User talk:Ralf Roletschek/Archiv 1

abwarten...

Meine Mitarbeit auf Commons wird mit dem 20. Oktober enden. --Ralf Roleček 13:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Darf man fragen warum? Du hast ja schon zahlreiche wirklich tolle Fotos beigesteuert. Ich fänd es schade. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ralf, please take that discussion in a positive way. I can see your latest uploads either with a combined FAL license or with a combined CC-BY-SA license; which are acceptable in that proposal too. JKadavoor Jee 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Es geht mir um keine spezielle Lizenz. Ob GFDL oder CC ist völlig egal. Mir geht es um die allgemeine Verfahrensweise hier. Erst werden Dateien zwangsweise umlizenziert, selbst wenn man widerspricht. Und jetzt soll die grundlegende Lizenz aller Wikiprojekte verboten werden. Ich bin es satt, mir von Kerlchen was sagen zu lassen, die die Füße noch bei mama unter sen Tisch stecken und noch nie eigenes Geld verdienen mußten. Die wollen uns was über geistiges Eigentum erzählen? Als ich vor 10 jahren hier angefangen habe, stand fett unter jeder Seite: "Dies ist unter GFDL lizenziert und wird das immer bleiben". Das ist für mich Scheinheiligkeit, gespaltene Zuge und Vorspielung falscher Tatsachen. Dann sind meine Bilder bei Google besser aufgehoben. --Ralf Roleček 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Ralf! Ich habe die ganze Diskussion bzgl. der Lizenzen nicht wirklich mitbekommen, bin durch JKadavoor Jee dann auf die o.a. Seite gekommen. Wenn ich dich richtig verstehe stört es dich, NC-Lizenzen zu verbieten, weil du die Befürchtung hast, dass dadurch "professionelle Dateispender" ausbleiben bzw. ihre Fotos dann nur noch in Mini-Auflösung hochladen. Mein Kenntnisstand war bisher, dass es generell nicht möglich ist "NC"-lizensierte Fotos hochzuladen. Das Ziel des o.a. RFC ist es nun, diese Regel generell auf Commons durchzusetzen, da dies bisher nur über Regeln bei FPC, QIC erreicht wurde?
Mich regt es tierisch auf, wenn Leute ihre Fotos extrem runterskalieren und dann mehr als deutlich ihre Lizenzinformationen für Werbung in eigener Sache zu nutzen. Wenn es einen eindeutiger Zusammenhang gibt zwischen dem Verbot von NC-Lizenzen und dem Runterskalieren, dann wäre ich dafür NC-Lizenzen nicht zu verbieten. Auf QIC ist es inzwischen der Sport einiger Fotografen ihre Fotos auf exakt 2MP zu skalieren, damit sie gerade noch innerhalb der 2MP-Grenze bleiben. Dass dich Zwangsumlizenziserung stört kann ich nachvollziehen. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Beim aktuellen RFC geht es nicht um eine umlizensierung, schon gar nicht unter Zwang. Alte GFDL Bilder bleiben erhalten. Nur bei neuen Uploads soll die GFDL von der Liste der hinreichenden Lizenzen gestrichen werden. Ebenso sind NC-Lizenzen nicht verboten, nur eben nicht hinreichend. Man kann sie gerne als zusaetzliche Lizenzoption zu den Bildern hinzufuegen. --Dschwen (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Mir gehts ums Prinzip. Die grundlegende Lizenz aller Wikimediaprojekte soll verboten werden? "Wikipedia steht unter GFDL und wird dies für immer sein" - weißt du noch? Ich habe mich 2003 noch nicht intensiv mit Lizenze beschäftigt aber daran kann ich mich noch erinnern. Es geht mir auch nicht explizit um diese Lizenz sondern darum., wie hier mit Uploadern umgegangen wird. GFDL soll Weiternutzung behindern? ich habe hier nur die Printmedien aufgeführt, die Bilder von mir weiternutzen. Ich finde das toll! Und ich möchte auch keine Weiternutzung behindern, im Gegenteil! Ich behindere auch nicht CC, im Gegenteil: http://www.landtag-niedersachsen.de/impressum/ Ich bin stolz darauf, daß die künftigen Druckerzeugnisse des Niedersächsischen Landtags mit meinen Fotos bebildert werden. Aber ich mag die Freibiermentalität nicht. --Ralf Roleček 21:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't claim to understand this conversation as Google Translate does a poor job. But there is no proposal to ban GFDL, just to say it is insufficient as a licence for Commons. There is not, and never will be, a proposal to ban a licence as an additional option on any image. So anyone here is capable of adding GFDL to any of their images - but the need to add another practically-free licence too. Colin (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ist das schon völlig fix, d.h. auch, wenn der Vorschlag nicht durchkommt? Das fände ich nämlich wirklich schade, wenn jemand Commons verlässt, nur weil jemand etwas vorgeschlagen hat. darkweasel94 19:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 11-07-29-senaatintori-RalfR.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-05-24-wien-RalfR-232.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyhdynkantajat-RalfR-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 20:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

EN-0

Hallo Ralf, kann es sein dass du dich unterschätzt ? Das ist doch nicht EN-0 , Grüße--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe lange jahre Englisch gelernt, allerdings in der DDR. Das war ein synthetisches Englisch, was mit heutigem Sprachgebrauch wenig zu tun hat. Bei Russisch war das völlig anders, da hatten wir ständig Möglichkeiten, es praktisch zu üben. Ich würde mich als en-0.5 bezeichnen aber nicht mehr. Ich kann mich verständigen, meinen Vortrag in Washington haben die Anwesenden wohl auch verstanden. Aber mein Englisch ist extrem schlecht. --Ralf Roleček 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Station QIs

