Denis Barthel

C'mon!

Hey, Denis! Ich weiß ja nicht, was passiert ist, aber ich hoffe, dass du bald wieder hierher zurück kommst :) Bis dann mal, abf /talk to me/ 06:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Discussion regarding the Categories "Fossil xxx" is occurring on Wp:ToL (here). As a member of the project you input is requested in to gain a larger view of the communities opinion on how to handle the points raised. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:CasaPoporului2004.jpg

File:CasaPoporului2004.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!

--Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Utricularias.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Utricularias.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

checked OTRS ticket, fixed --:bdk: 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token a25408787ceb839ce22525d443b0157a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

User:Denis Barthel/gallery

Bitte packe die Beschreibungen auf User:Denis Barthel/gallery in <nowiki>-Tags, damit die Seite nicht in der Kategorie erscheint. Danke,--Luxo 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Titelblatt FDGÖ Bilder zur Lage der Nation KurtJotter.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Titelblatt FDGÖ Bilder zur Lage der Nation KurtJotter.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Denis,
da du vermutlich nicht selbst "Kurt Jotter" bist, benötigst du von ihm eine schriftliche Genehmigung oder andere Evidenz für die freie Lizensierung all dieser Fotos. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Und genau die liegt im OTRS. Ganz so dumm wie du vielleicht glaubst bin ich denn doch nicht. Denis Barthel (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mit dumm hat es weniger zu tun; in der jetzigen Form sind diese Uploads schlicht unlizensiert. Wenn du, wie vorgesehen, das template {{OTRS pending}} auf die Seiten gesetzt hättest, hättest du mir eine Menge Arbeit ersparen können. Der nächste admin wird sich nicht mehr solche Mühe machen, dir deswegen nachzulaufen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hier braucht niemand niemandem "nachlaufen", du mir notfalls auch nicht - das zur Arbeiut, die ich dir hätte ersparen sollen. Die gegebenen 7 Tage reichen ja aus zur Lizensierung, unlizensiert ist hier gar nichts, ihr bzw. du habt die beiden Sachen, Lizenz und Bilder, nur noch nicht zusammenbekommen - das sind eure/deine "trägen" Arbeitsabläufe, nicht meine.

Und was hier grade so vorgesehen und Usus ist, ist -ehrlich gestanden- für einen Gelegenheits-Uploader wie mich schon lang nicht mehr nachvollziehbar. Ich lad meinen Kram zukünftig dann wieder in de hoch, da kenn ich die Abläufe besser und werd nicht gleich abgemeiert, weil ich mich um Lizenzen bemühe, schon historische Bilder hochlade und bloss ne depperte Vorlage vergessen hab. Have fun, Denis Barthel (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:WarumIchFrankfurtSoSuperFand.jpg

---

Hello, Denis Barthel!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

Slfi (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Utricularia_major

Utricularia_major 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 gallery, 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. 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!

Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:CoseyAutograph.jpg

File:CoseyAutograph.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!

Stefan4 (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:First felix.gif

File:First felix.gif 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!

Sentausa (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:PassauerStrasse1920.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:PassauerStrasse1920.png. 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 21:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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:

• File:AbuDhabi03.JPG

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 19:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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:

• File:Almaty01.JPG

Eleassar (t/p) 22:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agama lebretoni

Hello Goodshort,

Thank you for your determination of my reptile photos from Bioko. You have determined one of them as Agama lebretoni. This would be great, as the project currently has no photo of this species. But i admit, that I am a bit hesitating. I have considered this a while too, but after a discussion in the German Wikipedia it has been said, that no records of A. lebretoni are orange-headed. I hope you see my dilemma? I would appreciate your help in this, an explanation would be very nice. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denis,

actually, I emailed Philipp Wagner (who described the species) about this, and here is his answer: "both should be A. lebretoni, one male in brilliant coloration the other one in a typical more subadult or dull coloration, but clearly not a female". I assumed that he knows his subject and this is why I categorized these pictures ;-). By the way, nice shots! Goodshort (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Goodshort, I am happy, that this turns out to be the more valuable picture. Thanks for your passionate work. Denis Barthel (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Krabbe bioko IMG 1744.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Krabbe bioko IMG 1744.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 B.p. 22:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Moltebeere-Bilder

