Geyersberg

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Geyersberg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

• Image:Penismensch.png was uncategorized on 20 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Oscillogram of a call of Alytes obstetricans at 10° C air temperature.jpg was uncategorized on 27 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Geyersberg, bei deinen ersten Uploads hast du "Geyersberg" als Autor eingetragen, bei den jüngsten jedoch "Professor emeritus Hans Schneider", weshalb ich annehmen muss, dass diese Fotos nicht von dir stammen. Falls das zutrifft, musst du eine Genehmigung von "Professor emeritus Hans Schneider" vorlegen. Falls beide Bezeichnungen dieselbe Person meinen, solltest du möglichst einen einheitlichen Namenseintrag wählen oder auf deiner Benutzerseite die Identität beider Namen erklären. --Túrelio (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio,

alles im grünen Bereich - Uploader und Bildersteller sind identisch, Geyersberg ist mir persönlich bekannt und hat die Bildbeschreibungsseiten gerade geändert. Ich nehme den Vermerk entsprechend mal raus. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

O.k., die 3 obigen Fehlermeldungen können dann als gegenstandslos betrachtet werden. Ich würde dich, Achim, aber bitten, bei den 1-2 von den 3 o.g., bei denen in der Autorenangabe nur Prof. .. steht, noch das Geyersberg hinzuzusetzen, damit nicht der nächste Admin sie wieder mit no-perm markiert. --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Wollte dir erst den Civility-Barnstar verleihen für deine ausgesuchte Höflichkeit auf der Diskussionsseite von Freak-Line-Community. Dachte mir dann aber, das sei etwas übertrieben. Einen Keks ist es aber wert. Stanzilla (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, Stanzilla, ich bin gerade von einer neuen Foto-Safari in den Kahlgrund und die weitere Spessart-Region zurückgekehrt. Ein erster schneller Blick hat mich mit deinem Cookie vertraut gemacht. Da der Kaffee schon läuft, bedanke ich mich herzlich für diese schöne und wohlmeinende Ausgabe. Da sie bei genauer Betrachtung virtueller Art zu sein scheint, halte daneben auch nach handfestem Ausschau. - Die Kategorien haben es in sich, wie ich inzwischen gemerkt habe. Da gehen die Auffassungen auseinander, wie zu verfahren ist. Ich bedanke mich für jedwede Hilfe beim Kategorisieren und akzeptiere alles. In Kürze gibt es wieder zu tun. Wenn es dir möglich ist, bei mir reinzuschauen, bitte ich dich darum, denn es kamen Meldungen, dass Dateien gelöscht werden könnten wegen nicht ausreichender Lizenzen. Die Lizenzen sollen natürlich umfassend sein. Das waren wohl Anfängerfehler. Jetzt aber auf zum Cookie - realiter. Gruß!--Geyersberg (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, Stanzilla, nochmals vielen Dank für das Cookey. Das war eine schöne Überraschung und hat mich sehr gefreut, als es mich aus heiterem Himmel so verlockend anlachte. - Inzwischen habe ich bereits eine Anzahl Bilder hochgeladen, die bei den Betrachtern hoffentlich gut ankommen.Güße!--89.0.71.192 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bei den meisten hast du es selbst doch schon sehr gut gemacht. :) Ich hab der Kirche Category:St. Maria Magdalena in Geiselbach eine eigene Kategorie gebastelt. Das lohnt sich im Normalfall ab 4 Bildern. Für diesen dämlichen "Wettbewerb" "Wikipedia sucht krampfhaft nach noch mehr unscharfen Bildern der gleichen Denkmale" (auch bekannt als "Wikipedia loves monuments") werden allerdings Ausnahmen gemacht, da gibt es Kategorien für jedes Denkmal. Vielleicht rühren daher die beiden leeren Kategorien in Category:Geiselbach. Ich kenn ja die Kirche nicht, falls die unter Denkmalschutz steht, oder zum Beispiel diese wunderhübsche Statue unter denkmalschutz steht, dann müsste man die Denkmalkategorie noch dranpappen. Solche Kategorien wie Category:St. Maria Magdalena in Geiselbach kann man mit Lageplänen und Beschreibungen bestücken. Wenn man möchte, und Zeit hat. Das Hochladen dauert immer ziemlich lange, finde ich. Grüsse, --Stanzilla (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tübingen (01).jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 08:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Frohes Neues Jahr! Der Bot wollte für das Foto eine Vorlage als Lizenz. Ich hab mal eine drangepappt. Frage: ist das in Lustnau? Dann papp ich noch die Category:Lustnau dran.