User talk:Till.niermann

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Very nice picture, good exposure and framing.--PieCam 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

WikiDartEngine.gif
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
A great illustration, however the text on the discussion page at Atkinson cycle suggests that there might be errors in it. I don't think we could make this QI until that discussion is resolved in some way. Please resubmit when that happens. --Karora 11:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry - that discussion referred to the other diagram. My mistake. --Karora 12:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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!

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

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good QI --UrLunkwill 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Impressive. Very few (if at all) stitching errors. Well done. Lycaon 19:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Do you still use it? --Mbdortmund 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIt works, but it only creates a warm breeze instead of a hot storm. - Till.niermann 08:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Ok. --Berthold Werner 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thank you[edit]

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

Hill 471[edit]

your request[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

MAS Antwerpen facade 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice place , nice shoot --Archaeodontosaurus 06:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Yes, vey nicfe. Could be improved by a perspective correction, IMO. Thoughts ?--Jebulon 08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I left it that way on purpose. As we are looking from below into the top edge of the window, in my opinion correcting the perspective would make it harder to recognize what's depicted here. - Till.niermann 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is interpreting architecture photography which does not require PC. --Ikiwaner 05:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke …[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
{{{3}}}

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right. Cropping done. --Till.niermann 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Good.--Jebulon 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Moroder 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ich meine z.B. dieses hier, welches den Kontinentalgraben zwischen Europa und Amerika bei Þingvellir zeigt. Simisa (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Rosenzweig τ 13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Maathavan 10:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Maathavan 10:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deesis mosaic Hagia Sophia 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. I am very Interested in the technical details of how the pictures were taken. Could you please specify them in the description? Thanks --Moroder 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

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

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  Bahasa Melayu  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  中文  +/−
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 VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. It could be enhanced by raising the magenta defringing amount. --Cccefalon 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated_GIF_of_Strokkur[edit]

Category discussion warning

Animated GIF of Strokkur 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!


Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vitra factory loading docks 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vitra factory loading docks 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Exhibition Hall, German Historical Museum, Detail.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Exhibition Hall, German Historical Museum, Detail.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 16:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Machuca iglesia.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Machuca iglesia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Basotxerri 14:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
San Jerónimo, Poconchile, Chile.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Jerónimo, Poconchile, Chile.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twin Kiosk exterior.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Twin Kiosk exterior.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Socaire Old Church.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Socaire Old Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check the categories. They could be improved. --XRay 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentDone. --Till.niermann 14:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now. --XRay 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sant Pau del Camp cloister 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sant Pau del Camp cloister 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vitra factory building ramp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good composition --Hubertl 19:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haarlem Magdalenaklooster cartouche.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Haarlem Magdalenaklooster cartouche.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Vengolis 02:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Ermell 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Xanten RömerMuseum 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Xanten RömerMuseum 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
nice --Pudelek 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Sant Pau del Camp cloister 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sant Pau del Camp cloister 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the part with shadows could be brighter and CAs (at hte roof) should be removed. --XRay 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately I'm lacking the tools to do this in a reasonable amount of time. --Till.niermann 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed As requested. W.carter 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. IMO OK now. --XRay 04:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FPC[edit]

Hello! So as soon as someone get around to doing a manual count of the votes for File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpg it will get the FP stamp. Since there were two versions this can't be done automatically. Since you did this very nice pic, I thought I'd have a look at your other pics and see if something stuck out. There are some that would definitely have a chance at FPC if you like to nominate them. I would certainly vote for them:

There are several more that have excellent composition, but unfortunately not enough quality. Best, cart-Talk 09:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your appreciation – after this feedback I will certainly think about nominating some more. --Till (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first picture is now FP. The Bot only leaves a message on the nominator's talk page (you can check mine), but I thought you'd like to know that it's now official. Thanks for a beautiful picture! :) cart-Talk 08:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected perspective ?[edit]

After a long time not being here, i returned to wikimedia today and I saw my first foto uploaded (File:Wuerttembergische landesbibliothek 2005 05a.jpg) more than 10 years ago with a "corrected perspective".

Sorry, dear user:Till.niermann, but I don't think, this perspective is more correct than the one, I uploaded. The correction leads to an image, which hasn't a perspective at all. The vertical lines of the object (the building in this case) are represented by vertical lines on the screen. You will never have this effect in reality, if you look at a building taller than you!

This is the reason the image was not "corrected" in this radical way. Instead the "falling lines" (Is that the correct expression in english? I don't know!) intentionally were adjusted moderately!

