User talk:Reinhardhauke/Archive 3

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.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

File source is not properly indicated: File:Synagoge_Winnweiler601.JPG

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Synagoge_Winnweiler601.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Synagoge_Winnweiler601.JPG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

GeorgHHtalk   11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Kempenich St.Philippus u.Jakobus Konsole602.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


File:Kempenich St.Philippus u.Jakobus Konsole603.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


File:Reimerzhoven (Altenahr) Kapelle114.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 06:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

St. Nikolaus Plankstadt

Hallo, magst Du mir das erklären? Gruß,--4028mdk09 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bitte eine eigene Category:St. Nikolaus (Plankstadt) anlegen und die einzelnen Fotos nur in die passenden categories einstellen. Category:St. Nikolaus (Plankstadt) gehört als category in: Category:Saint Michael churches in Baden-Württemberg und in andere regionale categories. Gruß--Reinhardhauke (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

Please can you explain removing categories?

What is your reason for this edit [1]? 99of9 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Stained glass windows of the Baptism of Christ and you find it!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that makes sense. --99of9 (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Synagoge Landau576.JPG

Hallo Reinhardhauke, weißt du wirklich gar nichts über das Foto? Wurde es irgendwo veröffentlicht? File:Synagoge Landau576.JPG Falls du nichts darüber weißt, kann es nicht hier auf Commons bleiben, dafür ist es zu jung. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bin zur Zeit verreist u. werde mich Ende September um die Quelle für das Foto kümmern. Diese Zeit wird wohl noch sein!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ja sicher - ich wollte keine Dringlichkeit ausdrücken. Schöne Reise noch! Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 10:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Danke für deine Hinzufügung der Daten aus der Quelle. Leider ist kein Fotograf angegeben; dieser müsste nämlich mehr als 70 Jahre verstorben sein, damit das Bild gemeinfrei ist. Ist denn das Aufnahmedatum bekannt? Und wie sicher ist es bekannt? Wenn auch keine frühere Veröffentlichung bekannt ist, wird das Bild wohl aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen gelöscht werden müssen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Karl_Doll(1905-1941)507.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Karl_Doll(1905-1941)507.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Rosenzweig δ 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Karl_Zutavern510.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Karl_Zutavern510.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Rosenzweig δ 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Albert_Wirth504.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Albert_Wirth504.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Rosenzweig δ 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Onion_domes_in_North_Rhine-Westfalia

Category discussion notification Category:Onion_domes_in_North_Rhine-Westfalia has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

St. Martin (Wormersdorf) vs. St. Martinus (Ipplendorf)

Hallo Reinhardhauke, Du hast in den letzten Tagen einige Bilder zu den beiden Kirchen(?) hochgeladen. Bei der Zuordnung der Bilder habe ich einige Probleme. So heißt folgende Datei Wormersdorf St.Martin119.JPG, ist aber unter St. Martinus (Ipplendorf) eingeordnet. Ist mit St. Martinus die "Ipplendorfer Kapelle" gemeint, wie es im Artikel Wormersdorf beschrieben ist? Die Wormersdorfer Kirche wurde ja gebaut, weil die alte in Ipplendorf zu klein war. Im Artikel St. Martin (Womersdorf) steht aber etwas von einer Kapelle St. Hubertus, die durch St. Martin ersetzt wurde. Es bleibt auch unklar, ob man mit Wormersdorf jetzt das offenbar zu diesem Ortsteil gehörende Ipplendorf meint oder nicht – da muss man schon durchgehend den gleichen Begriff verwenden. Alles in allem reichlich verwirrend, zumal für einen Leser, der sich nicht so auskennt :-). Vielleicht schaust Du dir die Situation und die Bilder noch mal und korrigierst ggf., wenn der jetzige Zustand verbesserungswürdig ist. Gruß--Leit (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Leider gab es sehr wenige Informationen, so dass ich erst bei meinem zweiten Besuch vor Ort klar erkennen konnte, dass es eine alte Kirche St. Martinus und eine neu erbaute St. Martin (s.: de:St. Martin (Wormersdorf)) in Wormersdorf gibt. Die files bei St. Martinus, im ehemaligen Ipplendorf, sind also nicht korrekt, aber die Einordnung in den Kategorien sind es. Gleichzeitig gibt es eine Artikel bei WP über St. Martin und vielleicht auch demnächst über St. Martinus. Ich habe aus dieser verworrenen Geschichte gelernt, möglichst keine Fotos hochzuladen und keine Artikel zu schreiben, wenn ich nicht ausreichend Literatur vorliegen habe.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Library of Congress, Thomas Jefferson Building, Great Hall, ceiling and cove, by Carol Highsmith (LOC highsm.02000).png