--Stanzilla (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Stanzilla! Zuerst ebenfalls beste Wünsche für ein gutes und erfolgreiches Neues Jahr! Ich habe mich gefreut, nach längerer Zeit wieder von dir zu hören und danke hiermit auch für deine neuerliche Hilfe. - Mein Computer hat während des Hochladens Eigenwilligkeiten entwickelt, deshalb die Unvollständigkeit, von der ich dachte, dass ich sie nachfolgend ausgemerzt habe. Der Pfleghof ist nicht in Lustnau, sondern in der Altstadt. Bei Tbg. gibt es eine solche Kategorie. Inzwischen habe ich auch "Tübingen (02)" hochgeladen, das auch in der Altstadt zu finden ist. Viele Grüße!--Geyersberg (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tübingen 02 hab ich auch brav einsortiert. Sehr hübsches Rathaus! Ich konnte da keinen Altstadtbezirk finden, ein paar Fotos aus der Altstadt waren in der "Straßen in Tübingen-Kategorie". Wâr schön wenn da mal jemand eine Kategorie anlegt. Das ist da: de:Zentrum (Tübingen)? Aber ich frag nur aus Neugierde, in Tübingen Kategorien anzulegen hab ich keine Lust, ich war da auch noch nie. Ich hab nicht immer Zeit für Commons, ich bin eigentlich hauptsächlich in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia tâtig und selbst dafür hab ich leider nicht immer Zeit. Ich komm aber immer wieder. :)--Stanzilla (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Stanzilla! Tbg. (02) hat dank deiner Aktivität einen schönen Platz bekommen. Das Rathaus in Tbg. ist in der Tat ein beeindruckendes Gebäude und gefällt immer wieder. Ich schätze es sehr, dass du dich trotz vieler eigener Arbeit auch um meine Angelegenheiten kümmerst. Den Smiley habe ich daher mit Erleichterung wahrgenommen. Beste Grüße!--Geyersberg (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hallo Geyersberg, ich habe deine Benutzerrechte auf autopatrolled gesetzt. Das bedeutet, dass deine Edits nicht mehr als "unkontrolliert" angezeigt werden. Viele Grüße! --Funfood ␌ 07:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Funfood, danke für deine Nachricht und deinen Vertrauensbeweis. Ich habe mich darüber gefreut. Ebenfalls viele Grüße!--Geyersberg (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Farbstich

Falls mein Monitor mich nicht täuscht, haben folgende Fotos im Laufe der Zeit einen leichten Blaustich bekommen:

• 
  Blaustich
• 
  Blaustich
• 
  Blaustich

Kannst Du das bitte prüfen und gegebenenfalls ändern? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo NearEmptiness, danke für deinen Hinweis. Unsere Diskussion habe ich zum Anlass genommen, die anderen, von dir jetzt erwähnten Bilder zu überprüfen und farblich zu korrigieren. Das von dir dargestellte Bild des Keltengrabes ist bereits korrigiert entsprechend der ersten Aufnahme von der archäologischen Ausgrabungsstelle. Auch die beiden Bilder von der Neckarfront habe ich angepasst und sind von dir nach dem jetzigen Stand dargestellt. Mehr geht nach meiner Meinung nicht, denn es käme einer Verfälschung gleich. Zum einen hat die Neckarfront damals und auch noch viele Jahre danach farblich trist ausgesehen, zum anderen wurden die Aufnahmen mit einer 4x4 Rolleifex gemacht, dessen Objektiv Farben "kälter" wiedergibt, wie damals eine Nachfrage bei der Firma ergeben hat. Freundliche Grüße und weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit!--Geyersberg (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Danke, die Kilchberger Fotos werden inzwischen im Rahmen der Creative Commmons Lizenz schon auf TÜpedia genutzt. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bitte nicht überkategorisieren!

