User talk:LoKiLeCh

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

Bild Klosterruine Wörschweiler

Hallo LoKiLeCh, wir würden gerne das das von Ihnen eingestellte Bild zur Klosterruine in Wörschweiler in einem Sagenbuch veröffentlichen. Würde dann die Nennung des Autorennamen LoKiLeCh dazu ausreichen?

Leider bin ich neu und konnte bisher noch keine E-Mail funktion finden. Es wäre sehr nett, wenn Sie kontakt mit mir aufnehmen könnten.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen

HVVKirkel

Hallo HVVKirkel, die "E-Mail"-Funtion ist links unter Werkzeuge zu finden. Ich bin aber vermutlich der falsche Ansprechpartner, da ich noch nie in Wörschweiler war. Evt. habe ich ein Bild überarbeitet, dessen Urheber jemand anderes ist. Welches Bild meinst du denn? --LoKiLeCh (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Contents

Image:SaarbrückenStJohann1.jpg[edit]

Hello - thank you for providing images to the wikimedia commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the commons should be useful to all users of wikimedia projects - this is possible only if the images can be found by other people. To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate category and optionally place the images on topic pages (galleries) , or do both (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help. You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files here: Gallery

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There is a large number of completely unsorted images on the commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do! Thank you. -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:MaxPlanck_2DM_grau.gif[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Merzig_GdS_Arena.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Teufelsburg[edit]

Hi, For the images you uploaded recently and put in Category:Teufelsburg, Germany, do you actually mean Teufelsberg? Could you change the spelling on the category? Thanks. Deadstar 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No i mean Teufelsburg; Teufelsberg is a mountain, Teufelsburg is a castle. Lokilech
OK thanks - I have put Teufelsburg in "Castles in Germany". Regards, Deadstar 07:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AachenerDomVonAnnaStr.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand


Image:BERLIN_FROHNAU_nieder.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:BERLIN_FROHNAU_nieder.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

Lokilech 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Image:BERLIN_JOHANNISTHAL_nieder.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:BERLIN_JOHANNISTHAL_nieder.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

Lokilech 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Massenlöschungen...[edit]

Massenlöschungen gehen grundsätzlich nicht. Da helfen auch kieine Rechte. -- Duesentrieb 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Klimadiagramme[edit]