You asked how many stations there are in the UK without a QI. I can't speak for anyone else who nominates UK rail images for QI, but, as of the end of April, I had taken photos of 256 mainline UK railway stations. That's a bit over 10% of the total number in Great Britain. When you start adding in heritage railways, Underground, light rail.... -mattbuck (Talk) 18:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hinweis auf Schnellöschantrag

Hallo Ralf, könntest Du Dir bitte den Schnellöschantrag zu Deinem Bild File:12-01-03-institute-of-design-berlin-01.jpg anschauen, den ich aufgrund eines OTRS-Tickets gestellt habe? – Danke!--Aschmidt (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Klar, Löschen! Möglichst schnell. Da ist noch ein Bild betroffen: File:12-01-03-institute-of-design-berlin-13.jpg. --Ralf Roleček 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bitte kategorisieren

Hallo Ralf,

magst Du bitte Bilder wie z.B. dieses nicht nur in die Projektkategorien sondern auch in Sach- und Ortskategorien einsortieren, damit sie vernünftig aufgefunden und verwendet werden können. --Mogelzahn (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hast dun 2-3 Praktikanten für mich, die das übernehmen können? Alternativ bleiben monatlich 1200-1500 Bilder liegen, die ich nicht hochlade, weil ich es nicht schaffe? Ich habe jetzt schon einen Rückstau von einigen Monaten. Das angesprochene Bild hat Geokoordinaten mit Kompaßrichtung, ist also jederzeit selbst durch Ortsfremde lokalisierbar. Ich schaffe es einfach nicht. --Ralf Roleček 14:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Es geht nicht darum, dass man weiß wo das photographierte Objekt ist, wenn man das Bild sieht (da brauche ich bei der Kugelbake keine Geodaten). es geht darum, dass man das Bild auffindet und da muß ich dann sagen: Lieber 500 Bilder weniger, wenn die übrigen dann ordentlich beschrieben und kategorisiert sind (bei mir dauert das auch mal Monate bis alle oben sind). Es geht nicht darum, besonders viele Bilder hochzuladen, sondern Bilder hochzuladen, die für die Wikimediaprojekte und andere Nachnutzer auch nutzbar sind und das sind unbeschriebene und nicht kategorisierte Bilder nunmal deshalb schlecht, weil man sie nicht auffindet. --Mogelzahn (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe in 10 Jahren Wikipedia genau 2 Edits bei Kategorien. Ich sehe deren Sinn nicht ein. Ich verpasse meinen Fotos seit ca. 2 Jahren einfach irgendeine halbwegs sinnvolle Kategorie, weil mich jemand darum gebeten hat. Und mehr ist auch nicht sinnvoll, die Kategorienschuppser hier ändern ständig was, es wird hin- und hergeschoben, manchmal von den gleichen Leuten seit Jahren, ich merke das an der Beobachtungsliste. Für mich sind englische Kategorien vollkommen wertlos und ich finde da auch nicht den Ort, wo was reinzupacken wäre. Es gab auch schon Spezialisten, die haben meine Fotos umbenannt. Diese finde ich jetzt selbst nicht wieder. Und ich schaffe es auch nicht, jedes Bild individuell zu beschriften. Aktuell werden 26,6% meiner Bilder irgendwo irgendwie benutzt, man findet sie also. Und die meisten Bilder werden mehrmals benutzt, so daß ich bei 25.000 eigenen Fotos auf über 10.000 Bildnutzungen komme. Es ist überhaupt erst seit einigen Jahren üblich, Bilder zu beschriften. In Commons findet man auch mit Beschriftungen kaum was. Und die Kats sind in meinen Augen überflüssig. --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Natürlich sind Kategorien sinnvoll, um Bilder auffinden zu können, 2) können sich Kategorien natürlich auch mal ändern (insbesondere wenn sie mit zunehmender Zahl weiter ausdifferenziert werden oder man erkannt hat, dass eine bestimmte Kategorie doch nicht passt), 3) englischsprachige Kategorientitel sind (wenn es nicht um Eigennamen geht) nunmal sinnvoller als Kategoriennamen in Deutsch oder Kisuaheli, weil einfach mehr Menschen Englisch als Verkehrs- oder fremdsprache sprechen als Deutsch oder Kisuaheli, 4) was z.B. an der Kategorie "Kugelbake", die in dem speziellen Fall vor allem einzufügen war, englischsprachig sein soll, darfst Du mir bitte auch erklaren, 5) von "umbenennen" war in meiner Bitte nie die Rede sondern von kategorisieren, eröffne bitte keine Nebenschauplätze, die mit der Bitte nichts zu tun haben, das ist so, als ob man sagt, ich esse heute keinen Schokoladenpudding, weil man mir gestern Hühnersuppe aufgedrängt hat und schließlich 6) wenn Du nicht willst, dass man Deine Bilder auffindet - und etwas Anderes bedeutet Deine Weigerung, sinnvolle Kategorien und Beschreibungen anzugeben, nicht - warum lädst Du sie dann nach