User talk:Till.niermann

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Isluga National Park Panorama.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Isluga National Park Panorama.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Statue-Augustus.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Augustus of Prima Porta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

FP Promotion[edit]

Dresden Garnisonkirche gp.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Dresden Garnisonkirche gp.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dresden Garnisonkirche gp.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Benh (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Kategorisieren[edit]

Hallo, danke für die Arbeit. Nutzt aber nix, solange du nicht die Zeile mit 'Uncategorized...' entfernst, jetzt tauchen die alle wieder in der Liste auf. ----Ayacop (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Das ist mir schon klar. Uncategorized entferne ich erst, wenn ich glaube, dass das Bild ausreichend kategorisiert ist, und das ist jetzt auch bei fast allen Bildern so, mit deren Kategorisierung ich angefangen habe. - Till (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Habe jetzt gesehen, es sind nur ein paar. Du bist also keiner von denen, die das drinlassen. Sorry. Nehme alles zurück. --Ayacop (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

WikiDartEngine.gif
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! WikiDartEngine.gif, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Chuquicamata[edit]

Hallo Till
Hast Du noch mehr Bilder von Chuquicamata?

Da ich mit WikiCommon (noch) nicht vertraut bin, wäre es sehr angenehm, wenn Du mich via Email kontaktieren könntest.
lg
Christian

Hallo Christian,
ein paar weitere Bilder habe ich noch: Muldenkipper und Ansichten der Produktionsanlagen von oben. Alles aber von der üblichen Besichtigungstour aus gemacht. Suchst Du etwas Bestimmtes? Und für welchen Zweck? — Gruß Till (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Danke für die Antwort
die Bilder sollen auf ein Poster der Kampagne-Bergwerk-Peru. Dürfen hier links gepostet werden? Huancabamba Kaffee-statt-Kupfer in eine gängige Suchmaschine eingetippt, führt schnell zu mehr Informationen. - viele Grüße Christian
Hallo Christian,
mit dem Chuquicamata-Panorama kann man ja laut Lizenz fast alles machen, was man will (vorausgesetzt, der Name des Fotografen wird genannt). Die Fotos, die ich bisher nicht auf Wikimedia Commons bereitgestellt habe, möchte ich aber lieber für mich behalten — ich hoffe auf Dein Verständnis. — Gruß Till (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Till,
was verstehst Du unter "den Urheber im angemessenem Umfang nennen", wenn es sich um ein Foto auf einem Plakat handelt, bei dem die Folgen des Tagebaus auf ein ökologisch und kulturell sensibles Gebiet dargestellt werden. Ich finde, kein Urheber eines der Bilder auf den Plakat sollte auf diesem selbst erwähnt werden, da es sich in diesem Fall ja nicht vorrangig um das Werk des Fotografen handelt, sondern um die Information der Auswirkungen einer Industrieanlage in einem landwirtschaftlich genutztem Gebiet. Aber es ist Dein Bild, ich habe die Möglichkeit Dich zu fragen und in jedem Fall werde ich Deine Antwort respektieren. Wäre es in Ordnung es in diesem Zusammenhang ohne Nennung Deines Namens zu verwenden? viele Grüße Christian 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Also:
Selbstverständlich muss der Urheber des Fotos auf dem Plakat genannt werden, wenn die Bildlizenz dies verlangt. Das finde ich überhaupt nicht ungewöhnlich, schließlich wird z.B. auch in seriösen Printmedien zu jedem abgedruckten Bild der Fotograf und/oder die Bildagentur genannt. Auch bei Plakaten von Greenpeace, die bei Kampagnen in der Fußgängerzone aufgestellt werden, kann man unter den Fotos oft den Namen des Fotografen sehen. Das ist aber, wie gesagt, bei Wikimedia Commons ausschließlich abhängig von der jeweiligen Lizenz und hat überhaupt nichts mit dem Thema und dem Kontext der Veröffentlichung zu tun. - Gruß Till (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirchen in NRW nach Bauzeit statt "modern churches in..."[edit]

Hallo Till, Da du - wie ich an deinen Benutzerbeiträgen sehe - Kirchen auch nach Bauzeit sortierst, hoffe ich, dass du nicht vergrault darüber bist, dass ich die Kategorie "Modern churches in North Rhine-Westphalia" allmählich leere zugunsten von "20th century churches in North Rhine-Westphalia" (darin nach jahrzehnten geordnet). soviel just FYI --anro (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Your images of sculptures[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Your images of sculptures 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)‎ | +/−

/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Barcelona panorama from Parc Güell.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barcelona panorama from Parc Güell.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hairdryer Solis Typ 54 left.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hairdryer Solis Typ 54 left.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Voigtländer Bessa 66-1.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Voigtländer Bessa 66-1.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Golden Gate Bhaktapur.jpg[edit]