What's wrong with this image? Yeah, it doesn't have a thumbnail, but it does have a clear error why: "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels". Why did you nominate it for deletion? Multichill (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of images for deletion

Hi, Reinhardhauke. I notice that you have nominated quite a number of images with the reason "fake". This is not very clear. In future, can you please explain more fully why you feel that the images should be deleted? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Köln-St.Kolumba846.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Köln-St.Kolumba846.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Túrelio (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Reinhard

Wieso hast du mein Bild löschen wollen? Das bin schon ich. Grüße --Liebe Paula (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Aber mein Foto ist nicht auf commons!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Na dann lad doch auch eins hoch, ich will dich sehen :-). --Liebe Paula (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Aber ich DICH nicht!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Das hab ich ja auch gar nicht verlangt. Wär mir lieber gewesen du hättest das Bild nicht gesehn, dann hättest du auch kein so Fake.. tam tam gemacht. Würde ich ein fremdes Bild hochladen, würde ich mich strafbar machen. Also was soll das Ganze? Liebe Paula (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ich glaube du verwechselst WP + commons mit stayfriends und anderen Quatsch!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So was auch. Ich verwechsele hier gar nichts. Ich habe nur ein Profilbild hochgeladen, that's all. Ich konnte ja nicht ahnen, dass du darum gleich falsche Schlüsse ziehen würdest :-). Sorry, ich hab leider keine Zeit mehr für solche Kindereien.. Liebe Paula (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Reinhardhauke, nur zur Info: es ist durchaus erlaubt ein paar wenige Bilder auf Commons hochzuladen, die allein der Nutzung auf den eigenen Benutzerseiten (egal welches Wikimediaprojekt) dienen. Diese sollten dann üblicherweise mit {{userpageimage}} markiert werden. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

This is a bad image taken. I'am all right about the deletion. --ÁWá (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Herschbroich-St.Simon und Juda208.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Kornelimünster-Abtei308.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kornelimünster-Abtei308.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests "Fake"

" Fake" hilft nicht. Wenn Sie nicht Englisch sprechen, sagen Sie es auf Deutsch. Ou dites-le en Français. Quelqu'un comprendra. Merci, Infrogmation (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All dieser Schwindel und Vandalismus bei commons, wie soll man ihn bezeichnen?--Reinhardhauke (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Erklären Sie bitte. Beispiele: "Vandalism", "false license" (falsche lizenz), "out of scope" (Nicht für Projektrahmen verwenden), &c. (Begnadigen Sie bitte mein schlechtes Deutsches. Andere Administrators lasen es gut.) Danke. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pub? What kind of pub? You do not make sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Reinhardhauke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Reinhardhauke, bevor der thread auf COM:AN/U noch in eine Schlammschlacht der Diskutanten ausartet, wäre es schön, wenn du dort ein Signal geben würdest, dass du das angesprochene Problem jetzt erkannt hast (was hoffentlich auch der Fall ist) und dich bemühen wirst (sofern du diese Meta-Arbeit weiter machen willst), es in Zukunft besser zu machen - wenn ich das mal so salopp sagen darf.(diesen Kommentar kannst du nach dem Lesen gerne löschen)--Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Obwohl ich den Eifer durchaus zu schätzen weiß, impliziert "fake" etwas falsches. Besser wären "out of scope" (92 %) oder "copyright violation" (8 %). --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Danke, ich werde deine Hinweise beherzigen!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

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. –Krinkletalk 05:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

/* File:Park_étiv.JPG */

Hi Reinhard,

You left a message this sunday morning, about a personal pic I just uploaded. According to you, this is "out of scope". What does it mean on your mind ?