Commons und nicht in Deinen eigenen Webspace? --Mogelzahn (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich muss Ralf hier teilweise zustimmen: Bilder hochladen kann nur der, der sie hat, aber Bilder kategorisieren kann auch die restliche Gemeinschaft. Ich habe auch schon Massenuploads nur in eine recht allgemeine Kategorie gesteckt und es dann anderen überlassen, bessere Kategorien zu finden. Insgesamt ist das einfach effizienter, als wenn der Hochladende alles machen muss und dann viel länger zum Hochladen braucht. darkweasel94 18:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Das sehe ich anders. Ich komme kaum zum hochladen meiner eigenen Werke, weil Leute wie Ralf ihre Dateien nicht kategorisieren. er nimmt mit unvollständigen Beschreibungen und Kategorisierungen Leuten die Zeit, vernünftigere Sachen zu tun, als ihm hinterherzuputzen. --Mogelzahn (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Es gibt hier Heerscharen von Leuten, die überhaupt nichts Eigenes hochladen. Its a Wiki, das Gemeinschaftsprojekt lebt von der gemeinschaftlichen Arbeit. --Ralf Roleček 20:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ob du eine vernünftige Kategorisierung und Beschreibung vornimmst, oder Ralf das tut, oder ich das tue, oder sonst irgendjemand das tut, läuft insgesamt von der nötigen Arbeitszeit auf dasselbe hinaus, und jeden hindert das potenziell daran, selbst etwas bzw. mehr hochzuladen. Es gibt auch keine Fristen, bis zu denen irgendwelche Dateien richtig kategorisiert sein müssen - wenn du also keine Lust hast, das zu machen, und dich das von anderen sinnvollen Tätigkeiten auf Commons ablenkt, überlass es einfach jemand anderem, es wird sich sicherlich jemand finden. darkweasel94 20:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich kann Ralf nur beipflichten. Jeder hat nur eine begrenzte Zeit, die er in WP oder auf commons verbringen kann, da es auch ein Leben außerhalb dessen gibt. Und ich spreche aus der bitteren Erfahrung, dass ich tausende(!) Bilder die schon drei, vier Jahre alt sind auf meinen Festplatten liegen habe, die für das Projekt wertvoll wären. Es ist bei der umständlichen Arbeit beim Hochladen der Bilder schier unmöglich, dies zu machen. Die Bilder sollen ja auch ausgesucht und entsprechend bearbeitet werden und die Bildbechreibungen sind derart zeitaufwändig, dass dies für Fotografen, die viel fotografieren, einfach nicht zu schaffen ist. --Steindy (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin da zwiegespalten, auf der einen Seite freue ich wenn z. B. Mogelzahn meine Bilder anfasst / verbessert, weil ich nicht die richtige oder detaillierte Kat gefunden habe, auf der anderen Seite habe ich auch ein schlechtes Gewissen Arbeit zu machen. ;) Ich denke der Mittelmaß macht es, ich werde jetzt jedenfalls eine Kat und Vorlage einfügen, bitte nicht sauer sein, ich möchte erst meine Bilder hochladen, damit sie im Projekt sind und werde sie später richtig benennen und einbinden. :) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kategorien sind nicht per se sinnlos. Solange nicht sämtliche hochgeladene Bilder irgendwo benutzt werden, ja nichtmal alle einen aussagekräftigen Dateinamen haben, stellen die Kategorien die einzige Möglichkeit dar, Bilder später gezielt und mit vertretbarem Aufwand zu finden. Und das hiesige Baumsystem ist z.B. den uneinheitlichen Flickr-Tags überlegen, mit denen man oft doch nicht alles findet. Das Problem ist also nicht das Kategoriensystem an sich, sondern dass viele Dateien (wie auch neu angelegte Kategorien) nur unzureichend kategorisiert werden. Würde alles dort abgelegt wo es hingehört, wäre auch die Akzeptanz des Kategoriensystems zu Recht höher. Ich für meinen Teil verlasse mich nicht auf die spätere Hilfe der "Kategorienschuppser", viele Themenbereiche sind halt nicht so gut durch Freiwillige vertreten. Das ist genauso wie in der DeutscheWP, wo ich seinerzeit in naivem Enthusiasmus mehrere Tausend Artikel beigesteuert habe: die meisten gammeln jetzt auf dem Stand von 2008/09 vor sich hin, ohne dass sich jemand um sie kümmern oder auch nur ab und zu auf versteckten Vandalismus hin überprüfen würde. Teamwork, Gemeinschaftsarbeit - das ist hier genauso ein Mythos. --A.Savin 09:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also das enstpricht eigentlich nicht so ganz meinen Erfahrungen. Obwohl ich mich i.a. bemühe bereits beim Upload die passenden Kat. zu vergeben, erlebe ich immer wieder mit Freude wie meine Dateien nach einigen Wochen oder sogar Jahren auf meiner Beo erscheinen, weil jemand anderer die Kategorisierung noch verfeinert/verbessert hat.