Hallo Kolling,
du hast aus meinem merge-Antrag in Category:Klimadiagramm, Deutschland vielleicht schon gesehen, dass der Inhalt dieser, gegen die Commons-Regeln deutsch benamten Kategorie in die bereits vorher bestehende Category:Climate diagrams of Germany verschoben werden sollte. Da du dir so eine Wahnsinnsarbeit mit all den Klimadiagrammen gemacht hast, möchte ich deine Ordnung nicht durcheinanderbringen. Daher meine Frage: können die 132 einzelnen Diagramme, die momentan noch unter Category:Klimadiagramm, Deutschland einsortiert sind, nicht in die Unterkategorien von Category:Climate diagrams of Germany einsortiert werden oder müssen/sollen sie in der Oberkategorie verbleiben (132 Bilder sind eine Menge und erschweren etwas den Überblick?) Gruß -- Túrelio 10:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, gegen mehr Übersicht ist nichts einzuwenden. Allein die Durchführung solcher Massenbewegungen übersteigt meine Kenntnisse des mediawiki-Getriebes. Diese Erfahrung habe ich schon an anderer Stelle gemacht (siehe oben). Ich wollte mehrere hundert fehlerhafte Bilder löschen. Mit entsprechenden Rechten und sql-Kenntnissen sollte das ja möglich sein. Gelöst habe ich das Problem durch überschreiben der fehlerhaften Bilder. Das funktioniert hier ja nicht; hier geht es ja ums verschieben. Die meisten (evt. alle) betroffenen Bilder sind Relikte erster Experimente und führen ein Doppelleben im eigenen Bundesland und könnten rückstandsfrei beseitigt werden. Aber wie??? Gruß LoKiLeCh 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, Kolling (und/oder Lokilech?)! Darf ich da mal einhaken? Hedwig in Washington und ich hatten Anfang letzten Jahres mal ein wenig Ordnung in die Klimadiagrammkategorien gebracht und sie auch für unsere (inzwischen leider nur noch meine :-( ) Klimadiagramm-Uploads vorbereitet. Insofern war ich zwischen den Jahren bei der Entdeckung Deiner Diagramme sowohl hingerissen (über die schiere Menge) als auch etwas weniger hingerissen (was die Kategorien betrifft).
Ich würde mich bereit erklären, das zu bereinigen, also englische Kats anzulegen (sowas wie Precipitation diagrams of ...), in die vorhandene Struktur einzupassen (unterhalb von Climate diagrams of ...) und dann die ganzen Diagramme hinüberzuschaufeln (habe mir zwischen den Jahren ein paar kleine Autohotkey-Scripts für die Bereinigung meiner eigenen Uploads geschrieben, muß mal gucken, wie gut die da funktionieren würden – wenn natürlich jemand einen Bot beisteuern könnte ...). Ein paar Fragen hätte ich allerdings noch:
  • Du schreibst oben, daß es doppelte Diagramme gibt, könntest Du das mal genauer darlegen, welche das sind, bevor ich da jedes Diagramm einzeln nachkontrollieren muß, und welche davon entsorgt werden könnten?
  • Was ist mit den Tabellen, die sich in den von Dir angelegten Kategorien befinden? Dort selbst gehören sie ja definitiv nicht hin (weder die Niederschlagstabellen noch die mit den Vorlagen – die dienten wohl zur Generierung der Diagramme?), werden Sie ansonsten noch irgendwie benötigt? Ich würde sie dann ggf. mitentsorgen ...
Gruß -- JörgM 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, JörgM,
  • Zu den doppelten Diagrammen. Die doppelten Diagramme sind bei der automatischen Generierung der Bilder entstanden. Bei dem numerischen Wert der Niederschlagssumme sind ein oder zwei Stellen verloren gegangen. Da eine Massenlöschung wohl nicht auf die Schnelle möglich war, habe das Überschreiben der fehlerhaften Dateien mit korrekten Daten versucht. Da ich bei der Generierung der Bilder irgendwann von png auf svg umgeschaltet habe, müssten noch einige der fehlerhaften Bilder ein Doppelleben als png (falsch) und svg (korrekt) führen. Die fehlerhaften Dateien müssten sich unter http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duesentrieb#Massenl.C3.B6schung befinden(allerdings teilweise im png-Format). Erkennen kann man die fehlerhaften Bilder an der vollkommen unrealistischen Niederschlagssumme (siehe Beispiel: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ZWISCHENAHNBAD_WESTERH_nieder.svg).
  • Zu den Tabellen: Wie in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Klimadiagramm%2C_Sachsen-Anhalt gibt es zwei Tabellen. Die erste enthält im Wesentlichen die Rohdaten, die ja schon in Bilder destilliert wurden. Die einzige (meiner Meinung nach) hilfreiche Information ist die, die man durch die Sortierfunktion gewinnen kann. Durch Click auf die Spaltenüberschriften kann man die Tabelle etwa nach Jahressumme, Monatswert oder Höhe sortieren und damit einen einzelnen Ort bezüglich der sortierten Größe einorden (Ort mit viel, wenig Niederschlag). Um diese nur auf den commons erzeugbare Information etwa in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarlouis#Klima bereitzustellen, habe ich die zweite Tabelle erzeugt. Dort kann man die Automatik "{{subst:Benutzer:Kolling/Vorlagen/Niederschlag|521|Februar|Juni|Nur 6%|unteren|46%|mittleren|2,1}}" entnehmen und in den entsprechenden Artikel einbauen. Dadurch wird automatisch eine Bildbeschreibung erzeugt, die einem Klimabanausen (wir mir) eine Bewertung liefert (Dort regnet es viel oder wenig, der Niederschlag schwankt viel oder wenig).