regards,

JB 13:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

/* File:Iging.gif */

Hi Reinhard,

Ich glaube die Arbeit die du hier investierst ist sinnvoll und ich habe mir durch dein Löschwunsch mal die anderen allgemeinen Bilder zur Diskussion angesehen und sehe durchaus den Bedarf dieser Arbeit. Jedoch "out of scope" ist sehr heikel, da du dich ja hier zum Maß des Gültigkeitsbereich (in Vertretung der Allgemeinheit) machst. Ich sehe bei dieser Animation keine Selbstdarstellung oder Sinnlosigkeit. Dies ist die exakte Abfolge der Durchmischung von Himmel und Erde (der 64 I Ging Hexagramme) nach der Schöpfung aus dem Buch der Wandlungen. Die Animation zeigt (mir) die Idee der Abfolge anschaulich. Einen Hinweis auf die fehlende Kategorisierung hätte ich durchaus für ausreichend gehalten. Ich fordere dich auf, den Löschantrag zu entfernen oder die Richtlinien zu zitieren, nach denen dieses Anschauungsmaterial NICHT zu Wikimedia gehört.

Esmile 14:35, 11 December 2010 (MEZ)

Ne, lass dich mal nicht ins Boxhorn jagen. Commons ist eine Müllhalde, und auch wenn obige Animation nett ist, ist sie für die Enzyklopädie so nützlich wie ein Fahrrad für Süßwasserfische. In der Form auch unbrauchbar, dazu braucht's kein Orakel. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Synagoge_Landau576.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Synagoge_Landau576.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Saibo (Δ) 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gartenbühne.jpg | foto without explication/out of scope

Schönen Guten Tag, Reinhardhauke. Dass sie mit der Begründung "foto without explication/out of scope" einen Löschantrag zu stellen, ist mir nicht klar. Das Bild zeigt die Gartenbühne des Societaetstheaters und ist genau so bezeichnet. Es hat doch auch einen ziemlich offensichtlichen Zusammenhang zum Texteintrag. Wo liegt da das Problem? Grüße Julia Neubert --93.218.176.49 13:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Stained_glas_windows_of_Jesus'_body_is_removed_from_the_cross

Category discussion notification Category:Stained_glas_windows_of_Jesus'_body_is_removed_from_the_cross has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

GFreihalter (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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


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

Rosenzweig δ 16:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hello,

You have recently requested a number of my images to be deleted. As an admin on Swedish Wikipedia, I understand the need to patrol recent changes to make sure that the quality is as good as it can be, but some of the comments you have made, make it clear that you have not tried very hard to check if the images belong in Wikimedia Commons or not. Maybe I could have done a better job of explaining it and I will endevour to do so in the future, but it is also a tenet of the Wikimedia movement to use good faith against users who are doing good work, is it not?

Finally, there are no hard feelings, but I urge you to contact users (especially if they have been active for a long time) and ask their intentions instead of nominating stuff for deletion on sight.

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Denis3.jpg

I do not understand reason for deletion. It's an old picture.--Acoma (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Xy4.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Erstellungsdatum

Moin Reinhardhauke, schön das Du hier aufräumst, schau aber mal auf die Erstellungsdaten, vor 11 Jahren war man froh eine Digikam zu haben. ;) Viel Spaß weiterhin und Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Danke für die Reaktion, aber für meine u. andere Fotos sollten Qualitätskriterien gelten bzw. eine sachdienliche Beschreibung Grundbedingung sein! Gruß--Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Richtig, wenn man es weiß ja, aber wenn man sich nicht sicher ist, sollte die "sachdienliche Beschreibung" von Fachleuten gemacht werden. Dann hilft es, wenn noch die Stadt bekannt ist. Denn lieber etwas nicht eingetragen als falsch eingetragen. So mein Standpunkt. ;-) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Klo

Hallo. Habe zufällig dies gesehen. Tja. Wenn du dir die Uploadgallerien der drei dort beteiligten Nutzer anschaust, findest du nicht Hunderte sondern Tausende von Schrottfotos. LAs sind aber kaum erfolgrreich, die sind in der Lage jede noch so stinkige Hundekacke zu begründen und diskutieren darüber seitenlangweise. Gruß, -jkb- (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Danke für deine Mitteilung, deren Inhalt ich voll und ganz unterschrieben kann. Zumindest gibt es Teilbereiche bei commons (Stained glass windows), die meine Frau und ich sowohl geordnet bekommen als auch mit Tausenden von Fotos aufbauen können. Inzwischen habe ich klar festgestellt, welche admins bereit sind Bilder zu löschen und welche nicht. Gruß--Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Aufräumen

