User talk:Wo st 01
Discussion involving one of your photosEdit
Mit der Koordinatenvorlage gibt es zurzeit ein unbekanntes Problem: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Broken_location_template. Bitte das "Abrunden" unterlassen, es hat wohl nichts mit dem Bug zu tun, führt aber evtl. zu falschen Positionsangaben. Danke --A.Savin 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ja, danke für den Hinweis, dass hatte ich dann auch bemerkt und meine Bemühungen eingestellt. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 07:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Cefaly-migraine.jpg > speedy deletion ??Edit
Could you explain why you marked this : File:Cefaly-migraine.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. ? This file is ours and we share it with a Creative Commons. do you think i need to adapt the CC conditions for this file ?
- pretty easily explained: Did you personally press the button of the camera? Most likely you did not. The person who took the picture is unsually the rightful owner of the picture. You (or your company) may have a permission to use this picture. However, did the owner agree that you share the picture unter a free license? As a consequence, everybody in the world may use this picture for free (even commercially), i.e. there will be no further royalties for the photographer. Did you consider this? In order to use the pic on Commons, you need to declare that you own the right to allow a free use of this picture, see COM:OTRS for further details. Regards, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 16:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Well… next time it will be better to first ask explaination and avoid the speed deletion mark !
Because, now the file is already gone. We actually have the complete rights on this picture. It's a picture destined to a broadband diffusion. So yes we can choose to distribute a low res version for free use on Wikipedia. It is up to us to decide what we can do with it. We didn't knew the way to declare the rights. I will take a look later.
Did you consider this before putting speed deletion mark on it ?
--Ost (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I did consider this, knowing a deletion can be reversed. But thsi is the wrong question: Did you consider reading about how to license images before uploading the picture? -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanck you for your answer
Ok, I read about how to license images. But as I told, I'm not sure to be entirely consistent on that matter. I need to find out and to discuss or take advice on this point. And i need the time to do so ... The deletion was immediate (less than 24h), I have not even had time to check and take corrective action. It was under a Creative Commons licence and we own the rights on the original picture. The picture was in place since January 2011 with no problem. I followed the same procedure as for my own contributions, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ov-beaune-hotel-dieu.jpg
It is not the only bad question, if you like the right question ! Another good question is why no one give us time to complete a constructive discussion on the file's page before the immediate deletion ?
--Ost (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Wo st 01. Könntest du bitte deine Vorlage so ändern, dass keines deiner Bilder in Category:Template:en with no text displayed landet? Aktuell ist beispielsweise File:2010-06-11 Bo105 D-HTDM EDDB 01.jpg dort drin. --Leyo 16:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Leyo, danke für die Info. Das ist mir gar nicht aufgefallen. Ich habe jetzt mal etwas geändert, kann allerdings nicht einschätzen, ob es das Problem behoben hat. Gruß, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 19:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Die Änderung an der Vorlage hat anscheinend nichts gebracht, wohl aber die Änderung an der Bildseite selbst. Weshalb dort nicht „n/a“ angezeigt wurde/wird, verstehe ich nicht. --Leyo 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:United Flight 811 view from inside hole.pngEdit
|This media was probably deleted.|
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:United Flight 811 view from inside hole.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
If you created the content yourself, enter
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
- Hi Rlandmann
- I was pretty sure, it was mentioned in the NTSB accident report (PDF). However, I cannot find it. The pic is also used on aviation-safety.net and credited to the NTSB accordingly. I wlill try again tomorrow... -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! The photo is very familiar to me, and I was also sure it was in the report (actually, I checked both versions before I tagged the image), but no luck. The problem is, that aviation-safety.net isn't the NTSB, so we still have no proof that this is an NTSB image (although, like I say, I feel certain that it is. But my feelings aren't proof either!) --10:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Wo st 01, du hattest die Category:D-ACNH (aircraft) erstellt, hast du eine verlässliche Quelle, die besagt das es eine CRJ700 ist? Habe viele Informationen gelesen, die besagen das es eine CRJ900 ist und andere CRJ700. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo Jean11, du hast Recht, es ist eine 900. Gruß, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 18:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wo st 01, I saw you requested images in Category:Hellenbach Tunnel to rename "Hellenberg" to "Hellenbach", but I believe this is incorrect. The Wikipedia articles ([[:nl: Hellenbergtunnel|nl]], de) are speaking about the Hellenbergtunnel insted of the Hellenbachtunnel. Also Google doesn't have any records about Hellenbachtunnel. Could you explain this, please? Thanks, JurgenNL (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed the cat was correct. In fact, the cat should then be renamed or moved accordingly. Thanks. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 08:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Nachnutzung von BildernEdit
ich habe bei Wikipedia folgendes Foto gefunden und würde es gerne für eine Broschüre nutzen. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/2010-07-21_A380_LH_D-AIMB_EDDF_06.jpg
Kann ich bei Ihnen die Nutzungsrechte erwerben? Wir sind ein Hersteller von Entwässerungsrinnen (www.hauraton.com) und beliefern u. a. Flughäfen. Bei einer Flughafenmesse Anfang Oktober in München soll diese Broschüre verwendet werden.
Wäre toll von Ihnen zu hören.
<Klarname, Anschrift und Email-Adresse entfernt>
- ich werde mich spätestens am Montag bei Ihnen melden.
- -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 12:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Deine Bemerkung beim ElchEdit
Der Benutzer meint, die Oberhoheit über Dateinamen zu haben und verschiebt kreuz und quer, was ihm unter die Finger kommt. Auf Diskussionen läßt er sich nicht ein. --Ralf Roleček 12:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hallo Rolf
- habe die beiden Dateien bereits wieder zurückschieben lassen. Auf meine Frage hat er geantwortet. Gruß, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 20:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Das Ärgerliche ist die Nachnutzung, da wird nämlich nichts verschoben. InstantCommons ist was Feines aber so...--Ralf Roleček 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Visa ghana.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.