Hast du eine Idee, wie man die für den Klimaunkundigen lediglich als beliebige "Zappelkurven" erscheinenden Niederschlagskurven mit (halb)automatisch (evt. bot-mäßig) erläutern kann? LoKiLeCh 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, die Liste bei Duesentrieb beinhaltet ausschließlich .svg-Dateien, keine mit .png. Beinhaltet sie ausschließlich Dateien, die aufgrund falscher Angaben im Diagramm gelöscht werden können? Und ist sie ansonsten komplett? Ansonsten müssen wir nachher doch jedes Diagramm überprüfen *ächz*.
Zu den Datentabellen: Sortierbare Tabellen sind in der deutschen Wikipedia doch auch möglich (gesehen jüngst auf de:Liste der Städte in Schweden#Städtische Siedlungen nach Einwohnerzahl). Allerdings kann ich mir vorstellen, daß Tabellen in dieser Größenordnung da drüben (aber wahrscheinlich auch hier) nicht gar so gern gesehen sind. Aber eindeutig gehören die Informationen dieser Tabellen in die Enzyklopädie, nicht in das Medienarchiv (also die Commons). Frag doch mal im de:Portal:Wetter und Klima nach, wie und wo man diese Tabellen drüben am besten unterbringen könnte.
Und zu den Vorlagentabellen: Stell die bitte irgendwo auf Deine Benutzerseiten (am besten auf de-Wiki, Deine Vorlage ist ja auf deutsch und liegt ohnehin dort), ich kann in den entsprechenden Kategorien gerne einen Link dahinsetzen, falls sich andere Benutzer daran versuchen wollen. Inhaltlich solltest Du den Text der Vorlage und die dazugehörige Tabelle vielleicht auch mal im genannten Portal abklären – vor allem hinsichtlich der Erklärung für „Klimabanausen“ :-) (gehöre ich eigentlich auch dazu). Wenn ich einen Vergleich zu wählen hätte, würde ich als Bezugspunkt einen Mittelwert und/oder einen Median wählen und zu diesem/n Vergleiche anstellen. Außerdem ist es schon sehr mathematisch-statistisch-exakt gesehen, wenn man das Klima eines Ortes genau an einer bestimmten Stelle einer Skala verorten möchte – das ist so pauschal meines Erachtens nicht möglich, wenn überhaupt, dann nur in Bezug auf den Meßzeitraum (die Tabellen beziehen sich auf 1961–1990, da dürfte sich in den vergangenen 15 Jahren schon das ein oder andere verschoben haben). Aber solcherlei kannst Du sicherlich mit den Kollegen vom Portal besser abklären. Gruß -- JörgM 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Bei wievielen Diagrammen hast Du außer den Niederschlägen auch die Temperaturen eingefügt? -- JörgM 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Die Niederschlagsdiagramme, die zuletzt in der Category:Climate diagrams of Germany standen, habe ich in die Kategorien Category:Precipitation diagrams of Bavaria, Category:Precipitation diagrams of Hamburg und Category:Precipitation diagrams of Rhineland-Palatinate verschoben; von den Werten her sahen sie okay aus. Die Niederschlagsdiagramme aus der Category:Klimadiagramm, Berlin liegen jetzt in Category:Precipitation diagrams of Berlin, eines ist aber noch übriggeblieben, da stimmt der Wert der Niederschlagssumme nicht. Überschreib es bitte mit einem korrekten Diagramm und verschiebe es dann selbst hinüber. (Das können wir meinetwegen für die anderen Diagramme auch so handhaben.) Zwei Diagramme für Berlin scheinen übrigens zu fehlen (die zu Frohnau und Johannisthal).
Auf der Seite von Duesentrieb sind sie übrigens gelistet (aber es existieren keine gelöschten Seiten, soweit ich das sehen kann); Lichterfelde Ost ist dort auch gelistet, das Diagramm hast Du aber mittlerweile mit einem korrekten überschrieben. Insofern kann ich diese Liste bei Duesentrieb wohl nicht mehr gut gebrauchen, sieht wohl nach Handarbeit beim Überprüfen aus. Gruß -- JörgM 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hallo JorgM, mir ist da eine Idee gekommen, die das Problem mit den zwar informativen aber (auf den commons wie auf der deutschen wikipedia) monströsen Tabellen lösen könnte. Ein konventionelles Klimadiagramm stellt im Rahmen der statistischen Genauigkeit korrekte Informationen bereit; diese lassen sich jedoch für den Nicht-Klimaexperten, und damit für 99% der Leser, kaum interpretieren. Eine Interpretationshilfe wie "{{subst:Benutzer:Kolling/Vorlagen/Niederschlag|521|Februar|Juni|Nur 6%|unteren|46%|mittleren|2,1}}" kann jedoch nur schwer den Kompromiss zwischen Omatestfestigkeit und fundiertem Inhalt eingehen. Das Beispiel in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarlouis#Klima liest sich schon sehr trocken, wenngleich es eine Bewertung des Diagramms ermöglicht. Nun zu meiner Idee: Wie wäre es, wenn man in jedes Diagramm etwa den deutschen Median das untere und obere Quartil grafisch dezent als Quasi-deutschen KlimaUrmeter einträgt? Ohne Quantile kommt mal wohl kaum aus, da die Histogramme (zumindest der Niedschlagswerte) extrem schief sind und damit ein naiver Vergleich mit dem Median sicher zu Fehlschlüssen führt. Mit der vorgeschlagenen "Masterkurve" könnte jeder (mit minimaler