Danke dafür. Bei ganz offensichtlichem Müll kannst du auch einfach ein {{speedy|Begründung}} setzen.--DieBuche (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request of File:Hospitalkirche.JPG

I must question your reasoning in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hospitalkirche.JPG. Claiming low quality for a file 4 megapixels in size with no significant flaws seems somewhat unreasonable. MKFI (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rhöndorf(Bad Honnef) St.Mariä Heimsuchung26.JPG

Hallo Reinhardhauke, schau mal bitte hier: File talk:Rhöndorf(Bad Honnef) St.Mariä Heimsuchung26.JPG. Das gilt auch für alle anderen von Horst entworfenen Glasfenster. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi please do not porpose for deletion supposed "low quality" images if there is not an equal alternative (same view, same cropping). If there is please link to the discussion, thanks. That will save a lot of time. --Sailko (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Eglise_Saint_Paul_Rue_de_Sévigné.jpg

low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Speedy kept. In use. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Si vous vous amusez à demander la suppression de toutes les images que vous considérez comme étant de faible qualité, vous n'avez pas fini. Pour le cas présent, l'image n'est certes par de haute qualité, mais il n'existe aucun équivalent de cette prise de vue sur commons. Commons n'est pas uniquement un recueil de fichiers artistiques ou de grande qualité de résolution Benchaum (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Welcherath St. Chrysantius und Daria820.JPG

Wrong [Category:Pietas], for Mary holding Christ, see [Category:Pietà]. Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Danke!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin6388.JPG

Pay attention to copyright
File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin6388.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added 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 | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | 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)‎ | +/−

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin6389.JPG

Pay attention to copyright
File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin6389.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added 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 | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | 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)‎ | +/−

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin874.JPG

Pay attention to copyright
File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin874.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added 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 | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | 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)‎ | +/−

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin875.JPG

Pay attention to copyright
File:Schalkenmehren St. Martin875.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | 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)‎ | +/−

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominations

Hi, reasons like 'out of scope' or 'low quality' don't qualify for speedy deletion. Please use regular DRs instead. Jcb (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci

Merci beaucoup pour toutes ces images de qualités de la Collégiale Notre-Dame de Poissy que tu importes sur Commons. Hydrel (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

De rien - il faut voir: Category:Stained glass windows of Saint-Martin (Groslay)--Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Je viens de voir ça de:Heilige Barbara (Notre-Dame de Poissy), encore merci, si tu veux des sources supplémentaires, je te scanne quelques pages de fr:Référence:Poissy, cité d'Art, d'Histoire et d'Industrie (Sophie Cueille) .Hydrel (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Merci - je suis en train de partir pour autres travaux. À bientôt!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Aragon or Elisabeth of Hungary?

Charlieu Saint-Philibert stained glass window470.JPG Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Puteaux_synagogue5152.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Puteaux_synagogue5152.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Civa (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:St. Rochus (Rodder)

Hi, falls Du es nicht auf der Watchlist hast: ich habe da mal eine Frage gestellt ... --rimshottalk 06:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Koblenz Schloss Stolzenfels 1140891.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 13:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Plombières-les-Bains Saint-Amé 150110.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 07:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Camera locations

Hello Smile

I've noticed you created precise categories for monuments (I saw that especially in Alsace because I live here then I check a lot of pictures there). It's a great job, but please notice that when the Template:Location is added, it's not the location of the monument (that can indeed be added in the category) but the camera location, the location where the picture has been taked. And then it should not be removed from the file description, because it's linked with the file and not with the monument (sometimes it's even automatically added by the camera when it has an embedded GPS). The difference is more obvious about remote pictures of a monument, the camera location can be far away from the monument.

Then when you want to locate a monument in the category you can use Template:Object location. And it's better to use Template:Location in the file descriptions because this template is compatible with the Google Maps/Google Earth layer which shows any Commons picture on a Google map. Object Location can't do that unfortunately. You can find more information at Commons:Geocoding.

