauf. Ich lösch die wieder. Eventuell morgen aber weiter? --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Gut, ich melde mich dann! Gute Nacht! --ireas (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Túrelio: In den nächsten Stunden könnte ich nebenher ein paar rüberschieben. Grüße, --ireas (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So, hier bitte. Ich hab jetzt erstmal die Bilder ausgelassen, die anscheinend von einem Innenhof aus aufgenommen wurden. Besteht da eine Chance dass sie unter FOP-de fallen? --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ein Beispiel für letzte: File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-014.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Super, 001 bis 032 sind drüben! :-) Bei den Innenhofaufnahmen bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher. Hast du einen Überblick, um wie viele es sich handelt? Wenn es nur eine einstellige Zahl ist, würde ich die erstmal mitverschieben und dann noch mal in dewiki zur Diskussion stellen. Grüße, --ireas (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
O.k. Hab die obigen wieder gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So das sind allein die, die sich zwischen den o.g. befanden. --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: 014 bis 026 erledigt. --ireas (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hier noch mehr Außenaufnahmen:

Damit bin ich erstmal offline, bis heute abend. --Túrelio (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: 033 bis 040 erledigt. Schonmal vielen Danke! :-) --ireas (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So, das war es jetzt wohl. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Puh, erledigt. :-) Nochmal vielen Dank fürs Wiederherstellen! --ireas (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Gern geschehn. --Túrelio (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Regula hitz.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

-mattbuck (Talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Combined Flags Habsburg Hungary.svg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

L' empereur Charles (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Die 7 Todsünden.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

File:FelixMANGINI.jpg on deletion list

Hello Sir, You left me a message on Wikimedia Commons on my "File:FelixMANGINI.jpg" at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FelixMANGINI.jpg. I have answered on July 28th, 2014 : actually, I am the author of the shot of the picture which was taken long before 1902. The picture is one of my family photos album. Please may I ask you the way to get my file out of the Commons:Deletion requests list? I am not an expert. Thank you so much. Guy Mangini guymangini2@yahoo.fr + I am the owner of a photographic tableau of my grand-grand father Félix Mangini fixed on a wall. The shot of it will it be also nominated for deletion if I make an attempt to insert it on Wiki Commons ?

Guym75 (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:VHT-treatment-process.jpg

Hello, I guess you have noticed that permission have been already granted for the file VHT-treatment-process.jpg here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VHT-treatment-process.jpg

Editors do always send license information to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but we have no control over the processing delay.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonscribe (talk • contribs) 2014-08-01 05:24 (UTC+02:00)

Hi Bostonscribe, good to see that this issue has been solved. If you upload a file and send a permission via e-mail, please add {{subst:OP}} to the file description page to make clear that an OTRS permission is pending. Thanks! — ireas (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Selbstportrait Vincent van Gogh 1889.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Oursana (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-19 wolfartsweier jakobskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality. The lamppost of the left has minor chromatic aberrations, but almost imperceptibles--Lmbuga 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the new versión. Much better--Lmbuga 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-16 0569 groetzingen evangelische kirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Smial 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-17 0595 hagsfeld empfangsgebaeude bahnhof.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Needs perspective correction. Also, the garbage container is too dominant. Can be easily avoided by different crop (see my annotation) --Cccefalon 05:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cccefalon. I cropped the image and corrected the vertical perspective. --Ireas 10:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Good quality. Well done, it is now a really good image. --Cccefalon 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

العربيَّة  Deutsch  español  English  français  português  русский  українська  বাংলা  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文(中国大陆)‎  中文(台灣)‎  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hi Ireas, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Didym (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Didym: Merci, werde mich bemühen! ;-) Grüße, ireas (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-22 0727 rueppurr christkoenigkirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-22 0712 rueppurr auferstehungskirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Perspective correction has to be expanded - the left side of the tower ist still leaning in a little bit. The white/highlight clipping is too excessive. Also, there are four issues that can be avoided with a tighter crop. I made annotations. --Cccefalon 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thx Cccefalon, I uploaded a new version. Ireas 21:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Awww, you cut the legs of the lady - that was a little bit too much bottom crop. --Cccefalon 20:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Cccefalon: Ahhh, I saved her. Ireas 00:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Can pass as QI IMO though there are for sure some weaknesses. --Cccefalon 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, LGA talkedits 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-28 glottertal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 21:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-28 0867 glottertal rebhuesli.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Strong red and green CA (left side of the building), otherwise QI.--ArildV 08:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thx AridlV, ✓ Done Ireas 10:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Good quality. --ArildV 11:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014-08-22 0718 rueppurr christkoenigkirche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Better. --Mattbuck 19:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Peter II.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Shakko (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Krd 05:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, BrightRaven (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Tizian 310.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Oursana (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

LrMediaWiki

Hallo Ireas, es wäre schön, wenn Du Dich an dieser Diskussion beteiligen könntest. Oder hast Du das Interesse an „LrMediaWiki“ verloren? Gruß, --Hasenläufer (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Hasenläufer, ich habe die Diskussion auf dem Schirm, aber leider momentan wenig Zeit, um das umzusetzen. Vielleicht komme ich über die Feiertage dazu. Grüße, ireas (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
File:James Clarke.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

91.19.62.178 16:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:James Clarke.jpg

copyvio: I am the author of this photograph, I own all the rights to it and I did not give permission to this use. 91.19.62.178 16:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to provide evidence for your claim. If you don't want to identify yourself in full public, you may contact OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kept: We do not respond to anonymous IP user claims. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:James Clarke.jpg

The Author "HHS" told us via OTRS-ticket:2015011610008791 that she hasn't uploaded the file AND hasn't given the permission to upload it under a free license. Emha (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


deleted. INeverCry 01:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)