... has been moved, and there is a redirect to the new filename. To upload a new image to that page, you will first need to clear the redirect and save. May be worthwhile, pasting in a completed {{information}} template before uploading the correct image. billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Till (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your work of categorization of my picts from Tibet. Antoinetav (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hill 471[edit]

your request[edit]

✓ Done. You can use {{Editprotected}} for requests like this. -- Common Good (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Panoramics in Burma[edit]

Was it your intention to delete this page (which would be fine, since it's an empty category)? Because blanking it but not deleting it is probably not a great solution. - Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel - actually the category was empty before, all I did was remove the last reference to another category, i.e. Category:Panoramics in Myanmar. So yes, probably the remainders of Panoramics in Burma are ready to be deleted. Isn't a category that is not referenced at all quite the same as a category that you want to create from scratch? Maybe you can help with deleting? I wouldn't know how. Thanks, --Till (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between a blank page and a non-existent one (mainly for searching). I'll fix it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


File:Cologne St Andreas Lüpertz 1.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cologne St Andreas Lüpertz 1.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)‎ | +/−

Artwork of a still living artist. View from inside the church. Freedom of Panorama not applicable --Raymond 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MAS Antwerpen facade 1.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Danke …[edit]

… für die Kategorisierung meiner DuisburgbilderDüsseldorfbilder! :-) Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ähem... das waren Bilder aus Düsseldorf, aber (fast) gern geschehen. Ich habe mir allerdings tatsächlich gedacht, dass DerHexer als Steward und sysop sich vielleicht auch selber etwas mehr um bessere Kategorisierung und Beschreibung seiner Uploads kümmern könnte. Die Beschreibungen habe ich auch nicht geändert, da hättest Du noch ein Betätigungsfeld, denn sie lauten immer gleich — und, mit Verlaub, wen interessiert schon, dass das Foto von einem Bürohochhaus während eines internen Wikipedia-Ausflugs entstanden ist? In diesem Sinne schöne Grüße, - Till (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Normalerweise unterstützt mich Oceancetaceen beim Kategorisieren, nur war die letzte Woche in Rom. ;o) Sonst sind für mich Kategorien wichtiger als Beschreibungen etc. Wenn ich die Bilder dann einbinde, verschieb ich sie noch auf ein passenderes Lemma und passe die Beschriftung dementsprechend an. Sonst erscheint es mir sinnvoll, möglichst viele Bilder (kategorisiert) zur Verfügung zu stellen, sodass ein Artikelschreiber sie beim Stöbern in der Kategorie für seinen Artikel finden kann. Beschreibung, Titel und ähnliches sind zwar dafür auch sinnvoll, aber in meinen Augen sekundär. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ein Problem dabei ist, dass derjenige, der dem Bild Kategorien hinzufügt, wissen muss, was auf dem Bild dargestellt ist, z.B. auf diesem. Das sollte meiner Meinung nach aber eher der Fotograf wissen, denn er hat das Bild ja aus einem bestimmten Grund aufgenommen und hochgeladen. Bilder, die weder eine aussagekräftige Beschreibung noch Kategorien (noch einen hilfreichen Dateinamen) haben, sind praktisch verloren, da man sie auch nicht über die Volltextsuche finden kann. Noch etwas: ich kann nur die Kategorien zuweisen, die bereits vorhanden sind. Wenn im Laufe der Zeit differenziertere Kategorien eingeführt werden, wird ein Bild, das keine Beschreibung hat, wahrscheinlich unberücksichtigt bleiben. Gruß - Till (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Usage of pict GAP_15_Duesseldorf.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir

I would like to use several crops of your beautiful image GAP_15_Duesseldorf.jpg,in a website that I am designing at this time for a company, located in the building. Therefore to be sure that I can use and slightly color-transform the file, I would like to get your personnal agreement.

I would be pleased if you could contact me at "remiblot (at) gmail . com" I would send you a screenshot of the crop in the page to show you how we plan to use it. (in german, english, french or spanish)

Link to the file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GAP_15_Duesseldorf.jpg?uselang=de


Kindest Regards

Rémi Blot remiblot.com

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Philae Temple of Isis coptic cross 2.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Philae Temple of Isis coptic cross 2.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Papio hamadryas Cologne Zoo.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Papio hamadryas Cologne Zoo.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Haarlem Sint-Bavokerk crossing vault.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Haarlem Sint-Bavokerk crossing vault.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Sonnenuhren[edit]

Firstly thanks for your efforts in trying to sort out the Sundial category.