I've restored some of the locations you deleted on some files, but of course I couldn't do any ones, because of a lack of time ^^ then if you notice other deleted locations you can restore then yourself, and also correct the "Location" to "Object location" in categories Smile it would be very kind. We have now nearly 2,5 million of geocoded pictures among the 11 millions of pictures in Commons, there is a lot of work to locate any of them ^^

Thanks a lot! Smile Jeriby (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Neuwiller-lès-Saverne

Hallo Reinhard,

weshalb entfernst du überall dort die Category:Monuments historiques in Neuwiller-lès-Saverne wo sie benötigt wird? Da nämlich, wo es keine Oberkategorie gibt, sondern nur einzelne Dateien? Bitte mache so etwas nicht noch einmal. Danke, --Edelseider (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Alle einzelnen Bilder zu der entsprechenden Kirche gehören meiner Meinung zur Kirchenkategorie und nicht ein zweites Mal zur Oberkategorie Monuments historiques...! Die Kirche ist ja bereits in der Category:Monuments historiques...--Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Bitte unterlasse solche Drohungen!

Völlig falsche Auffassung!!! Erstens ist jedes Objekt unter verschiedenen Nummer erfasst, die auf unterschiedliche Karteien verweisen. Zweitens befindet sich die Kirche in der base Mérimée , die Gegenstände jedoch in der base Palissy! Es hat so schon seinen Sinn, glaube mir! Ich befasse mich seit Jahren (noch als IP begonnen) mit diesen Kategorien, es hat alles seine Richtigkeit, so wie es war. Grüße, --Edelseider (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi. Please don't bother the community with nonsensical and obtrusive deletion requests. I don't know why you stalk just Juandev but most of photos you proposed to delete are evidently good and in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And I dont understand why you are proposing for deletion pictures which are being used by Wikimedia Foundation projects assuming "out of scope". Pictures used by WMF projects are especially "in" scope.--Juandev (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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


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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely Croquant (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ich rätsele über deinen Edit...

Hallo Reinhardhauke! Ich grübele, was du wohl mit diesem Edit bezweckt hast. Kannst Du's mir bitte erklären? Danke & Gruß --Sir James (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Da der Herr bei commons keine eigene Kategorie hat, findet man durch das interwiki so den Artikel über ihn.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

? Aber das geschieht doch automatisch, indem die Verwendung des Fotos im besagten Artikel auf de:WP angezeigt wird?... --Sir James (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Check of files WLM

Hi, I see same of my files loaded in WLM checked by you. I don't understand why you delete in my files the geolocation and the Mérimée reference? It's describe this file and not only the category of attachement. It's important when the file is attached with other category, and this category not be geolocated or referenced in Mérimée. Could you keep the geolocation and Mérimée references in the files? Thanks, --Moonik (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See the new category!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the new categories, but I prefer to have the information in the new category and in the file. If we join the file with another category that this new category, for example Category:Gates in Paris there we haven't any information about a geoposition of this gate without going up in the new category. I think that this information is usefull in the category and also in the file. --Moonik (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Memorials of liberation of Paris

Hi,
Please, dont replace this category by Category:Plaques referencing 1944. There are plaques of 1944 which are not about liberation of Paris. Such as this one : File:Plaque B-24 Capbreton.jpg. Thanks. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipédia take Amboise

Good morning. I found that my photos placed in the category "Wikipedia Takes Amboise" have been replaced for another category, more appropriate to the photo itself. I understand this change, but this category is also useful to mount that contributors are developing action and motivate them to set up a project. That is to say in this context be given free access to a museum as usual it pays. Be allowed to enter into places and buildings where taking pictures is forbidden and sometimes in the context of contributions to several people, we were allowed to take pictures. I am disappointed that this categorization is empty, now showing that this action has little to make pictures. Thank you then to put the category that you removed, while keeping your additions.
Guten Morgen. Ich fand, dass meine Fotos in der Kategorie "Wikipedia nimmt Amboise" haben für eine andere Klasse ersetzt, besser geeignet, um das Foto selbst gestellt. Ich verstehe diese zu ändern, aber diese Kategorie ist auch nützlich, zu montieren, dass Mitwirkenden entwickeln Aktion und motivieren sie zum Einrichten eines Projekts. Das heißt in diesem Zusammenhang gegebenen freien Zugang zu einem Museum werden wie üblich lohnt es sich. Erlaubt, in Orten und Gebäuden, in denen Fotografieren verboten und wird manchmal im Rahmen der Beiträge an mehrere Personen geben wird, durften wir fotografieren. Ich bin enttäuscht, dass diese Kategorisierung leer ist, zeigt nun, dass diese Aktion etwas, um Bilder zu machen hat. Wir danken Ihnen dann auf die Kategorie, die Sie entfernt gestellt, während Sie Ihre Ergänzungen.
Crochet.david (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wieso macht keiner der an dieser Aktion beteiligten Personen sich daran, die Korrekten Kategorien und die korrekten Beschreibungen der Fotos vorzunehmen? Ich finde Category:Wikipedia takes Amboise als reine Spielerei, ohne konkreten Nutzen und eher störend!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is a korrekten Kategorien ? Does it worth to create a specific category for each town hall in every cities ?
It's not just Category:Wikipedia takes Amboise but all the Category:Wikipedia takes .... You can’t drain a category like that before any discussion, this could be seems as vandalism.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Da DU laut Deiner Benutzerseite "fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse" besitzt, erlaube ich mir, die Diskussion in deutscher Sprache zu führen. korrekte Kategorien heißt, dass ein stained glass window mindestens eine Kategorie zu stained glass window besitzen muß: absolut notwendig ist der ORT und zusätzlich sollte auch das Motiv beschrieben sein. Die Ressourcen in sinnlose Spielereien zu verschwenden halte ich nicht für nachhaltig!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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


