User talk:Jwh/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Jwh!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:DasHenkerbuch_TonyJungblut.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:DasHenkerbuch_TonyJungblut.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.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


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

Tryphon 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Lofer Kirche - Außen 4 Datierung.jpg

Du hast natürlich recht; da ist mir wohl ein Zahlensturz passiert. Ich hab´s auch gleich in Beschreibung und Kategorie geändert. Jedenfalls vielen Dank für den Hinweis --Xenophon (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing WP links

I wonder why you deleted 15 correct links here while updating only 2 others? I just hope it's not your link "update" policy. — Bjung (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Shouldn't categories be linked with categories only? --Jwh (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there's still no hard rule about that but it's generally accepted that categories should be linked to categories if they exist, to articles otherwise. Thinking about it that's just common sense: people will be happy to find WP links in their language(s), even if only to articles. Besides, it's safe to say that, while having articles on WP, many subjects (in some or all languages) will never have any categories on WP in the near future. That's how I see it. Cheers! — Bjung (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bjung! Wouldn't this Template:On Wikipedia solve the problem? --Jwh (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! After a long thought about the subject, I'll give my clear-cut opinion here.
I think there's no problem to solve about WP links: it doesn't matter if the link is to an article or to a category as long as the subject matches (though a category could be preferred because it contains more information about the subject and/or it's faster to access). So I don't agree at all with using Template:On Wikipedia as a replacement of the native interwikis menu bar: it's bulky, very bad aesthetics (one-line instead of a clean column, ugly language codes, useless article titles including their disambiguation parts), a pain to use for users (imagine 200 links there), a big problem for bots that update links, and not least a pain to add manually. It just can't replace native WP links.
What's more, the objectives of that template are not clear at all. The documentation says it doesn't replace nor duplicates native interwikis, which is very contradictory since it often ends up doing one of those two, as it's used now. It recommends using categories for the side bar and articles for the template, which doesn't make sense since it forces users to scan two very different lists for their language; also, that recommendation pushes a specific use (category-only) of the WP menu bar that is absolutely not consensual. Lastly, the documentation is very confused about Template:Translation table which is first used to translate text, not to link to WP, a big difference that the designers don't seem to understand.
You wrote on my discussion page:
Hi, as I understand that interwiki menus on Commons are supposed to contain categories, not articles.
No, interwikis menus are not supposed to only contain categories, otherwise you could not link to any subjects with no categories at all or only some categories in some languages without using templates that replace native MediaWiki mechanisms. Native linking is there for a reason, and being able to link to articles is certainly one of them. A Commons category just groups files about a subject, and a WP article or category groups encyclopedic information about a subject, so it's only natural to link the two using native tools. What's more, we don't have any problems linking from WP articles to Commons categories, so why should the opposite be a problem?
Such I use {{On Wikipedia}} which is described as: For linking to multiple Wikipedia articles. This should not be used in place of or in duplication of interwiki links (in the sidebar). In categories, take the local Wikipedia's equivalent categories for the sidebar, and the related main articles for this box. --Jwh (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is: many times you use the template, you're just violating the recommendation you cite by replacing the side bar links, and more so when there are no categories (empty bar). An empty side bar at the same time as ugly On Wikipedia stuff on a page is certainly not right. That's another proof that the template objectives are not right and its designer(s) confused, or possibly that the documentation doesn't reflect the real objectives at all.
So, for me, Template:On Wikipedia is a very bad solution, and an aesthetic catastrophe, to a problem that doesn't exist. So I certainly will continue putting all the links I can in side bars. I agree to not remove On Wikipedia templates for now, as long as they don't match the side bar links exactly, i.e. when there's at least one WP category linked to. What do you think? — Bjung (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good morning,