Wir sollten vielleicht überlegen, für Leute wie Ralf, der dahingehend ja nicht der einzige sein dürfte, einen Baustein zu entwickeln, der die Dateien als "noch zu kategorisieren" markiert bzw. in eine Wartungskategorie steckt, selbst wenn die Datei bereits vorläufig einer Kategorie zugeordnet ist. Unsere Kategorisierer bzw. jeder, der zwischendurch mal Laune auf Kategorisieren hat, kann dann in diese Wartungskategorie schauen und sich die Dateien vornehmen. Dieses Strategie sollte aber nur bei hochproduktiven Uploadern gefahren werden. Von diesen Uploadern sollte im Gegenzug verlangt werden, dass die Beschreibung sämtliche verfügbaren Angaben über den Inhalt des Fotos enthält. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe da z. B. noch 1052 bisher unsortierte Bilder von einer Abstimmung im Niedersächsischen Landtag (19. Feb.) auf der Platte. Da jeder brav zur Wahlurne gehen mußte, ist die Chance groß, dabei auch einige zu haben, die trotz Landtagsprojekt noch unbebildert sind. Wenn ich die (geraten) 250) mißlungenen Bilder abziehe, bleiben 800 Fotos übrig. Klar, irgendwie bekommt man bei allen heraus, wer das ist. Aber das kann ich nicht leisten oder dann wäre ich auf lange Zeit blockiert. Auf jedem der Fotos dürfte sich eine relevante Person befinden, das sind ja keine Fotos vom Strand auf Malle. --Ralf Roleček 10:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Moin Ralf, ich denke so geht es einigen Fotografen, nur wenn Dir jetzt die Festplatte abraucht, war Deine Aktion für die Tonne. Genau aus diesem Grund hau ich hin und wieder auch mal unsortiert Bilder raus ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe mir mal die Category:Landtags of Germany geschnappt. Da ich dort einige Kategorien angelegt habe, sind sie auch auf deutsch und man findet was drin. Die deutschen Landtage sind Eigennamen, daher wird "Hamburgische Bürgerschaft" auch nicht übersetzt. Denkt man... Aber das war ganz anders, da hieß es "Landtag of Hesse" und "- Lower Saxony" oder so. Die Unterkategorien "Mitglieder des Landtags" sind meist noch englich, dabei ist MdL ein Eigenname. Wenn ich nun einige hundert MdL hochlade, möchte ich das in der korrekten Kat., es geht aber nicht, weil das jemand englisch angelegt hat. Also habe ich erstmal Mehrarbeit, die unnötig ist. Mit Dingen, die andere gemacht haben. Es ist nicht so, daß ich nur sinnlos Bilderberge hochlade und mich um nichts kümmere. Aber alles kostet Zeit und WP/Commons ist nicht mein bezahlter Beruf. --Ralf Roleček 10:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sensorflecken

Hallo Ralf! Du hattest bereits bei Deinen letzten Bildern den einen oder anderen (auch in der Miniaturansicht) unübersehbaren Sensorfleck. Du solltest dagegen etwas unternehmen. – L.G. Steindy (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe das verärgert auch schon bemerkt, ich scheue heut abend mal rein. --Ralf Roleček 07:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Leider wieder zwei Sensorflecken: File:13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-044.jpg und File:13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-045.jpg. – L.G. Steindy (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Die Kamera dürfte wieder sauber sein, das waren dicke Körner :-( Nur die letzten Bilder...--Ralf Roleček 10:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Lizenz

Hallo Ralf, kannst du hier File:Christina WMDE.jpg bitte mal einen Nulledit machen und in der edit-summary die Lizenz und so bestätigen, weil du das ja nicht selbst hochgeladen hast. --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hab ich gemacht. Normalerweise ist sowas nicht nötig, aber die Bürokratie ... ;) --Ralf Roleček 08:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

O.k. Danke. Allerdings, wenn noch mehr davon kommen, muss ich doch nachfragen: Nachnutzer könnten durch den Self-Lizenzbaustein (Ich, der Urheber ...) verwirrt werden, ob sie nun dich, der (nur) im Autorfeld eingetragen ist, oder den Hochlader (was das "self" ja impliziert") nennen sollen. Wenn du hier nicht dein sonstiges Lizenzlametta ;-) anbringen willst, könnten wir das "self" im Lizenzbaustein durch einen switch (ich glaube |1=Ralf oder was) ergänzen. Deine Wahl. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Einige in der GS sind mit solchen Detailfragen schlicht überfordert. Sie schaffen es gerade mal, mit dem Wizard Bilder hochzuladen. Ich halte meine Bausteine eigentlich für ziemlich gut erklärend, deshalb habe ich sie ja gebastelt. User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor und User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2... Aber mir ist das im Grunde egal. --Ralf Roleček 08:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

War ja kein Vorwurf gegen Christina u.a. Ich möchte eben nur, um mir (und dir) weiteres Hin-und-her zu ersparen, eine kurze Ansage welche Baustein-Lösung/Variante du für die aktuellen WMDE-Portraits bevorzugst. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Die, die du für die sinnvollste und am wenigsten verwirrendste hältst. --Ralf Roleček 09:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline

Mir geht die Kommentatoritis, die sich bei QIC breit gemacht hat, auf die Senkel. "Könnte gut sein, daß es etwas weniger rauschen sollte", "needs perspective correction", "zu dunkel", "zu hell"... Tage oder Wochen später hängt dann noch einer ein "nicht erledigt" unten dran und macht alles sinnlos noch umständlicher. Weia. Wenn ein Bild offensichtliche Mängel hat, aber ansonsten interessant ist, haue ich da ohne Ansicht der Person das decline rein, wenn es dann repariert wird, drehe ich das auf pro um. Da wird viel zu viel auf QIC diskutiert. Die uninteressaten Bilder übergehe ich eh, in der Hoffnung, daß die irgendwann unbewertet unten rausfallen. (In Klammern: Ich KANN keine englischen Vorortbahnhöfe bei mehr oder weniger trübem Wetter mehr sehen, egal, ob die nu formal den QIC-Bedingungen entsprechen oder nicht ;-)) -- Smial (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Ps.: Mich wundert, daß noch keiner die "pro"-Bewertung bei deinem gelben Rathaus(?) mit den stürzenden Linien kritisiert hat. Aber du weißt, daß ich durchaus geradeziehe, wenn es den Bildeindruck verbessert. Und es schief lasse, wenn es sonst gruselig disproportioniert aussehen würde. Es ist also keine Inkonsequenz, stürzende Gebäude mal so und mal anders zu bewerten. Pixelpeeper verstehen das aber nicht.

