Last modified on 25 March 2014, at 12:00

User talk:N3MO

Return to "N3MO" page.

Holy Roman Empire BannerEdit

Thank you so much for your excellent work on the Holy Roman Empire banner. On a scale of one to ten, it rates a ten.Writtenright (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)writtenright

File:Belling_-_Kopf_in_Messing.jpgEdit

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Schlacht bei FehrbellinEdit

Wie schon vor Jahren moniert wurde (Zitat: Ich denke, der Ort rechts in der Grafik heißt Linum und der zwischen Hakenberg und Fehrbellin Tarmow, und ich wüsste auch nicht, dass die früher anders hießen. --DorisAntony (Diskussion) 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)),

enthält die Karte File:Schlacht_von_Fehrbellin_18_Jun_1675.svg zwei falsche Ortsnamen:

  • "Tarnow" statt korrekt Tarmow
  • "Linus" statt korrekt Linum

--Ulamm (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wenn du sicher bist, dann lass dich nicht hindern, das zu ändern. Das ist ein svg. Ändern ist ganz einfach. Gib bitte auf der Disk. Seite des Bildes nochmal eine Quelle an für die Änderungen. N3MO (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Wappen Hamburg Coa Standard.svgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wappen Hamburg Coa Standard.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Perhelion (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:De-Coa StandardEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:De-Coa Standard 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rd232 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Wappen Harburg-Wilhelmsburg.pngEdit

The file was lost due to an server bug. Recovering is very expensive or even impossible. Please reupload this image if the source is still accessible to you. Yours sincerely McZusatz (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Siegel Bremen 1230-1366.gifEdit

Pay attention to copyright
File:Siegel Bremen 1230-1366.gif 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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Siegel Bremen 1230-1366.gifEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Siegel Bremen 1230-1366.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

McZusatz (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:LackingInsigniaSourceEdit

Unfortunately contains annoying typos and poor wording... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to correct it. N3MO (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RostockEdit

Dazu Anmerkungen:

  • neue karten sind toll und teils genauer. Gut auch, dass sie die selbe Größe haben
  • Berufe dich nicht auf mein Schema und behaupte es sei ein Kartenwerkstatt-Schema. Weiß nicht ob das der Kartenwerkstatt recht ist. Im Übrigen klingt das also ob dies ein allgemeinverbindlicher Standard ist - dem ist nicht so. Vielmehr sind D-Locator_maps auf Gemeindeebene in der Regel grau/rot
  • Es gehen auch Infos verloren (Beschriftung, mittlere Verwaltungsebene) --> besser wäre es daher meine Karten so zu belassen und dann deine Files unter neuen Namen zu speichern. Dann hat jeder Benutzer die Wahl.
  • WICHTIG: du bist nicht der Urheber. Urheber ist immer nur der, der die Ursprungsdatei erstellt hat. Zumindest dann, wenn du wie hier weitestgehend meine Datei weiterentwickelst und dann über meine Datei speicherst (Anders wär's wenn du eigene Datei unter neuem Namen speichest und mich und meine Datei dann nur als Quelle benennst). Deine Bearbeitungen sind dann ja aus der Versionshistorie ersichtlich. Gleichzeitig entfernst du mich als Urheber, dabei sind über die Dateibeschreibungsseite ja auch immer noch die Erstversionen abrufbar.
  • NOCH WICHTIGER: die neue Dateibeschreibung tilgt jeden Hinweis auf mich und die Quelle (d.h. auf meine Datei, die wiederrum die Spur nach OSM aufzeigt). Dann muss unbedingt wieder rein, sonst bestehlen wir quasi OSM und du mich (letzteres wäre ja noch OK).
  • Lösung für WICHTIG und NOCH WICHTIGER: revertiere auf die Ursprungsversion und füge dich einfach in die Urheberzeile hinzu mit dem Hinweis, dass Versionen ab Juli 2013 von dir bearbeitet wurden.