Sorry, can't tell you what I think, as I don't get what you mean by I agree to not remove On Wikipedia templates for now, as long as they don't match the side bar links exactly, i.e. when there's at least one WP category linked to. --Jwh (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good morning!
I'll explain another way. I'll only delete On Wikipedia if no WP categories at all exist for the subject: in that case there can't be any good reason to use On Wikipedia for any article link that one normally puts in the side bar.
By the way, I've read the documentation again and it seems that the only way it makes sense is if the template is used for additional links only. That means that you can put an article link in the side bar but also that you don't put it in the template. If category links are preferred over article links (when the two are possible) in the side bar, then the template of course can't have categories, so its only use would be for links to articles that you can't put in the side bar because there are links there already for the corresponding languages. So, to summarize, the template could only be used for a language when at least two WP links (e.g. category and article) are possible for that language; that's not the same as you do now. Makes sense? — Bjung (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, a clear explanation in the template's documentation would do good... Guess, I got now what you meant
  • continue to mix categories and articles on the side bar - the reason I used the template was just to avoid this
  • not to put the same link in the side bar and in the template, that's obvious
  • within the same language, the category is put in the side bar, the article in the template - wow! If that's the sole reason of this template it should be mentioned in red with a blinking code on the documentation

--Jwh (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Streams & Creeks

Salut Jwh,

Ech hu gesinn du hues en etlech Baache bei Streams of Luxembourg getässelt. Zu Lëtzebuerg gëtt et keng Stréim. All Land huet där séier wéineg. Stréim sinn nëmme Flëss déi an e Mier lafen. --Les Meloures (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

E schéine gudden,
Jo ech sinn Hënt iwwer déi Baache-Biller an der Kategorie "Cities and Villages in Luxembourg" gefall a well ech net wosst wat ech mat deenen aus der Belsch sollt maachen hunn ech e bëssen dorëmmer gesicht.
Do schéngt et mir wéi wa se mat "streams" net "Stréim", mä Baache mengen. Bach, ruisseau weisen och géigesäiteg op stream. Eis Stréim schéngen da Main stems ze sinn, den Interwiki ass do op Strom, fleuve.
  • Creeks
Wann ech da Category:Streams by country kucke sinn do 62 Länner. An der Category:Creeks sinn haaptsächlech nordamerikanesch Baachen, an an der Category:Creeks by country sinn nëmme 6 Länner, woubäi opfält dass d'Belsch do staark vertrueden ass, awer z.B. d'USA och ganz feelen. Wann ech dann den Artikel stream richteg interpretéiere wier "Creek" ee vun ville lokale Synonymer fir "Stream".
Dofir mengen ech datt eis Baachen an d'"Streams" gehéieren an och net an d'"Creeks". --Jwh (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Moien du hues net ganz onrecht.
Wéi et schéngt géif et dann op Commons guer keng Kategorie fir Stréim/Fleuves also Main stems ginn an an de Streams stéing da bal alles dran war net River ass. Mat e bësselche Chance gesinn ech mar ee vun deenen hiren Adminnen. Ech kucken emol fir dat mat deem unzepaken. Ech halen dech dann um Lafenden. -- Les Meloures (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ma da sinn ech gespaant. Soss musse mir hinnen esou eng Kategorie maachen - et ginn der jo awer genuch däer Stréim. Ee friddlechen nach. --Jwh (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Theves Georges.JPG

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Theves Georges.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Theves Georges.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Monument aux morts Diddeleng 20-03-2011 14-14-20.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Monument aux morts Diddeleng 20-03-2011 14-14-20.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

MGA73 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Munneref Gander.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


File:Gander Munneref (2).jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Dafsteen Diddeleng.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Dafsteen Diddeleng.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bild vum Werner

En ausdréckleche Merci fir Deng Beméiungen, eng zeguttstert Foto vun Wernesch Pier ze fannen an heihi gesat ze kréien.--Zinneke (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ma wéi si hei géingen soen, wa se net grad Fotoë läschen, "it was entirely my pleasure" --Jwh (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pigeon protection on buildings

Hallo Jwh, you created Category:Pigeon protection on buildings, a subcat of Category:Pigeon repellents. I'd like to move its files to this parent. Are you ok with this? My understanding is that pigeon repellents are to protect buildings from roosting and nesting pigeons. Thank you. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Stenay Monument 1914 1918.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Stenay Monument 1914 1918.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Bob247 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Dominique Urbany 1972 MOW.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Dominique Urbany 1972 MOW.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.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


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

Túrelio (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Dominique Urbany 1972 MOW-001.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Dominique Urbany 1972 MOW-001.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.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


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

Túrelio (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Dominique Urbany 1972 MOW-002.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Dominique Urbany 1972 MOW-002.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Norbert Berens 2012 g.JPG