On a small point- I can't understand the logic of trying to categorise Horizontal dials by shape. If I design a dial it starts off square- then may be cut to be an octagon, a circle, an ellipse or a square. If a user is looking for a dial for a publication he will search by type- but now has to look at more than one subcat. The HD cat relates to a mathematical principle not to a artistic taste and has no mathematical sub cats. See Sundial

There are many words in English that one tries not to use on WP (colour, fibre, disc, any verb form with an -ise ending) as it is simpler than starting an edit war with the US who still use 17 century spellings. (color (sic), fiber(sic), disk(sic), any verb form with an -ize ending).

Yes, I have problems with disk(sic)- also technically it is not a 2D shape- but a circular shape that has be extruded to give it depth 'Scheibe' wie ein Schallplatte oder Münze. Technically a equitorial, where one can see both sides of the dial plate would be a disc- the top side is viewed in summer and the bottom side in winter- but it would be rare to do the same for a horizontal.

Getting back to the problem. All HD need to be in HD- but each image could additionally be classified by --HD by century-- and --HD by shape-- .and --HD by size-- and --HD by material--

It was probably due to this difficulty that I walked away! The coffee is on- pop on over-- and we can have a chat. Viele Grüssen. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, good to see that my efforts didn't pass unnoticed. After I realized that the vast majority of the sundials were to be found only in the country categories, I started to scan through all of them systematically, categorizing each primarily by type, and then, yes, also by shape. I thought the latter to be important because I figured that most of the people are intrigued by the shape of a sundial, only afterwards they may also think about the scientific background. The downside is that now there are 1569 files in the "Vertical sundials" category, whereas there were only few when I started the review. Likewise, there are 329 images categorized as "Horizontal sundials" which I also think is more than I would like to deal with at a time. So, after I looked at sundials from the shape perspective, I thought it would be a good idea to use a shape category to further divide "Horizontal sundials". I am aware that the shape is something different than the type - it is only used to divide a category with many members. After all, you can't deny that the sundials that I put in this category have something in common. But as a side-effect, the new general category "Disk-shaped sundials" has two members now, horizontal and equatorial ones. I find that compelling. As to the term "disk", please have it replaced by a word that you think more fitting. I have been active in Wikimedia Commons for several years now, but I never heard of edit wars concerning the spelling or wording of categories. On the contrary: there are many different spellings, even languages, for category names, so I don't think preferring one spelling over the other should be something to start a war over. My goal was to allow the user a variety of approaches to sundials and present him or her not only a few examples for each category, but to encompass all of the files in Wikimedia Commons that are classified as "sundials". Regards, --Till (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking at other shape categories, it seems that the word round or circular is better than disc. Category:Round. I see what you are trying to do- and agree there is no obvious way to subdivide by type. So lets look at Category:Vertical sundials - these can be divided by type. We have the 4 cardinal compass points, and the four types that decline between them. Waugh (1973) would call them- Vertical Direct South Sundials, Vertical Direct North Sundials, Vertical Direct East Sundials, Vertical Direct West Sundials-- Vertical Declining (south-east) Dial, Vertical Declining (south-west) Dial, Vertical Declining (north-east) Dial and Vertical Declining (north-west) Dial. North facing dials are very rare.
Verticalezonnewijzers-en.jpg
This diagram is useful in differentiating.
East and West Direct dials = the hour lines are parallel
Some of the existing classifications are wrong too!
Waugh only considers dials in the northern hemisphere. Southern dials are the same in principle will be facing in different directions. Aargh! --ClemRutter (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Circular would be OK with me (ellipses are also "round", so this term doesn't fit as well). I think your suggestion on subdividing the "Vertical" category is good - so go ahead! I agree, the term "Southern Dial" is northern-hemisphere-centered. How about "Vertical noon dials", or "Vertical noon-facing dials"? I'm open to further discussions, but I'm afraid that I won't have time in the near future to do the category editing. I spent so much time on this subject in the past two weeks that I need to have a break. --Till (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Time- me neither- I am working on my uploads backup. I am still doing December 2011. I might however just create the categories and anyone can then populate them. If you need a break- I'll put the coffee on. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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:


Yours sincerely Rd232 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Skulptur im Kölner Zoo[edit]