Hilfestellung (wikilink, tooltip)) die aktuelle Kurve seines Heimatortes mit dem deutschen Standardklima vergleichen. Dazu müssten die Diagramme jedoch erneuert werden. Schade wäre dann allerdings, wenn der commonist die schon von fleißiger Hand ergänzte Kategorisierung zerstören würden. Deinen Vorschlag, die Diskussion auf de:Portal:Wetter und Klima weiterzuführen, werde ich aufgreifen und auf der dortigen Diskussionsseite einen entsprechenden link nach hier setzen. Gruß --LoKiLeCh 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Zum erneuten Hochladen mit Commonist: Einfach keine Kategorien eintragen, dann überschreibt er die vorhandenen auch nicht. (Hat er jedenfalls bei meinen Reuploads bisher unterlassen. Die (Kategorien-)Seite, auf der das Bild eingebunden ist, findet er ja schon vor.) Über den Rest muß ich noch nachdenken. Aber vergiß nicht, daß eine „Bewertung“ in Deinem Stil lediglich die vorhandenen gemessenen Daten auswertet, aber nichts darüber aussagt, wie es zu diesen kommt (was man an den Daten auch nicht ablesen kann). Insofern kann selbst eine vollständige statistische Beschreibung und Einordnung noch zu falschen Schlüssen führen. Im Zweifel empfiehlt sich da meines Erachtens ein Einpflegen der Diagramme samt zugehörigen Texten von Hand durch Leute, die sich damit (und am besten auch mit den dazugehörigen Orten) ein wenig auskennen. Aus ebenjenem Grund erstelle ich auch nur Diagramme, binde sie aber nicht in die Artikel ein (es sei denn, ich ersetze sie und korrigiere dann an den Texten herum, um die Daten einigermaßen aneinander anzugleichen). Gruß -- JörgM 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ich sehe keine Gefahr für die vorhandenen Kategorieen, sondern für den link auf selbige in der Bildbeschreibung (also einen tag wie [[Category:Hintertupfingen]]). Jede Bewertung von Daten kann nur so gut sein, wie eben jene Daten. In den Daten werden immerhin 30 Jahre abgedeckt. Das ist schon ganz üppig. Das schon erwähnte Manko ist, dass die Daten nicht mehr ganz frisch sind. Je mehr Daten man haben will, desto älter werden sie automatisch. Ein Zeitraum von wenigen Jahren zu kurz. --LoKiLeCh 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Kategorien: Da habe ich mich mißverständlich ausgedrückt. Wenn ich keine Kategorien im Commonist eintrage, überschreibt er die Kategorie-Tags auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite auch nicht. Jedenfalls nicht bei mir. Einfach mal beim Reupload eines einzelnen Bildes probieren. Gruß -- JörgM 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Moin, Lokilech! Die Kollegen vom Wetterportal überschlagen sich ja nachgerade mit irgendwelchen Vorschlägen ... Ich habe die ersten zwei deutschen Kategorien geleert (Category:Klimadiagramm, Baden-Württemberg und Category:Klimadiagramm, Berlin). Lediglich die Tabellen stehen jetzt noch darin. Wenn da längerfristig keine Vorschläge kommen sollten, wäre ich dafür, daß wir die Tabellen auf einer Benutzerunterseite von Dir zwischenlagern, bis eine einigermaßen befriedigende Lösung gefunden sein wird. Könntest Du mal prophylaktisch Unterseiten bei Dir benennen (nicht erstellen), auf die ich die Tabellen bei Bedarf verschieben könnte? Gruß -- JörgM 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Niederschlag quantile.svg
Hallo JörgM, welche Vorschläge, wo? Die Tabellen könnten bei mir zwischengelagert werden (Danke). Ich bin dabei, einen deutschen Urmeter (10%,25%,25-75%,90%-Quantile) für die Niederschläge zu basteln in den der jeweilige Verlauf eingetragen wird (siehe Bild). So, oder so ähnlich; vielleicht ??? LoKiLeCh 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Moin! Vorschläge: Sorry, das war ironisch gemeint (weil eben noch keiner gekommen ist). Urmeter: Das muß ich mir bei Gelegenheit genauer angucken, aber übers Wochenende muß ich erst mal noch ein dickes Buch einscannen, weil das via Fernleihe nächste Woche wieder zurückmuß, meine Musezeit wird also leider begrenzt sein. Nicht wundern, wenn trotzdem Diagramm nach Diagramm verschoben wird, da läuft gelegentlich einfach ein Script.
By the way: Bei den Diagrammen mit den falschen Summenwerten ändere ich diese ab (geht ja recht einfach im svg-Text). Gleiche Du aber mal bitte die Menge der Diagramme (und ggf. Deine Tabellen) mit den (originalen) DWD-Tabellen ab, ich habe das Gefühl, daß Du nicht alle Orte erwischt hast (ohne das jetzt nachgeprüft zu haben). Wenn wir das schon nahezu erschöpfend ausgewertet haben, dann sollten da am Ende auch alle Orte dabei sein. Einige Diagramme (Saarland glaube ich) hatte ich gesehen, bei denen Du neben den Niederschlägen auch die Temperaturen miteingebaut hast. Ich plädiere dafür, daß Du diese vielleicht auf Niederschläge reduzierst – Diagramme mit Temperaturen und Niederschlägen werde ich auf alle Fälle im W+L-Format zur Verfügung stellen, wird nur ein wenig dauern, ich bin erst bei Bayern :-). (Wie die W+L-Diagramme aussehen, kannst Du auf meinen Seiten hier (zum Beispiel diese) sehen.) Gruß -- JörgM 09:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallo JörgM, hier ein Entwurf mit Beispielen. Dieser Entwurf würde automatisch die Bilder auf die Darstellung von Niederschlägen beschränken, da der zusätzliche plot von Temperaturen mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten wohl zu unübersichtlich würde. Die Beispiele zeigen Fälle von wenig, viel Niederschlag, Niederschlag mit wenig und viel Variation. Mit diesem Stil könnte der Leser (evt. mit ein wenig textueller Erläuterung) die Kurven bewerten. Von der Farbgebung erscheint mir die Letzte am besten. LoKiLeCh 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-Freudenstadt-Deutschland-1961-1990.png