Ich kommentiere eigentlich nur sehr selten. Wenn mir etwas zu stark ver(ent)zerrt ist, gebe ich meist kein kontra, weil ich weiß, daß das die meisten hier anders sehen. Viele der aktuellen Autos sind mir zu weitwinklig und damit verzerrt aufgenommen, das ist aber eine Geschmacksfrage, es reicht für mich nicht zum kontra. Danke übrigens für geraderücken des Bahnhofs, da war es wirklich erforderlich. --Ralf Roleček 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Jo, das war mit drei Mausclicks erledigt. Man sieht sehr häufig, daß viele mit Weitwinkeln nicht wirklich gut umgehen können. "Kanten sind senkrecht, alles ist drauf ----> Super-Foto!!!" ... Daß dabei die Proportionen oft völlig die Wupper runtergehen und der Bildeindruck absolut nichts mehr mit dem zu tun hat, was ein Besucher vor Ort sehen und in Erinnerung behalten würde, interessiert diese Digitalgeneration anscheins selten. Diese Weitwinkel sind einfach zu billig geworden. Als ich fotografisch aufgewachsen bin, war 35mm ein typisches Weitwinkel (immer für Kleinbild), 28er kamen erst langsam in den Massenmarkt. Ich hatte dann immerhin schon ein 24er. 21er und 17er galten als absolute Exoten, die man nur für spezielle Effekte einsetzte, "weil man sich das sonst zu schnell leid sieht". Nuja, Zeiten ändern sich, heute muß ja auch alles bunt sein, Farbe reicht nicht. Und so kriegen wir dann total verzerrte Autos und Flugzeuge mit Superweitwinkelperspektive geliefert und alle finden es toll. -- Smial (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC) (der in letzter Zeit auch wieder öfters mal das 1.4/50 auf die Cropkamera schraubt. Gibt schöne, scharfe, unaufgeregte Bilders.)

...und ich bastel grad hier dran: http://www.fahrradmonteur.de/50mm_als_Herausforderung ;) --Ralf Roleček 14:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC) (ist aber noch lange nicht fertig...)

Keine schlechte Idee! -- Smial (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC) (hab ne Kleinigkeit drinherumgekrakelt als IP)

Wir ticken gleich :-) Aber es ist noch nicht alles verloren, ich habe mein 1,4/50 an Jonas verborgt und irgendwie vergißt er immer, es mir zurückzugeben...--Ralf Roleček 14:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-21-muenster-bad-doberan-by-RalfR-061.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very interesting perspective. --Steindy 22:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-040.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me--Lmbuga 05:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-035.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 22:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-20-erwin-sellering-07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-20-orangerie-schwerin-033.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good qualiy. --Steindy 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 16:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Florstein 17:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-085.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me--Lmbuga 05:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 14:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-029.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 14:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-058.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 14:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-30-eindhoven-23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-30-eindhoven-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 11:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-29-eindhoven-50mm-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-28-eindhoven-blaue-stunde-17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments dust spots --Smial 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC) * Thx, good now. --Smial 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-29-eindhoven-50mm-17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-091.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 21:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-027.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Bgag 17:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-097.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-104.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-098.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI when the slight tilt to the right is corrected. --JLPC 17:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC) ok, corrected --Ralf Roletschek 13:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Good now. --JLPC 17:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-29-eindhoven-50mm-33.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Rjcastillo 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! N3S 8839-Bettina Limperg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Just a very small white dot on the background (easy to fix). --JLPC 17:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC) yes, there was a white dot. ...what you see ;) --Ralf Roletschek 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-063.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great shot, QI. --Steindy 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please remove the sensor spot. --Steindy 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)it is corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Not really. --Steindy 21:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)ok, tomorrow at big screen. --Ralf Roletschek 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)ok so? --Ralf Roletschek 11:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Public Art 2013! Dear Ralf Roletschek, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Public Art 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 9,000 pictures of works of art from five countries. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images, and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you would like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. Your feedback will help us improve future contests! To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Public Art 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Public Art team

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-39.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-69.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support good --A.Savin 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-127.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 09:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-27-breda-by-RalfR-049.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 09:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-052.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 09:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-050.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 09:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-28-breda-by-RalfR-26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Of course rainy views also can be QI. --Smial 13:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Bob Collowân 15:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 13:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-039.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, though somewhat shallow DOF, I'd chosen f/8 or f/11 to avoid blur on the building on the left side --Smial 13:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-044.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-045.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steindy 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-30-eindhoven-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.-ArildV 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

image description

and a other bike chain...