I would suggest to undo your "correction". Ok? --Rolfg (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

العربيَّة  Deutsch  español  English  français  português  русский  українська  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文(中国大陆)‎  中文(台灣)‎  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Commons File mover.svg

Hi Till.niermann, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

lNeverCry 09:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitra-Bild[edit]

Hallo Till,

bitte verstehe meinen Hinweis bei der FP-Kandidatur nicht falsch. Das Kontra bezieht sich wirklich nur auf den Umstand, dass das Bild ganz klar im umfriedeten Bereich des Vitra-Werksgeländes entstanden ist. Ich stand mehrere Male in rechtlicher Auseinandersetzung mit der Gesellschaft. Die Vitra scherte sich einige mal nicht um mein Urheberrecht von Bildern des Designmuseums, die ich vom öffentlichen Grund gemacht habe. Sie betrachteten sie mehr oder weniger als ihr Eigentum. Dafür entdeckten sie mal ein Bild von einem Designstuhl, der außen am Vitrahaus angebracht ist. Dieser Stuhl befand sich nicht einmal auf ihrem Werksgelände sondern auf dem öffentlichen zugänglichen Grund am Vitrahaus. Trotzdem riet mir mein Anwalt, das Bild besser zu entfernen. Mit Ausnahme des öffentlichen Zufahrtsweges ist nämlich das gesamte Gelände dort Privatgrundstück und von daher gilt die Panoramafreiheit dort nicht. Es würde mich auch wundern wenn die Vitra hier eine nachträgliche Publikationserlaubnis erteilen würde, zumindest nach meinen bisherigen Erfahrungen mit der Firma. Aber gerne lasse ich mich positiv überraschen. Beste Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, schon klar. Ich hätte besser nachdenken sollen. Aber ich habe mich auch durch die Tatsache blenden lassen, dass bereits andere Fotos von den selben Gebäuden hochgeladen waren, und das teilweise schon seit geraumer Zeit. Ist natürlich kein Argument. Mal sehen, was aus meiner Anfrage wird, aber viel Hoffnung habe ich auch nicht. --Till (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnarstapi - Iceland, Islandia, fotokraj.com - panoramio.jpg[edit]

Hallo Till, vielen Dank, dass Du auch mit ein bisschen Ordnung in die vielen Bilder des Panoramio upload bots bringst. Dabei ist Dir ein kleiner Lapsus passiert. Bitte kategorisiere keine Dateien mit Wasserzeichen manuell in die Kategorie Images with watermarks ein. Verwende stattdessen die Vorlage {{Watermark}} in der Dateibeschreibung, da sonst kein auffälliger Hinweis zur Wasserzeichenentfernung erscheint. Da ich beim Ränderentfernen das Wasserzeichen gleich mitentferne, war das jetzt zwar kein großes Problem, in Zukunft wäre jedoch das richtige Tagging schon wünschenwert. Viele Grüße und einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr wünscht Ras67 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

File:Exhibition Hall, German Historical Museum, Detail.jpg[edit]

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Gnom (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exhibition Hall, German Historical Museum, Detail.jpg[edit]

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Gnom (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bild Louisiana Red[edit]

Sehr geehrter Herr Niermann,

Sie haben unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louisiana_Red_Düsseldorf.jpg ein Bild von Louisiana Red veröffentlicht- Da ich eine Wiederveröffentlichung einer LP von 1985 als CD vorbereite, würde ich Ihr Bild gerne verwenden und bitte daher um Genehmigung. Selbstverständlich werden alle Urheber und Quellangaben, wie gewünscht vorgenommen.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

Norbert Egger (--Norbert Egger AAA Culture GmbH (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

norbert.egger@aaa-culture.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbert Egger AAA Culture GmbH (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Herr Egger, Wikimedia Commons ist eine Sammlung von Medien, die für jedermann unter freien Lizenzen nutzbar sind; eine formelle Genehmigung meinerseits ist also gar nicht notwendig, solange die Lizenzbedingungen der jeweiligen Datei beachtet werden. In diesem Fall muss mein Name als Autor genannt werden, und da Sie ja bereits geschrieben haben, dass Sie das beachten, steht einer Nutzung des Fotos nichts im Wege. Danke jedenfalls für die Nachfrage. --Till (talk)

Sehr geehrter Herr Niermann,

vielen herzlichen Dank. Ich wollte nur sichergehen, und werde dies gerne so beachten.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