Hallo Geyersberg, bitte überkategorisiere Deine Bilder nicht. Beispiel File:Pholidoptera aptera Vorderflügel.jpg:

• Category:Pholidoptera aptera ist i.O.
• Category:Ensifera ist als zusätzliche Kategorie falsch.

Siehe Commons:Categories, insbesondere Absatz Over-categorization. Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Ies, Änderung ist erfolgt. Grüße! Geyersberg

Copyright status: File:Morenhoven Schäferkreuz (06).png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Morenhoven Schäferkreuz (06).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.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Klein Ollheim 99

Hallo Geyersberg, die Hausnummerierung in der Straße Klein Ollheim ist besonders verwirrend. An der Stelle, in der von der fortlaufenden Nummerierung her Klein Ollheim 9 erscheinen müsste, ist in der Liegenschaftskarte Klein Ollheim 99 eingetragen. Auch in der Denkmalliste wird das Fachwerkhaus mit der Denkmalnummer "Ollheim Lfd. Nr. 19" unter Klein Ollheim 99 geführt. Du hattest die Dateien zu dem Haus jedoch unter dem Namen Klein Ollheim 9 hochgeladen und beschrieben. Hast du vor Ort die Hausnummer 9 gesehen und daher die Datei nicht unter 99 hochgeladen? Ich frage, weil es sich gezeigt hat, dass die Liegenschaftskarte durchaus fehlerhaft sein kann. Gruß--Leit (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Adressen Swisttal

Hallo Geyersberg, zwei kleine Fragen betreffend der Adressierung innerhalb von Swisttaler Ortschaften. Zum Einen habe ich gerade die Schreibweise von "Schilling(s)straße" in der Denkmalliste und den Dateinamen auf die Variante mit Doppel-S korrigiert, da dies der topographischen und der Liegenschaftskarte entspricht. Leider habe ich erst danach noch einen Blick auf die Deutsche Grundkarte geworfen – dort fehlt das erste s. Daher nun die Frage, welche der beiden Varianten sich auf den Straßenschildern vor Ort findet. Zum Zweiten: Das Gut Vershoven in Ollheim ist in der Denkmalliste ohne Adresse angegeben. Befindet es sich nicht innerhalb der Ortschaft (dann könnte die Adresse evtl. schlicht "Gut Vershoven" heißen) oder wurde in der Denkmalliste die Adresse nur ausgelassen? Falls es eine Adresse gibt, könnte ich logischerweise auch die Georeferenzierung vornehmen – falls nicht, bräuchte ich wiederum (wie bei der Alten Vikarie) deine Hilfe bei der Lokalisierung. Gruß und schönen Abend--Leit (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Kriegsgräberanlage Heimerzheim

