User talk:WolfD59

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, WolfD59!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, this is a second account of a more experienced user to prevent problems from some copyfraudist institutions. --WolfD59 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Villa Griesebach[edit]

Hallo WolfD59, die Villa Griesebach uploads findest Du hier (Villa Griesebach bei ARCADJA) warscheinlich alle größer. Beispiel: kleines Bild, großes Bild (also nur die Zahl 300 aus der URL entfernen, bzw. bei Künstlersuchmodus 150 entfernen). Gruß --Botaurus (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wappenbuch[edit]

Gern geschehen, und dir vielen Dank für die ganzen Bilder. Die Blasonierungen wären in der Tat sehr nützlich. Ich weiß hier zum Beispiel nicht, was das Teil in der unteren Hälfte darstellen soll. Ich hab sowas schon mal gesehen, aber mir fällt der Name nicht ein. Sieht ähnlich aus wie eine Lilie. De728631 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ja, ich hatte schon mal ein paar von den Originalseiten angeguckt, und da sind tatsächtlich keine Blasonierungen. Aber teilweise gibt es dabei ja viele "sprechende" Wappen und Familiennamen, die die Beschreibung sozusagen schon enthalten. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Das hier sind wohl tatsächlich irgendwelche großen Schöpfkellen, aber was hält der gute Mann da in der Hand? Und bei der merkwürdigen Frucht des Herrn Hoffman bin ich auch überfragt, obwohl ich das eher für eine Feige halte. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ja, das könnte sein. Ich wusste allerdings bis jetzt noch nicht, dass man mit so einem Blasebalg auch was anderes als Luft pumpen kann. Aber der Mönch an dem Weinfass weiß wohl, was er tut. :) De728631 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Das kleine Teil beim Möckhl ist übrigens kein Blasebalg, sondern ein Wecken. Der "Weckhman" hat nämlich gleich zwei davon. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
In Sachen Hoffman habe ich jetzt bei Rietstap was gefunden. Es gibt dort ein Wappen "Hofmann" aus Frankfurt, das bis auf den Berg und die Kleidung des Mannes diesem Wappen entspricht. Dabei ist die Pflanze eine Mohnblume. Das Ding aus dem Wappenbuch sieht auch tatsächlich so ähnlich aus wie der Fruchtstand des Mohns. Ich habe daher mal die Kategorie geändert. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Johann Strauss II Porträtpostkarte.jpg[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

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

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

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

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

JuTa 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Anna Stainer-Knittel Kirchenruine.jpg[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Gemälde von Robert Poetzelberger Friede im Lande 1893[edit]

Hallo WolfD59, Du hast das Bild "Robert Poetzelberger Friede im Lande 1893.jpg" aus der Kategorie "1893 in Rothenburg ob der Tauber" genommen. Warum eigentlich? Das detailgenaue Gemälde kann doch ohne weiteres als Bildquelle für das Enstehungsjahr 1893 herhalten? Oder sollen in diese Kategorie nur Fotos rein? Rosty (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

1893 war das doch bereits ein eher nostalgisches Gemälde. Ich finde es verwegen, das als genaues Abbild zu sehen. --WolfD59 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)