Norbert Egger (--Norbert Egger AAA Culture GmbH (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Basilica di Santa Maria Assunta, Torcello.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Basilica di Santa Maria Assunta, Torcello.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

San Michele in Isola, Facade.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Michele in Isola, Facade.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 10:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
San Giorgio Maggiore, 2017.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Giorgio Maggiore, 2017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Moroder 08:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

San Michele, Venice, main entrance.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Michele, Venice, main entrance.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 10:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D-OIND looking up.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! D-OIND looking up.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Justice at Stadhuis Haarlem.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Justice at Stadhuis Haarlem.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mariensäule, München.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mariensäule, München.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good sharp focus to object in the front --Michielverbeek 06:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for felicitation program of Wiki Events Nepal during 2015[edit]

Wiki Events Nepal Invitation for felicitation program of Wiki Events 2015 in Nepal

Dear Till.niermann, we heartily apologize for the delay due to some situational circumstances. It’s our pleasure to invite you to Wiki Events 2015 in Nepal winners awarding ceremony on 2nd September, 2017 at Masala Cottage, 2:00 pm onwards. We would like to ask few minutes of your time to provide your details here. Your contribution as a contributor made the Wiki Events 2015 in Nepal possible. We’d like to have a privilege of having you there.

Kind regards,

The Wiki Events Nepal Team

Permission to use a photo with credit only[edit]

Dear Till Niermann, The Center for Educational Technology is an NGO dedicated to the advancement of the education in Israel. We are writing educational tests for Israel Ministry of Education. The tests will use school students in Israel. After the tests were taken, it will be uploaded to CET site and to the Ministry of Education site (for the purpose of exercise or a possible future use). We are seeking for permission to use in this context your photo of the statue of Augustus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue-Augustus.jpg not under the share alike license but with your credit only. I thank you and looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best, Laliv Gal | Copyright department CET - The Center for Educational Technology office: +972-3-6460376 fax: +972-3-6460612 lalivg@cet.ac.il cet.ac.il | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube Laliv g (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Laliv Gal,
Thank you for your interest in one of my photographs. In fact, this one is already widely being used in all sorts of contexts outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia. While I love to support educational purposes, I'm afraid I cannot change the license under which the file was originally uploaded.
Regards, --Till (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of photographs[edit]

Hello Till,

My name is Isaiah Mitchell, and I'm writing from Trinity University Press in San Antonio, Texas. We'd like to use two of your excellent photographs (specifically, the photograph of Augustus of Prima Porta and your photo of a fresco in Chora church of a fresco in Istanbul). Do you have the original RAW or TIFF versions of these?

Many thanks, --Isaiah Mitchell (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isaiah, thank you for message. I'm afraid I don't have RAW or TIFF versions of the images you are interested in - sorry. I hope you can use the ones I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Regards, --Till (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schildergasse 14–16 (Köln)[edit]

Guten Morgen Till, zuerst einmal wünsche ich dir ein frohes Osterfest und bedanke mich für die umfangreichen Kategorisierungsarbeiten in der letzten Zeit, die mir im Bereich Köln sehr positiv aufgefallen sind :-)

Aber bei der Entfernung der Buildings in Cologne-Kategorie in Category:Schildergasse 14–16 (Köln) stehe ich auf dem Schlauch. Bei Schildergasse 14–16 handelt es sich schließlich um ein konkretes Gebäude, analog z.B. Category:Schildergasse 111. Das einzige, was ich bei Schildergasse 14-16 nicht genau weiß, ist die Nutzungsart. Wo habe ich einen Denkfehler? Raymond 07:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Raymond, Danke für die Nachfrage. Mir war einfach aufgefallen, dass unter Category:Buildings in Cologne die Schildergasse 14-16 der einzige Eintrag war, der nur aus einer Adresse bestand. Es gibt ja noch so viel mehr Kategorien, die jeweils aus Straßenname und Hausnummer bestehen (vor allem für denkmalgeschützte Häuser), z.B. in Category:Weißenburgstraße (Köln), die aber nicht der Category:Buildings in Cologne zugeordnet sind; diese würde dann auch ziemlich überfrachtet, finde ich. Vielleicht wäre dafür Category:Houses in Cologne besser geeignet, aber auch das finde ich fraglich. Ich verstehe Deinen Ansatz, wahrscheinlich ist die Schildergasse 14-16 zunächst in den "Buildings" besser aufgehoben, bis jemand herausfindet ob es ein Geschäftsgebäude ist; dann müsste man das stattdessen der Category:Office buildings in Cologne zuordnen. Auch frohe Ostern! --Till (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal — Invitation[edit]

Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal


Hi Till.niermann, We would like to invite you to participate in Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal competition during 1 May to 31 May, 2018 and share your great and valuable images with the whole world. We would like to ask a few minutes of your time before you start upload your valuable images from 1 May, 2018. Please use this new survey to submit your mailing address.