Hi, please help me to determine whate bike (frame) is on this image [1] Thanks. Ink (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a Wanderer W5 Frame Model 2005. --Ralf Roleček 07:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-29-robocup-eindhoven-037.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support OK --A.Savin 08:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-22-schwerin-50mm-by-RalfR-105.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Weak support Too obvious use of photographic "rules" and perhaps too much much noise reduction, but ok imho. V-wolf 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:2005-09-02-hochzeit-51-korrigiert.jpg

Hallo Ralf, Du hast leider nicht vermerkt, dass die Eheleute der Veröffentlichung des Bildes zugestimmt haben. Grüße Weissbier (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Haben sie ;) Nur gab es damals noch keine Bauklötzer... --Ralf Roleček 13:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-28-robocup-eindhoven-024.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 10:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-29-eindhoven-50mm-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK  Support --Christian Ferrer 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-06-28-robocup-eindhoven-067.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Not the best centring but OK  Support --Christian Ferrer 11:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kristina-vogel-2013-by-RalfR.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Tuxyso 07:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-07-28-Ústí-21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good quality. --NorbertNagel 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-07-23-kienbaum-gruppenbild-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 10:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kurier Wikimania 2013

Hallo Ralf, ich habe deinen Betrag in den Wikikurier gesehen, gut gemacht! ich freue mich sehr! viele Grüsse aus dem MUC Flughafen Poco² 08:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC) PS: Mein Nickname auf der Hauptseite vom Kurier, ich bin berühmt :)

Wenn uns erstmal das chinesische Staatsfernsehen begleitet... ;) Ich habe noch Zeit, siehe hier. --Ralf Roleček 08:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe mich auch da eingetragen, obwohl ich dass schon mal woanders getan hatte. Ich warte schon auf meinen HK Flug. Übrigens, gute Nachrichten, wir haben 2 Locals für den Photowikimeetup bekommen. Mehr dazu in deiner Inbox :) Ich habe mich auch zu eurem Thema (how to take good photos with a cheap camera) angemeldet. Viele Grüsse, Poco² 19:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ich sitz grad in Abu Dhabi und habe erfahren, daß es wegen Systemfehler keine Bordkarten gibt. Na mal sehen.... Vielleicht bekomme ich ja ein Rennkamel? --Ralf Roleček 03:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-07-28-bad-schandau-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments perspective distortion --A.Savin 16:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC) OK, corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, still cannot see the new version --A.Savin 04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)look at full version. --Ralf Roletschek 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)  Support OK now --A.Savin 11:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-Panorama.jpg

Hallo, ich habe Ihre Fotoserie von Hong Kong bewundert. Ich schuf ein Panorama mit der Serie "File :13-08-08-Hong-by-086-RalfR. Jpg" auf "Datei :13-08-08-Hong-by-115-RalfR. Jpg" (30 Fotos). Hier ist das Ergebnis, ich hoffe, Sie stimmen. Herzlich. François de Dijon (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC) (Maschinelle Übersetzung). Ich kopierte alle Informationen über die Rechte von Ihrer Aufnahmen, ich hoffe, das wurde transkribiert.

Bonjour, j'ai admiré votre série de photographies de Hong Kong. J'ai créé un panorama avec la série "File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-086.jpg" à "File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-115.jpg" (30 photos). Voici le résultat, j'espère qu'il vous conviendra. Cordialement. François de Dijon (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC) (traduction par ordinateur). J'ai copié toutes informations concernant les droits de vos clichés, j'espère que cela a bien été retranscrit.

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-Panorama.jpg

Merci beaucoup!!! Its a very good work! Merci beaucoup! --Ralf Roleček 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Look also here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kurier/Wikimania_2013 --Ralf Roleček 17:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC) sorry, its german...

Ich hab mal eine Notiz im Bild hinterlassen. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wir danken für das Foto aus und bringen mich in einem Co-Autor. Wenn Sie andere Bilder, die zusammengebaut werden kann, wird es mir ein Vergnügen zu versuchen. François de Dijon (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Merci pour l'utilisation de la photo et de m'avoir mis en co-auteur. Si vous avez d'autres photos pouvant être assemblées, ce sera avec plaisir que j'essaierai. François de Dijon (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-076.jpg

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-076.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-076.jpg

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-076.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedydelete in Loeschdisku umgewandelt. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-023.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-200.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perspective on the left not perfect, but ok. I have the impression, that I know the place :) --Poco a poco 19:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-Panorama2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support No stitching errors found; image quality is sufficient. Pro. --High Contrast 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agenda Photoshop-Workshop

Hallo Ralf,

So wie es aussieht, werde ich als Vertreter von WMES an der Wikimedia Iberoconf 2013 in Mexiko Stadt teilnehmen. Diese Information ist recht neu, und da dies Mitte Oktober stattfindet, ist meine Teilnahme am Photoshop Workshop 18-20 Oktober gefährdet, was mir sehr schade wäre. Kannst du mir genauer sagen was am 18 Oktober (und ab welcher Uhrzeit) auf dem Programm ist? Auf der Wikiseite konnte ich auf die Schnelle keinen Agendavorschlag finden. Ich wäre dir sehr dankbar, wenn du mir heute gemäss Ticketbuchungen Bescheid sagen konntest. Viele Grüsse, Poco² 13:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Die Uhrzeiten lege ich eigentlich fest. Da aber einige irgendwie "von der Arbeit" nach Kassel kommen, wollte ich Freitag eigentlich nur das Kennenlernen machen und dann Sa. intensives Arbeiten. --Ralf Roleček 14:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

das klingt gut. Ich werde dann wahrscheinlich von Flughafen dahin kommen, sonst bin ich Samstag früh dabei, viele Grüsse, Poco² 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Prima, freut mich. Viel Spaß in Mexico, ich beneide dich. --Ralf Roleček 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-07-hongkong-by-RalfR-34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 22:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Ihr sollt die Bilder bewerten, nicht das Motiv! ;-P Stepro (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tja, schon das zweite QI von ihr. Wie wärs mit einer Modelkarriere? --Ralf Roleček 10:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-20-kiel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-Cockpit-d-alpa-a330-200.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 06:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-12-hongkong-by-RalfR-35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 06:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Zombie-Uploads