Hallo, Lokilech! Jo, jetzt kann ich's mir gut vorstellen, was Du beabsichtigst. Du benötigst aber auf jeden Fall ein Referenzbild (ohne blaue Kurve für einen bestimmten Ort), um zu erläutern, was die einzelnen Bereiche darstellen. (Sollte dann vermutlich irgendwo unter de:Deutschland#Klima zu stehen kommen.)
Aber eine Bitte hätte ich von vornherein zu diesen neuen Diagrammen: Versuche bitte, die Werte auf der y-Achse einheitlich darzustellen (also im gleichen Maßstab), damit man die Diagramme untereinander besser vergleichen kann (falls man mal mehrere nebeneinander stellt, wie ich das in der kleinen Galerie oberhalb gemacht habe); da macht es sich einfach schlecht, wenn der Maximalwert in einem Diagramm bei 120 mm liegt, in einem anderen bei 140 mm und sich dadurch unterschiedliche Maßstäbe ergeben. Auch der Basispunkt sollte dann einheitlich sein (und am besten bei 0 mm). Ggf. den Maßstab über 100 mm durchgängig verkleinern, z. B. 50-mm-Schritte statt 10-mm-Schritte (siehe zum Beispiel das Freudenstadt-Diagramm hier nebenan, da sind's dann 100-mm-Schritte statt 20-mm-Schritte). Aber ansonsten Beifall für die Idee!
Farben: Die Grautöne können meines Erachtens ruhig noch etwas kontrastreicher ausfallen. Im letzten Beispiel ist die Grauskala zwar schön durchgängig, aber der weiße Balken (Mittelwert oder Median?) geht in der hellhellgrauen Umgebung sehr unter, da gefallen mir die anderen Lösungen besser.
Ähm, und noch was: Es sind keine Wahrscheinlichkeiten, sondern gemessene und ggf. nachkorrigierte Werte für einen bestimmten Zeitraum :-). Das ist die einzige sichere Aussage, die man aus diesen Diagrammen ablesen kann. Daraus lassen sich meines Erachtens nur sehr unzureichend Wahrscheinlichkeiten in der Verteilung der Werte und Anteile für die Zukunft ableiten, insbesondere was die Werte einzelner Jahre angeht. Gruß -- JörgM 11:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Moin, JörgM, Ein Referenzbild mit Legendencharakter macht Sinn. Zur Skalierung: Es ist ein Leichtes, alle Bilder mit denselben Min-,Max-Werten zu versehen. Das ergibt eine gute Vergleichbarkeit. Damit dieser Maßstab tatsächlich allgemeingültig ist, muss er auch die "Ausreißer" mit sehr niedrigen und sehr hohen Niederschlägen abdecken. Dadurch landet der überwiegende Anteil der Kurven in die "Bildmitte" und der Betrachter kommt möglicherweise zur Einschätzung: Die Niederschlagskurven sehen ja alle gleich aus. Der Sinn des "Urmeteransatzes" ist ja gerade eine Beurteilungshilfe zu liefern, die eine intuitive Einschätzung ermöglicht, ob es an dem jeweiligen Ort und im fraglichen Monat viel oder wenig regnet; und das ohne die "üblichen" Werte im Hinterkopf haben zu müssen. Deinen Vorschlag mit zwei Bereichen (über und unter 100mm) werde ich mal durchspielen. Alternativ wäre folgender Ansatz mit zwei Klassen von Maßstäben: Damit die automatische Skalierung nicht Zufallsmaßstäbe liefert, die von einem zu nächsten Bild springen, wird ein fester Maßstab gewählt. Die Grenzen dieses Maßstabes sind jedoch etwas enger als die tatsächlichen Min-, Max-Grenzen. Damit ist die Vergleichbarkeit der Bilder (in ca. 90% der Fälle) gewährleistet. Ein "Verschwinden" der Verläufe in der Bildmitte wird dadurch verhindert. Für die restlichen (exotischen) Fälle mit sehr hohen und niedrigen Werten wird ebenfalls ein fester Maßstab gewählt, der alles abdeckt. Zur Farbgebung: Die Graustufen wirken je nach Ausgabemedium (LCD, CRT, Drucker) sehr unterschiedlich. Sogar zwei verschieden LCDs zeigen deutliche Unterschiede. Da gibt es noch Optimierungspotential. Bin aber erst mal ein paar Tage offline. Gruß LoKiLeCh 11:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Lokilech! Ich habe mal das Barnstorf-Diagramm oben einfach etwas kontrastreicher gestaltet. Ist bestimmt nicht optimal, aber einfach mal als Gedanke und zum Vergleich. Schöne Fasnacht (oder was auch immer), ich habe jede Menge Unkarnevalistisches zu tun ... Gruß -- JörgM 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seeg Altar Decke.jpg[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 informations 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 Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Image:Saardom Orgel.jpg[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 informations 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 Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