Hi Jwh, how in the world can the photographer of a digital photography from August 2012 be unknown? And even in case that would be true, why does the EXIF data say photographer is "Norbert Berens"? If he is not the photographer, such a claim would be illegal per copyright law in must juridictions, including Luxemburg. This needs clarification, also because any re-user has to credit the photographer for any use of this image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied to File_talk:Norbert_Berens_2012_g.JPG --Jwh (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:TF-AAA Cargolux Hangar-004.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops...--Jwh (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Radar tower Findel.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not my day today... --Jwh (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, thanks for your message. The pics were mass imported, and I too don't understand why it would add that category (it's the Flickr importer tool which does it, maybe there was a similar tag on the site). If you want, please do remove the category from all those pics. I am pretty sure there is a tool to do this, but don't remember it anymore... let me know. thanks! --Elitre (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

re:Statues of unidentified Christian saints in Luxembourg

You're welcome! I'm an expert on the Christian iconography. Best regards, --Paterm (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Weekräiz Simmer.jpg

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Weekräiz Simmer.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Weekapell Simmer.jpg

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Weekapell Simmer.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Um Wäschbuer Simmer.jpg

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Um Wäschbuer Simmer.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me --Jwh (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


File:Luxexpo Vakanz 2013-001.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Luxexpo Vakanz 2013-001.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


File:Luxair Hal Findel.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Luxair Hal Findel.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


File:LuxAirport Aérogare.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:LuxAirport Aérogare.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


File:Luxairport Fernheizung.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Luxairport Fernheizung.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


File:LuxAirport.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:LuxAirport.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


File:Sandweiler Radar an Hangar.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sandweiler Radar an Hangar.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


File:Tower Findel.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tower Findel.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wdwd (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rumm

Moien, a merci fir d'Nosichen. Ech wosst net genee wou do d'Grenz verleeft. Bescht Gréiss, --Zinneke (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Lift st esprit-002.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lift st esprit-002.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nimm

Moien, ech hunn dem Spang säi Buch. Do ass hannen e Regëschter (deem ech awer net 100% trauen). Du kanns also weider eroplueden ënner dem Numm vun deemools, ech setzen dann den haitegen Numm derb!ai (hun das scho bei deem engen oder anere gemaach, mee ginn elo e bëssen eraus vun deem profitéieren, no där den Dag vun haut genannt ass, den Owend fueren ech virun). Bei deene puer Uertschften, wou ee sech net sécher ass, kann een dann de Stamminee zu Rot froen.

Merci nach eng Kéier fir d'Erauskopéieren an d'Beaarbechten!

Schéine Sonnden,

--Zinneke (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information --Jwh (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Eng Fro...

Salut, hunn däi Commentaire elo erréicht gesinn. Mengs du mat de Redirecten zum Beispill: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ettelbruck&redirect=no ?

Déi hunn echg gemaach, well d'Säit eidel war, an een esou direct op d'Säit 'Ettelbruck' gefouert gëtt, wann een dat an der Such-Funktioun antippt. Dat gëtt et och bei villen anere Säiten (net nëmme Stied).--Bdx (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bdx: Salut, jo wat war dat...? Also ech hat do eng Diskussioun wéinst sou engem Redirect deen op eng eidel Galerie goung, an du sot deen "Ätschbätsch do sinn der lauter..." an huet op Saache vun Dir higewisen. Dunn hunn ech mir d'Fro gestallt.
Ech denken datt sou iwwerflësseg ass, well e "Search" no Eppes wat eng Kategorie huet, hei automatesch op Category:Eppes geet. Also net seet esou eng Säit gëtt et net. Wann et bei der Ufro eng Säit, also hei eng "Gallery", gëtt da geet en dorop. Sou z.B "Search:Dudelange" zack op Category:Dudelange, well et gëtt keng Säit. Also bei "Ettelbruck" géing en och ouni de redirect op d'Category sprangen.
Ech mengen dat huet dunn deen Admin do an där laanger, a fir mech komplett onnéideger Diskussioun och sou entscheet.
Ech wënschen nach eng friddlech Hënt. --Jwh (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Du hues Recht, ech maachen et elo och net méi. Ech mengen, ech hat dat ugefaangen fir dat bei verschiddene Stied mat engem méi komplizéierten Numm de Lemma an der Auto-Search-Funktioun uewe riets ugewise gëtt. Merci awer, datts du mech drop higewisen hues :) --Bdx (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bdx: Wees De, 't frësst kee Brout... --Jwh (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Uergel zu Jonglënster

Salut, deng Fro: ...firwat hues du d'Kategorie 'Pipe organs in Luxembourg|Junglinster' eweggeholl? Sorry, dat war en Iertum. Ech hunn en UNDO op meng Läschaktioun gemaach. BG, --Cayambe (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cayambe: Ah Ok, hu mech alt gewonnert. Wënschen nach eng schéin Hënt. --Jwh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Airside access at LUX?