Guten Morgen Till,

du hast meine Fotos einer Skultptur, die im Kölner Zoo steht, aus der Kategorie Kölner Zoo ent-fernt. Zumindest 2008 stand die Skulptur definitiv im Kölner Zoo und gehört meiner Meinung nach auch in diese Kategorie. Aber vielleicht habe ich eine neuere Entwicklung übersehen oder vielleicht ist auch meine Dateibeschreibung zu ungenau? Ich wäre dir dankbar, wenn du die Kategorisierung nochmals prüfen könntest. Vielen Dank. Raymond 06:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Raymond, Deine Dateien sind nach wie vor der Kategorie Caspar Garte zugeordnet. Diese ist eine Unterkategorie von Cologne Zoo, so dass sie immer noch darunter zu finden sind. Durch das Entfernen aus Cologne Zoo sind sie jetzt nur nicht mehr redundant sowohl der Ober- als auch der Unterkategorie zugeordnet. Gruß --Till (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Ups, da habe ich nicht aufgepasst. War wohl zu früh und vor dem ersten Kaffee. Sorry für die Störung *duck* Raymond 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Continental Divide[edit]

Hallo Till, Gibt es einen bestimmen Grund, weshalb Du die Kategorie "Continental Divide in Iceland" aus all meinen Bildern entfernt hast, welche genau dieselbe zeigen? Simisa (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Simisa, ich habe Änderungen in vielen Dateien gemacht. Um welche handelt es sich denn bei Dir (zum Beispiel)? --Till (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ich meine z.B. dieses hier, welches den Kontinentalgraben zwischen Europa und Amerika bei Þingvellir zeigt. Simisa (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Dass diese Datei nun gar keiner Kategorie zugeordnet ist, war nicht beabsichtigt, Entschuldigung! Ich hatte dort die Kategorie "Continental Divide in Iceland" durch "Þingvellir" ersetzen wollen, da diese nun eine Unterkategorie der ersteren ist. Für das von Dir genannte Bild habe ich das korrigiert, ich weiß aber nicht, welche anderen das gleiche Problem haben. --Till (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Entschuldigung, das ist wohl nicht ernsthaft gemeint!!! Þingvellir als Unterkategorie zu Continental Divide in Iceland? Ich glaube nicht, dass irgend ein Isländer damit einverstanden ist. Ich schlage vor, dass Du die Änderungen rückgängig machst, nachdem auch einige meine Bilder letztlich ohne Kategorie verblieben sind. Simisa (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh doch, das ist ernst gemeint. Der Scheitel der axialen Riftzone geht genau durch Þingvellir - hier kann man den Graben ja auch besonders deutlich sehen, wie die Fotos in der Kategorie zeigen. PREUSSER (1976) schreibt, dass der Þingvellir-Graben zwischen Aldmannagjá im Westen und Hrafnagjá im Osten in den vergangenen 9.000 Jahren bis über 70 m tief abgesunken ist. --Till (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:Otto Freundlich Mein Himmel ist rot 1933.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Otto Freundlich Mein Himmel ist rot 1933.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 τ 13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Supermarket?[edit]

I figure you generally know what you are doing, so I am asking instead of reverting https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vashon_Island_Coffee_Roasterie_-_scale_01.jpg&diff=110209940&oldid=92663211. Why supermarket? This is at a coffee roasting company, not a supermarket. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel - as you presumed, my edit wasn't by mistake, so thanks for asking. Of course the scales on your photo are not in a supermarket, but the type of appliance surely is the one that is (or was, rather) widely used in supermarkets. If you look at the other images in Category:Supermarkets weighing scales, you see what I mean: Many of them don't show supermarkets in the strict sense, but all of them show the same type of scales. --Till (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really aerial photographs[edit]

FYI, when the pic description of File:Red Rock Country Club 1.jpg says "View from hillside", it's probably not actually an aerial photograph... Stan Shebs (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

True. I corrected the category. Thanks for noticing. -- Till (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

La Fortaleza desde el Mirador de Igualero (2).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Fortaleza desde el Mirador de Igualero (2).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Deesis mosaic Hagia Sophia 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Deesis mosaic Hagia Sophia 2.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Neophron percnopterus Cologne Zoo.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neophron percnopterus Cologne Zoo.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Chile ruta 11 Poconchile-Socoroma (2).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chile ruta 11 Poconchile-Socoroma (2).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Copyright status: File:D-OIND looking up.jpg[edit]

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:D-OIND looking up.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. Thank you.

JuTa 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. Das sollte jetzt erledigt sein. --Till (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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, A.Savin 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona Fish Building[edit]

Hi there,

We would love to reuse your photograph of the Barcelona Fish Building in a documentary for international broadcast. Please can you let me know if this is your own original work and if we can have copyright clearance? Thank you very much

Sam

Hi Sam,
you are free to use any media in Wikimedia Commons under the license stated for each respective file. If you are referring to my image
Barcelona Gehry fish.jpg
, there are two licenses that basically say that you may reuse the photograph as long as you state my name. For further information please use the links on the media description page that lead to the full licenses. --Till (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Ardea cinerea in Cologne Zoo.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ardea cinerea in Cologne Zoo.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.