User talk:Rüdiger Wölk/H 2

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Archiv 2

---

Image:Eww to vandals.JPG

I fixed it to state that I made it (took a picture) and I removed the tag you put. Beans are weird... uh? 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Rüdiger. Lösch mal den Scheiß. Ich glaub der Typ ist nicht mehr ganz koscher in der birne. --Ar-ras 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Caspian Borders New.PNG

Hello. Thanks for the warning about the image. I have marked the image to be "speedydeleted" due to the fact that I uploaded it from the english wikipedia nearly a year ago, being unable to find the original page there to know its license, and probably it falls under the "fair use" conditions. I apologize for the inconvenience. Er Komandante (messages) 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I have seen that most of the images in my gallery [1] are marked as "orphan", do you know the reason?. Thanks!

Fission images

If you had looked at the image description history you could see that some anon vandal simply removed the caption and license info. --Fastfission 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the image with a license tag again. There are hundreds of images without license tag - this is the reason not to view every image history. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But for something like an SVG file, esp. one which looks "in-house" and not swiped from a website, it doesn't take long to just check if the history was recently modified by an anon or a new user. --Fastfission 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Munich / München

Wegen der Umbenennung in den deutschen Namen: gilt dasselbe auch für Köln (jetzt: Cologne) und alle alle anderen Städte? Wäre für mich wichtig zu wissen, da ich evtl. neue Kategorien dann direkt mit dem deutschen Namen anlege.--Bo-rhein-sieg 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibt es denn ausser München und Köln noch weitere Städte. Mir sind keine weiteren aufgefallen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons rules say that categories are in English. Therefore, Category:Munich is named according to the w:Munich article. --Juiced lemon 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nürnberg z. B. mit der Category:Nuremberg, Germany.--Bo-rhein-sieg 13:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We have Category:Cologne, Germany for de:Köln and Category:Nuremberg, Germany for de:Nürnberg. I prefer Category:Munich rather than Category:Munich, Germany, because Munich is a big city, and we'll have a lot of subcategories (in the form OBJECT in/of Munich, so without “, Germany”).

However, I asked the community about this superfluous addition. If the community says OK, because this addition is standard for german cities (Berlin excepted), it will be OK for me. --Juiced lemon 16:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When have you asked the community? And please help me to find the rule that all categories should be in english. have searched but not found. Thanks -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I and a lot of German users prefer MÜNCHEN -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump#Munich. --Juiced lemon 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Villages

Sollen wirklich alle Gemeinden in die Kategorie Villages in Germany eingeordnet werden? Eigentlich bedeutet village ja Dorf, oder umfasst der Begriff im weiteren Sinne auch Gemeinden? Jedenfalls kenne ich zahlreiche Gemeinden im rechtlichen Sinne, die rein gar nichts mit einem Dorf zu tun haben bzw. aus mehreren Dörfern bestehen (häufig über 20.000 Ew). Ich finde auch die Lösung nicht optimal, alle Städte in die Bundesland-Kategorie (wie Category:Towns in North Rhine-Westphalia und Category:Cities in Germany einzuordnen. Letztere dürfte doch vom Begriff her (city) eigentlich nur für Großstädte gelten? Anders ist es in der en.wikipdia: Dort werden in die City-Kategorie nur Städte mit über 100.000 Einwohnern eingeordnet (siehe hier). Städte und Gemeinden werden dort in die en:Category:Towns in Germany eingeordnet, wobei towns nach Definition in en.wikipedia natürlich Städte und nicht Gemeinden sind. Gemeinden wären ja eigentlich communes oder municipalities.--Bo-rhein-sieg 20:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ob die ALLE da rein sollen, das bezweifel ich, aber in cities haben die nun nichts zu suchen, dass würde ja dort das totale chaos verursachen. ausserdem wer sollte das alles vernünftig hin und her switchen. Ich tummel mich ja schon seit einiger Zeit in der Kategorie cities in Germany und habe immer noch nicht die Liste der Städte in Deutschland abgearbeitet. Wenn ich ein Kategorie über eine gemeinde dort entdecke, dann ändere ich die in Villages zu mehr bin ich nicht in der Lage. Und du siehst ja an der diskussion über München, wenn man nur mal eben eine kategorie ändert, sich aber nicht weiter um die Inhalte kümmert, dann verursacht man nur ein heilloses durcheinander. Wir hatten bis zum September eine ordentliche Kategorie München, Germany. Inzwischen diskutieren wir über das Chaos. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gut, ich sehe, dass das alles nicht so eindeutig ist und dass man für die Gemeinden wohl nur schwer eine einheitliche Bezeichnung findet. Da es auch Quatsch ist, Städte und Gemeinden zu unterscheiden, da Gemeinden teilweise größer sind als manche Städte, sollte man hier eine Trennung lassen. Ich finde die Lösung für englische Städte und Gemeinden sehr gut: Dort gibt es die Category:Towns and villages in England, die in die Kategorien Towns and villages in XY-county unterteilt ist. Das ist doch eine Supersache und man muss die Städte nicht noch zusätzlich in eine Kategorie „Cities in Germany“ einordnen, sondern in die entsprechenden Bundesländern, was völlig ausreicht. Wenn man möchte, kann man dann für Städte mit über 100.000 Einwohnern die Category:Cities in Germany behalten. Dann wäre das alles korrekt und man macht keine Klein- und Mittelstädte zu Cities und keine großen Gemeinden zu Dörfern. Ich bin gerne bereit, mich daran zu beteiligen. Was das mit München angeht, sollte man das um Einheitlichkeit zu bewahren wieder auf München, Germany zurücksetzen. Gruß --Bo-rhein-sieg 11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Als ich begann mich mit Cities in Germany auseinander zu setzen, da war ich auch zunächst der meinung es sei besser, alles in einen Topf, cities und villages. Aber das wird eine solche Masse, das ist extrem schweierig zu beherrschen. Besser es bleibt getrennt. Die Struktur in England ist auch nicht unbedingt mit der deutschen zu vergleichen. Und ausserem sind es zahlenmäßig viel weniger. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aber wenn man das alles nach Bundesland kategorisiert, wird das doch viel weniger. Und Ortsteile sollten dann keinesfalls in diese Kategorie rein. Wenn man statt towns and villages besser towns and municipalities nähme? Municipalities sind nach Definition nämlich adminstrative Einheiten, Dörfer würden somit ausgeschlossen. Diese könnten dann in eine kleinere Ebene eingeordnet werden (entweder localities in Bundesland; oder Landkreis XY, wenn's genug sind). – Wie derzeit z. B. de:Kategorie:Ortsteil in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Wieso soll man das auch alles nach Germany einordnen, wenn's auch nach Bundesländern geht, was wesentlich genauer ist? Und wie gesagt, wenn man diese Trennung beibehält, ist es entweder unangemessen (mein derzeitiger Wohnsitz, die Stadt Unkel hat z. B. 5.000 Einwohner, die Gemeinde Wachtberg aber 20.000) – oder wenn man wie jetzt, Wachtberg (cat) nach Category:Towns in North Rhine-Westphalia einsortiert, ist es schlicht und einfach falsch, da diese Gemeinde keine Stadt ist. Und wenn man das so umsetzt, muss das doch nicht schwierig zu beherrschen sein, wieso meinst du das?--Bo-rhein-sieg 13:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aber die Gesamtzahl der zu kategorisierenden Orte verringert sich doch nicht. -- Rüdiger Wölk 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nein, da hast Du recht, ich meine, wichtig ist erstmal, was am Besten wäre, nicht wie aufwändig es ist, das umzusetzen. Wenn das umgesetzt ist, ist es nicht mehr schwierig zu beherrschen.--Bo-rhein-sieg 11:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Die Frage des Beherrschens ist auch einer der Manpower. ich bin halt doch sehr unterschiedlich intensiv hier aktiv. Und die Anzahl der Mitstreiter, da kann ich nichts sagen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmh, schwierig, ich würde auf jeden Fall dabei helfen.--Bo-rhein-sieg 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ich glaube es ist wichtig, dass man Schritt für Schritt vorgeht. Ich werde dann erst mal schauen, dass ich für alle deutschen Städte eine Ortskategorie anlege. Schaffe da so ca 10-20 in der Woche, manchmal mehr. -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Weißt du, wie viele ungefähr noch fehlen?--Bo-rhein-sieg 11:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Muss gleich mal durchzählen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mal eine Bitte

Hi Rüdiger!

Ich muss nochmal hierauf zurückkommen. Das sollte doch besser gelöscht werden, weil es etwas heikel ist. Auch wenn man Grabplatte nicht wirklich erkennen kann, gibt es dort ja auch noch das Portrait, das noch Urheberrechtsschutz genießen könnte. Und das wäre ja nur als peripheres Beiwerk unter bestimmten Bedingungen der Panoramafreiheit erlaubt. Also könntest du das Bild bitte löschen? --STBR 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

erledigt. -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Danke dir! --STBR 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Orwell1.jpg

Hello!

This image was in english wikipedia. But maybe you must delete. A'm sorry. --Starscream 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please give the source. Only to say it was on english wikipedia isn't enough! -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have checked the english wikipedia. Image:Orwell1.jpg is from commons? -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Jimmy Knepper and Dean Benedetti.jpg

Hi Rudi, see the discussion for further informations. Regards --Biopresto 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. you should add a license tag! -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tag your images

---

Thank you for providing images to the Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on the Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

• Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
• State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikipedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best use CommonsHelper
• If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
• Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
• Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

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.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you. Yuval Y • Chat • 06:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems? which problems. When I upload the picture all is OK! -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Highlandmap1.gif

I added a PD box. I am the creator of the map and have no problem putting it into the public domain. Vertigo700 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Image Tagging Image:Projection-screen-home.jpg

Please check the history in these cases before marking images as not having a license. An anon user had simply vandalized the PD-Self license. I have restored it. --Tysto 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are too much pictures without license, so I havn't the time. -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Schloss Sonnenberg 1480.jpg

Hi Rudiger,

I noticed that you tagged this image for deletion, because the source information is missing.

What kind of source information do you expect to be available from 1480? Many of these paintings and sketches probably simply have no known painter.

Are we gonna delete all of them?

kind regards,

TeunSpaans 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please add a source, and all is OK. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not the uploader. I just commented that no source can be given if the original painter is unknown. Source=author, for PD-old. Any intermediate sources are irrelevant. What you say boils down to: if the artist is unknown, however old or PD it may be, we wont have it here. TeunSpaans 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I think the subject is much broader than this image, I have posted a more genarl remark at Commons talk:Deletion guidelines TeunSpaans 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:ShirleyTempleMackenzieKing2.jpg

Hi, you tagged this image for deletion. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. It says right on the description field that the copyright has expired and there are no reproduction issues according to the National Archives of Canada. In future, please read that information and/or follow the link to the National Archives. Dowew 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I realize that last comment was a little angry. I see that you just calculated the math. All you need to know is that according to the National Archives of Canada this image has no copyright and is in the public domain. There are some images on wikipedia commons that are from the National Archives where the copyright is held by the National Archives and are allowed to be used for any purpose (a good example is Image:Trudeau-Turner-Campbell-Chretien-Clark.jpg ). When the National Archives says "Restrictions on Reproduction:Nil" it means the image can be used for any purpose. I do not know the background of that image of Shirley Temple, all I know is that the National Archives says it is Public Domain (I found this image after I saw it in the Canadian War Museum with a tag saying it was from the Archives). I know the math doesn't add up, but I think we can trust the Canadian Government about copyright. Thanks. Dowew 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

languages for categories?

hello there, you had a question once on the usage of local language over English in categories. I have started a discussion page on this topic, maybe you want to drop by and give your thoughts? Commons:Language for categories. sincerely Gryffindor 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Chrysler AA Saratoga Spain version rear.jpg

Hi, Rüdiger Wölk.

Yes, I created the image: I took the pic myself.

There´s a {{self|GFDL}} tag. I thought that was enough.

Could you please explain me what must I do to solve this problem?.

Thank you. Randroide 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When this picture is your own work add this as information. the best way to give all the needed informations is the Inforamtions Template:

A good file description provides complete information about the file, including legally required information such as its copyright status and source, as well as descriptive information about what it shows and how it was made. To assist you in creating such a description, there is a standardized template for images. As a side effect, this template is also rendered in a typographically sound way. It is therefore highly recommended to use the template. Just copy the code below, paste it into the “Summary”-field during upload and fill in the blanks:

{{Information
|Description = 
|Source = 
|Date = 
|Author = 
|Permission = 
|other_versions = 
}}

-- Rüdiger Wölk 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, Rüdiger Wölk. Is the problem fixed now?. Thank you for your attention.Randroide 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Rüdiger Wölk 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Orange Crop Kufr Jammal2.JPG

I changed the tag of this image to {{PD-self}}. This was taken by my personal camera. --Jak 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the picture -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Missing HK Star Ferry Piers Farewell party 2.JPG

• 
  The author and photographer is en:User:HK Star Farewell (me).
• 
  The author and photographer is en:User:HK Star Farewell (me).
• 
  The author and photographer is en:User:HK Star Farewell (me).

All of them display the current news event incurred in the HK Star Ferry Piers. --HK Star Farewell 20:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Rüdiger Wölk 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention and speedy response. --HK Star Farewell 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Verwendung von deutschen Umlauten in englischen Beschreibungen

Hallo!

Du hast in Category:Lüchow (Wendland), Germany aus Luechow Lüchow gemacht, bei Luechow-Dannenberg aber nichts geändert. Wie verhält es sich mit der Verwendung von in diesem Fall deutschen Umlauten in einer anderssprachigen Beschreibung? --Torsten Bätge 11:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, dann habe ich das übersehen. Der Artikel im englischen Wikipedia hat die Bezeichnung Lüchow, deshalb ist dass auf jeden Fall in Ordnung. Und ich habe den Eindruck, dass die Engländer er das ü durch ein u ersetzen --> z.B. Nuremberg. Schreibe das einfach in der deutschen Form oder schaue ggf. im englischsprachigen Wiki, -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

You are asking for source of my pictures, here it is [[2]]

----[[User:Laslovarga|<font color="green">'''László'''</font> [[User talk:Laslovarga|<font color="red">'''(talk)'''</font>]]]] 01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no source given. Please add. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please chek is it now OK with source information.[[3]] Thanks Laslovarga

Thanks. -- Rüdiger Wölk 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:800px-Opry-house.jpg

Image:800px-Opry-house.jpg is from the English language wikipedia, released into the public domain by en:User:Adam mcmaster, which was noted on the page. I didn't know to tag that, since it wasn't from me, myself. -- Yekrats 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tower001 r.jpg

What exactually is missing from this picture?--Sefringle 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's lifted from a website. See http://www.stereoeye.jp/special/tower_pe.html, which states (C)2006 STEREOeYe All Rights Reserved. Cnyborg 04:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mala Rodriguez.jpg

Hi! I'm the author and uploader of this picture. It was taken by me, so I put the {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} template. I didn't know that this image could be deleted, so I re-upload it on Image:Mala Rodriguez1.jpg because I could not done it using the old name. I think the new upload is correct, but I'm not sure of it, can you check it? Thanks in advance. Steve-o 13:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no information, that it is your own work. Please add this information and it is ok. Best you use the Infomation tag and give uns all the needed informations:

Just copy the code below, paste it into the “Summary”-field during upload and fill in the blanks:

{{Information
|Description = 
|Source = 
|Date = 
|Author = 
|Permission = 
|other_versions = 
}}

-- Rüdiger Wölk 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Deutsche Städte und Gemeinden

Wir hatten schon vor ein paar Wochen über die Kategorien der deutschen Städte und Gemeinden geredet. Ist es nicht an der Zeit, hier eine Ordnung zu schaffen, die sich an der de.wikipedia anlehnt? Ich finde, man sollte Kats für die rechtlich selbstständigen Orte in jedem Bundesland, wie de:Kategorie:Ort in Nordrhein-Westfalen anlegen, die auch keinen Unterschied zwischen Städten und Gemeinden macht. Die Unterteilung nach villages und cities ist m.E. völlig unenzyklopädisch, da es hier keine genaue Abgrenzung geben kann (cities sind eigentlich nur Großstädte und villages sind dörfer). Ob der Ort eine Stadt oder Gemeinde ist, kann in der Kategorien-/Galerie-Beschreibung erwähnt werden und ist sonst, wie auf der de.wikipedia, im Kategoriensystem nicht enthalten. So gäbe es eine analoge Struktur zur de.wikipedia, was sehr vorteilhaft ist und vielleicht einigen das Misstrauen gegenüber Commons nehmen würde. Und der Zusatz „, Germany“ sollte wirklich überdacht werden, mir ist der Sinn immer noch nicht klar geworden.--Borheinsieg 12:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nun ja, die Struktur bestand schon in dieser Form, als ich mich erstmalig damit befasst habe. Wie wäre es, wenn man zunächst eine Ortskategorie für alle deutschen Städte schaffen würde. Und vor allem wäre es wichtig die aktion zügig umzusetzen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Siebrand sortiert mit seinem SieBot ja gerade alle Kats nach Category:Cities in Germany. Wie findest du die Bezeichnung city? Immerhin kommen da jetzt alle noch so kleinen Gemeinden rein. Interessant wäre es zu wissen wie viele Ortskats überhaupt noch fehlen bzw. wie viele schon da sind. Bei vielen ist ja bis jetzt nur das Wappen da...--Borheinsieg 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bots sind für so eine Aufgabe sicherlich extrem hilfreich. Wie wäre denn die Übersetzung für Ort in Deutschland? -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Da hab ich auch schonmal nachgeschaut. Einen dem Artikel in der deutschen WP de:Ort entsprechenden Artikel in der englischen WP gibt es scheinbar nicht. Im Langenscheidt ist als allgemeine Übersetzung place angegeben, was wir hier allerdings nicht gebrauchen könne, da das ja den Ort an sich umfasst und keine Ortschaften. Ortschaft heißt allerdings auch place, spezielle Städte town und Dörfer village. Am Besten fände ich allerdings municipalities, da der Begriff für Gemeinden im offiziellen Sinne, wozu auch alle Städte gehören, freigehalten ist. So würde man auch eine korrekte Abgrenzung zu Stadt- und Ortsteilen sowie allen anderen nicht selbstständigen Orten schaffen, also in diese Kategorie Municipalities in Germany würden nur die Orte reinkommen, die in der de.wikipedia die de:Vorlage:Infobox Ort in Deutschland haben. Die Verwaltungsgliederung in Deutschland ist ja folgendermaßen: Bund, Länder, (Regierungsbezirke, ) Landkreise (districts), Städte und Gemeinden (municipalities) sowie evtl. darunter liegende Stadtbezirke und Ortsteile (suburbs, localities, municipal districts). Alle Städte und Gemeinden wären somit in der Kategorie erfasst. Höchstens könnte man sich überlegen, für die kreisfreien Städte eine eigene Unterkat zu machen, wobei ich das für nicht unbedingt notwendig halte.--Borheinsieg 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wie schaut es denn eigentlich mit Besonderheiten aus. Auf die Schnelle fällt mit da Bayern ein. z.B. garmisch-Partenkirchen ist keine Stadt, allerdings hauptort im gleichnamigen Landkreis. Und auch in Niedersachsen gibt es glaube ich ähnliches. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Siehe auch die Diskussion auf User talk:Siebrand. Garmisch-Partenkirchen ist halt ein Markt, aber genauso rechtlich eine Gemeinde, die die administrativ unterste Ebene Deutschlands darstellt, wie andere Städte und Gemeinden auch. Übrigens sehe ich auf [4] meine Auffassung von municipality als richtigen Begriff bestätigt. Dort steht, dass auch cities municipalities sind, nur mit anderen Rechten. Oder alternativ lehnt man sich [Administrative Gliederung Deutschlands.png daran] an, was zwar komplizierter ist, wobei es aber durchaus auch doppelte Kategorisierungen geben kann (für kreisfreie Städte municipality und city oder independent city (kreisfreie Stadt)).--Borheinsieg 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bingo - dann wäre ja Municipalities in Germany der richtige Oberbegriff für die deutschen Ortskategorien. Und da ja Kategorien in englisch sein sollen, wäre das ja auch gleich die Begründung aus der englischpsrachigen wiki dafür gefunden. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dennis Kucinich.jpg

Can you please reply in its discussion page? -- Paul Pogonyshev 13:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

image missing source or licensing information : Image:Lip_0451.jpg

Hi ! excuse me for my English

For Image:Lip_0451.jpg, I took a photo of the logo of a box watch LIP.

The licensing information is {{GFDL}}.

Jamin 09:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should add the licene information to this picture. -- Rüdiger Wölk 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Peterzano_crocefissione.jpg

Hi, I simply forgot to categorize the image unde the category PD-old. Thank you! --Emmeu 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Typeface-broadway.jpg

Hallo Rüdiger,

beim Upload des oben angegebenen Bildes muß wohl ein Fehler bei der Definition des Lizenztyps in der Popupliste passiert sein. Ganz erklärlich ist mir das nicht. Theoretisch denkbar ist zwar durchaus, daß ich es vergessen habe. Bei einem anderen Bild ist mir das in der Tat passiert; allerdings hatte dies zur Folge, daß Commons den Upload nicht durchgeführt hat und ich den Vorgang im Anschluß korrrekt durchführen konnte. Lange Rede kurzer Sinn: die Grafik wurde von mir selbst erstellt, ich gebe die Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung. Lizenz: GLU FDL. Grüsse --Roger Koslowski 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

P.s.: Komplettirrtum! Habe die Sache nochmal durchgecheckt. Beim Laden der Bilder an diesem Tag wurde das besagte Bild doch ohne Lizenz hochgeladen. Hatte es bemerkt und sicherheitshalber eine zweite Version mit der Zusatzbezeichnung "2" im Namen und den vollständigen Angaben hochgeladen. Hatte im Artikelbeitrag dann falsch getaggt. Denke, das Einfachste ist, das oben angegebene Bild zu löschen. Den Tagg im Beitrag habe ich korrigiert. Grüsse --Roger Koslowski 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Porto_-_Ribeira_desde_cais_de_Gaia.jpg

License attribution complete now.

Barao78 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

Hi, you slapped me with a boilerplate warning for Image:Precum.JPG earlier; when you nsd tagged the image. My participation in that image was reverting some censoring-vandal. However, the image sourcing is clearly in the page's history, before it was blanked out by anon vandalism. Can you please check the page history before tagging in future? This stops spurious boilerplate warnings to users. I hope you check page history before deleting nsd tagged images...--Nilfanion 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the last days I check hundreds of pictures without license tag. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this even more disconcerting now and reviewing your activity. I hope you don't actually press the delete button before checking the history ;)--Nilfanion 00:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

Is it so hard read the summary?? Aaker 14:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For many people 'YES! The license tags are translated to many languages and can be understand by much more people. -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Blouet Poirot Egine.JPG Picture Blouet Licensing

Dear Rüdiger Wölk,

I can't see where the source of this picture is missing

Abel Blouet et Pierre Achille Poirot (Authors), «Temple de Jupiter Panhellénien. L'ordre restauré.» (Title of the picture) in Expédition scientifique de Morée. Section des Beaux-Arts., tome III, (Title of the book) planche 53.,(page number) 1831. Il s'agit en fait du temple d'Aphaïa, considéré en 1831 comme Temple de Jupiter Panhellénien. (personal comment) La planche participe au grand débat de l'époque sur la polychromie des temples grecs.(personal comment) Source : photo personnelle de la planche. (personal photography, not of great quality, of the page).

Can you tell me what is wrong ?

Thanks, danke. Cedric B. 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no License-Tag. For more Informations see Commons:Copyright tags. When you upload a file, you must indicate its license status. -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Volapük_Symbol_2.png

Das ist ein Zeichen der Volapük-Bewegung (siehe z.B. de:Volapük) aus dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts und darum schon lange im Public Domain. Ich will den PD-Tag aber nicht hinzufügen, weil ich schon eine bessere Version desselben Zeichens hochgeladen habe (Image:Volapük_Symbol.jpg), mit dem PD-Tag, das Du haben wolltest. Kannst Du mal gucken, ob alles in Ordnung ist? Wenn ich was Falsches gemacht habe, kannst Du mir Bescheid geben. Die Version, die Dir nicht gefallen hast (Image:Volapük_Symbol_2.png), würde ich auch gern löschen lassen. Danke. --Smeira 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Muestra rotoscopio.JPG

Hi Rüdiger, are you using a bot-like application to tag? I have noticed that because of the huge sync lag the toolserver has, it is really hard to trust the information it spits out at the moment. The above upload was indeed tagged by me today, but the toolserver has not yet replicated up to that point... Siebrand 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

with this picture I was too fast, and I have tagged this picture beofre I see the license tag. So I reverted my edit. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

City vs. Municipality

Jetzt muss ich doch mal fragen: nach welcher Methodik ordnest du denn hier zu? Dass Crailsheim keine Gemeinde, sondern eine Stadt mit 32000 Einwohnern ist, weißt du schon? Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kommando zurück, ich sehe gerade, dass jetzt wohl alles einheitlich unter municipality soll und die City-Kategorie abgeschafft wird. Unter dem Aspekt ist es ok. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging Image:Escudocastanar.jpg

Hello Rüdiger, I am the author of this coat of arms. Sorry, I forgot to choose the licensing for the image. I've replace the former template with a share-alike one. Greetings. es:garygillmore --Garygillmore 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info --- Rüdiger Wölk 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jeanne Immink an der Kleinen Zinne.JPG

Hi, you have added a missing license warning on that picture, saying it will be deleted after 7 days (starting at Dec. 30), which is overdue now. (template:no license/en)

I have added a license block which IMHO is valid and answers your license request. (template:PD-old)

But how to continue:

• Are you still willing to delete it?
• If so, why is my license argument not valid?
• If not, will you remove the license warning?
• Or could I have done this already?

r --Herzi Pinki 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the license tag. -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:PICT0070 3.JPG

Hi, you have added a missing license warning on that picture. I answered your license request. Could you remove the license warning? Best, Maurice Marcellin 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Diözesanbibliothek Münster/Category:Sunrise Tower

Hallo Rüdiger, hab nicht schlecht gestaunt, als ich beim Einstellen meiner Bilder deine von der Bibliothek gefunden hab. Die Gebäude gleichen sich ja unglaublich! Gruss --Ikiwaner 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In Münster die Bibliothek ist halt eher länglich, wärend der Tower in die Höhe geht. Aber es gibt schlimmere Parallelen finde ich. Bin immer wieder erstaunt, was man alles so entdeckt, wenn man sich mit Wikipedia beschäftigt. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kategorie "Municipalities in Saxony"

Guten Abend Rüdiger, sollen künftig alle Ortskategorien in die obige einsortiert werden, so dass dann unter "Saxony" nur noch weitere Unterkategorien (castles, Transport...) zu finden sind ? Darauf läuft doch der schon geführte Meinungsaustausch von den Weihnachtstagen hinaus, oder ? Grüße von der Elbe --Norbert Kaiser 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ist doch so sinnvoll - oder? Ansonsten wäre es ja eine doppelte Zuordnung. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Na dann werde ich für Sachsen mal langsam mit der Neuordnung anfangen. Grüße von der Elbe --Norbert Kaiser 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aus der Category Saxony müssten eigentlich fast alle schon draussen sein. Aber in Cities of Germany dürften sich noch welche verstecken. -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome log active again

Hi, on User:Orgullobot/Welcome log you are listed as a helper. Orgullobot hasn't been active for a while and SieBot has taken over the welcoming a few days ago. There is fresh output again. I thought you might be interested in that info. I do hope on your continued participation in checking newbie edits. Cheers! Siebrand 09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bilder Pudding4brains

Hallo Rüdiger, danke für Deine Nachricht auf nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Pudding4brains#Lizenzen_in_wikimendia_commons über fehlende Lizenzangaben auf "die von mir hochgeladenen Bilder". Leider finde ich im Moment keine wo das ein Problem wäre - auf welche Bilder hatt sich deine Anregung denn bezogen? (kannst auch hier Anwtorten indem dier das bequemer ist). Gruss Pudding4brains 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Vergiss es - gefunden. Verstehe nicht wie die untagged geblieben sind ... na ja, danke Pudding4brains 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:George_John_Mitchell.jpg

What's wrong?! This is an official photo of former U.S. Senator - work of U.S. federal government, taken from the congressional website. Nearly all portraits of U.S. Congresspersons (like in category: Senators of the United States) are taken from their sites provided by Congress (a legislative branch of the fed govt) on or congressional bioguide. This is absolulety legal!!! Darth Kalwejt 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Than you should add a license tag - and all is OK. -- Rüdiger Wölk 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Copie de Tilly 4 juillet 1949 - Ch de Gaulle, fils Patton, chef E-m US, Mr Madelin, Cpt Freddt-AF freddy118.jpg, and others

Good afternoon

This picture, as the others, have been used by the municipality to edit and print a book on our common history. They used several documents that I had lent to them, as did other people, and just mentioned : private collection Frédéric Fercot (or s.o., when it is the case). On this picture particularly, there is my own father, died in 1965. I understand the particular care to the copy-right, as to the " image rights " (I do not know the english expression), and the latter has to be protected as well. I do not think of breaking the rights of anybody else, nor want it, but it is impossible to me to know who has taken this picture, in 1949 (1944 for the other ones): a friend, another resistant, my father's wife ? However, whether there is any problem, do not hesitate to cancel it. Maybe will I be allowed to use the family archives if I (am able to) create a page or a website ? [I had writen that these pictures came from them, but it appears as not being enough for a license tag, doesn't it ?] Best regards, --FFCT 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My Images

Hi, i wanted to know how i can select a licence for a picture AFTER its been uploaded.... (like the drop down list u get when u upload) ?

I got the following images are from Flickr, someone told me thats allowed.. could you clarify? do you need the links?

Image:Akshay_Kumar_Filming.jpg

Image:Aishwarya_Rai_Cannes.jpg

Image:Akshay_Kumar_Twinkle_Khanna.jpg

Image:Shilpa_Shetty_Dus.jpg

Thank You Sumit Desai 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

After upload there is no drop-down list. But you can add the information with a template. Tell me for the first picture the flickr link and I will add the information asa sample for the other picures. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aishwarya_Rai_Cannes.jpg this is the flickr link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bahlsonu/153351188/in/photostream/ sorry, but this picture is marked on flickr as © All rights reserved and can not be used here. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging NSD

Please change the messages to languages the user speaks, if they are not English, such as I did here. (also the welcome message.) thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where can I see that a user not speak english? Framertin has no bable tags on his user page. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You can look at what they write on image pages and also where their images are used. If they are only used in one wiki, probably that is their language. Framertin's images are only used in fr.wp and they wrote "oeuvre personnelle" on their images. You can guess this is French, or you can use translate.google.com to make sure it translates to something reasonable (something this is necessary to tell the difference between Spanish and Portguese, they look very similar). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SEATTrans.jpg

Yup, Rüdiger Wölk.

I created the image. I just forgot the tagging.

Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Than you should add the informations to the picture and take the tag away! -- Rüdiger Wölk 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sui Generis.jpg

No se porque ahora me jodés con la foto de Sui Generis, esa foto tiene más de 30 años, y por lo tanto es de dominio libRE!!. Fijate acá: [5].

THIS PICTURE HAS 30 YEARS OR MORE, so This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (At least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created and 20 years since it was first published, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7 (4)).

Dado que Sui Generis se separó en 1975, ya hace más de 30 años, esta foto tiene más de 30 años, por lo tanto se puede utilizar de acuerdo a las leyes argentinas

Por algo tiene esta etiqueta:

{{PD-AR-Photo}}

Please read the inforamtion on the license tag: Warning: date and source of any publication prior to 20 year must be indicated so everybody can check it, and clear evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago must be given.

Advertencia: debe indicarse la fecha y fuente de una publicación anterior a 20 años de modo que pueda ser verificado por terceros, y darse clara evidencia de que la imagen fue tomada hace más de 25 años. On flickr is this image marked as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Taken on November 25, 2006. On no place is an information that this picture is from 1975! -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Von Soso

I fixed it. thanksSosomk 15:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Landkreis-Kategorien

Es gibt schon einige Kategorien für die über 300 deutschen Landkreise. Ich habe vor, diese zu vervollständigen, was in der de.wp gerade zum Abschluss gekommen ist. Da ja noch einiges von den Kats Cities in Germany und Villages in Germany umkategorisiert werden muss, wäre es vielleicht nicht schlecht, die Landkreis-Kategorien anzulegen, in denen später dann nach und nach die Ortskategorien einsortiert werden. Für Orte, zu denen es nur ein Bild gibt, reicht sicherlich die Kategorie des Landkreises. Viele der Kategorien heißen Landkreis XY, Germmany, manche District xy und manche einfach Landkreis XY. Ich bin in jedem Falle für letzteres, da ich den Zusatz ", Germany" auch hier für überflüssig halte und man sich nach den offiziellen Namen richten sollte. Der Begriff "District" ist sehr weit dehnbar und undefiniert, er kann auch Stadtbezirk, Stadt-/Ortsteil etc. heißen. Ziel muss es sein, dass jede Ortskategorie einmal Municipalities in Bundesland und Landkreis k.A. hat und dass das einheitlich wird. Was findest du von den Namen für die Landkreis-Kategorien am besten?--Borheinsieg 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ich bin für Landkreis. Und ohne den Zusatz Germany. Gibt es eigentlich irgendwo eine Liste der Landkreise, so wie es im deutschsprachigen wiki auch eine Liste der Städte gibt? -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

klar. Listen nach Bundesland gibt es dann in den entsprechenden Artikeln wie de:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.--Borheinsieg 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis, dann muss man sich ja keine unnötige sucharbeit machen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Landkreise mit abweichenden Namen, wie in NRW und Schleswig-Holstein, wo es nur Kreis heißt, oder in Thüringen der Wartburgkreis, müssen natürlich so übernommen werden ohne "Landkreis" davor.--Borheinsieg 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Am besten die offizielle Bezeichnung, da macht man grundsätzlich nichts falsch. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Genau das meine ich.--Borheinsieg 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

About BirjandShokatiyeSchool

I corrected the tag for Image:BirjandShokatiyeSchool.jpg, as you rightly pointed to. I hope this is ok. Sorry for my late action, as I don't visit my page frequently. Aliparsa 12:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Smotherbox_rendition.jpg

Hallo Rüdiger, ich habe das Bild aus [6] übertragen und ausdrücklich auf die Quelle hingewiesen. Da ich noch recht selten auf Commons unterwegs bin verstehe ich leider momentan nicht was Dir hier noch fehlt, da dort die erfragten Infos enthalten sind. Gruß. --Nemissimo 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe da mal was nachgetragen. Am einfachsten, Du nutzt beim übertragen von Bildern aus anderen wikis das passende Tool, dann sind alle erforderlichen Infos bei Commons vorhanden. Und vor allem benötigen wir hier eine Lizenz-Info. Die wird dann auch übertragen. Tool --

Image Tagging Image:Scolopsis_bilineata.JPG

Hi Rüdiger, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This is my own work and I have now added the proper licensing information. Not sure why I had forgotten this. Would appreciate if you could now remove the deletion warning. Jnpet 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Maghar.jpg

I noticed that you tagged this image for not having its creator listed, but I did indeed note that it was credited to he:user:אלמוג and posted to that language's WP here. Let me know if you need any more information, Tewfik 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We need the informations here on commons. Please add a license tag and the informastions about source and other informations. thanks. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

U2 México

I've put the information source on Image:U2_MexicoCity1.jpg. Bye --Warko2006 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Have added some more infors from english wikipedia -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Scary

You tagged one of mine for deletion. No worries - all fixed, but ...

I visit WP frequently but CC very rarely and so nearly missed the delete tag. Is there a simple way to add a tag in WP saying that a CC image may be deleted? GhostInTheMachine 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think, there is no tag that works in this way. But when you are not often online on CC you should change your preferences and set: E-mail me when a page I'm watching is changed. And your discussion page should be set to watched -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done that. Thanks GhostInTheMachine 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Badri.jpg

Do I have to provide the source of the image? The picture was on the Flirk, but Paata decided to take it off. However, I usually write him with email and I can forward the email, which grants me the permission to use the images freely on wikipedia. Sosomk 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

YES - we need the source. and you should add the source fast. Images without source can be deleted after 7 days. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can the image only used free on wikipedia - or used under a free license? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree

Hi...

His material is of spreading… It can be used freely. yes… Alexsanderxm 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can I read that is was free and can be used here on wikipedia? -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

then… as I must make?Alexsanderxm 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way is, when the pictures are own work. Than you can add a license like {{PD-self}}. But this CD covers are not your own work, we need the permisson of the person who had made the covers. In which form have you got the permission? -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of wrongly-named images

Gutentag, Herr Wölk! Thanks for deleting my badnamed images and thanks also for informing me about the correct template to use in that situation.--Vox Humana 8' 13:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks... with complete tag its much easier to delete the images. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hi. I noticed your message on User talk:Timwi. Next time, please post your messages on my talk page on English Wikipedia so that I will see it in time. This is why there is a redirect. — You said that you deleted Image:Wolfson College, Cambridge (2).jpg. I took this picture and it is a {{PD-self}}. If you can, please undelete it. — Timwi 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is undeleted. Many users like me use a script for taggig pictures without license. This is the reason that your discussion page here on commons was used. Redirect to the english wiki is not a good idea. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have forgotten to explain your reasons for saying that it's "not a good idea". You will notice that I didn't see your message for months; that would certainly be a good enough reason to have the redirect. — I acknowledge that bot programmers may forget about the possibility of a redirect, especially if it's cross-wiki, but if you want me to notice your message, then the best way to ensure that is to follow the redirect. — Timwi 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Domingo Cavallo.jpg

Hi. I noticed your message on User talk:mandrake33. I found the image in creative commons. Write Domingo Cavallo and you can find the same image. Sorry for my english, but im not an english speaker. Bye. --Mandrake33 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a source for this picture. So I have added the no source tag. Where have you found this picture? Where can I see, that the license is OK? -- Rüdiger Wölk

Please, go to [[7]] and tell me if its all right. Thank You. --Mandrake33 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

nd is not good for commons. -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

whny you add the following license tag {{cc-by-nd-2.5}} to thge image you see the result. -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready, please delete it. Thank you to help me to figure out my mistake. Bye. --Mandrake33 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can not understand the informations on http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/. Are there any copyright informations? -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rüdiger: Please tell me if i can upload this image: [8]. Thank You. --Mandrake33 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can read on the english wikipedia the original source is from http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/ . and I can't understand the informations on the page. Can you help to understand. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant find any copyright information. So, can we do anything? --Mandrake33 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When there is no information, than it is under copyright. And we cant use it here. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Delphinium oxysepalum a1.jpg.

Das ist keine Delphinium oxysepalum, das ist Image:Delphinium elatum a1.jpg. Danke schön. user:Selso (ich kene nicht englisch) Selso 08:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Danke -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Maungatautari's_Release.jpg

Hello Rüdiger, I think you have deleted something you shouldn't have. The copyright release for the Maungatautari Trust's images was in the talk page of Category:Illustrations_from_the_Maungatautari_Ecological_Island_Trust but you seem to have deleted it. There is now no copyright release for all the pictures in the whole category. Please restore the release ASAP, or advise me urgently so that I can fix this. GrahamBould 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please restore 8 images

Hi Ruediger, could you please take a look at User_talk:Borheinsieg#Removal_of_used_Lage_von_... and restore the requested images? Thanks. Siebrand 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

copyright status

hallo rüdiger wölk, ich habe einige Bilder hochgeladen, die ich 2005 in den USA gemacht hab. Ein Bild steht auf der Löschliste, wegen Copyright Verletzungen (???) - wie kann ich "einstellen", dass besagtes Bild von mir erstellt wurde also "mein Bild" ist? Click here bzw. was muss ich tun um das Bild sicher zu machen nicht gelöscht zu werden. Muss ich angeben, dass ich der Urheber bin und die Verwendung er laube? Gruß --Flowaleman 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Am sichersten ist es in der Bildbeschreibung unter Autor anzugeben own work oder halt den Usernamen. Und bei selbst erstellten Bildern muss man dann noch überlegen, unter welcher Lizenz die genutzt werden sollen. Dazu gibt es dann passende Lizenzbausteine z.B. {{PD-self}} oder {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Am besten unter Lizenzen schauen, was da am ehesten zusagt. Schau Dir doch meien Bilder einmal als Muster an. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK danke für deine hilfe, dann werd ich das gleich mal bearbeiten --Flowaleman 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gudula

Thank you for catching that I didn't provide copyright status for Image:Gudula.jpg. I sort of knew it, but I guess I didn't realize that you can't just crop something and upload it without a valid licensing tag. Once you pointed that out I couldn't think of anything that would be a valid tag. (I thought it might be public domain since the stained glass was old... but it was someone's picture of stained glass, I later figured.)

What I did was I found a depiction of Gudula that is in the public domain and I used that instead, and reuploaded it. Was that valid to do? I have full licensing information for the new image. Thanks for helping out. Alekjds 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the license information -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Image:Belgian A109BA Helicopter anti-tank helicopter.JPG" may be deleted

Tanks you for your message [9]. This picture has a wrong name (typing mistake during import). The correct version has been imported. Could you also delete "Image:Test of licensing.JPG" that is an old test without any interest? Best regards M LA 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

done - and thank you for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:560084.jpg

Hi. You took away the bad name template. It had been previously uploaded under a bad name, but the other version was [10] befire under my request because it was copyright infringement. I uploaded it thinking it was attached to the CC-by-sa-2.5 license in the page 20minutos.es, but I further read and the image was not originally from the website. Thus, it was copyright infringement (to a local newspaper of Utah). So, please delete this image as well. Rock 'n Roll 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Regulus_madeirensis_&_leaf_litter.jpg

Lieber Rudiger!

Thank you for deleting one of my Madeiragoldhänchen photo's from Wikimedia, so that it no longer appears on the german "Madeiragoldhänchen" and english "Madeira Firecrest" articles. Thank you also for not sending me a message to warn me that you might do this.

I am relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia. I expect that I make mistakes, and I am no expert on Wikipedia etiquette, but I would appreciate being contacted before my work is deleted.

I took two photo's of the Madeira Firecrest in its native habitat. I uploaded them to Wikimedia and I thought that I chose the same Public Domain licence for both photo's. I have no idea why you questioned the copyright status of one of the photo's.

If I made a mistake, please be helpful and tell me what I did wrong. Alternatively, if I did grant the same licence for both photo's, why not delete my other one too?

I apologise for being blunt, but I hope you can understand why I am not happy. I do not have time to contribute a lot to Wikipedia, so when I do give my time to make a helpful contribution I am pretty annoyed at having it deleted.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Bleib gesund! Motacilla 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for this, but you have got a warning message. See your talk page: User_talk:Motacilla. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion..

Should I restore these image for you? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Rüdiger!

I did not receive a warning message from you: it was Oxam Hertog who kindly sent me one. Unfortunately it did not reach my talk page until nearly ten days after you tagged my image, and this was only a few hours before you deleted it. I looked at the description of my image but your tag had replaced whatever copyright I had written, so I could not work out if I had made a mistake or how to put it right.

before deleting the picture I checked, if you have got a warning message. and as I found such a message I have deleted the image. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore my image. It should have the same copyright permission as my other image, "Regulus madeirensis & Camellia.jpg". If you do not think that Public Domain is a good enough copyright for these images, please advise me why this is.

I have taken a number of photo's that I would like to give to Wikimedia. However, before I do so I need to be sure that their copyright status will be accepted. Oxam Hertog tried to advise me but he directed me to the "Commons:Copyright tags" webpage. The information on that webpage baffled me, and I could not remember the mechanism of how I added the copyright that I had chosen. Please direct me to the right webpage for me to see the different copyright options. Also please advise me which options are best.

Vielen dank, Motacilla 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture is restrored. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gamarjveba08.JPG

Sorry, I just forgot to add copyright tag to Image:Gamarjveba08.JPG. now I have added.--Trulala 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories naming

Hello,

I think that there is no good reason not to name the categories with the language of the place, so please do not rename Genève as Geneva. Categories redirect works quite well. Regards, Yann 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me, why is this no good reason? Categories are in english. Please tell me, why you have rename Geneva to Genève. Category redirects don't work! -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Infrogmation

Hi Rüdiger,

I'd welcome your opinion on some pix that User:Infrogmation uploaded, and which I tagged for deletion, and notified him on his talk page. His reply is on my talk page, but I feel some doubt as to his reply.

thanks in advance,

10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture Rules again...

Hi, are we allowed to upload stills from a DVD and say it's your "own work" ?? Seems obvious but just to make sure lol

Image:Charly García2.jpg

Hola, no se si tenes ojos para ver, pero la imagen Charly García2 esta registrada en FLickr (http://flickr.com/photos/mefran/98489452/), así que no entiendo la confusión.

Image

Hi. I noticed your message on User talk:Timwi. Next time, please post your messages on my talk page on English Wikipedia so that I will see it in time. This is why there is a redirect. — You said that you deleted Image:Wolfson College, Cambridge (2).jpg. I took this picture and it is a {{PD-self}}. If you can, please undelete it. — Timwi 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is undeleted. Many users like me use a script for taggig pictures without license. This is the reason that your discussion page here on commons was used. Redirect to the english wiki is not a good idea. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have forgotten to explain your reasons for saying that it's "not a good idea". You will notice that I didn't see your message for months; that would certainly be a good enough reason to have the redirect. — I acknowledge that bot programmers may forget about the possibility of a redirect, especially if it's cross-wiki, but if you want me to notice your message, then the best way to ensure that is to follow the redirect. — Timwi 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Delphinium oxysepalum a1.jpg.

Das ist keine Delphinium oxysepalum, das ist Image:Delphinium elatum a1.jpg. Danke schön. user:Selso (ich kene nicht englisch) Selso 08:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Danke -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please restore 8 images

Hi Ruediger, could you please take a look at User_talk:Borheinsieg#Removal_of_used_Lage_von_... and restore the requested images? Thanks. Siebrand 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gudula

Thank you for catching that I didn't provide copyright status for Image:Gudula.jpg. I sort of knew it, but I guess I didn't realize that you can't just crop something and upload it without a valid licensing tag. Once you pointed that out I couldn't think of anything that would be a valid tag. (I thought it might be public domain since the stained glass was old... but it was someone's picture of stained glass, I later figured.)

What I did was I found a depiction of Gudula that is in the public domain and I used that instead, and reuploaded it. Was that valid to do? I have full licensing information for the new image. Thanks for helping out. Alekjds 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the license information -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

copyright status

hallo rüdiger wölk, ich habe einige Bilder hochgeladen, die ich 2005 in den USA gemacht hab. Ein Bild steht auf der Löschliste, wegen Copyright Verletzungen (???) - wie kann ich "einstellen", dass besagtes Bild von mir erstellt wurde also "mein Bild" ist? Click here bzw. was muss ich tun um das Bild sicher zu machen nicht gelöscht zu werden. Muss ich angeben, dass ich der Urheber bin und die Verwendung er laube? Gruß --Flowaleman 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Am sichersten ist es in der Bildbeschreibung unter Autor anzugeben own work oder halt den Usernamen. Und bei selbst erstellten Bildern muss man dann noch überlegen, unter welcher Lizenz die genutzt werden sollen. Dazu gibt es dann passende Lizenzbausteine z.B. {{PD-self}} oder {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Am besten unter Lizenzen schauen, was da am ehesten zusagt. Schau Dir doch meien Bilder einmal als Muster an. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK danke für deine hilfe, dann werd ich das gleich mal bearbeiten --Flowaleman 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Image:Belgian A109BA Helicopter anti-tank helicopter.JPG" may be deleted

Tanks you for your message [11]. This picture has a wrong name (typing mistake during import). The correct version has been imported. Could you also delete "Image:Test of licensing.JPG" that is an old test without any interest? Best regards M LA 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

done - and thank you for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:560084.jpg

Hi. You took away the bad name template. It had been previously uploaded under a bad name, but the other version was [12] befire under my request because it was copyright infringement. I uploaded it thinking it was attached to the CC-by-sa-2.5 license in the page 20minutos.es, but I further read and the image was not originally from the website. Thus, it was copyright infringement (to a local newspaper of Utah). So, please delete this image as well. Rock 'n Roll 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gamarjveba08.JPG

Sorry, I just forgot to add copyright tag to Image:Gamarjveba08.JPG. now I have added.--Trulala 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Regulus_madeirensis_&_leaf_litter.jpg

Lieber Rudiger!

Thank you for deleting one of my Madeiragoldhänchen photo's from Wikimedia, so that it no longer appears on the german "Madeiragoldhänchen" and english "Madeira Firecrest" articles. Thank you also for not sending me a message to warn me that you might do this.

I am relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia. I expect that I make mistakes, and I am no expert on Wikipedia etiquette, but I would appreciate being contacted before my work is deleted.

I took two photo's of the Madeira Firecrest in its native habitat. I uploaded them to Wikimedia and I thought that I chose the same Public Domain licence for both photo's. I have no idea why you questioned the copyright status of one of the photo's.

If I made a mistake, please be helpful and tell me what I did wrong. Alternatively, if I did grant the same licence for both photo's, why not delete my other one too?

I apologise for being blunt, but I hope you can understand why I am not happy. I do not have time to contribute a lot to Wikipedia, so when I do give my time to make a helpful contribution I am pretty annoyed at having it deleted.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Bleib gesund! Motacilla 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for this, but you have got a warning message. See your talk page: User_talk:Motacilla. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion..

Should I restore these image for you? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Rüdiger!

I did not receive a warning message from you: it was Oxam Hertog who kindly sent me one. Unfortunately it did not reach my talk page until nearly ten days after you tagged my image, and this was only a few hours before you deleted it. I looked at the description of my image but your tag had replaced whatever copyright I had written, so I could not work out if I had made a mistake or how to put it right.

before deleting the picture I checked, if you have got a warning message. and as I found such a message I have deleted the image. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore my image. It should have the same copyright permission as my other image, "Regulus madeirensis & Camellia.jpg". If you do not think that Public Domain is a good enough copyright for these images, please advise me why this is.

I have taken a number of photo's that I would like to give to Wikimedia. However, before I do so I need to be sure that their copyright status will be accepted. Oxam Hertog tried to advise me but he directed me to the "Commons:Copyright tags" webpage. The information on that webpage baffled me, and I could not remember the mechanism of how I added the copyright that I had chosen. Please direct me to the right webpage for me to see the different copyright options. Also please advise me which options are best.

Vielen dank, Motacilla 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture is restrored. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories naming

Hello,

I think that there is no good reason not to name the categories with the language of the place, so please do not rename Genève as Geneva. Categories redirect works quite well. Regards, Yann 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me, why is this no good reason? Categories are in english. Please tell me, why you have rename Geneva to Genève. Category redirects don't work! -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Infrogmation

Hi Rüdiger,

I'd welcome your opinion on some pix that User:Infrogmation uploaded, and which I tagged for deletion, and notified him on his talk page. His reply is on my talk page, but I feel some doubt as to his reply.

thanks in advance,

10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Haggadah Cover

Hi RW (may I?) - The Haggadah Cover has not been licensed as GFDL by the copyright owner, so I tagged BN to have it deleted. Just as simple as this. Too bad, it was an interesting piece. --Ub 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

TV Smith

Hallo, ich hab das Bild selber geschossen. Ich kenn mich noch nicht so aus. Was muss ich machen, damit es für Wikipedia nutzbar bleibt, meine Rechte aber so weit wie möglich erhalten bleiben? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:TV_Smith_live_01.jpg

Beste Grüße --Tankwart 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

wunderbar, danke für die Info. Den tag wegen der fehlenden Lizenz entfernen und stattdessen einen lizenbaustein z.B. {{PD-self}} oder {{GDFL}} oder {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} in der Bildbeschreibung einbauen. Infos zu den verschiedenen Lizenzen gibts unter Lizenzen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion: Image:Ratel_ZT3_front.JPG

Hi,

You have delete this image and I have only now logged into my commons account to find your message. Sorry for the delay and confusion. I am the owner of the image (I took the photo) and uploaded it along with several other images, but must have neglected to properly add appropriate copyright tag. Can you please undelete and I will correct. Thanks. --Deon Steyn 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, Please add a license tag soon. -- Rüdiger Wölk 11:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added a license tag. --Deon Steyn 12:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Geneva

Just to let you know, Orgullobot, at least for now, won't be making any category moves to or from categories that contain the word "Geneva". I think you guys have taken this too far, and I don't really care who's right. You should work it out before using a bot to change the category. It's inefficient otherwise, if nothing else.--Orgullomoore 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Je ne peux pas comprendre que tu te donnes tant de mal tout supprimer ce que j'ai importé sur wikimedia Commons sans même m'en parler...J'avais posté quelque part que j'avais l'autorisation du propritétaire de ces images...Ce n'est pas gentil de votre part... --Oasisk 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no license information on the images. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

warning on one of my photos

Hi,

Thanks for telling me the status of one of the images I uploaded. You say that it does not state who created the work, but I stated clearly in the description "Photo by Pete Forsyth" (which is me.) I assume that there is a different way I'm supposed to report it, but I don't understand what that is. Can you help me understand? (If possible, please reply on my Wikipedia talk page.)

-Peteforsyth 10:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:San Bernardino alle ossa - Ossuary

You were right. I moved the item to the correct category. Thank you for your assistance. --G.dallorto 15:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Thank YOU -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:RangerMotorwelt.jpg

Wie man den Dateiversionen entnehmen kann, habe nicht ich, sondern User:Mieguy das Bild hochgeladen. --Thomas doerfer 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Das script fügt die message immer auf der Diskussionsseite der letzten Dateiversion ein, und die stammt von Dir. -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Da sollte man den Bot aber etwas anders programmieren. Häufig hat der letzte Bearbeiter ja nichts mit dem Hochlader zu tun, und damit wird ein falscher Verdacht auf diesen gelenkt. Korrekterweise sollten eigentlich bloß die Hochlader von Bildern angeschrieben werden, da sie die einzigen sind, die verwertbare Lizenzinformationen liefern können. --Mazbln 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Habe bisher tausende Bilder wegen fehlender Lizenzen markiert. Das war bisher das erste mal. Und man sollte natürlich auch nur Dinge bearbeiten, die ordentlich lizensiert sind. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yong'an_Temple.JPG

I noted that I took the picture and the date that I took it in the description in English as well as some information in Chinese. Note, I only log on to this account when I have pictures to upload. Communication to me on English Wikipedia is more effective. Ludahai 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was no license information. -- Rüdiger Wölk 07:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deine Mithilfe

Hallo! Ich möchte mich nochmal abschlißend bei dir für deine Mithilfe bei der Umkategorisierung der Kategorien für die deutschen Städte und Gemeinde danken. Eine Zuordnung nach Bundesland war überfällig. Mein nächstes Projekt ist jedenfalls die Vervollständigung der ich glaube 323 Landkreis-Kategorien. Wenn das erledigt ist, mache ich auch bei der Erstellung weiterer Stadt-/Gemeinde-Kategorien mit. Gruß--Borheinsieg 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

wenn es mir die Zeit erlaubt, dann will ich abgleichen, ob zumindest die in der Liste der deutschen Städte aufgeführten Orte eine Kategorie einrichtet ist. Nebenbei könnte ich ja bei den Landkreisen helfen. Wie schaut es aus mit der Bezeichnung? Sollte es eine Überkategorie Landkreis in Deutschland geben? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Die gibt es: Category:Districts of Germany. Die Bezeichnung einfach wie in der deutschen Wikipedia: im Normalfall Landkreis XY, für NRW und Schleswig-Holstein Kreis XY. Die anderen Bezeichnungen wie Wartburgkreis übernehmen wir natürlich auch. Für Thüringen habe ich das ganze schonmal komplett neu hochgezogen (siehe Category:Districts in Thuringia), die Ortskategorien da reinsortiert und es wurden auch noch Unterkategorien für die Wappen erstellt.--Borheinsieg 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wenn ich neue Ortskategorien anlege, dann werde ich versuchen dran zu denken, die auch gleich passend einzusortieren. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Districts of Germany? und dann als Unterkategorien gibt es sowohl in als auch of. Welches ist denn die korrekte version? -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ich glaube, of ist besser, da districts auch Stadt-/Ortsteil heißen kann. Of hört sich eher nach einer konkreten Unterteilung des jeweiligen Bundeslands in eine bestimmte Anzahl von "Objekten" an. Werde das bei Gelegenheit umbiegen oder Verschiebeantrag stellen.--Borheinsieg 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

schaut man bei den Englischen kategroein, dann heist es dort z.B. Counties of England und im Englischen Wiki gibt es eine Kategorie Districts of North Rhine-Westphalia. Das dürfte die Korrekte Info sein. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe mal die NRW-landkreise durch den Bot verschieben lassen. Und auch mal den Kopf aus dem englischen wiki kopiert. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Super. Am Besten mache ich da auch mal Aufträge für das Entfernen des ", Germany". Diese Navileiste könntest du natürlich auch für die Kreis-Galerien wie Hochsauerlandkreis verwenden, wo die aus dem Deutschen kopierte ist. Dann müsstest du einfach Template:Districts in North Rhine-Westphalia mit deiner Leiste überschreiben.--Borheinsieg 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Als Admin kannst ja den Bot direkt beauftragen. Und der läuft z.Z. auch extrem schnell. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ich weiß, ist auch schon passiert.--Borheinsieg 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ich bin beeindruckt: So schnell läuft auf de.wikipedia aber kein Bot. Drei Minuten nach dem Verschiebe-Auftrag sind schon über 200 Dateien umsortiert.--Borheinsieg 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ja eben. nur wenn weniger als 5 Unterkategrorien oder Bilder zu verscheieben sind mache ich mir nicht die Mühe. Aber wirklich toll ist es, wenn man z.b. bei den duplikaten löschen will und dann die Nutzung der Bilder in den weltweiten wikis auf das Duplikat verschieben will. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cochabamba.jpg

Hi.

I took myself the above image. I have added the copyrigth status so I think you can remove the tag "Unknown as of 8 March 2007" (I do not know if I can do it by myself)

Regards. --Elemaki 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:800px-Berezhany 143.jpg

It is clearly stated that the author of image is me (Roman zacharij). It is plainly clear speciefied in the line author. Hence your "threat" to delete it is groundless. Next time you should look more carefully at the image information before making conclusions. If not your repeated lack of professionality will be reported and administration status removed. As I see that you have done similiar mistakes before.

--Roman Zacharij 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no License Tag on the image so it was not a mistake to tag this image. Please add a license tag! -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi Wolk, I need some help about the pictures. Can we discuss that on my discussion page, please? Thanks Zeke 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename a image

Hallo Rüdiger,

Some months ago I failed to place the correct christian name of the person in the following image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AleksandrChait1993.jpg Now I corrected the name in the description of this image, but the name of the image is still misleading. Any chance to deal with?--RainerStaudte 12:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The names of inamges can't be renamed. Please upload the image again with the correct name. After that the old image can be deleted. -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin-Lösch-Problem

Hallo Rüdiger,

Du bist mir schon mal als besonnener Zeitgenosse aufgefallen, als Du eines der von mir hochgeladenen Bilder - gemäß der hier geltenden strengen Richtlinien wohl zu Recht - gelöscht hast. Deshalb hier meine Anfrage bezüglich eines Problems mit user:Cool Cat (ein Admin), der gerade seine Löschanträge nach dem Gießkannenprinzip über die Abbildungen von Geldscheinen und -stücken ausschüttet. Ich kann leider zu schlecht Englisch, um meine Einwände im Einzelfall deutlich und gleichzeitig höflich vorzubringen. Daher meine Bitte um Unterstützung, vielleicht kannst das eine oder andere Argument auch mal unter den Admins ansprechen.

Prinzipiell ist ja richtig, dass die Lizenzsachen großflächig überprüft werden und zweifelhafte Dinge gelöscht werden. Nicht gut ist es aber, wenn ohne Rückfrage

• einfach kategorienweise Löschanträge gestellt werden,
• weil vielleicht die Lizenz nicht ganz richtig gewählt wurde (ist im Einzelfall recht schwierig),
• dabei falsche generalisierende Behauptungen ohne Begründung in den raum gestellt werden, wie z.B. Money of Montenegro is copyrighted -- Cat chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• ohne das spezielle Problem irgendwie zu durchdenken
• ohne die juristisch-historische Situation des betreffenden Landes auch nur im Ansatz zu kennen.

Von einem Admin erwarte ich da mehr Fingerspitzengefühl, im Speziellen:

• eine Voranfrage an den Uploader
• eine Begründung von Behauptungen

Konkret geht es z.B. um Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Montenegro (2007-03-25): Kurzes Nachdenken hätte ergeben, 1. dass dieser Staat vor 1918 wohl kein Urheberrecht hatte, 2. dass die Bildrechte im Zweifel einem Staat gehörten, der keine Rechtskontinuität zum heutigen Montenegro aufweist 3. dass Abbildungen wie z.B. Image:20Perper(Montenegro).jpg noch nicht einmal schutzwürdigen Inhalt haben. (Gebrauchsgrafik)

Auf seiner Diskussionsseite schreibt Cool Cat: I am mass nominating practically every money image on wikipedia. A good number will be deleted, some will be kept. This is an overall cleanup on an area most over-looked. Das halte ich für völlig überzogen, insbesondere bei untergegangenen Staaten entsteht da nur unnötige Arbeit und/oder mehrere Leute, die vom Sachverhalt keine Ahnung haben, fangen an darüber zu diskutieren.

Wie gesagt ich wünsche mir, dass derartige Probleme mal auf Adminebene diskutiert werden, dass es sich die Admins versagen Massenanträge zu stellen, ohne den Sachverhalt zu kennen. Leider weiß ich nicht, wo und wie ich das hier auf Commons adäquat ins Gespräch bringe. Wie auch immer Du reagierst. Danke, dass Du meinen Kommentar bis zum Schluss gelesen hast. --Decius 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ui, das ist ja wirklich ein schwieriger Fall. Schon die Diskussionsseite von diesem Admin ist ja schwer zu überschauen. Schriftarten usw. Ich werde als erstes mal auf der passenden Diskussionsseite gegen die Löschung votieren. Leider ist mein Englisch auch für solche Diskussionen zu schlecht :-(.... Vielleicht kann die aber (auch was die Fragen zum Urheberschutz angeht) der User Historiograf weiterhelfen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rémy Zaugg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:MuensterLudgeriplatz242.jpg zeigt folgende Bildunterschrift:

Münster, Germany, Ludgeriplatz - Ochse und Pferd - Rémy Zaugg: Bronzeskulpturen „Knecht mit Pferd“ und „Magd mit Stier“ Skulptur.Projekte 1987

Deutsch: Bronzegruppen Knecht mit Pferd und Magd mit Stier von Karl Hans Bernewitz am Ludgeriplatz in Westfalen (Münster)

Laut http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hans_Bernewitz ist das Werk von diesem, was glaubhaft ist. Wie entsteht der Zusammenhang zu Zaugg bzw. wie begründet sich die unterschiedliche Betitelung? --Werner Popken 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rémy Zaugg versetzte die vorhandenen Bronzeskulpturen „Knecht mit Pferd“ und „Magd mit Stier“ wieder an den Eingang der Stadt an die Bundesstraße 54. Dort hatten sie um 1912 die in die Stadt zum Markt ziehende Landbevölkerung begrüßt. Heute heißen sie Besucher der Stadt am Eingang des großen Kreisverkehrs am Ludgeriplatz willkommen. Die Umsetzung löste heftige Debatten über die historische Identität der Stadt aus und über die Eingriffe, die die Moderne vorgenommen hat, besonders als bekannt wurde, dass der ursprüngliche Aufstellungsort durch zahlreiche Verschiebungen in Vergessenheit geraten war. Der Künstler hat also aus den alten Bronzegruppen ein neues Kunstwerk geschaffen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

urban priol

hallo!

ich bin gerade über das oben angesprochene bild bzw. dessen löschung gestolpert. ich habe keine ahnung, wie die bildbeschreibungsseite genau aussah, aber deine lösch-argumentation ("I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media ... If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it") geht ziemlich ins leere. der kommentar beim upload war eindeutig "Urban Priol, Bild selbst erstellt". bitte stelle das bild also wieder her oder - wenn dir das trotzdem nicht reicht - nehme doch einfach mal mit de:Benutzer:Lipstar kontakt auf. der benutzer ist nämlich auf de.wp sehr aktiv, auf commons schaut er aber offensichtlich so gut wie nie vorbei.

--JD {æ} 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Da fehlete die Lizenzangabe. Unter welcher Lizenz soll das hier veröffentlicht werden. Wenn ich diese Info habe ist die Wiederherstellung machbar. -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

wieso soll da nun die lizenzangabe gefehlt haben? laut deines bausteins war (dir) doch eher quelle/urheber unklar!? auf alle fälle habe ich vor einiger zeit damit eine bearbeitete version des gelöschten bilds hochgeladen und diese auch unter gfdl gestellt – ich müsste mich da wirklich schon arg täuschen, wenn das original von lipstar nicht selbst schon unter gfdl gestanden haben sollte; schließlich bin ich in sachen lizenzen und co nicht gerade der letzte heuler, sondern doch schon ziemlich aware.

stelle das ding doch einfach noch mal komplett her und mache - so denn wirklich etwas fehlen sollte, was mich wundern würde - den uploader auf de.wp darauf aufmerksam. --JD {æ} 10:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

hallo!? --JD {æ} 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Habe es wieder hergestellt, wenn nun innerhalb von 7 Tagen eine Lizenz ergänzt wird, dann ist es ja ok. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Source

Hello Rüdiger Wölk; Solo hablo español, and very poor english, i'm sorry; i was found the image here: http://www.photoreportage.gr/photoDetail.asp?ID=5139&folderID=True according with the webpage, "The photographs are been disposed free of charge by the photographer for use and publication." (in greek language), but if it is used, requiered that the name of photographer must be reported. Ok, the problem is that the webpage send the photos in good quality by email, but they same not reported the photographer name there (in the space for the photographer name is not mentioned) Babel fish translation: "The photographs are been disposed free of charge by the photographer for use and publication. If the photograph it is published we request is reported the name of photographer." http://www.photoreportage.gr/terms.htm Page for register like member: http://www.photoreportage.gr/newUser.asp

Do you can help me? i'm not speak your language, English, and not Greek too; I try to do a good effort for will put the image correctly, if it is possible.

Regards

PS: I have the photographer name now.

--Anders-H 06:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So it is easy to ask him. -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask is easy, but so how i know if the image will not deleted again? Anders-H 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I question if you can help me for that the image is correctly with the necessary info; and that it not be deleted again. Thanks.Anders-H 07:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The best way is, that you get an email from the photographer, that his pictures can be used. This should be added as information on the description page. -- Rüdiger Wölk 09:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Anders-H 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How to e-mail you ?

Hello, I'm a french journalist and I would like to ask you something about one of your photographs. how could I e-mail you ? Do I have to be connected ? Thanks for helping me to join you ! MG.

Use rudiger.wolk @ gmail.com -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Call to arms

Hi Rüdiger Wölk. I write to you and all other users listed on the Welcome log helpers list, except for EugeneZelenko this Call to arms. The reason for it is that I have seen very little activity on the project by you. Because of this we have most probably failed to check the contributions of thousands of new users and have not been able to inform them of the practices on Wikimedia Commons in a timely fashion, causing more work for us and the contributor later in the process.

I would like to urge you to make a habit of checking at least 10 or so new user's contributions from the Commons:Welcome log each day you are active here. We welcome about 200 new users with contributions each day and we currently have 19 users on the helpers list. You can find links to some helpful scripts on the welcome log page, that are likely to make your life a lot easier. If there are no users to be checked that have been welcomed today, please attend to a previous log. Thank you for your renewed attention. Cheers! Siebrand 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'll assume since you reverted your edit that you changed your mind.

May I ask what prompted you to think I was 'experimenting'? Lsi john 13:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake from me, that was NO message for you and so I delete it one moment later. Sorry! -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schleienloecher2-1- B.jpg

Sorry, I forgot the licence template when I uploaded the edit. It's done now.Vassil 10:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This is a nice picture! I like it. and I have take the tag away. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sericinus Image

Thanks. I forgot to License. This is my own photograph from a collection which I curate.I fixed the license. I hope coorectly Best wishes from Ireland Robert (Nash) Notafly

Thanks for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo author= Mo707

Here is the mark which shows who is the photo author. Thank you for your attention. --Mo707 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo Rachida dati

Hello,
I read your mail carefully about the picture I uploaded. I made changes by providing further information but still need help to know if all is ok. Here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rachida_dati.jpg

Let me say that I found that picture on the website of the author, and ask him the permission with the contract I found on Commons ( I mailed it at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as I was requested to do it). He agreed, send me the contract back with a license chosen.

1.I uploaded the same picture under a second name (Rachida Dati =wrong pic, Rachida dati = good pic) by mystake. I added the tag {duplicate|Image:example.jpg} to the wrong pic because I could not find how to delete it right away. Is that how I must proceed ?

2. I could not find the license chose by the author on commons tag. This is Attribution 3.0 Unported. So I just wrote that down with the link to the license page in Commons. Is that sufficient ?

3. I paste the author authorization in the description page of my picture (this is this text that I mailed at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the way). I dont think this is how it must be done...

4. I have some info about the place and date of the caption, how can I write that down ? You can see what I did is not of the best lay-out.

Thanks for your help
Charliecorgan 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rnault_Master_001.jpg

Hello. I thank for your advice. However, I hope for the deletion of these files. Good-bye. --Tennen-Gas 2:11, August 2007 (UTC)

This image shoul be deleted? -- Rüdiger Wölk 07:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Betr: Commons:Freizeitpark Lochmühle

Hi, bitte lösche dieses Lemma Lochmühle. Ich persönlich habe es aus Versehen eingerichtet und bemerkt, dass es bereits eine Cat dazu gibt. Sorry. Gruß. --Peng 09:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WAr schon erledigt. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, aber der andere hatte einige Zeit nicht reagiert. Danke. --Peng 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Betr.: Image:Abbruch 001.jpg

Bitte Löschen. Der Titel ist absolut irreführend und ich lade es unter Bremthal wieder hoch. Danke im Voraus. --Peng 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Und weg ist der abbruch. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ComicVenezia Rialto 0621.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:ComicVenezia Rialto 0621.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--User:G.dallorto 03:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates still in use

Hi Rudiger. Please try to not delete duplicates before confirming that they have been orphaned. If you delete images that are still used, User:CommonsDelinker will start to remove the red links everywhere within the 700+ Wikimedia wikis 10 minutes after deleting it. We have nice tools to make sure that images are orphanded, and if at first automatic replacements and a retry do not succeed, please try to manually replace before deleting. See here for three images you deleted before being orphaned. Tools: CommonsDupes. Cheers! Siebrand 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that, but I knew this tools and I have use it! -- Rüdiger Wölk 11:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochmal löschen, bitte

Hi, Rüdiger. Eine erneute Bitte um Löschung. Die beiden Bilder Image:Uerdingertorstendal1.jpg und Image:Tangermündertor1.jpg wurden einst von mir verwechselt und auch noch falsch geschrieben. Da gabs immer mal Hickhack mit anderen, die sich an der Überschrift störten, obwohl sie im Text korrekt beschrieben waren. Um dem aus dem Weg zu gehen, habe ich sie nun erneut hochgeladen, diesmal unter richtigem Namen. Deswegen können die alten gelöscht werden. Vielen Dank. --Peng 11:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

habe ich eben erledigt. -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Muenster Kirkeby Backstein 6737.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Muenster Kirkeby Backstein 6737.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Fingalo 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Da gilt aber die deutsche Panoramafreiheit. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Badname on Haggadah Cover

Hi - I had provisionally uploaded this image, actually a scan of a booklet I have in my possession, but I had no information on the copyright limitation. I later found the copyright owner (JCCA in the US) and asked for permission; this was granted with too many limitations, not compatible with GFDL, so I tagged as bad - incorrectly, I admit, it should have been tagged for deletion. As simple as that, and I apologize for the late reply - It's some time I do not check my talk on Commons... --Ub 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fototour

Hallo Rüdiger!

Man liest ja nicht mehr viel von dir auf de.wp. So beschäftigt? ;) Deshalb frage ich auch mal hier nach, ob du noch ab und an Fototouren durch Münster und Umgebung machst. Ich bräuchte wohl noch Fotos vom Waldfriedhof Lauheide, Kreuzschanze und Kanonengraben. Falls du dort mal mit Kamera vorbeikommst, könntest du ja mal ein paar Fotos machen. --STBR 08:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ja, sehr beschäftigt :-) zum Glück. Und was das schönste ist, mit fotografieren. Ganz viel Münster. Und Münsterland. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Guck mal, diese Fotos waren von mir: Petra -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Schöne Bilder, trotz bescheidenem Wetter. Aber falls du mal wieder bei besagten Orten vorbeikommst, könntest du ja mal ein paar Bildchen machen. --STBR 12:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ja gerne doch. Sag mal, was stellst Du Dir denn bei der kreusschanze so vor? -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also schön wäre natürlich irgendetwas, wo man einen guten Gesamtüberblick bekommt. Und das Denkmal für Annette von Droste-Hülshoff fehlt noch. BTW: Was hälst du von Image:MuensterLambertikircheDirektesSonnenlicht.jpg? War vorhin zufällig in der Stadt und die Sonne schien direkt im flachen Winkel genau durch den Prinzipalmarkt auf die Lambertikirche. --STBR 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sehr schönes Bild. Um diese Jahreszeit ist es ja extrem schwierig mal nicht alles schattig zu haben. Und die Passanten auf dem Bild stellen die Situation auf dem Prinzipalmarkt auch sehr gut dar. Leider sind die Fotos hier bei wikipedia ja immer so menschenleer. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hatte gerade Glück, dass sich vor mir da eine Lücke aufgetan hat. Dann es war gestern einfach brechend voll! --STBR 14:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jemand mit Verständnisproblem

Hallo!

Mal ein anderes Thema: Hier scheint wohl jemand ein Verständnisproblem zu haben, dass man solche Freigaben nicht einfach zurückziehen kann. Offensichtlich dreht er jetzt etwas ab, nachdem er in de.wp ein paar DÜP-Warnungen bekommen hat. Könntest du als Commons-Admin da mal einschreiten? --STBR 13:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Da ist ja nun gar keine Lizenz mehr.... -- Rüdiger Wölk 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ich bitte, ausnahmslos alle meine bei Wikipedia hochgeladenen Bilder wegen zweifelhafter Lizenzangaben unverzüglich zu löschen. Dazu setze ich hiermit Frist bis zum 9. Januar d.J. LeSch 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dann bitte ich die Bilder entsprechend zu markieren und dann werden die von einem Admin gelöscht. Aber mal eine 'Frage, warum sind die Lizenzangaben denn zweifelhaft? Und die Fristsetzung irriteirt mich etwas. -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nach den insbesondere auf meiner Seite stattgefunden Diskussionen über Urheberrechte, bei denen jeder etwas anderes glaubhaft zu machen versucht, kann sich nach menschlichem Ermessen niemand seiner Sache sicher sein, so dass jedes Hochladen einer Bilddatei mit dem Risiko verbunden ist, dass die Datei unter Hinweis auf urheberrechtliche Probleme gleich wieder zur Löschung ansteht. Eine Frist setzt der Jurist, um die Gegenseite in Verzug zu bringen, was hier zur Folge hat, dass ich für die Aufrechterhaltung des möglicherweise rechtswidrigen Zustandes nicht mehr verantwortlich gemacht werden kann. – Wie und mit was markiert man die Bilder? Dann mache ich das selbst. LeSch 09:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Diskussionen auf Deiner Seite? Da sehe ich nur die Hinweise, dass die von Dir eingestellten Bilder keine Lizenzinformationen enthalten. Wenn die Bilder mit dem Passenden Lizenzbaustein versehen sind und ie Informationen zum Urheber enthalten ist das doch gar kein Problem. -- Rüdiger Wölk 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Beim Bild Image:Friedhof Erkelenz 01.jpg ist das doch bestens. -- Rüdiger Wölk 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Rüdiger Wölk

Übrigens zum Thema Fristsetzung. Ich sehe mich hier nicht als Gegenseite. Ich bin hier auch nur ein Normaler Mitstreiter, als Admin mit etwas mehr "Knöpfen" ausgestattet. Wenn es um den Betreiber der Seite geht, dann kann ich Dir nur die Wikimedia Foundation Inc. in St. Petersburg, FL, USA nennen. -- Rüdiger Wölk 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

image:Cl 0024+17 galaxy cluster HST.jpg

Hello! Why have you deleted image Cl_0024+17_galaxy_cluster_HST.jpg? Was something wrong with the license? --Winiar^✉ 09:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to check the reason. --Winiar^✉ 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Muenster Tor ProjektVierTore 7117.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Muenster Tor ProjektVierTore 7117.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Sorry for that. I've deleted the copyvio template on the file. Thanks for adding the FOP template. Sorry again. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Could use your help...

On User:OsamaK/dupes we have a few thousand fresh duplicate pairs ready and waiting for tagging... Please help out if you can... Make sure to compare license and author information, and transfer if needed before tagging. Thanks! Siebrand 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seelterlound in Europa.png

Hello, as good as I can see, you were the one to remove this file. It is used, however, on our page stq:Haudsiede. You are right in mentioning that a remark about that failed on the description. I expected such remarks to appear automatically. Might something be wrong in case of stq:? We would be very thankfull if you could find out. Greetings, --Pyt 13:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was marked as a duoe of Image:Seelterlound in Europe.png please use this image. -- Rüdiger Wölk

Thank you; I changed it. But isn't there a system that automatically should warn us as well as whom plans to remove an image? --Pyt 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally there is a system that a dupe image is replaced by the new image. But I think it do not work on protected pages. -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help by deleting my error. Your help keeping Commons tidy is much appreciated. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

vou are welcome :-) -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Betr.:Image:Heimlichco.jpg

Hi, ich bins seit langer Zeit wieder mal. Jemand Unbekannter hat einen LA zu diesem Bild gestellt und hier auch gleich eine Kategorie dazu eröffnet. Seltsam. Das Foto stammt 1. von mir, ist 2. eine Spielsituation und 3. nicht copyrighted. Würdest du so nett sein und schauen , was da zu machen ist ? Wird die Category:Incomplete deletion requests eigentlich automatisch abgearbeitet ? Ich danke dir im Voraus. Gruß --Peng (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wenn ich das auf den ersten Blick am frühen Morgen richtig sehe, dann ist für diesen Löschungsantrag zwar dieser "Baustein" bei dem Bild gesetzt, die zum abarbeiten notwendigen weiteren Schritte fehlen, deshalb ist das unter "Incomplete" aufgelistet. Schreibe doch einfach Deine Gegenargumente gegen eine Löschung. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

dupes.js

Could you please repair your script or should it be deleted as dupe since it was added to that category? -- Cecil (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Please can you help me, I havn't changed the script. Why is the scipt added to the category. It should not deleted!. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gerade erst den deutschen Sprachbabel bemerkt. Ich vermute, dass sich im Hintergrund eine der im Skript verwendeten Funktionen etwas verändert hat und daher nun in die Kategorie gesteckt wird. Du warst ja nicht der Einzige, bei dem der Fehler aufgetreten ist. Ich bin, was Javascript betrifft, nicht gerade gut drauf, vielleicht kann dir ja Benutzer:OsamaK helfen. Er hattte das Problem auch und es so gelöst. -- Cecil (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke, dann werde ich mich heute abend mal dran setzen. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ploubazlenec

Achtung

Das Bild Category:Ploubazlenec ist auf Commons:Löschanträge gemeldet. Falls du der Meinung bist, dass das Bild nicht gelöscht werden sollte, stimme auf der Löschantragseite des Bildes mit ab.

--Pymouss Tchatcher - 14:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Have deleted the category. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

File:GiantPoolBalls.jpg

---

Hello! Thank you for uploading File:GiantPoolBalls.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. I have noticed that the version you uploaded is a thumbnail, while a larger version is available. Please upload the full version of the image. Thank you,

Yarnalgo (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a cropped version used for my user-page. When you need a original version of this picture you should use the original. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, will check the page. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Thuraya_01.jpg

Bonjour, Il s'agit d'un travail personnel . . . pour la licence vos pouvez mettre la licence la plus large possible . . . Désolé mais je ne parle ni n'ecrit l'anglais --Taguelmoust (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Thuraya_01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 05:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Rüdiger Wölk!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Africaracebuggy.jpg is uncategorized since 14 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Africaracederooy.jpg is uncategorized since 14 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Yamebandiacrue.jpg is uncategorized since 20 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Logopeperkampot.gif was uncategorized on 14 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Image:LogoIGPcambodia.jpg was uncategorized on 14 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Poivre kampot02.jpg was uncategorized on 14 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Poivre kampot01.jpg was uncategorized on 14 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Erstaunlich, da ist nix von mir -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Rüdiger_Wölk/H 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived. 'Archiv 1: 04 September 2005 - 19 November 2006

{{[[Template:User:MiszaBot/config |User:MiszaBot/config ]]}}

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Start a new talk topic.

---

So that it is easier to follow a discussion, I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page, I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Rüdiger Wölk!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Zentralfriedhof,Schubert,Franz.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Muenster Ueberwasserkirche 5955.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Muenster Ludgeri 5923.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Muenster DEK Hafen 7236.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Muenster Ludgeri 5911.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Muenster Stadttheater (81).JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Berlin Johannes Rau Grab 7133 14.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Zentralfriedhof,Suppe,Franz,von.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Muenster Ludgeri 5919.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

De-adminship warning

Deutsch | Español | Italian

Dear Rüdiger Wölk/H 2. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you abf «Cabale!» 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am back -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Small Confusion

Hello, My group and I have made a Wikipedia page about our school and today we saw that some people go online and start deleting our pictures, one of the people were you. So, if it isn't that hard, can you PLEASE explain the reason why you deleted the picture that we spend so much effort on? I hope you understand. We are Secondary students from Tashkent International School and this is our first Wikipedia page, so there were things that we had a lot of trouble on and one of these things were images and we would be really thankful if people wouldn't just delete them. Thanks and please explain the reason you did this. and answer us on our Tashkent International School page or to bnikita@tashschool.org

Sincerely, KANNN Thank you

You can read the reason on your User talk page "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." -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Notifying you of an image removal under the DMCA

An image that you uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MuensterGiantPoolBalls255.jpg was removed based on the receipt of a takedown notice made pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512 (the “DMCA”). The Wikimedia Foundation (“WMF”) takes alleged copyright infringement very seriously and carefully examines each takedown notice received and the image in question for compliance with U.S. copyright law. This image was one of 59 photographs included in a DMCA takedown notice received by WMF of various publicly-installed sculptures around the world created by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen.

Some of these sculptures are located in countries that recognize “freedom of panorama” for sculptures, while others are not. Currently, U.S. copyright law does not recognize freedom of panorama for works of art, such as sculptures, and thus the copyright holder of a sculpture has the right to exclude others from publishing images of that sculpture, so long as it still enjoys copyright protection. While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights.

WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork so that more people can experience beautiful and thought-provoking works of art that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist, including U.S. copyright law, conflict of law principles, and the DMCA.

What can you do?

If you want to express your support for the extension of freedom of panorama to works of art (and you are a resident of the United States), you can write your U.S. senators and/or representative.

If you feel that this particular image does not infringe the alleged copyright holder’s rights, you can contest the takedown notice by submitting a “counter-notice” to us. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you submit a counter-notice, the alleged copyright holder can stop us from restoring the content by suing you. Please note that WMF will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter-notice, and that WMF is unable to provide you with legal advice.

More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:

• http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq
• https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
• http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/

Filing a Counter-Notice

If you choose to submit a counter-notice, you must send a letter to legal@wikimedia.org asking WMF to restore this image. The letter must comply with DMCA standards and must contain the following:

• A link to where the content was before we took it down;
• A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you believe the content was taken down mistakenly;
• Your name, address, and phone number;
• If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; or if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where I can be found”; and finally,
• Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, WMF must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter-notice and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter-notice. We will restore this image within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days, provided that the alleged copyright holder does not give notice of suit to restrain re-posting of the material. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notifying you of an image removal under the DMCA

Some images that you uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muenster_6052.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muenster_6053.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muenster_6041.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muenster_6055.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muenster_6047.jpg were removed based on the receipt of a takedown notice made pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512 (the “DMCA”). The Wikimedia Foundation (“WMF”) takes alleged copyright infringement very seriously and carefully examines each takedown notice received and the image in question for compliance with U.S. copyright law. This image was one of 59 photographs included in a DMCA takedown notice received by WMF of various publicly-installed sculptures around the world created by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen.

Some of these sculptures are located in countries that recognize “freedom of panorama” for sculptures, while others are not. Currently, U.S. copyright law does not recognize freedom of panorama for works of art, such as sculptures, and thus the copyright holder of a sculpture has the right to exclude others from publishing images of that sculpture, so long as it still enjoys copyright protection. While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights.

WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork so that more people can experience beautiful and thought-provoking works of art that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist, including U.S. copyright law, conflict of law principles, and the DMCA.

What can you do?

If you want to express your support for the extension of freedom of panorama to works of art (and you are a resident of the United States), you can write your U.S. senators and/or representative.

If you feel that this particular image does not infringe the alleged copyright holder’s rights, you can contest the takedown notice by submitting a “counter-notice” to us. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you submit a counter-notice, the alleged copyright holder can stop us from restoring the content by suing you. Please note that WMF will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter-notice, and that WMF is unable to provide you with legal advice.

More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:

• http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq
• https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
• http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/

Filing a Counter-Notice

If you choose to submit a counter-notice, you must send a letter to legal@wikimedia.org asking WMF to restore this image. The letter must comply with DMCA standards and must contain the following:

• A link to where the content was before we took it down;
• A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you believe the content was taken down mistakenly;
• Your name, address, and phone number;
• If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; or if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where I can be found”; and finally,
• Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, WMF must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter-notice and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter-notice. We will restore this image within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days, provided that the alleged copyright holder does not give notice of suit to restrain re-posting of the material. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)