Hallo Denis,
ich bin auf der Suche nach Rubus-Sorten gerade über deine Moltebeeren gestolpert (File:Moltebeere Fruchtstand.jpg, File:Moltebeere Bluete.JPG und File:Moltebeere Bluehend.jpg). Dabei ist mir aufgefallen, dass du beim letzten einen Sortennamen angegeben hast, bei den anderen aber keine weitere Information steht. Weißt du, ob es sich um die selbe Pflanze handelt (ich weiß, es sind alte Bilder...).
Ganz liebe Grüße, Anna reg (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo User:Anna reg ja, das ist immer die selbe Sorte gewesen. Danke fürs drum kümmern! Gruß, Denis Barthel (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle Antwort! Dann füg ich das gleich in die Bildbeschreibung ein. Liebe Grüße, Anna reg (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:MaurizioBianchiSelfportrait.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:MaurizioBianchiSelfportrait.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:MaurizioBianchiSelfportrait.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

TLSuda (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: - is the permission-email of Bianchi good enough for that? Denis Barthel (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. An email from the creator of the image (which in this case seems to be Bianchi) releasing the image under a free license would be perfect. Commons:Email_templates has an example of this which works well. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

File:SesamEdit.jpg

File:SesamEdit.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!

84.61.136.79 12:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

:Category:WikiCon 2014 Wikieulen

Hallo Denis,

um nicht ein halbes Dutzend verwandter Kategorien zu haben, habe ich mir erlaubt die von dir angelegten Category:WikiCon 2014 Wikieulen in Category:WikiCon 2014 Verleihung der "WikiEule" und die schon früher angelegte Category:WikiEule zu "sprengen". Ich hoffe du bist mir nicht böse.

Einen LA auf dieselbe zu stellen traue ich mich noch nicht. Ich begnügte mich daher damit einer Weiterleitung zu erstellen.

Liebe Grüße, WikiEulenAcademy (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo WEA, ich habe mir erlaubt, das teilweise wieder zu aktualisieren, damit die Unterkategorien der WikiCon 2014 gleichmäßig benannt sind - hier "WikiCon 2014 WikiEule". Ich hoffe, ich habe alles erhalten und nichts beschädigt dabei. Nichts für ungut, Gruß, Denis Barthel (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bitte wieder zurück und das hier ungeschehen machen. Wir haben uns schon was dabei gedacht. Category:WikiEule war nur temporär eine Unterkat der WikiCon.

Danke, --WikiEulenAcademy (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Soso, beim nächsten Mal, wenn "ihr" Euch geheimnisvoll was denkt, dann lasst andere rechtzeitig (=vorher) daran teilhaben. Ansonsten müsst "ihr" damit leben, das andere Benutzer sich ebenfalls "etwas gedacht" haben (wonach "ihr" im übrigen nicht gefragt habt) und das auch bewahren wollen. Aber da "ihr" ja eulenhaft weise seid, lass ich "euch" weiter enigmatisch "etwas denken" und nehme meine Finger aus der weiteren Kategorieorganisation der WikiCon, an kindischen Pöbeleien hab ich keinen Bedarf. Liebe Grüße, Denis Barthel (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Denis,

hier geht es nicht um Kategorien zur WikiCon. de:WP:WikiEule und de:WP:WikiEule 2014 sind ja mit Bedacht auch keine Unterseite von de:WP:WikiCon 2014. Auch wurden die verschiedenen Preise "AutorenEule", "PortalEule", "EhrenEule" genannt. Dieses Schema, das sich auch auf den WikiEule-Seiten und Unterseiten wiederholt, sollte auch für Kategorien bestehen bleiben. Auch die Benennung der entsprechenden Commons-Seiten (Commons:WikiEule und Commons:WikiEule/Template:WikiEule waren bereits angelegt) folgt diesem Muster. Jetzt klar?

Ich habe mich bei dir gemeldet und dir Gelegenheit zum Protest oder einem Gespräch gegeben. Wenn es Bedarf gegeben hätte, hättest du mir nur antworten müssen und wir hätten dir das gerne weiter auseinander gesetzt. Nur waren wir (allesamt) mit dem Aufbau der Eulen-Seiten und Vorlagen (in mehreren Projekten) beschäftigt und haben durch diese Aktion wertvolle Zeit verloren. (Von der Verstimmung mehrer Academy-Mitglieder, die sich nach den Sparzwängen -s. Rückmeldung zum Essen auf dem Schiff und das fehlende Anstoßen der Preisträger- und Rückmeldungen zur "Dieselverschwendung" dank solch kleiner Blödeleien, wie dem Anlegen dieses Accounts, wieder gefangen hatten, mal ganz abgesehen.)

Die Entscheidung, dass de:WP:WikiEule KEINE Unterseite oder Unterkategorie von WikiCon 2014 ist, wurde gestern Mittag getroffen, weil:

• de:Wikipedia:WikiCon 2014/Lob+Kritik#Eulen
• de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Zedler-Preis#Zedlerpreis einstampfen
• die vielen, vielen verstreuten Kommentare auf den Benutzerdiskussionsseiten,
• persönliche Rückmeldungen Vorort und per E-Mail
• http://stats.grok.se/de/latest30/Wikipedia:WikiEule_2014

All das lässt uns darauf schließen, dass eine Wiederholung dieser Veranstaltung von der Community gewünscht und gewollt und nachgefragt wird. Dass es eben keine Eintagsfliege der WikiCon 2014 bleiben soll und dass wir uns Gedanken darüber machen sollten, wie es die nächsten Jahre weiter gehen kann. Das fängt bei der kleinen Statue selbst an und hört beim Prozedere der Nominierung und der Verleihung nicht auf. Die Category:WikiEule ist da nur ein kleines Puzzleteilchen, aber eines, das an der richtigen Stelle sitzen sollte. --WikiEulenAcademy (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Na geht doch. Jetzt weiss auch ich, was ihr euch "dabei gedacht" habt, das hätte halt einfacher gehen können. Gruß Denis Barthel (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dir ist schon bewusst, dass die mitternächtliche 5-Minuten-Aktion inkl. Forderung einer ausführlichen Erklärung Stunden gekostet hat, in denen Babel und Orden hätten verteilt werden können? Das hätten wir tatsächlich einfacher haben können. Z.B. indem man sich Unter- und WP-Seiten anschaut und überlegt welchen Mehrwert eine Category:WikiCon 2014 Wikieulen zur Category:WikiCon 2014 Verleihung der "WikiEule" haben könnte (wenn die denn zur Schifffahrt als dritte WikiConCat für den einen Abend auch noch notwendig ist).

Das "Gespräch" hat sich damit erledigt. --WikiEulenAcademy (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dd-life-cycleH.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dd-life-cycleH.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Für die Malabo-Fotografien! Aarp65 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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 file:Peter Scholl-Latour at Merhabad International Airport Tehran, Iran in August 2006 dobedit.jpg Taivo (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Cahal Pech

Hi Denis,

Please note that I have moved your recently-created Cahal Pech categories, "Plaza A" to "Cahal Pech Plaza A" etc. since many archaeological sites have a "Plaza A". I have not moved the contents to the new categories however, since it is a lot of work to move these individually. I notice you have the cat-a-lot tool - would you be able to do the honours? Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick update - someone else has done it. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Belize

hab gesehen, dass du die Mexikoreise genutzt hast, dir auch Belize anzuschauen. War das ein Kurzaufenthalt oder bist du alles abgefahren und ev. sogar vom Südwesten per Fähre nach Puerto Barrios gereist? Oder über den Landweg nach Tikal, zwischendurch vielleicht ein paar Tage nach Key Caulker? Ich frag, weil ich nämlich Belize über diese Routen bereist habe. --Hubertl 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nein, leider hatte ich viel zu wenig Zeit, es war nur ein Kurztrip. Ich war für drei Tage in San Ignacio und bin von dort bis Mountain Pine Ridge gekommen und hatte dann noch zwei Tage in Belize City. Für Ausflüge in den Süden oder Norden oder gar auf die Cayes hatte ich leider keine Zeit. Soll heissen: muss noch Mal hin. :) Meine Route war Berlin -> Houston -> Belize City -> San Ignacio -> Belize City -> Houston -> Mexiko City, alles mit dem Flieger. Denis Barthel (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What a mess.... nix ist besser als die langsamsten Busse, die man erwischen kann. Aber ich war auch 6 Wochen unterwegs (inkl. Guatemala) --Hubertl 18:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mit so viel Zeit ist das wirklich besser. Aber der Flug in der Einmotorigen mit mir als einzigem Passagier hatte auch was für sich :) siehe Category:Files_by_Denis_Barthel/Belize/Aerials. Denis Barthel (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Citharexylum caudatum Big Rock Falls.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 19:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hippobroma longiflora Belize.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. --Tsungam 14:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cahal Pech Jul 10 2015 74.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. --Hubertl 18:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 19.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 Though the visitors good quality -- Spurzem 12:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 16.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 -- Spurzem 12:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 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 Though the disturbing visitor or archeologist good quality for me -- Spurzem 12:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 3.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 -- Spurzem 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 9.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 -- Spurzem 12:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 22.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. --Hubertl 01:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 20.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. --Bgag 02:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 36.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 02:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 4.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. --Hubertl 01:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AlbinarUltrawider.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. --Ralf Roletschek 16:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Soligor Wide-Auto 28mm f28.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  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 7.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 10:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 19.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 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 27.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 02:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 43.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. --Crisco 1492 12:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wird Zeit, dass du einmal was mit Focus bracketing machst.

Superbass will gerade ein Wochenende, eventuell noch dieses Jahr, in Köln organisieren (soferne die anderen aus dem Lokal K damit einverstanden sind), an dem ich dann einen Zweitagesworkshop halte. Mit allem Drum und dran. Wer mitmacht, der kann es dann (Fotos und Postprocessing). Wenn die Leute schöne Objekte mitbringen, dann sind Featured Pictures garantiert. Vielleicht sehen wir uns dort - so WMDE auch Auswärtigen die Anreise bezahlt. Irgendeinen großen Käfer wirst ja sicher herumliegen haben, bei dem die Augen nicht schon total trüb sind. --Hubertl 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, das wäre super - meine eigenen Anläufe sind stets an der Software gescheitert. Und ich denke schon, dass WMDE das fördern würde. Käfer wären das zwar nicht gerade, aber die Motive im Fotobereich sind ja reichlich vorhanden. Ich bitte *dringend* um Nachricht, betrachte mich als angemeldet. Denis Barthel (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ich werde dich informieren. Besser gesagt, Superbass bwz. das Lokal K als Veranstalter. --88.117.159.126 21:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Hubertl - Irgendwas Neues? Denis Barthel (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Eigentlich schon, hier kannst du dich anmelden.. Nachdem es darüber schon einen Artikle im Kurier gab, hab ich darauf gehofft, dass die Info zu dir findet. --Hubertl 13:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oi, da bin ich ja spät dran. Hoffentlich ist noch Platz ... Denis Barthel (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Es sind einige Zuseher dabei, also kein Problem. Wir haben zwei Arbeitsplätze. Zum Fotografieren und zum Bearbeiten. --Hubertl 14:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Exakta lens 01.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. --Hubertl 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Exakta 55-135 f35-45.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. --Berthold Werner 12:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Comment wrong white balance IMO. Greenish ?--Jebulon 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FED I-61 52 mm f28.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. --Hubertl 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Comment Greenish ?--Jebulon 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tokina Tele-Auto 135 2 8.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 15:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lobelia cardinalis Belize 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  Support QI for me. --C messier 22:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altun Ha Belize 6.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Johns Cathedral Belize City DB2015 13.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.--ArildV 11:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon FD lens DenisBarthel 2015 10.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 -- Spurzem 06:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Auto Mamiya-Sekor CS f2.8 135 mm DB15.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  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CZJ Pancolar 50mm f18.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  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 11:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sigma 35 1 4 DG HSM.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  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 11:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xunantunich Belize 1 22.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  Support OK. --C messier 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vivitar 35 mm f-2.8 Auto Wide Angle DB15.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. Next time remove the dust on the object :) --Ezarate 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon FD lens DenisBarthel 2015 02.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 for me --Hubertl 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon FD lens DenisBarthel 2015 03.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 for me --Hubertl 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon FD lens DenisBarthel 2015 06.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 for me --Hubertl 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schneider Tele Xenar 135 3 5.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 for me... See you! --Hubertl 13:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Johns Cathedral Belize City DB2015 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. I like it --Moroder 17:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 34.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 20:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 33.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. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 17:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 14.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 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tower buildings Kreuzberg.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 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gefängnis Köpenick 2015 DB 27.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. --Hubertl 17:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gefängnis Köpenick 2015 DB 44.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. --Hubertl 17:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hubert Nasse Berlin alphafestival 3.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 28.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. --Hubertl 05:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 27.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  Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Strassenfest Berlin-Mitte 3.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. --Ralf Roletschek 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 71.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  Support Good quality. Maybe it can be brightened a bit. --C messier 07:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SaschaGrammelSiebterZwerg-3.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 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gefängnis Köpenick 2015 DB 26.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  Support Good quality. --C messier 07:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MartinSchneiderDerSiebteZwerg2014.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 09:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hauptbahnhof Berlin von Westen.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. --Ajepbah 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 48.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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 53.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. --Hubertl 18:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 55.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. --Hubertl 18:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 75.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. --Hubertl 18:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zeiss Milvus 14 50 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  Support Looks clean now. Crop is a little bit tight though. Dllu 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NinaHagenPremiereDerSiebteZwerg2014-2.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. --Moroder 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Türi Churchyard 2015 5.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. --Hubertl 02:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony A7RMII.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lüderitzstrasse Berlin 2015.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 like it! --Hubertl 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Türi Churchyard 2015 6.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  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fotoworkshop Köln 9.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 16:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fotoworkshop Köln 8.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 16:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fotoworkshop Köln 3.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. Mit etwas Licht wird es doch gleich viel besser! Kannst du noch die Schmutzpartikel ausklonen, die sind störend --Hubertl 09:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fotoworkshop Köln 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. Siehe Schmutzpartikel --Hubertl 09:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pentagram Hammer of Doom X Wuerzburg 2015 12.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. --Hubertl 08:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pentagram Hammer of Doom X Wuerzburg 2015 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 as a thumb a bit dull, but impressive at full size --Smial 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MuralsBelize2015 04.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. --Hubertl 18:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Black Oath 5.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 21:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Caronte 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. --Ermell 19:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pentagram Hammer of Doom X Wuerzburg 2015 8.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 19:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg My Dying Bride 7.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. --Medium69 14:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg My Dying Bride 8.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 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Skepticism 7.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 07:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Caronte 5.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. --Medium69 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Candlemass 15.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 22:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Candlemass 11.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. --Medium69 13:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Order of Israfel 8.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  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hammer of Doom X Würzburg Skepticism 9.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. --Medium69 12:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Soligor Tele-Auto 135 mm f-2.8 DB15.jpg

Bonsoir Denis,

Cette photo File:Soligor Tele-Auto 135 mm f-2.8 DB15.jpg représente un objectif Sigma, il faut corriger le titre ou charger la bonne photo !

Amitiés, Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Denis Barthel,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sarracenia Flora.jpg

File:Sarracenia Flora.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!

Jcb (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Shanghai09.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Shanghai09.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.

And also:

• File:Shanghai10.JPG

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

— Ipoellet (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Kopfthymian

Ist es Absicht oder Druckfehler, dass das schöne Bild vom Kopfthymian als "Thymnian" beschriftet ist? --Bernhard Ganter (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hallo, das ist nur ein Tippfehler. Leider weiss ich nicht, welches Bild du genau meinst, sonst hätte ich es eben selbst behoben. Danke für deinen Hinweis, Denis Barthel (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

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) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:FrogSan.jpg

File:FrogSan.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!

P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Blind Willie Walker - Dupree Blues.ogg

File:Blind Willie Walker - Dupree Blues.ogg 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!

Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

File:MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg

File:MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.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!

—— Dode^eric (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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:

• File:BIF 1.pdf

And also:

• File:BIF 2.pdf
• File:BIF 3 1927.pdf
• File:BIF Titelblatt 192x.jpg

Yours sincerely, Buidhe (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Selma Engler 1938.jpg

File:Selma Engler 1938.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Complain by Bundesarchiv. No free license available, see OTRS 2021020110008714 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Raymond 13:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Raymond: Ohje, das ist mir allerdings sehr peinlich *rotwerd* - Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, das BA zu kontaktieren um sich auch dort zu entschuldigen? Denis Barthel (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Denis Barthel: Schreib mir mal 'ne Mail bitte, denn ich habe keine aktuelle Mailadresse von dir, dann stelle ich den Kontakt her. Raymond 19:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Chaetocero loreus

Hallo Denis, FYI: Ich habe die Beschreibung zum Bild File:Chaetoceros loreus.jpeg nach einer DIskussion mit Kristian Peters auf dessen Vrschlag in Chaetoceros cf. lorenzianus geändert und werde den Artikel de:Chaetoceros ebenfalls entsprechend anpassen. Viele Grüße --Ernsts (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Danke! Ich freue mich, dass der Nutzen des Bildes dadurch besser geworden ist. Liebe Grüße Denis Barthel (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Selli Engler erklärt.jpg

File:Selli Engler erklärt.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 00:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Black Beach Prison - Malabo - Bioko - Equatorial Guinea 2008.jpg

File:Black Beach Prison - Malabo - Bioko - Equatorial Guinea 2008.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: According to the author's comments on Flickr, the image was " taken from a screen grab of the channel4 footage". Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yeeno (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

File:YangonDowntownStreetview 7.jpg

File:YangonDowntownStreetview 7.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Blues

Tipp zum Thema Bluesfrauen: Haide Manns - Bluesfrauen / Starke Stimmen und ihre Geschichten. ISBN 978-3-923445-51-6 2003:EC:8F4B:4000:28AB:30BE:BBBD:3B61 15:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Passierschein KreuzbergerSchutzwall KurtJotter.jpg

File:Passierschein KreuzbergerSchutzwall KurtJotter.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!

Mateus2019 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Herzliche Grüße

✴ Happy Holidays, Denis ✴ Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Buon Natale e felice anno nuovo! Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr! Aristeas (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)