Hi Ralf, die Bilder von File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-024.jpg bis File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-044.jpg sind nur ohne Beschreibung angekommen. --McZusatz (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Was ist das? Ich habe den Tag hunderte Bilder mit Commonist hochgeladen. --Ralf Roleček 14:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wahrscheinlich einer der vielen Serverfehler. Am besten du erstellst die betroffenen Seiten, indem du die fehlenden Daten ergänzt. --McZusatz (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, hole ich nach. --Ralf Roleček 19:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Danke sehr

Hi Ralf, danke sehr für deine Hilfe, doch warum lag meine Blume auf der Seite? VG --Itti (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Manche Kameras (durchaus auch sehr teure) und manche Software (meist billige) meinen, mitdenken zu müssen und wollen dem Menschen sagen, ob er ein Hochformt oder Querformat fotografiert hat. Wenn nun dumme Kamera mit dummer Software zusammenkommt oder auch kluge Kamera und vorschnelle Software oder umgekehrt, dann kommen ganz komische Dinge heraus. Wenn die Kamera "merkt", daß es Hochformat ist, dreht sie das Bild. Aber nur scheinbar, die Software dreht dann nochmal. Mediawiki will auch noch mitreden und weiß alles sowieso besser. Heraus kommt irgendwas Komisches, was durchaus von verschiedenen Besuchern anders gesehen werden kann. Nun gibt es Bots, die noch schlauer als alle anderen sind, die schlagen Drehungen vor. Ganz am Ende wird wieder Mensch gefragt, der einfach nachguckt und sagt, was los ist. In solchen Fällen ist es am Einfachsten, mit einem guten Prigramm "hart" zu drehen, wenn man dabei echte Änderungen am Bild vornimmt, kann nichts mehr schiefgehen. Reine Drehungen können unter sehr ungünstigen Konstellationen selbst bei Photoshop zu wilden Ergebnissen führen. Will man Software total irritieren, fotografiert man senkrecht nach oben oder unten und hält den GPS 90° dazu. Dann werden schon mal Bilder vollkommen unkenntlich. Schöne neue Welt der elektronischen Helferlein.... Ich habe meinen Kameras gesagt, daß sie das Mitdenken gefälligst zu unterlassen haben ;) --Ralf Roleček 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ich drehe, wenn nötig, immer mit dem Luxusprogramm de:IrfanView. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

ACDSee dreht auch fast immer korrekt. Aber eben nur fast immer. Gimpshop macht auch Fehler, Lightroom ebenfalls. --Ralf Roleček 19:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Das Problem liegt darin, dass es ein EXIF-Feld gibt, in das man hineinschreiben kann, dass das Bild nicht richtig gedreht ist (das ist für die Kamera rechenzeitmäßig natürlich um ein Vielfaches einfacher, als das Bild wirklich zu drehen). Wenn eine Kamera glaubt, dass man Hochformat fotografiert hat, setzt sie normalerweise dieses EXIF-Feld auf 90°. Das Problem ist jetzt, dass nicht alle Programme dieses EXIF-Feld gleich behandeln. Manche kennen es nicht und zeigen das Bild daher falsch gedreht an - wenn man in einem solchen Programm das Bild manuell um 90° dreht, steht hinterher noch immer im EXIF-Feld, dass das Bild um 90° gedreht ist, und dann ist es in einer Software, die das EXIF-Feld liest, natürlich wieder falsch. GIMP fragt einen, wenn es dieses Feld erkennt, ob man das Bild in die Standardausrichtung drehen will - wenn man das mit "ja" beantwortet, wird es korrekt gedreht und das EXIF-Feld entfernt, dann sollte der Rest sowohl in dummer als auch in intelligenter Software funktionieren. darkweasel94 19:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-23-torsten-albig-07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. -- Felix Koenig 16:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-090.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-23-astrid-damerow-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. --Julian Herzog 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-21-marinestützpunktkommando-kiel-055.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment remove dust spot. See note. --Rjcastillo 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC) corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 17:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-07-hongkong-airport-12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Julian Herzog 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-12-hongkong-by-RalfR-38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-airport-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-07 - Airbus A330 - hongkong airport.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 21:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