Grüße --TUBSMail-closed.svg 21:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Danke für die Hinweise. Das mit der Kartenwerkstatt war mir nicht bewusst. Finde die Formatierung aber sehr angenehm. Ich wollte in diesem Stil noch Karten mit Beschriftungen anfertigen, damit natürlich nicht nur die unbeschrifteten stehen bleiben.
Was die Urhebersituation betrifft, ist mir einfach nicht mehr klar, wer hier an welcher Stelle seine Finger im Spiel hatte. Ich selbst habe die ersten Karten für die Rostocker Stadtteile erstellt und hochgeladen. Das würde ich in der Form heute auch nicht mehr so sehen wollen. Egal. Wer was wann gemacht hat, war irgendwann auch nicht mehr klar. Bei Bildern wie diesem wurde das dann mal nicht vergessen. Darum der Gedanke, das einfach mal zurückzusetzen. Wobei ich mich jetzt gar nicht in den Vordergrund rücken will. Wozu? Aber auch nicht ganz negiert werden. Ich will die nächsten Tage auch die Löschanträge für meine alten Dateien stellen, damit wir nur noch diese haben. Etwas entmüllen. Zu welchem Zweck sollten wir deine Versionen dann behalten? Beste Grüße auch an dich, N3MO (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Ich dachte halt, dass vielelicht jemand das grau/rote Schema (warum auch immer) bevorzugt. Vielleicht in Listen, oder so? Is' aber nicht so wichtig. Zur Not sind sie ja immer noch in der Versionshistorie erhalten.
Zu den Quellenangaben: mir geht's da auch nicht um mich. Ich verklage bestimmt keinen, aber wir sollten OSM berücksichtigen. Das war ja so: ich nahm deine Datei File:Rostock Verwaltungsgliederung unbeschriftet.svg (gemeinfrei) und nahm die OSM-Daten (cc-by-sa-2.0), kombinierte diese beiden in File:Rostock subdivisions.svg (muss dann auch CC-by-sa-2.0) und wurde zum neuen Urheber dieser Datei. Daraus habe ich dann die Lokalisierungsdateien abgeleitet (bspw: File:Groß Klein in Rostock.svg --> auch cc-by-sa-3.0). Das konnte man ja (jetzt ja leider nicht mehr) anhand der Dateibeschreibung genau nachvollziehen: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gro%C3%9F_Klein_in_Rostock.svg&oldid=73909027 verweist auf --> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rostock_subdivisions.svg verweist auf --> OSM & deine Datei http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rostock_Verwaltungsgliederung_unbeschriftet.svg Man kann also nachvollziehen, dass da OSM Daten drin stecken. Auch deine neuen Versionen basieren auf OSM (und natürlich den anderen Dateien bzw. basieren auf meiner Datei, die wiederrum auch teils auf OSM basiert). leider erkennt man das mit der geändert Dateibeschreibungsseite nicht mehr. Ich schlage also vor: stelle diese ältere Dateibeschreibung für all diese Dateien wieder her. In der Zeile Urheber kannst du ja ganz einfach auch deinen Namen aufnehmen (und meinen da lassen). Ergänze: 2013 rework by N3MO. Dann ist auch klar wer wann wo Urheber ist. Lösche aber bitte nicht File:Rostock subdivisions.svg und am Besten auch nicht File:Rostock Verwaltungsgliederung unbeschriftet.svg, denn das sind ja Quelldateien, die zur Quellendokumentation nützlich sind. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 01:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Alles klor. Ich werd einen Weg finden, das zu berücksichtigen. N3MO (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Eigtl. müsste zur korrekten Lizensierung noch der Name genannt werden (vgl. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStuthof_in_Rostock.svg&diff=100268629&oldid=100261158), aber ist schon OK - lass mal so. Sieht alles prima aus. Danke nochmal für die neuen Karten. Grüsse. Over & Out.

Ahoi!Edit

Moin! Scha mal bitte hier vorbei. Da sind einige Deiner Loeschvorschlaege ohne Begruendung drin. Kannst Du die bitte eintragen? Danke! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Schon bemerkt. Ich korrigier das, sobald Zeit ist. Danke. N3MO (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Kein Problem, frisst ja kein Brot. :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Logo Ich bin ein Rostock Olymp.pngEdit

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Logo Ich bin ein Rostock Olymp.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 OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

JuTa 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Führt kein Wappen.pngEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Führt kein Wappen.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Landkarte Kreis Pyritz.jpgEdit

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Landkarte Kreis Pyritz.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 23:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Landkarte Kreis Pyritz.jpgEdit

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 23:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Wappen Frankfurt am Main nach Klemens Stadler.svgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Wappen Frankfurt am Main nach Klemens Stadler.svg, 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.

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!

JuTa 22:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Wappen Frankfurt am Main nach Klemens Stadler.svgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wappen Frankfurt am Main nach Klemens Stadler.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 19:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Siehe auch meine Antwort hier. Gruß --JuTa 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Wappen Landkreis Neustadt an der Weinstraße.pngEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wappen Landkreis Neustadt an der Weinstraße.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fränsmer (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)