Hallo Geyersberg, ich wollte dich auf diese Seite mit ein paar Hintergrundinformationen aufmerksam machen, die mir gerade begegnet ist. Gruß--Leit (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Leit, danke für deinen Hinweis bezüglich der Kriegsgräberanlage in Heimerzheim. Ich kann an solchen Anlagen nicht gedankenlos und ohne sie zu besuchen voübergehen. Sie sind ein bleibendes Zeichen für die Sinnlosigkeit eines Krieges, denn die meisten der Getöteten waren zufällige Opfer oder junge Menschen, die ihr Leben noch vor sich hatten. - Auf eine frühere Frage kann ich jetzt auch antworten. Die Straßenschilder in Dünstekoven weisen die Durchgangsstraße als "Schillingsstraße" aus, geschrieben also mit zwei "s". An einem Haus sah ich allerdings auch ein Schild "Schilling-Straße". Ausgehend von der Bezeichnung des früheren Klosters "Schillingscapellen", sollte nach meinem Verständnis der Schreibweise mit zwei "s" der Vorzug gegeben werden, ungeachtet anderer praktizierter Möglichkeiten. Mit herzlichem Dank für deine fortdauernde und jeweils schnelle Hilfe bei den Kategorisierungen, verbunden mit vielen Grüßen--Geyersberg (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Geyersberg, schön, dass die Benennung der Straße nun geklärt ist. Gruß (werde gleich die offenbar neue "Danke"-Funktion hier einmal ausprobieren)---Leit (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kloster Heisterbach Heisterbacher Straße (02).png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kloster Heisterbach Heisterbacher Straße (02).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 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Mühldorf Grenzstein 20C (01).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mühldorf Grenzstein 20C (01).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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, bist du dir sicher, dass die Lizenzen nicht ausreichend sind? Gruß!--Geyersberg (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Geyersberg, diese Meldung dürfte inzwischen erledigt sein. Sie kam zustande, weil ursprünglich eine geschweifte Klammer bei der Lizenzvorlage gefehlt hatte, was du aber bereits am 14. November korrigiert hast. Gruß--Leit (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oberdollendorf Lindenstraße (03).png, 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 Weak  Support DoF could be better, bottom IMO too unsharp. --XRay 09:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lizenz

Hallo, bist du dir sicher, dass die Lizenzen nicht ausreichend sind? Gruß--Geyersberg (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nonnenberg Nonnenberger Straße 118 (01).png, 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 17:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heisterbacherrott St. Judas Thaddäus (02).png, 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 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Albanien (05).jpg

File:Albanien (05).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!

Glorious 93 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heisterbacherrott Petrusstraße 12 (04).png, 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 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ittenbach Löwenburger Straße 2 (01).png, 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 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bonn-Rhein-Sieg

Tolle Fotos machst Du! Derzeit bastele ich an der Ollheimer Kirche, gestern war es das Heimerzheimer Kloster. Danke. Gruss --Amanog (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

doppelte Kategorien

Hallo, du legst regelmäßig Kategorien für Bauwerke an, wo schon länger eine Kategorie besteht. Bitte überprüfe das vorher und sortiere sie dort ein. Dopplungen sind zum Beispiel [1] und [2] Danke :) Gruß --Chris06 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Chris06, die von dir erwähnten Kirchen haben deutsche Namen, und ich meine, diese sollten vorzugsweise verwendet werden. Bitte keine Verallgemeinerungen, wie "regelmäßig". Freundliche Grüße!Geyersberg

Und was ist z.B. das? [3] bzw. [4]. Ein anderes Beispiel ist [5], da hatte ich mir mal die Mühe gemacht, die zerstreuten Bilder zu kategorisieren. Da wurde die ältere Kategorie mittlerweile zugunsten deiner Neuanlage gelöscht. Daher bitte erstmal schauen, ob was vorhanden ist und eine Umbenennung zur Diskussion stellen. Alles andere kommt ziemlich arrogant rüber. Wikipedia ist laut der Regeln kein Privatbesitz und alles wird gemeinschaftlich entschieden. --Chris06 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Chris06, vielen Dank für deine Hinweise und Bemühungen. Bei Letzteren ist dir sicher nicht entgangen, dass ich in dem Artikel über Mechernich bei den allermeisten Kategorien den vorhandenen gefolgt bin, so bei „St. Petrus (Wachendorf, Mechernich)“, um nur ein Beispiel zu nennen. Bei der Kategorie „Agatha of Sicily Chapel (Schaven)“ konnte ich der vorhanden wirklich nicht folgen, da es sich um eine Kapelle in unserem Land handelt und einen schönen deutschen Namen hat. Ein neu eingebrachter Name kann auch ein Anlass sein, darüber zu befinden, ob er gegebenenfalls einen älteren ersetzen könnte, es sei denn, Anciennität ist maßgebend. Ich stelle es dir frei, meine Dateien umzusetzen, wenn es dir geboten erscheint. - Erlaube mir auch eine Anmerkung. Mir ist aufgefallen, dass mitunter wenige Tage oder kurze Zeit, nachdem Bilder von einem Motiv eingestellt wurden, neue vom selben Motiv gekommen sind, z. B „St. Stephanus (Lessenich)“ oder „St. Johann Baptist (Antweiler, Mechernich)“. Dagegen ist nichts einzuwenden, oder es ist sogar begrüßenswert, wenn die neuen Bilder besser sind als die vorhandenen. Das kann man von den genannten Beispielen jedoch nicht sagen. Die ausgeprägten, sogenannten „stürzenden Linien“, die bei „St. Johann Baptist (Antweiler, Mechernich)“ alle Bilder und bei „St. Stephanus (Lessenich)“ fast alle Bilder aufweisen, werten diese Aufnahmen entscheidend ab und sollten der Öffentlichkeit besser erspart bleiben. Freundliche Grüße!--Geyersberg (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Geyersberg,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Geyersberg,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Geyersberg,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Antweiler Graf-Schall-Straße 24 (01).jpg