nur FYI

[2] --A.Savin 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Was hab ich dir getan? Gehts vielleicht auch mal freundlich? Ich bewerte nicht nach Namen sondern Fotos. --Ralf Roleček 05:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gleich zweimal Quatsch. Gewiss hast du mir nichts getan und gewiss unterstelle ich dir keine Kumpanei. Meine einzige Frage lautet: Wieso nominierst du alles was du hochlädst, ohne vorher zu überprüfen ob das Bild den Qualitätsrichtlinien entspricht? Wenn du Schwierigkeiten hast dies zu beantworten, betrachte die Frage als rhetorisch und ignoriere es. --A.Savin 07:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin fast ausschließlich mit dem 13" Ultrabook unterwegs, sitze nur selten an einem ordentlichen Bildschirm. Über den Sensordreck ärger ich mir die Platze, ich habe aber noch niemanden gefunden, der das säubert und selbst traue ich mich da nicht ran. --Ralf Roleček 08:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Da widersprichst du allerdings dir selbst, da du ja sehr wohl andere QIC reviewst. Da gibt es also zwei Möglichkeiten: 1) entweder hast du so einen bösen Bildschirm, dass man damit zwar fremde Bilder problemlos betrachten kann, aber keine eigenen; oder 2) deine "Reviews" sind in Wirklichkeit keine; denn für mich gehört nämlich das Betrachten des Bildes in 100 % einfach zu einem QIC Review. --A.Savin 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Vielleicht lege ich aber für meine Bewertungen auch weniger strenge Kriterien an? Perfektionismus ist bei FPC angesagt, nicht bei QIC. --Ralf Roleček 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-airport-34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Felix Koenig 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-21-marinestützpunktkommando-kiel-105.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your photos

Dear Ralf Roletschek, thank you for sharing high quality photographs on so many different topics on Commons. – b_jonas 12:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-21-marinestützpunktkommando-kiel-047.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Kadellar 11:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-08-hongkong-sky100-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI --Rjcastillo 13:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-07-28-Ústí-38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Steinsplitter 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-015.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 18:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-22-detlef-matthiessen-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Kraft 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-11-hongkong-by-RalfR-302.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-07-hongkong-by-RalfR-23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-033.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Remove dust spot. See note.  Support QI --Rjcastillo 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-airport-16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-032.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-23-anita-klahn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, but maybe you could clean her teeth without treason of the truth...?--Jebulon 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) OK --Ralf Roletschek 12:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Danke sehr. Gut für mich. I hope this pretty lady will enjoy this nice portrait.--Jebulon 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-11-hongkong-by-RalfR-300.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I would try to brighten the shadows. In this version it is no QI for me due to the harsh and unfortunate light. --Tuxyso 13:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC) better so? --Ralf Roletschek 16:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Yes. IMHO QI now. --Tuxyso 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-106.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, but could you clone out that dark thing at the left? It's a bit disturbing. Improve the description, bitte. --Kadellar 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)ok, corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 15:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. --Kadellar 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-07-28-Ústí-09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

I use some of your photos, again!

Hello Ralf!

As you request in the license of your photos, I notice that I added photos of Larus argentatus in my open source educational project Animalandia: http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia

You can see directly in the follow link and click over "Siguiente" ("Next") several times:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=37580

I remind you that you can complete your profile in Animalandia with some letters and a personal photo (send me by fernando.lison@educa.madrid.org):

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Ralf+Roletschek

This is my "contributor profile" and others, for example:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Carmen%20Jim%E9nez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Boris%20Loboda

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Steve%20Garvie%20%28Rainbirder%29

Best Regards! Fernando --Fernando.lison (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre by RalfR.jpg

File:Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre by RalfR.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-027.jpg

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-027.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-067.jpg

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-067.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-airport-06.jpg

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-airport-06.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-001.jpg

And also:

• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-002.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-003.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-004.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-005.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-006.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-007.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-013.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-014.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-015.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-016.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-017.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-018.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-019.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-020.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-021.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-024.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-035.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-038.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-039.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-040.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-041.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-043.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-044.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-045.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-046.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-049.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-050.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-052.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-053.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-059.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-063.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-064.jpg
• File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-065.jpg

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 19:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-12-hongkong-by-RalfR-37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. Heuschrecke 18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-021.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Heuschrecke 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Rotation

It appears some of your photos are rotated on full-size view. You might find this link helpful in finding out what the problem is. Note the "Orientation Rotate 270 CW" entry. Also this one seems to have two embedded images (a preview and a thumbnail), the former is upside-down and the latter sideways. Something weird going on with your camera/software? Colin (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Heuschrecke 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-088.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI --Rjcastillo 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-09-01-kochtreffen-wien-RalfR-09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent photo -- Spurzem 15:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-09-01-kochtreffen-wien-RalfR-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good quality -- Spurzem 16:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-102.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good IMO--Lmbuga 21:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-114.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-119.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-115.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-089.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --Rjcastillo 14:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-076.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Definitely a great place, good shot.--Jebulon 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-077.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Heuschrecke 09:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure that the file description, even in german, is really accurate...--Jebulon 09:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-049.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Nino Verde 10:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-056.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Heuschrecke 09:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-032.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. I'll support when annotated dust spot will be removed. (I do love this city very much, btw)--Jebulon 10:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC) OK, corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not convinced with the crop. Why is the fountain so inclined to the left? Heuschrecke 18:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Support The spot has been removed, I support, as promised. But Heuschrecke can put it in CR, of course.--Jebulon 20:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-30-wien-by-RalfR-081.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-032.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-032.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 VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2007-09-sverige-34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good, but please, add a cat like "Restaurants in Sweden" --Poco a poco 21:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Visit-suomi-2009-05-by-RalfR-050.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-022.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --AngMoKio 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-08-09-hongkong-by-RalfR-026.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --AngMoKio 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-07-28-Ústí-51.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Image is rotated at full size. Please fix and then can be promoted. Colin 11:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC) OK --Ralf Roletschek 14:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Support QI --Rjcastillo 16:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC))