This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hallo. Selbstverständlich komme ich deiner unter Krupinski geäußerten Bitte nach und, Asche auf ein Haupt, dass ich dies bei Crispin schon tat, hatte ich glatt übersehen...
Als ich heute ein eigenes Bild, siehe hier, ist mir folgendes passiert... Ich hatte bei einem bereits überarbeiteten Bild einen unteren Teil der Version markiert und nochmals mein Grafikprg. drübergeschickt. Es entstand eine, imho, erhebliche Verbesserung. Leider ließ sich diese nicht auf das ganze Bild ausweiten. Steht es in Deiner Macht etwas in diesem Sinne zu bewirken und das Bild dann durch die verbesserte Version zu setzen?--1970gemini 15:35, 14. Jan. 2017 (CEST)
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Right front view of glider in flight (cropped).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 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.
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Right front view of glider in flight.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 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.
Вікі любить пам'ятки 2017 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Ukraine
Вітаємо!
Запрошуємо взяти участь у міжнародному фотоконкурсі «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! До 30 вересня включно Ви можете подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи. Звертаємо увагу, що завантажені матеріали будуть враховуватися у тій версії файлу, що був на час завершення конкурсу, тож якщо у Вас гарне фото, вантажте його одразу у високій роздільності. З регламентом конкурсу можна ознайомитися тут.
Окрім традиційних номінацій за найкращі фото і найбільшу кількість сфотографованих об'єктів, у конкурсі також є спецномінація для Ваших відеоматеріалів про пам'ятки. Якщо у Вас розмір відеофайлу завеликий для конкурсного завантажувача, спробуйте скористатися стандартним завантажувачем, але не забудьте поставити ідентифікатор пам'ятки. Якщо виникатимуть будь-які труднощі — пишіть нам на wlmwikimediaukraine.org.ua
Приєднуйтеся! Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться у блозі конкурсу. – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 21:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Very many thanks for correcting the picture I uploaded last night. The windscreen and bonnet/hood no longer look over-exposed and the distracting reflections are less distracting. You have done what I would have done if I had understood how to do it. But when I try to do these things the result is not one I would want to share in wikipedia or anywhere else.
One more thought which is a comment, not a criticism: I do not think there is so much of a tint of blue in this paint colour normally. However, please DO NOT change it back. (1) With the sun shining and the sky looking blue, it may well have reflected the sky and therefore looked bluer this time than what I saw with my brain. One sees what one expects to see, up to a point. And each person sees colours differently: sometimes dramatically differently. Also (2) I think it looks MUCH better this way. Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, kannst du bitte den Stadionplan nochmal aktualisieren? Der inzwischen wieder fest eingebaute Rasen ist nur noch rechteckig, die in deiner Fassung noch gezeigten Halbrunde an den Schmalseiten gibt es nicht mehr. An den Schmalseiten ist nur noch ein kleiner Rasenrand außerhalb des Spielfelds. Die ehemaligen Rasen-Halbrunde sind jetzt einfach roter Kunststoffbelag, wie die (ehemaligen) Laufbahnen. Und so wird es auch bleiben, jedenfalls ist zZ kein weiterer Umbau mehr geplant. Danke für dein Engagement. Grüße --h-stt!?15:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Nein, das ist völlig veraltet. Es sieht dort genau so aus, wie ich es oben beschrieben habe: Nur noch das eigentliche rechteckige Spielfeld ist mit Rasen belegt, alles drumrum ist roter Kunststoffbelag. Allerdings ist das Spielfeld etwa zwei Meter breiter als zu Fußball-Zeiten, so dass der Rasen an den Ecken in die (soweit noch vorhandenen) Markierungen der Leichtathletik-Laufbahnen hinein reicht, man kann also dort keine hochklassigen Leichtathletik-Veranstaltungen durchführen, weil die innerste Laufbahn nicht mehr benutzbar ist.
Bitte um Bildverbesserung
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Retusche
Hallo MagentaGreen,
ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn Du in diesem Foto die stürzenden Linien etwas begradigen könntest, falls das technisch machbar ist. Falls Dir sonst noch Verbesserungen einfallen, nimm sie gerne vor. Das Bild soll als Hauptbild im Artikel über die Kirche verwendet werden. Herzlichen Dank vorab und viele Grüße! --Maimaid (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Timo Hager 2008 B.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:Timo Hager 2008 B.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Test.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 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!
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!
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Alte Bibliothek des Instituts für Gärungsgewerbe 6 (retuschiert).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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!
Aber als Source ich gebe immer die Originaldatei an.
Wem meine Bearbeitung nicht gefällt, der kann in den Anwendungsartikel wieder das Originalfoto einbauen, oder sich an einer besseren Überarbeitung versuchen.
Bei unproblematischen Veränderungen (leichte Aufhellung) lade ich manchmal meine Bearbeitung auf die alte Adresse, aber da haben durch die Dokumentation der Versionsgeschichte unzufriedene Mitautoren die Möglichkeit, meine Version durch eine vorherige zu ersetzen.
Eine meiner Lieblingsbearbeitungen ist übrigens, bei durch 100%-"Entzerrung" denaturierten Darstellungen wieder etwas natürliche Perspektive wiederherzustellen.
In Einzelfällen mache ich "Entzerrung" der Vertikalen und der Horizontalen oder etwas Renaturierung der Vertikalen plus etwas "Entzerrung" der Horizontalen, siehe Category:Reduced distortion of horizontal lines. Damit simuliert man wirklich einen größeren Betrachterabstand.
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!
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You seem to be the watermark guru, so do you think it possible to remove the watermark from this Flickr image? I know it is not a big image but it's obviously US government work, so is a PD image. Ping me. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Muchtar Pakpahan and Sri Bintang Pamungkas (retouched).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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!
@Racconish, Du kannst lesen? Sorry, ich habe Zweifel. Der Code |source={{Derived from|Muchtar Pakpahan and Sri Bintang Pamungkas.jpg|display=100}} wird korrekt umgesetzt und angezeigt. MagentaGreen (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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!
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo Magenta Green, ich hab eben einige Deiner Arbeiten entdeckt und bin beeindruckt, was man so alles anstellen kann mit Fotos. Eine Bitte: Dieses Foto ist eins der wenigen mit hoher Auflösung in Commens, auf denen beide Giebel der Münchner Oper gut sichtbar sind. Ist es möglich die dunkelgraue Hinweistafel in der Mitte des Bilds wegzuretuschieren, und evtl. auch die beiden Autos links mit der Person dazwischen? Das ergäbe ein repräsentatives Foto vom Nationaltheater. Gruß und Dank --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 13:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Pimpinellus, ich hab mir verschiedene andere Aufnahmen angeschaut und muss sagen, der Versuch ist zwar nicht unmöglich, doch reichlich ambitioniert. Ich will damit ausdrücklich nicht sagen, dass es nicht geht, doch vielleicht wird das Ergebnis angreifbar bleiben, zumindest in dieser Auflösung und unter enzyklopädischen Gesichtspunkten. In jedem Fall werde ich etwas Zeit brauchen. Ich melde mich dann wieder. Gruß, MagentaGreen (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Dank Dir MagentaGreen, da bin ich ja gespannt, wobei ich gestehen muß, dass ich es schon mit meinem DxO-PhotoLab probiert habe, was aber nicht klappte, dafür bin ich zu wenig IT-affin. Gruß und Dank --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 08:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Original
Retusche oder Fälschung?
So @Pimpinellus, ich hoffe, Du wirst es verschmerzen, dass die Bildgröße ein klein wenig gelitten hat. Ich denke das Ergebnis ist trotz des kleinen Ratespiels bezüglich der fehlenden Bildteile auch für ein Lexikon akzeptabel. Das Auto ganz links wollte ich nicht auch noch wegparken, da wären zuviel Rätsel gewesen, ansonsten konnte ich mich an der Symmetrie orientieren. Gruß, MagentaGreen (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Das ist ja wirklich toll geworden MagentaGreen, kaum zu glauben. Herzlichen Dank! Eine Bemerkung dazu: Ich hab das Bild absichtlich mit den unten abgeschnittenen Fahrrädern vorgeschlagen, und nicht das andere vollständige, so hab ich das in vielen Jahren tv-Regiearbeit gehandhabt, angeschnittenes bringt dramaturgisch Spannung, obgleich derlei Anschneiden bisweilen verpönt ist. Wie siehst du das? Beste Grüße --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 11:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Bestimmt hast Du recht, dass so die Spannung im Bild erhöht wird. Ob das für ein Lexikon ein Gesichtspunkt sein soll, läuft bei mir unter künstlerischer Freiheit. Persönlich bevorzuge ich möglichst vollständige Abbildungen, weshalb ich schon daran dachte, Dich darauf aufmerksam zu machen, dass bei gleichem Seitenverhältnis die Abbildung auf Theater und Denkmal beschränkt auch gut möglich wäre. Viele Grüße, MagentaGreen (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Viel wichtiger ist mir noch, dass beim Beschnitt immer einen Vielfaches von 16 Pixeln bei Farbbildern bzw. 8 Pixeln bei SW eingehalten wird.