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

--MGuf (d) 08:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neubau der Ulmer Synagoge

Hallo Reinhardhauke, könntest Du mir bitte diesen Edit erklären oder war das ein Versehen? --AFBorchert (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Versehen - bitte eigene category für neue Synagoge in Ulm anlegen.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_Mairie_du_10e_60583.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Paris_Mairie_du_10e_60583.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

PierreSelim (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste Anglade

Hello,

Do you have some sources for the date of birth and death of this glass painter ? According to this page (section historique), he is born in 1831 and died after 1913. ~Pyb (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stained_glass_windows_of_Église_Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur_(Montrouge)

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Stained_glass_windows_of_Église_Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur_(Montrouge) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


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

84.61.139.62 20:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Argenteuil Basilique Saint-Denys 70187.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Argenteuil Basilique Saint-Denys 70187.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Argenteuil Basilique Saint-Denys 70189.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Argenteuil Basilique Saint-Denys 70189.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Romroder Kirche

Moinauch Reinhard!

Ein SLA geht hier per {{speedy|Begründung und Signatur}}

Wenn der Name Schlosskirche nicht der offizielle ist, gibt es da ja nix zu diskutieren ...

LieGrü, --Elop (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Entfernen der Vorlage

Hallo Reinhard! Danke für das Ergänzen der genaueren Beschreibung meiner Bilder. Wieso entfernst du denn aber die Kulturdenkmalvorlage, die den Leser auf die weiterführende Beschreibung des abgebildeten Objektes hinweist? Sie dient in meinen Augen perfekt der Beschreibung meines Bildes, ist erheblich einfacher zu finden als der einmalige Hinweis im unübersichtlichen Kategoriensystem von Commons und stört insgesamt doch keineswegs. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Der weblink zum Landesdenkmalamt befindet sich bereits bei der category ganz oben. Wird er gleichzeitig auch bei einem file eingesetzt so erscheint dieser file in der Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Hesse with known ID einmal in der category und ein weiteres Mal als Einzelbild. Darin sehe ich keinen Sinn, denn die Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Hesse with known ID besitzt neben den sinnvollen categories nun auch 5385 files. Auch bin ich der Meinung, dass die Kulturdenkmalvorlage eine Beschreibung des file nicht ersetzen kann. Grüße von --Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinhard, bitte belasse die Vorlage in allen Bildbeschreibungsseiten! Zum einen verhindert sie, dass bei Umkategorisierungen Bilder umsortiert werden, zum anderen gehört sie zu dem umfangreichen Projekt der internationalen Denkmaldatenbank. Für die Funktion dieses Projekts ist es unbedingt nötig, dass jedes einzelne Bild eines Denkmals eindeutig einer ID zugeordnet ist. Ich habe deine Änderungen rückgängig gemacht und möchte dich bitten, die Vorlage nicht weiterhin zu entfernen. Die Wartungskategorien sind nicht dazu da, von Benutzern angeschaut zu werden, sondern dienen allein der Statistik bzw. für CatScans, um noch nicht identifizierte Denkmalfotos aufzufinden.--Cirdan (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Außerdem lassen sich mit der Vorlage auf den Bildbeschreibungsseiten auch mehrere Denkmäler auf einem Bild identifizieren, Benutzer sehen die Vorlage und damit den Denkmalstatus auch, wenn sie das Bild in einer anderen Kategorie finden.--Cirdan (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Aufenau Zur Schmerzhaften Muttergottes 90481.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 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

= Fotos Fünfstetten...

Deinen Vorwurf finde ich ausgesprochen... ?? Ich bemühe mich sehr wohl, bin technisch aber noch nicht so begabt wie Du.Tud mir leid!--Manfi.B. (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

meine Bildbeschreibungen

kannst du es mal bitte lassen, an meinen Dateinen herumzueditieren? --Ralf Roleček 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Reinhardhauke, bitte unterlasse die Entfernungen, bis die Diskussion beendet ist. Hystrix (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Welche Diskussion? Soll ich mich auch noch beleidigen lassen?--Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Du verletzt die Lizenz unter der Ralf Roleček seine Bilder freigegeben hat. --Kersti (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ich verletzte garnichts, sinnlose Behauptung von Dir!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Das Herumschmieren oder Entfernen von Teilen in der Beschreibungsseite anderer Benutzer ist inakzeptabel. Vor allem ist es reichlich borniert, eine persönliches Rad-Wiki und eine persönliche Webseite als Werbung zu bezeichnen. Die Seite ist nicht mehr als eine persönliche Seite, wo auch jeder die Freiheit hat die Seite zu besuchen oder nicht. Das Theater scheint kaum sachlich motiviert. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Deine Wortwahl ist absolut inakzeptabel, deshalb verschon mich mit Deinen Beiträgen auf meiner Diskussionsseite!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Mal ein paar Fragen, hat Du Dir die Regeln durchgelesen, hat Du einen Hass auf Ralf, bist Du ein Troll aus der Ecke "Ralfs Club" oder wie soll ich Deine Aktionen verstehen.
Du kannst gerne Bilder verbessern in den Du längere Beschreibungen oder neue Cats anlegst, aber Löschanträge würde ich nur nach Ansprache des Fotografen machen. Ralf kann momentan nicht antworten, der hat gerade andere Probleme.
Also ich würde ich Dich doch sehr bitten etwas umsichtiger vorzugehen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Merkt ihr eigentlich, dass Reinhard längst aufgehört hat, die Weblinks zu entfernen. Man kann durchaus den Standpunkt vertreten (das tue ich auch), dass persönliche Darstellung ausschließlich in den Benutzernamensraum gehört. Aus dem selben Grund, aus dem man nicht in Wikipedia in Artikeln seine Signatur hinterlässt. Von einer "Verletzung der Lizenz" zu reden, hebt die Diskussion auf eine Ebene, in der überhaupt keine Sachlichkeit mehr existieren kann. Auch "Du kannst gerne Bilder verbessern in den Du längere Beschreibungen oder neue Cats" ist echt lustig. Dass es gerne gesehen ist, Commons durch neue Kategorien zu verbessern, wusste er sicher nicht.--Leit (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Moin Leit,
schau Dir seine Löschkandidaten an, das ist nun wirklich nicht lustig und ja Du hilfst auch mit neuen Kategorien auf Commons, weil dadurch die Bilder besser zu finden sind. Wenn Du das lustig findest, ok. Hättest Du einfach in den Bilder rum editiert ohne den Uploader zu fragen? (Abgesehen von "Verbesserungen" wie ich sie beschrieben habe?)
Löschanträge auf Bilder zu stellen ist auf jeden Fall ein Schlag ins Gesicht, oder siehst Du es anders?
Und ich bin noch nicht bei den den Lizenzveränderungen. Ich wünsch mir einfach mehr Gelassenheit, wir alle wollen das eine; Daten die wichtig werden könnten bereitstellen.
Wie jeder einzelne das macht ist in erster Linie seine Sache oder etwas nicht? Auch für Reinhard gilt:"Wenn man was nicht versteht, einfach Fragen. Fehler sind dazu da um zu lernen aber erklärt man jemanden etwas wenn er so aufschlägt? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 05:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Abbaye de Blasimon

Hi! I've found a little problem with this abbey. In fact the dedication to saint Maurice is an ancient one. Nowadays, the church, part of the abbey, is dedicated to saint Nicolas (as I have explained in the fr + en descriptions on the category page). There is no problem with the names of the pictures, the only one is the title of the page on de:WP i.e. Abtei Saint-Maurice de Blasimon. Maybe you can see this problem with Lantus who initiated the article on de:WP. Friendly, ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 15:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (nicht mehr begabt auf deutscher Sprache !!!)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Für deine Arbeit an Kategorien! Edelseider (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Synagoge von Wingersheim