Kind regards,
The Wiki Loves Earth Team

FP Promotion[edit]

Blücher-Denkmal Bebelplatz 1961.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Blücher-Denkmal Bebelplatz 1961.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blücher-Denkmal Bebelplatz 1961.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foto Shuji Sakuma[edit]

Ich verstehe nicht ganz... Was für eine Berechtigung wird benötigt?--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Berechtigung, ein Foto dieser Person in Commons hochzuladen. Um die Persönlichkeitsrechte zu achten, sollte die betreffende Person schriftlich zugestimmt haben, und diese Zustimmung fehlt hier – oder täusche ich mich? Siehe auch Commons:Personality rights. Eine eventuelle weitere Diskussion bitte über die zugehörige Seite Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shuji Sakuma.jpg. Danke! --Till (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Gilt das jetzt für alle Fotos, die ich jemals gemacht habe?
Ich schreibe hier weiter, weil es ja eine Grundsatzfrage ist.--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grundsätzlich schon, siehe auch Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Germany für Bedingungen in Deutschland. Hier ist auch eine Ausnahme für "Personen der Zeitgeschichte" angegeben, die ggf. auf einzelne Fotos bzw. die jeweils dargestellte Person zutrifft. Ich bin aber weder ein Experte auf diesem Gebiet noch die entscheidende Instanz auf Commons. Deshalb wieder die Bitte, das Thema entweder spezifisch in der o.g. Diskussionsseite weiterzuführen, oder die genannten Informationsseiten (und die mit diesen verbundenen Seiten) zu Rate zu ziehen. Gruß --Till (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ich muss noch einmal nachfragen, da mein Englisch noch ausbaufähig ist: wie werden public places definiert?--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Das sind öffentliche, also für jedermann zugängliche Orte. --Till (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen Dank! Das habe ich mir schon gedacht.
Das Foto habe ich auf einer geschlossenen Veranstaltung auf einer Fachmesse aufgenommen (https://www.ids-cologne.de/media/redaktionell/ids/downloads_6/pdf_7/teilnahme_und_planung_6/medienvertreter/Pressetermine_Press_events_IDS.pdf). Ergo: Roll back in vollem Umfang.
Und nochmals vielen Dank für die konstruktive Kommunikation.--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist aber wieder eine andere Situation, wenn Du als akkreditierter Journalist bei einer Presseveranstaltung Aufnahmen der Personen am Podium anfertigst. Eine solche Veranstaltung dient ja gerade der möglichst großen Medienpräsenz, und mit Deiner Akkreditierung stimmen diese Personen zu, dass Du Fotos von ihnen in "Deinem" Medium veröffentlichst. --Till (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ziehst du den Löschantrag jetzt bitte wieder zurück.--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guten Tag! Im Auftrag der dort abgebildeten Person wollte ich nachfragen, ob sich der Fotograf bitte bei mir melden kann. Eventuell kann man dann auch das mit der Berechtigung klären (diesbezüglich bin ich bisher nicht informiert, würde aber versuchen zu vermitteln) Freundliche Grüße, Liaria (talk) 17:00, 08 April 2019
@Liaria: Guten Abend! Wer bist Du? Woher hast Du den Auftrag? Kannst Du das bitte nachweisen?--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Till: Ziehst du bitte den Löschantrag endlich zurück?--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, ich sehe keinen Grund, den Löschantrag zurückzuziehen. Wenn Du berechtigterweise das Foto hochgeladen hast, klärt sich das in der Diskussion zum Löschantrag, und dann wird die Datei auch nicht gelöscht. --Till (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sag mal, wäre es wirklich sehr schwer gewesen zu schreiben, dass du selbst die Löschdiskussion entsprechend ergänzt hast. Ist das wirklich wikipedianisch und kollegial die Kommunikation auf die Spitze zu treiben? Ich fand unseren Austausch total konstruktiv, eigentlich...--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe zweimal darauf hingewiesen, dass diese ganze Diskussion eigentlich in die Löschdiskussion zur Datei gehört, und habe das auch (beidseitig) verlinkt. Von da ab hätte ich den weiteren Fortgang hier auf meiner User-Page auch ignorieren können, aber ich antworte trotzdem. Tatsächlich wäre es sehr wikipedianisch, wenn man sich an die Abläufe halten würde, wie sie von der Gemeinschaft beschlossen wurden. Es kann durchaus sein, dass nicht jeder diese Abläufe kennt, darum habe ich freundlich darauf aufmerksam gemacht. Schau‘ Dir bitte mal diesen Textabschnitt an: Wer treibt denn hier die Kommunikation auf die Spitze? Ich habe immer nur geantwortet, wie ich das auch jetzt mache. --Till (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, auf Formalia zu verweisen ist uncool. Wir haben doch das gleiche Ziel, Wikipedia besser zu machen, oder..?
In diesem Sinne: Deine Forderung nach einem Nachweis der Zustimmung habe ich schon öfter gehört. Gibt es irgendwo eine Vorlage, die einwandfrei vom Abgebildeten unterzeichnet werden kann?--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StagiaireMGIMO Ich habe dir über wikipedia eine Email mit meinen Kontaktdaten geschickt, ich möchte hier ungern meine Kontaktdaten öffentlich hinstellen... Wenn du mir darauf antwortest, kann ich dir näheres dazu sagen. Den Auftrag den Fotografen herauszufinden, hat die Agentur für die ich arbeite von Roslyn Hayman (president SANGI Co.Ltd., Tokyo und Geschäftsführerin SANGI Europe GmbH bekommen. Liaria (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2019 (MEZ)