File:Antweiler Graf-Schall-Straße 24 (01).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!

93.244.193.55 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Es handelt sich um eine Außenaufnahme des Gebäudes; es besteht daher Panoramafreiheit. Das gilt auch für die beiden folgenden Aufnahmen. Geyersberg (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Antweiler Graf-Schall-Straße 24 (02).jpg

File:Antweiler Graf-Schall-Straße 24 (02).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!

93.244.193.55 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Antweiler Graf-Schall-Straße 24 (03).jpg

File:Antweiler Graf-Schall-Straße 24 (03).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!

93.244.193.55 17:34, 2 November 2019 (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:Alfter evangelische Kirche (06).png

File:Alfter evangelische Kirche (06).png 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!

Martin Sg. (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Diese und die anderen Aufnahmen erfolgten mit Genehmigung des Presbyteriums.--Geyersberg (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Kreuzweingarten Antweiler Straße 1 (05).jpg

File:Kreuzweingarten Antweiler Straße 1 (05).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!

194.8.192.162 09:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ich sehe keinen Grund, diese Abbildung zu löschen. Sie bestätigt, dass das Gebäude unter Denkmalschutz steht (dafür wird das Zeichen an den Gebäuden angebracht) und vermittelt zugleich historische Informationen. --Geyersberg (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Oberdrees Burggraben 38 (01).jpg

Copyright status: File:Oberdrees Burggraben 38 (01).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Oberdrees Burggraben 38 (01).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 08:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Alle erforderlichen Angaben wurden gemacht, Lizenzen erteilt.--Geyersberg (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Die Abbildung ist korrekt lizensiert, auch sind keine widersprüchlichen Informationen vorhanden. Diese automatische Aktion ist gänzlich unbegründet. Solche unberechtigten Maßnahmen sollten unterbleiben, denn sie schaden dem Ruf des Autors. Geyersberg (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Oberdrees Bundesstraße Wegekreuz (06).jpg

Copyright status: File:Oberdrees Bundesstraße Wegekreuz (06).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Oberdrees Bundesstraße Wegekreuz (06).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Die Angaben sind vollständig, die Lizenzen umfassend.--Geyersberg (talk)

Die Abbildung ist korrekt lizensiert, auch sind keine widersprüchlichen Informationen vorhanden. Diese automatische Aktion ist gänzlich unbegründet. Solche unberechtigten Maßnahmen sollten unterbleiben, denn sie schaden dem Ruf des Autors. Geyersberg (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Morenhoven Wegekreuz Burgstraße (06).jpg