Hi mate, how you doing? Do you have airside access at Luxembourg Airport? Or do you take your photos there from publicly accessible areas only? Cheers, russavia (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Russavia: Hi you, I'm afraid usually not - at the time I just was lucky to get an invitation for the inaugural Turkish Airlines flight, and I still have a bunch of photos from inside where they handle the luggage, I'll try to upload them "soon".
But I may have good news: Do hope to come with pictures of the Russian Embassy, at least the castle from outside and hopefully inside too - waitin' for a sunny day to fix this.
Take care! --Jwh (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Skuptur oder Relief?

Moien,

Nodeems de eng ganz Rei Biller an d'Kategorie "Sculptures of Crucifixion group" gesat hues hunn ech mer d'Fro gestallt op déi net eigentlech an eng Kategorie wéi "Reliefs of the Crucifixion of Christ" gehéieren oder villäicht a béides? Wat mengs de dozou? --MMFE (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Salut, ech hat vru langer Zäit mir och mol doriwer de Kapp zerbrach... Skulptur schéngt hei eng Aart Iwwerbegrëff ze sinn, wou d'Statuen a Reliefer a wees wees wat nach dra kënnt. Anscheinend sinn déi "Skulputere", wéi un der Escher Gemeng, Reliefer, krut ech gesot (dann hätt ech déi un der Stater Post wuel och missen dra setzen...) Definitiounen déi ech sou dorëmmer fonnt hat, hu mir méi de Kapp verdréit wéi eppes Gescheites bruecht...
Bei de Kräizer sinn ech vläit dovun ausgaang datt dat Ganzt (e Stéck Steen) eng Skulptur (am fräie Raum, an och nach oft soss skulptéiert)) ass - am Géigesaaz da vu deene Reliefen déi un engem Gebai hänken.
In other words Io no sé - vläit mol op de Beaux-Arts nofroen... --Jwh (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Du hues Recht, Skulptur ass en Iwwerbegrëff an e Relief ass eng bestëmmten Zort vu Skulptur. Et wier effektiv och interessant do d'Meenung vu Fachleit ze héieren. Mir kënnen dat och spéider ëmmer nach opdeele wa mer eis eens si wat wouhi gehéiert. --MMFE (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Vir mol eng Kéier net Wikipedia ze benotzen - dat leiten hunn ech deemools eventual font oder dëst --Jwh (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Kinnen L envol 1965-003.JPG

Copyright-problem.svg Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Kinnen L envol 1965-003.JPG. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

And also:

Yours sincerely, Vera (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Aktioun Konscht an der Schoul-002.JPG

Copyright-problem.svg Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Aktioun Konscht an der Schoul-002.JPG. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

And also:

Yours sincerely, Vera (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Château Ducru-Beaucaillou 1994.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Château Ducru-Beaucaillou 1994.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oesling Éisléck