File:PASSAU OBERHAUS WST nieder.svg[edit]

Seems that nobody asked you about it. File:PASSAU OBERHAUS WST nieder.svg was lost on the September 2008 image loss. If you happen to have a copy of it, please reupload it. Platonides (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done --LoKiLeCh (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (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, LoKiLeCh!

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.

BotMultichillT 06:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:BeckingenStahlmenschen.jpg[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 21:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Source code?[edit]

Could you upload the source code to File:Pentdod gruen 1024.JPG please? Thanks! Please reply to my talk page. SharkD (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Reibfaktor.svg[edit]

I see you categorized File:Reibfaktor.svg into Category:Metallura. Unfortunately, that category is for a genus of hummingbird. Could you please recategorize the image? I would do it myself, but I'm not sure what category would be appropriate. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. --LoKiLeCh 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Bernau Hof (3).JPG[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 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


File:Bernau Hof (2).JPG[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 22:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Klimadiagramm LINDOW MARK nieder.svg[edit]

Hallo LoKiLeCh, bei diesem Diagramm steht offensichtlich eine falsche durchschnittliche Niederschlagsmenge in der Überschrift. mfG --Botaurus (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Botaurus, jetzt sollte es stimmen. --LoKiLeCh 21:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:JuraySpaehGondel.jpg[edit]

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

84user (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Urexweiler_Hanjob.jpg[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 may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Urexweiler_Hanjob.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!

GeorgHHtalk   22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Homburg Schlossberg.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Homburg Schlossberg.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.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wasgauwaldbahn Fahrplan-2.jpg[edit]