Copyright status: File:St. Gereon, Köln, um 1700 (3).jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:St. Gereon, Köln, um 1700 (3).jpg

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  Bahasa Melayu  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  中文  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St. Gereon, Köln, um 1700 (3).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2019[edit]

WLM-Banner-Bg-2016.jpg
Hallo Till.niermann,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2019 findet zum neunten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Dabei können Bau- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich ein, dieses Jahr wieder mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Es sind viele spannende Motive überall in Deutschland zu fotografieren. Neben beeindruckenden märchenhaften Schlössern, Burgen und Kirchen können auch andere Kulturdenkmale wie Brücken, Industrieruinen, Bauernhöfe oder Parks fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden, die sich über Fotos freuen. Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Du bist interessiert, am Wettbewerb mitzuwirken, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art. Sollte noch Technik fehlen, die aber in Zukunft unbedingt benötigt wird, dann freut sich Wikimedia Deutschland über dein Feedback zum Technikpool.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Mitte September 2019 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg bei größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z thomas 14:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg T.[edit]

Habe ich dich richtig verstanden: ich soll eine Genehmigung von einem bereits verstorben Künstler und von einem Moderator, der in die Kamera guckt und jeden Abend im RBB eine Sendung hat, besorgen?--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo StagiaireMGIMO, das Foto berührt meiner Meinung nach das Urheberrecht, da das darauf dargestellte Kunstwerk gut zu erkennen ist, sich nicht im öffentlichen Raum befindet und Tod des Künstlers noch nicht 70 Jahre her ist. Das alleine sollte Grund genug sein, die Datei zu löschen. Dass der Mann ggf. eine Person öffentlichen Interesses ist und deshalb der Veröffentlichung dieses Fotos unter Umständen nicht eigens zustimmen muss, wird aus der hochgeladenen Datei mit ihren Metadaten nicht deutlich, auch die Kategorisierung gibt darauf keine Hinweise. Mir ist der Mann jedenfalls unbekannt, da ich nicht RBB gucke. Gruß --Till (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Übrigens finde ich auch in diesem Fall wieder, dass Deine Nachfrage in die Löschdiskussion der betreffenden Datei gehört. Bitte eröffne hier nicht eine parallele Diskussion. Danke! --Till (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Koala in Zoo Duisburg.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Koala in Zoo Duisburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Nice, interesting posture --Podzemnik 06:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

Koala in Zoo Duisburg.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Koala in Zoo Duisburg.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koala in Zoo Duisburg.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Catharina van Rennes Beeck Calkoen Brigittenstraat Utrecht (2).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Catharina van Rennes Beeck Calkoen Brigittenstraat Utrecht (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Moahim 08:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Is not this a work of art that is still protected by copyright? --Steindy 08:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
No, this memorial plaque is attached to the street side of a house, thus publicly displayed at all times. See also this version which is in Commons since 2010. --Till.niermann 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