Hallo Reinhard, zum Thema Synagogen im Bas-Rhin gibt es jetzt ein ein neues, interessantes Foto: File:Wingersheim 02.JPG. Grundstoff für einen Artikel von dir, perhaps? Viele Grüße, --Edelseider (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Danke, wenn ich wieder bei meiner dt. Bibliothek bin (Mitte September) werde ich mit damit beschäftigen.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I have so many uploads of monuments, that I do just the nesessary, and inteded to do the other cats after september.Thanks, I really appreciat you are categorising my uploads of stained glass windows already now.--Havang(nl) (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

language mixed

Hello, Category:Stained glass windows of Église de Brioux-sur-Boutonne is a mix of languages, which is to be avoided for bottom categories, which may be in the language of the country. Better had been "Vitraux de l'église de Brioux-sur-Boutonne" (bottom category in one language) and for other parent categories "stained glass windows...." . Thanks anyhow. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)



Afrikaans | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | Lëtzebuergesch | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | norsk nynorsk | polski | română | русский | српски (ћирилица)‎ | srpski (latinica)‎ | slovenčina | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | Tagalog | українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Reinhardhauke,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

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'd 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.

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 Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Personality rights

Hello,

My photos are taken during a public demonstration. Did you read the guidelines? Yann (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not a photo of a public demonstration!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't read the guidelines. Photos of people taken public demonstrations are allowed. Yann (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Category interwiki links

Hi. Please don't overwrite category links when adding interwikis in the side bar (like here). If you can't leave them in place, then I suggest you let the bots do the update work instead of wasting everyone's time. Thanks. — Bjung (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Bonfeld Synagoge 01.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | 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:Bonfeld Synagoge 01.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:Bonfeld Synagoge 01.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Rosenzweig τ 15:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Pauline Maier 010.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | 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:Pauline Maier 010.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:Pauline Maier 010.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Rosenzweig τ 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Gondelsheim Synagoge 002.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | 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:Gondelsheim Synagoge 002.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:Gondelsheim Synagoge 002.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Rosenzweig τ 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hinweis

Hallo Reinhardhauke, bitte unterlasse so etwas. Der Eintrag im Author-Feld ist für Nachnutzer rechtlich bindend. Allein der Urheber ist berechtigt die an die CC-Lizenz geknüpfte Attributionsvorgabe festzulegen. Im Lizenztext der CC-Lizenzen ist das Hereinnehmen einer sog. "attribution party" in die vorgegebene Attribution ausdrücklich vorgesehen.Abschnitt 4c. Ob bzw. welche Art von Attribution akzeptabel ist, ist Entscheidung der Commons-Community, nicht einzelner Benutzer. --Túrelio (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Siehe Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Ralf Roletschek. Willst Du, dass hier webspams und Schleichwerbung geduldet wird?--Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wenn du schon auf diese Diskussion verweist, dann beteilige dich bitte dort. Solange dort kein Ergebins gefunden wurde, ist es eine schlechte Idee, in großem Stil Beschreibungen zu ändern. Außerdem gilt immer noch, was Túrelio oben geschrieben hat: Es steht dir rechtlich nicht zu, dieses Feld zu ändern. Ralf hat eine Lizenz erteilt und für diese Lizenz die Namensnennung vorgegeben. Uns steht es nun frei, diese Lizenz so zu akzeptieren oder das Bild zu löschen. Ändern dürfen wir sie aber nicht. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category descriptions

Please stop deleting descriptions from category pages. Thank you.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Unkel St.Pantaleon87.JPG

Bonjour, en mettant en ligne une photo après l'avoir recadré, j'ai vu la votre. J'ai redressé les perspectives. J'espère que cela vous conviendra. Dans le cas contraire je remettrai la photo initiale. Cordialement.

Hallo, durch die Veröffentlichung eines Fotos abgeschnitten, nachdem ich dir sah. Ich richtete Perspektiven. Ich hoffe, dies ist zufriedenstellend. Andernfalls lasse ich das ursprüngliche Bild. Herzlich. (Maschinelle Übersetzung).François de Dijon (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Das ist gut so! Cordialement.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)