Hallo LoKiLeCh, vielleicht magst du dich bei Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wasgauwaldbahn Fahrplan-2.jpg beteiligen? Eine öffentlich sichtbare Schautafel war das ja nicht, oder? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Saibo, was ist eine Schautafel? So weit ich es verstanden habe, war es der öffentlich einsehbare Fahrplan; ob da die Panoramafreiheit gilt bzw. galt, weiß ich nicht. Auf Bahnhöfen darf nicht fotografiert werden (Hausrecht). In diesem Fall handelte es sich wohl nicht um einen Bahnhof, sondern nur ein Haltepunkt. Dort hätte man den Fahrplan wohl fotografieren dürfen. Wenn der Fahrplan ein paar Jahre älter wäre könnte man die 100 Jahre-Regel anwenden; aber hier bin ich überfragt. Gruß --LoKiLeCh 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallo LoKiLeCh, das Hausrecht der Bahn kannst du erstmal weglassen - das spielt nicht wirklich eine Rolle (außer, dass sie dich als Fotograf belangen könnten, wenn sie deine Adresse hätten). Hing dieser Plan öffentlich aus (das meinte ich mit "öffentlich sichtbare Schautafel")? Dann könnten wir es nämlich wohl behalten. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Saibo, dass der Plan öffentlich aushing, ist stark zu vermuten; schließlich sollen die Daten ja unter die Leute gebracht werden. Dabei war ich allerdings nicht. Als ich das Photo gemacht habe, hatte der "Museumsleiteter" des Instrumentariums (ein älterer interessanter Herr) einige Anekdoten parat (auch zum Fahrplan). Er hat auch mit Augenzeugen gesprochen und könnte Auskunft geben. Seinen Namen habe ich nicht; evt. kann man ihn über die Internetseite kontaktieren. --LoKiLeCh 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nun verstehe ich - ich dachte du hättest den Originalplan abfotografiert. Ich dachte er hängt noch dort. Danke für die Museumswebsite - aber das ist mir doch etwas zu viel Aufwand und dann immernoch recht unsicher, wie es denn nun wirklich war. Falls das Museum es überhaupt wüsste. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Saibo, es ist schon ein Kreuz mit dem Urheberrecht. Wenn eine Quelle 70 Jahre nach der Urheberschaft hinter sich hat, ist sie fast schon uninteressant. Mit dem Urheberrecht werden große Mengen an Informationen systematisch in den Orkus gerührt; von der Obrigkeit gelenkte Selbsschädigung. Schade, dass ein anheimelndes Dokument zerschreddert wird. Gruß --LoKiLeCh 22:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ja - das Urheberrecht ist grauselig. Völlig unangemessen und voller Fehler. Dazu kommt dann noch, dass wir z.B. Werke der Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung nicht verwenden können de:Datei:Sentbrief_wider_den_Saufteufel_.JPG). Ich finde sowas sollte gemeinfrei sein, wie es es beispielsweise wäre, wenn es eine US-Behörde erstellt hätte. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Werner Janensch-Fotos[edit]

Hallo LoKiLeCh,
bei deinen Uploads File:Tendaguru Tendaguru1.jpg, File:Tendaguru Tendaguru2.jpg und File:Tendaguru Tendaguru3.jpg wäre die Angabe des Aufnahmejahres (für das Originalbild) wünschenswert. Deiner Kategorisierung der Bilder entnehme ich, dass die Originalfotos von Werner Janensch aufgenommen wurden, richtig? --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, die Bilder sind während der Tendaguru-Expedition entstanden in der Zeitspanne von 1909 bis 1911. Die Fotograf ist mir nicht bekannt. Die Fotos stammen vermutlich nicht von Werner Janensch; in der gleichen Kategorie befindet sich ein Abbild von Werner Janensch, das während der selben Expedition entstanden ist. Dieses Bild hat er wohl nicht selbst gemacht (ein Urheber ist jedenfalls nicht angegeben); es sei denn, er hat einen Selbstauslöser benutzt. Gruß --LoKiLeCh 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Danke; du kannst dir den Hintergrund meiner Frage sicher denken. Janensch starb 1969, weshalb seine Werke bis 2040 geschützt sind. Auch wenn die Fotos nicht von Janensch sind, könnte der Photograph, so wie Janensch, noch bis 1950/1960 gelebt haben, mit den entsprechenden Folgen. Als einzigen Weg, die Bilder auf Commons zu halten, sehe ich anonymous-EU, womit du sie ja auch schon markiert hast. Damit das gerechtfertigt ist, muss aber sichergestellt sein, 1) dass die Fotos bereits vor >70 Jahre veröffentlicht wurden (z. B. Museum) und 2) dass sich in einer angemessenen Suche (in älteren Publikationen, im Museumsarchiv, usw.) kein Autor ermitteln ließ. Hast du das schon gemacht oder gibt es hier noch etwas zu tun? --Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Túrelio, einen Autor konnte ich bislang nicht ermitteln; die Suche werde ich auch nicht fortsetzen. Ich habe da schlechte Erfahrungen bei einem längeren Disput mit einem unfähigen Museumswärter vom Deutschen Museum gemacht. Der wollte der wikipedia Geld abknöpfen; etwa für das Bild Amstetten. Ich hab ihn dann letztlich klein gekriegt. Für derart kleinhirniges Gezerre habe ich keine Zeit. Wenn jemand anderes sich die Mühe machen will, soll er das tun; ansonsten löschen. Gruß --LoKiLeCh 22:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Naturkunde Berlin[edit]

Many thanks for your excellent photos from this exceptionally important museum. Will you (or may I) Category some Zoology specimens thus [1] so that they will link from here [2] I will refine this category when I have more images. Best regards from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Robert, feel free to category the images. My poor zoological knowlegde is not sufficient to do this by myself. Perhaps you find the right category for the following birds. Seems to be some kind of "Garrulus glandarius". --LoKiLeCh 22:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Berlin Naturkundemuseum tote Voegel.jpg

Thankyou.I will do this today. I replaced my image with yours see [3]. Yes these are study skins of a subspecies [4] of "Garrulus glandarius". I cannot read the label so I will e-mail the museum for this info. Robert Notafly (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the images at the right place. --LoKiLeCh 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. I also used the Garrulus image here [5] I hope you will take more zoology museum photos. Let me know if you do. Best regards Robert Notafly (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Missing Category[edit]

I could fix only the Ichneumoninae pic Crypteffigies albilarvatus (uncertain) and a Yponomeuta species and the butterfly Argynnis paphia. I have e-mailed the links of the other 3 pics to freinds. All are very nice photos indeed. Notafly (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --LoKiLeCh 19:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Aachen_Karman.jpg[edit]

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

Polarlys (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

categories[edit]

please use appropriate small categories for your files. Just mathematics is wrong. Thanks for your understanding--131.173.40.5 07:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:JH_Altena.jpg[edit]

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

Raymond 10:54, 22 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 LoKiLeCh,

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 23:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:TORNAU nieder.svg[edit]

Hallo, LoKiLeCh, bezieht sich das Diagramm auf Tornau bei Rodleben, also den Dessauer Stadtteil? Gruß --Ködermaus (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Ködermaus, die beiden Orte liegen ja recht nah beieinander und die Messstation steht ja üblicherweise nicht im Ortszentrum auf dem Marktplatz, sondern irgendwo anders. Man müsste die Distanz der in TORNAU nieder.svg oben angegebenen Koordinaten zu den beiden Orten vergleichen. Der nähere Ort wäre dann derjenige welche. Von praktischer Bedeutung ist die Zuordnung wohl kaum, denn bei so geringer Distanz werden die Unterschiede im Niederschlag kleiner als die Genauigkeit der Daten sein. Grüße --LoKiLeCh 20:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Es ging um Tornau bei DE oder im ABI-Kreis oder G´hainichen... Danke. Ist dann wohl das Dessauer. Gruß --Ködermaus (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Postal_museum_Luxemburg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Postal_museum_Luxemburg 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!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Jwh (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Post_offices_in_Luxemburg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Post_offices_in_Luxemburg 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!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Jwh (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:FreierFall0.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FreierFall0.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 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)‎ | +/−

Leyo 10:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Beckingen Bildchen (11).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Beckingen Bildchen (11).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Beckingen Bildchen (3).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Beckingen Bildchen (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Beckingen Bildchen (5).JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Beckingen Bildchen (5).JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Beckingen Bildchen (7).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Beckingen Bildchen (7).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker Beckinger Wald I (1).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker Beckinger Wald I (1).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker Beckinger Wald I (3).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker Beckinger Wald I (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker2 BeckingerWald (2).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker2 BeckingerWald (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker2 BeckingerWald (3).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker2 BeckingerWald (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker2 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (1).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker2 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (1).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker2 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (2).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker2 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker2 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (3).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker2 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker3 BeckingerWald (1).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker3 BeckingerWald (1).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker3 BeckingerWald (2).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker3 BeckingerWald (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker3 BeckingerWald (3).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker3 BeckingerWald (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker3 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (3).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker3 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker3 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (1).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker3 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (1).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bunker3 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (2).jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bunker3 Bunkergruppe BeckingerWald (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Halle nahe Bahnhof Beckingen.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Halle nahe Bahnhof Beckingen.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archive[edit]

Feel free to remove the no license notes once the situation has been resolved. Otherwise I suggest you set up a talk page archive, a quick and easy setup is there: User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup. --Denniss (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, LGA talkedits 10:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, LGA talkedits 02:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Photographie Georg[edit]

Bonjour,

Les photographies de votre grand-père sont très intéressantes à la fois sur le plan documentaire et sur le plan artistique. C'est pourquoi j'ai décidé de leur consacrer un article dans le livre de photographie que je suis en train de rédiger. Vous le trouverez ici : b:fr:Photographie/Personnalités/D/Johann Peter Georg Diancourt. Vous pouvez évidemment le compléter ou corriger les informations si besoin est !

Cordialement,

Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:S M Linienschiff Preussen 1903.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:S M Linienschiff Preussen 1903.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)‎ | +/−

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, with regard to this work, you have scanned it from a book. Would you please add the book, and the year of publication of the book to the work. That would be enormously helpful. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze[edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Hallo LoKiLeCh,

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)

File:Quierschied Glashütte Ende 18tes Jahrhundert.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Quierschied Glashütte Ende 18tes Jahrhundert.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)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)