User talk:De728631

Return to "De728631" page.


TUSC token 211033b1711e51385fa1da3b5f03b199Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Wappen der Freiherren Pranckh zu PuxEdit

Hallo. Die Familie stammt ursprünglich aus der Steiermark, dementsprechend leitet sich die bayrische Linie aus der steirischen ab. Das hochgeladene Wappen mit den 4 Feldern ist das freiherrliche Wappen der Pranckhher zu Pux, welches 1298 durch die Vermählung zwischen Friedrich von der Pranckh mit der Erbtochter Anna von Pux entstand. Das Wappen mit den 2 Zinnen ist das ältere Stammwappen. Neben dem einfachen Stammwappen und dem Wappen der Pranckhher zu Pux bestehen auch noch jene der gräflichen Linie bei Tyroff und Siebmacher.

Why has File:Caleidra, Miss Me, Official Video, Photo Still, Jan 2013.png has been nominated for deletion?Edit

Hi De728631,

I just checked your reason for nomination for deletion and can see why you suspected it was a fan account. Caleidra has tweeted the image from her official Twitter account to verify that it is an official Flickr account.

Thanks,

Can't authenticate E-mail.Edit

Hello De728631,

Would you, as an administrator, please check my account and see what is wrong, in that I am unable to authenticate my e-mail function, thereby limiting me. I've asked for authentication codes but I've never gotten one from Commons, even though I get the message that one has been sent.

Thanks, Bassoonstuff

File:Infanteria Ejercito de Chile.jpgEdit

Please do not delete. The Chilean Army (Ejército de Chile) shares its graphic work. See please page http://www.ejercito.cl/galeria.php and in the bottom "Todos los derechos reservados bajo una licencia Creative Commons No Comercial - sin derivadas 2.0 Chile". Thanks!

Drosophila imagesEdit

Hi I am User:Josiasseb

One FlyBase guy and I agreed on the license terms as well as text labels for these images. I send e-mails we got to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Do I need to provide something more? Maybe the CC license we agreed on is not the right one?

Flybase.org, or flybase.bio.indiana.edu, is a USA academic database partly funded by NIH. Some of these images were published in 1943/1944. Those should not have copyright anymore, right?

Familienwappen Bruhin etc.Edit

Sie haben vorgeschlagen, dass die Grafiken der Familienwappen, Bruhin, Hunger, Hüppin etc. zu löschen, weil sie gegen Urheberrechtsbestimmungen verstossen. Ich bitte Sie darum diesen Löschungsantrag zu wiederrufen. Ich kannte Pater Heim sehr gut. Er unterrichtete am gleichen Gymnasium, wo ich einen Lehrauftrag habe. Das Buch "kleine Geschichte der March" hat er in seinem eigenen Verlag verlegt. Er konnte den Siegeszug des Internets leider nicht mehr erleben da er in den 80er Jahren starb. Die Verwendung der Wappen. in diesem Zusammenhang, hätte er sicher gebilligt und er wäre sehr stolz, dass seine Arbeit auch im Internet seinen Nachhall findet. Das Buch ist zudem vergriffen und die Grafiken wären hier auf Wikipedia an einem "sicheren" Ort, wo sie die Zeit überleben. Ich bitte Sie daher eindringlich, die verwendeten Bilder nicht zu löschen. Ich entschuldige mich, dass ich mich so umständlich an Sie wende. Bin ein "Neuling" im Wikipediaeinträge schaffen.

Liebe(r) Tumini, Ihre Bekanntschaft mit Pater Heim in all Ehren, aber die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen sind hier leider eindeutig. Wenn keine Erlaubnis durch den Inhaber der Rechte vorliegt (in diesem Fall wohl Pater Heims Erben), dann können solche Werke nicht verwendet werden, und auch nur der Rechteinhaber darf Lizenzen zur weiteren Verwendung vergeben. Außerdem entscheide nicht ich über die endgültige Löschung der Grafiken, sondern ein Administrator der Wikimedia Commons, der den Löschantrag auswertet. Abgesehen davon können Wappenschilde jederzeit neu gezeichnet und unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht werden, da der Blason, also die heraldische Beschreibung der Wappen im Allgemeinen nicht geschützt ist. Was allerdings das Urheberrecht auf den Plan ruft, ist die individuelle Darstellung der Elemente. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO numbersEdit

I reverted your contribution on the Vietnam ship, as it was not in line with all other IMO categories. The category was intended to group the information for an individual ship and we find the IMO number category only where the shipyard is involved. Ships built on a certain shipyard are preferrably represented by the IMO number. Clicking on the IMO category results in all the names of the ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, facts like the country of the shipbuilder, year of build and such are not unique to the individual ship named MV John Doe but to the hull registered with a certain IMO number. In case of Category:Song Duong (ship, 1979), the ship has been renamed and the same basic data applies to Category:Phuong Mai Star (ship, 1979). That's why I think we should simply show the year of build, "Ships built in" etc. with the IMO category. The IMO category represents the hull that gets built somewhere someday and gets scrapped in the end or is lost at sea. The type of ship may change during the lifetime of a hull when its gets converted to another use but some general data should better be represented by the IMO category. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
My problem is, that I categorised already thousands of ships the way that only the shipyard is categorised in the IMO category. Categorising the way you suggest complicates that way of categorising. It is not wrong, but not clear for not-specialised users. Those users expect the categories of yard-country, flag-country and use-categories together with the ship-by-name-categories. Besides, have a check yourself and you will find how much work is involved in recategorising all ships the way you suggest. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's just about the workload we could get a bot to do the work. And then there is also {{IMOcat}} that tells people where to look for more information about the individual ship. I like what it says there in small print ;) I think I'm going to suggest this type of recategorisation at Category talk:Ships by IMO number or somewhere else where it gets more attention. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I slept a night over it and now I don't think its a good idea. Please realise that only ships built in the last thirty years have IMO numbers. To make a difference in presenting category information in different ways for older and newer ships does not help the common(s) user. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You've got a point there. Perhaps we should just continue like before. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
My preference. Unless someone has another and useful idea. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Leipziger Verkehrsbetriebe 30.10.2009 netzplan.jpgEdit

Then delete it speedily, thanks a lot.--辛庚己戊 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciated your explanation.--辛庚己戊 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Last modified on 6 April 2014, at 14:12