D-LZZF over Cologne.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! D-LZZF over Cologne.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

201 Dome Mosque 02.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:201 Dome Mosque 02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:201 Dome Mosque 02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Postsparkasse Wien Beleuchtung.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Postsparkasse Wien Beleuchtung.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 18:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

F224 at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! F224 at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --Peulle 22:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clock in Oficina Salitrera Humberstone.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clock in Oficina Salitrera Humberstone.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Theater Baden-Baden.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Theater Baden-Baden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 15:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Azapa panorama.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Azapa panorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colored pencils (1), USSR 1979.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Colored pencils (1), USSR 1979.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality, but these are colored pencils, not crayons. You should change the filename. -- Ikan Kekek 06:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for indicating. I renamed the file. --Till.niermann 06:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Iglesia de las Carmelitas, Valparaíso.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Iglesia de las Carmelitas, Valparaíso.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sultan Ahmed I Mosque, Dome detail 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sultan Ahmed I Mosque, Dome detail 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

I mean the chain should be straight in the middle. --Steindy 00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
You mean vertical? - Yes, that would be better. But it didn't happen. Only here it did. --Till.niermann 07:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool --Podzemnik 08:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers[edit]

Commons File mover.svg

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Templeman y Almirante Montt, Valparaíso.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Templeman y Almirante Montt, Valparaíso.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Dust spot to remove. --Steindy 00:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Done, uploaded a new version. --Till.niermann 07:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 23:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kiosks_in_Topkapı_Palace[edit]

Category discussion warning

Kiosks in Topkapı Palace 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!


Themightyquill (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

New Mosque, Istanbul, from Bosphorus.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! New Mosque, Istanbul, from Bosphorus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 07:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cologne Museum Ludwig Roof at Dusk.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cologne Museum Ludwig Roof at Dusk.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

CS-EBB at Fuseta.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CS-EBB at Fuseta.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

YokoOno PaintingToHammerANailIn.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! YokoOno PaintingToHammerANailIn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness just ok --Poco a poco 19:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Train approaching Fuseta A.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Train approaching Fuseta A.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giraffa camelopardalis in Duisburg Zoo sticking out tongue.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Giraffa camelopardalis in Duisburg Zoo sticking out tongue.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Axel Tschentscher 13:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

Illuminated facade of a 3-storey restaurant with Japanese signs and red paper lanterns, Chiyoda, Tokyo.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Illuminated facade of a 3-storey restaurant with Japanese signs and red paper lanterns, Chiyoda, Tokyo.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Illuminated facade of a 3-storey restaurant with Japanese signs and red paper lanterns, Chiyoda, Tokyo.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Three bridges in Tavira.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Three bridges in Tavira.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Carschten 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Blimp D-OSMD above Cologne.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Blimp D-OSMD above Cologne.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

Trekkers along with porters towards Snow Lake, over Biafo Glacier 61Km.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Trekkers along with porters towards Snow Lake, over Biafo Glacier 61Km.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trekkers along with porters towards Snow Lake, over Biafo Glacier 61Km.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

D-LZNT above Cologne.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! D-LZNT above Cologne.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
GQ --Palauenc05 09:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

AERIAL BOUDHA VIEW.tif
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! AERIAL BOUDHA VIEW.tif, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Nefronus 20:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Langen Foundation 1, 2021.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Langen Foundation 1, 2021.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Langen Foundation 2, 2021.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Langen Foundation 2, 2021.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Langen Foundation 3, 2021.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Langen Foundation 3, 2021.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:TC-SBO in Istanbul.jpg[edit]

Hi—firstly, thanks for correcting my mistake here. I meant to change Cat:Transport in Istanbul to Cat:Aviation in Istanbul before realizing that wasn't an existing category; I just forgot to add back the original Transport category.

However, I'm not quite sure why you undid my removal of Cat:Unidentified aircraft—from my understanding, the aircraft has been fully identified. Is there an aspect of its categorization that I missed, or was it simply an unintended effect of your revert? Perryprog (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Perryprog, I didn't notice your changes in the category. So everything is OK now, thanks for sorting this out. --Till (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Bourse de commerce, stairs.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bourse de commerce, stairs.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality. --MB-one 19:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user category[edit]

Hi, I think Category:Rajesh Dhungana should not be removed from images, it's a user category. Noticed at [1]. Regards 87.147.127.133 09:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]