User talk:Matthead

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Commons maintenance announcements [+/−]

More translations are needed for:


Backlogs:
as of 18 February 2010

Theatrum Orbis Terrarum[edit]

Hello, "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum" is related to Blaeu, not to Ortelius. something seems to go wrong here. Simplicius 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First Abraham Ortelius, then the Blaeu called their work Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. Different editions cause more confusion, and then maps sometimes depict a certain time span (in the past, obviously). See overview at en:Atlas, de:Atlas (Kartografie). --Matthead 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt Image:Blaeu 1645 - Drentia Comitatus Transiselaniæ tabula II.jpg should be under category Ortelius. Simplicius 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This might be the case. Yet better a category too many than too few. --Matthead 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hanse-Orden.png[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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in 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 information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 10:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

The upload window is not very helpful, it lacks a preview, for example. So I upload the pic with some info, and then expand in the next edit with proper PD-tag and cats. --Matthead 10:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sprachen und Grenzen[edit]

Moin Du hast Image:Maas memel etsch belt.svg "übersetzt". Verwendest Du die irgendwo? Die ist nämlich noch nicht endgültig, siehe Diskussion beim Deutschlandlied oder so, die will ich irgendwann Jahresanfang nochmal neu machen... Da Du offenbar gerade den Putzger scannst: Hat der was zur Sprachverteilung, was eine bessere PD-Grundlage ist als die des einne umstrittenen Bildes? --Mueck 11:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nö, Putzger scannen tu ich mangels Atlas nicht, nur vorhandenes verlinken. Die Übersetzung habe ich gemacht, weil ich selber mal eine schlechtere Karte zur Lage der Gewässer erstellt/modifiziert hatte en:Image:Deutschlandlied-Geographie.png. Ist ja gar nicht auf commons sehe ich grade, ein Versäumnis. Du kannst deine Karten jederzeit überarbeiten und eine neue Version hochladen - insbesondere die grelle Farbgebung und ggf. englische/lokale Beschriftung. Diskussion, ohje, so viel, wer soll das alles lesen? Was auch immer kritisiert wird, es ist sekundär, die Gewässer sind "klar", und daß an allen deutsch gesprochen wurde, oder wird, auch. Laß dich nicht beirren, und verwende das Bild. Oder ich machs, freigegeben ist es ja. ;-) --Matthead 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, nachdem ich Deine Version sah, weiß ich nun meine kartographischen Fähigkeiten besser zu würdigen *flöt* ;-) Trotzdem würde ich gerne noch an einigen Sachen feilen, bevor ich das Teil in den Gebrauch schicken will... --Mueck 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello Matt. It is not a Polish-POV, why? Here's the exact explanation. You have created category called "Teschen" which is the same as "Cieszyn". If you want to establish consensus about town's name, go first to EN Wikipedia, please. In case you want to create a category for a Duchy, category which would include Dukes, old maps etc., then you should create category "Duchy of Teschen". Teschen and Duchy of Teschen is not the same thing, one is a town, second is a duchy. Besides, there is also a difference between the duchy and whole historical region which exists to date. Bis bald!. - Darwinek 11:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Index of maps[edit]

This is what I have.

Index sheet of the general map of Central Europe (1-200 000).jpg

. Thanks for your interest.--Szilas 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that provides a good overview, thanks. Seems to be made with a modern tool, with modern names, not the ones the Austrians had used, and named their maps after, though. Needs some figuring out then. Any ideas how this can be solved, maybe grouping in smaller subcategories after countires (then or now) would help? Quite tedious work with 200+ maps, though. --Matthead 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a new index (the licensing is not quite correct, but the author (http://lazarus.elte.hu/gb/dolgozo/zentail.htm) is satisfied by the quoting of his name, he has written that on the web-page from where I got all this). I don't see good possibilities for consistent subcategories, but each map can be put into several other categories individually (historically and geographically).--Szilas 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Ferro[edit]

I'm sorry but that was an article and this isn't Wikipedia. The gallery namespace is for galleries only. That is why I said it was out of our scope. Rocket000 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would you like the text copy'n'pasted here, just let me know. Maybe to use on a image's talk page? Rocket000 07:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Photochrom pictures from the Library of Congress[edit]

I know these are historic images but the purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to make images available to wikis in all languages. To this end Category:Images_with_watermarks encourages the removal of watermarks where this can be done without seriously damaging the image. The LOC remains the main archive of the images. Captions on a wiki should be added in the appropriate langauage when an image is used. {{watermark}} and Commons:Manipulating_meta_data#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons contain further guidance. I choose to tackle the problem images at the same time as cropping the borders, rather than tag them for someone else. For an article about the collection, it would be appropriate to retain an example of the original images. I hope this helps - happy to discuss at Village pump if you wish a wider opinion. Finavon (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You did not remove a digitally added copyright watermark from Image:Schneekoppe_Krummhuebel_1900.jpg, but the caption "Riesengebirge, Ober-Krummhübel mit Schneekoppe", which is part of the original content of the 108 year old postcard. This is not acceptable, especially since the town of Krummhübel became part of Poland after 1945, as "Karpacz". That article fails to mention that the town had a German name until 1945. Please be more careful in such controversial contexts. --Matthead (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact that "Riesengebirge" was missing from the description - I will add. Perhaps you could look at some of the other images in the category and see if there are similar issues. I have taken the wider discussion to Village pump, as there does not appear to be a policy for historic images with embedded captions. Finavon (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Hi Matty! Sorry for calling you a troll, but how else should I call user who mention my name in the edit summary on German Wikipedia article which I even didn't edit? To the point, Poland and Czech Republic categories weren't added by me but they should stay there. In your oldish POV way of thinking both categories would be empty as you know very well that almost all postcards which can be used here freely come from periods when both countries weren't on the map. The image description is perfect as it is, it informs correctly about the image and have proper categories. And stop calling me POV editor, Matty, I would be POV removing category related to Austria-Hungary and erasing whole German part. Did I do so? No, so please let it be. - Darwinek (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Złota brama w Gdańsku 1687 r.jpg[edit]

Hello!

Category:Golden Gate in Gdańsk is subcategory of category:Long Street in Gdańsk. Golden Gate is part of Long Street in Gdańsk. So, necessary is only one category of this image. Greetings, --Starscream (talk) 01:50, 13 January 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, Matthead!

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 06:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Manuscript De revolutionibus[edit]

File:De-rev-manu.djvu contains 213 pages of the manuscript

Hey! I'm just writting an article the manuscript De revolutionibus Polish Wikipedia ([1]). The scanned picture has been substituted on purpose, since the previous version is artificially enlighted and does not keep the accordance with the original version, which deteriorates its reception. Moreover, there'll be many more pages from this manuscript in their original colours in the article. Therefore, if tou will, could you revert the picture to its original file [2] with its true colors. Greetings and thanks for the english description of all files sent by me :-) Grzegorz Petka (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just uploaded File:De-rev-manu.djvu which contains 213 pages of the manuscript. Maybe that serves you purpose best? --Matthead (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

category Vandalism[edit]

Hello.

This images aren't photomontages. Illegal actions. Alike all September Campaign. --Starscream (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Info[edit]

File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nalot_niemczyzny_1910_1931.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nalot_niemczyzny_1910_1931.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)‎ | +/−

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)