Copyright status: File:Morenhoven Wegekreuz Burgstraße (06).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Morenhoven Wegekreuz Burgstraße (06).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Dateibeschreibung und Lizenzen sind vollständig.--Geyersberg (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Die Abbildung ist korrekt lizensiert, auch sind keine widersprüchlichen Informationen vorhanden. Diese automatische Aktion ist gänzlich unbegründet. Solche unberechtigten Maßnahmen sollten unterbleiben, denn sie schaden dem Ruf des Autors. Geyersberg (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Flerzheim Zippengasse 7 (02).jpg

Copyright status: File:Flerzheim Zippengasse 7 (02).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Flerzheim Zippengasse 7 (02).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Die Abbildung ist korrekt lizensiert, auch sind keine widersprüchlichen Informationen vorhanden. Diese automatische Aktion ist gänzlich unbegründet. Solche unberechtigten Maßnahmen sollten unterbleiben, denn sie schaden dem Ruf des Autors. Geyersberg (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Todenfeld Kapelle (02).jpg

Copyright status: File:Todenfeld Kapelle (02).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Todenfeld Kapelle (02).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Geyersberg, bei diesem Foto hattest du wohl nur vergessen, den Lizenzbaustein zu setzen. Wenn du das noch machen kannst/willst, kann ich das Bild gerne wiederherstellen (obwohl ich es nicht gelöscht hatte). --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, in meiner Liste der hochgeladenen Dateien ist die von dir erwähnte Datei leider nicht mehr vorhanden, sodass ich nicht nachprüfen kann, ob die Lizenz wirklich gefehlt hat. Gewöhnlich bin ich sehr darauf bedacht, die Lizenz genau anzugeben, meist gebe ich sogar Doppellizenzierung ein, außerdem macht auch das Programm vor dem Hochladen darauf aufmerksam, wenn etwas fehlt. Der "AntiCompositeBot" hat bereits bei einer Reihe meiner Aufnahmen den Status der Lizenz beanstandet, obgleich die Doppellizenzierung angegeben war. Mir scheint, dass dieses Programm Mängel hat und Fehler erkennt, wo keine sind. Mit freundlichen Grüßen und guten Wünschen--Geyersberg (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Skulpturen

Hallo Geyersberg, könntest du bei den beiden Pieta-Fotos in Category:Marienkapelle Pallottistraße (Rheinbach) und den Skulpturen-Fotos aus Wormersdorf bitte noch den Namen des Bildhauers/Künstlers in die Beschreibung einfügen, sofern bekannt. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, danke für den Hinweis. Ich werde versuchen, den Namen des Künstlers ausfindig zu machen. Es wäre in der Tat angebracht, ihn anzugeben. Sollte ich Erfolg haben, werde ich den Namen eingeben und dir eine Nachricht zukommen lassen. Das kann allerdings einige Zeit dauern. Mit freundlichen Grüßen--Geyersberg (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, der Urheber der Skulpturen bei der Marienkapelle in Rheinbach, Pallottistraße, ist Pater Franz-Josef Ludwig, Angehöriger der Pallottiner in Rheinbach. Die Information habe ich vom Archiv der Stadt Rheinbach bekommen. Einen kurzen Hinweis habe ich bei einer meiner Abbildungen eingefügt. Im Internet sind weitere Informationen erhältlich. Beste Grüße--**** Geyersberg (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Berg Marienbildstock Gemünder Straße (02).jpg

Copyright status: File:Berg Marienbildstock Gemünder Straße (02).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Berg Marienbildstock Gemünder Straße (02).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kallmuth Quellenstraße 5 (04).jpg

Copyright status: File:Kallmuth Quellenstraße 5 (04).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kallmuth Quellenstraße 5 (04).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Diese automatische Aktion ist ziemlich willkürlich und unbegründet. Sowohl die Dateibeschreibung als auch die Lizenz entsprechen den Angaben anderer Dateien und blieben unbeanstandet. Diese willkürliche Aktion, wie sie auch bei anderen Eingaben erfolgten, sind mehr als ärgerlich und sollten unterbleiben. Dass dieses automatische Programm nicht korrekt arbeitet, habe ich bereits festgestellt und sollte endlich abgeschaltet werden. --Geyersberg (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)