Moien,

Ech sinn haut duerch Zoufall op déi Kategorie "Category:Oesling Éisléck" gestouss a fannen datt dat, wat do drann ass, net grad dra passt. Éier ech eppes drunn ännere wollt ech awer deng Meenung wëssen. Ech denken, datt een do all d'Gemengekategorie sollt dra setzen déi am Éisléck leien an net eenzel Biller. Datselwecht kënnt ee bei deenen anere Kategorie maachen déi an de Regioune vu Lëtzebuerg sinn. --MMFE (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Salut, ech wees net sou richteg. Vläit de @Cayambe: mol froen, hien hat se sengerzäit opgemaach.
D'Éisléck ass an der Kategorie Regions of Luxembourg, do hat ech mol "Red Lands" dragesat, mä ech menge just well déi deemools roud war - "Minettsgéigend" géing mir besser gefalen.
Fir déi "regions" komplett ze maachen, misst vläit och nach d'Muselgéigend an den Zentrum dobäi kommen.
Sinn d'Regiounen enzwouch definéiert?
Da stellt sech dann och d'Fro wat lo mat den Distrikter (do hat jo ee mëttlerweil gespaarten User gemengt se alleguerte missen ëmzebenennen). Sollen d'"regions" déi ersetzen? @Zinneke: @Les Meloures: Dat get Knuppefreed... --Jwh (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Moien,
Zum Begrëff Eislek: Et kann een en definéieren entweder als Deel vun den Ardennen (am geologesch-geomorphologesche Sënn) an deemno als Géigesaz zum Guttland - wéi dat jorhonnertelaang gemaach gouf. Zanter 1-2 Jorzéngte ginn et dann och nach weider Andeelungen, déi, mengem Versteestemech no, am Luxembourg Tourist Office "erfonnt" goufen, fir déi verschidde Géigenden an hire Brochuren auserneen ze halen. Nieft dem Eislek sinn dat "Red lands" oder "Terres Rouges" fir de Minett, d'Muselgéigend, de Mëllerdall/Kleng Ltz. Schwäiz an de "Rescht". Dat huet sech esouguer a Päss vun der Serie ±2008-2014 erëmgespijelt, opwuel, wéi de Jwh undeit, dat néieren genee definéiert ass, geschweig iergend enger politescher Realitéit entsprieche géif. Politesch ginn et keng "Regions of Luxembourg" als adminstrativ Ënnerdeelung (an d'Distrikter, wéi et se nach gouf, haten näischt mat deenen Andeelungen uewendriwwer ze dinn). Dofir géif ech d'Eislek just als eng Ennerkategorie vun "Ardennes" a vu "Regions of Luxembourg" definéieren, sou wéi et do steet. --Zinneke (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Dat ass jo alles schéin a gutt, hëlleft awer net wierklech wat fir eng Zort Biller dann elo an déi Kategorie oder an déi vun den anere Regioune gehéieren. Fir mech kann et awer net falsch sinn fir all Gemengen, déi am Éislek leien, och an déi Kategorie ze setzen. Mir kënne jo doriwwer bei eisem nächste Meeting diskutéieren, dat geet besser wéi hei. --MMFE (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Mir kënnt dat och sou wéi eng Erfindung vum ONT vir. Fir hinne Freed ze maache kënne mir jo romantesch(?) Naturfotoe vum Éisleck dra setzen an net ze vergiessen d'Éislecker Hamen... --Jwh (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuel pumps in Germany

Hallo Jwh, die beiden kategorisierten Bilder sind fuel pumps in Austria nicht in Germany ;-) --K@rl (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeaph, sorry, ich war da wohl etwas zu barsch rangegangen... Danke furs "proof-reading" --Jwh (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
kein Problem gruß K@rl (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Skulptur Handwierkerschoul Esch.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Skulptur Handwierkerschoul Esch.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Vera (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Winners of Eurovision category

I have no idea why you removed the Winner of Eurovision category from File:Jean-Claude Pascal 1945.pdf, when the person actually won the Eurovision Song Contest. The file is also used on the article at EN:Wiki on the topic of Eurovision Winners, which on the article also uses the Commons Category template to notify viewers there is a "gallery" of images connected to Eurovision Winners here at Wikimedia Commons. Just find it bizarre that you would remove a category that was factually and correctly placed. Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, As I added the "winner category" where it should be, to his main category Category:Jean-Claude Pascal. Guess you got it meanwhile. Enjoy your day. --Jwh (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Street signs in Luxembourg City

Moien, Du lueds regelméisseg Stroosseschëlter aus der Stad erop. Hues du net zoufälleg eng Foto vum Schëld "Grand Rue - Juddegaass"? Et houng bis viru kuerzem um Eck vum Bd Royal, ass awer an der Tëschenzäit ersat ginn duerch "Grand Rue - Groussgaass". Ech wollt et fotograféieren, hat awer keen Teleobjeltiv derbäi an et houng ziumlech héich... Merci GilPe (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Zut! Ech duecht ech hat dat nach vrun engem knappe Mount do gesinn... --Jwh (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)