User talk:HOWI

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 19:55, 27 December 2023 by Xocolatl (talk | contribs) (File:Köln-Theater-Glockengasse-1872.jpg has been nominated for deletion)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 30 days. For the archive overview, see Archive/. The latest archive is located at Archive/2024.


Archive

[edit]

Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, HOWI!
Tip: Add categories to your files
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 05:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


fehlende Kategorie

[edit]

Hallo HOWI, hier File:Babelfield.jpg fehlt noch eine Kategorie?! - Was ist das auch genau? Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Koeln-Geißbockheim-023.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Common Good (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use your image

[edit]

Hi HOWI, I would like to use your photo of the Masai people found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Massai-004.jpg in a textbook. Please email me at mcispl@yahoo.com so I can give you more details. Thank you!

Merheimer Heide

[edit]

Hallo HOWI, beim Lesen des schönen Artikels zur Merheimer Heide meine ich, einige Fehler hinsichtlich der Himmelsrichtungen entdeckt zu haben. Die gezeigte Füßgängerbrücke verläuft mMn über die in die Innenstadt führende B 55a, und zwar laut Stadtplan genau in Nord-Süd-Richtung. Ich habe das in der Bildbeschreibung schon geändert, aber vielleicht sollte ich die Korrekturen doch lieber dem Urheber überlassen. Ich bin mir auch unsicher, was mit "Das Nordende (Schlagbaumsweg) der bis hinter das Autobahnkreuz Köln-Ost reichenden Anlage liegt teilweise östlich der BAB" gemeint ist. Der Reitplatz befindet sich jedenfalls westlich der A3 und nördlich der B55a. Viele Grüße,--95.222.168.184 11:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ja ist OK wenn Du dich da gut auskennst. Danke,--HOWI (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzt eingeloggt: Habe es geändert. Gruß,--95.222.168.184 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Doch nicht eingeloggt, aber egal.--95.222.168.184 11:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Burg-Fischenich-Kreuzberg-bei-Altenahr.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jungsteinzeitliches-Haus-Dachkonstruktion-Modell-Rhein-Landesmuseum-Bonn.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Avron (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jungsteinzeitliches-Haus-Modell-Rhein-Landesmuseum-Bonn.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Avron (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lechenich-St-Kilian-006-Zwiebelturm.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 08:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bastei Köln Neustadt-Nord Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 80.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments at the edge lacking sharpness and bird is bit disturbing, but good for QI and very nice angle of view --Taxiarchos228 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

[edit]
Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−
Dear HOWI,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foto Hauseingang Riehler Str. 51

[edit]

An Howi

Ich fordere Sie hiermit auf das Foto unverzüglich aus dem Internet zu entfernen Sie haben keine Berechtigung mein Eigentum im Internet zu veröffentlichen.

Der Hauseigentümer

Hallo lieber Hauseigentümer (ich kann nicht prüfen, ob Sie das sind, aber ich gehe mal davon aus). Der Fotograf HOWI hat nicht die Möglichkeit, dieses Foto zu löschen.
Mit den Fotografien von Denkmälern möchten wir die Wahrnehmung dieser und das Bewusstsein für erhaltenswerte Gebäude stärken. Keinesfalls wollen wir damit ihr Persönlichkeitsrecht beschneiden. Daher haben wir uns im Vorfeld ausgiebig mit der Rechtslage beschäftigt, die im Zusammenhang mit Google Streetview mehrfach von Gerichten überprüft und bestätigt wurde.
In einem Urteil des LG Köln vom 13. Januar 2010 ( [1] ) heißt es dazu: "Die Veröffentlichung von Fotos eines Wohnhauses stellt keinen Eingriff im das Allgemeine Persönlichkeitsrecht dar, wenn der Name der Bewohner nicht erkennbar ist und dem Betrachter des Fotos bildlich nicht mehr Informationen dargeboten werden, als demjenigen, der selbst durch die Straße geht oder fährt."
Ein "Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache" existiert in Deutschland nicht, wie der BGH in einem Urteil vom 9. März 1989 bestätigte: "Das ungenehmigte Fotografieren eines fremden Hauses und die gewerbliche Verwertung einer solchen Fotografie stellen dann keine Abwehr- und Zahlungsansprüche auslösende Einwirkung auf fremdes Eigentum dar, wenn die Fotografie - ohne daß das Hausgrundstück betreten wird - von einer allgemein zugänglichen Stelle aus angefertigt wird." (sog. Friesenhaus-Urteil, BGH, Urteil vom 9. März 1989, Az.: I ZR 54/87, Verwertung der Fotografie eines Privathauses - Friesenhaus, siehe auch [2])
Ich kann auf dem Bild, auch in der maximalen Vergrößerung, keine persönlichen Gegenstände erkennen; auch kein einziges Namensschild ist lesbar - sonst hätte ich Ihnen das gern entfernt. Wenn Sie weitere Fragen haben, wenden Sie sich bitte an die Mailadresse info-de@wikimedia.org .
Freundliche Grüße
--Superbass (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle von File:Köln-Theater-Schmierstraße-1829.jpg

[edit]

Hallo HOWI, kannst du bei File:Köln-Theater-Schmierstraße-1829.jpg die Quellenangabe verbesssern? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Saibo, ich habe seit 2007 als ich den Scan machte ein paar Tausend Bilder nach Commons hochgeladen und kann Deine Frage beim beten Willen nicht mehr beantworten. Habe jetzt erst festgestellt, dass auch das Datum unrichtig ist und habe es nach dem dazugehörigenArtikeltext abgeändert. Wie Du hier [3] lesen kannst, war das Theater spätestens 1869 abgebrannt.Gruß, --HOWI (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo HOWI, verständlich. na dann hoffen wir mal dass es nicht eine Zeichnung von z.B. 1950 ist. ;-) Dank dir und viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pfarrkirche Sankt Pantaleon Erp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 02:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  Esperanto  español  eesti  français  italiano  മലയാളം  Nederlands  русский  slovenčina  српски (ћирилица)  srpski (latinica)  svenska  Tagalog  українська  +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear HOWI,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 08:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Postkarte-Caritas-Koeln-1935.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo HOWI, Panoramafreiheit ist bei dem Bild nicht wichtig, weil ja kein Kunstwerk/künstlerisches Bauwerk abgebildet ist, dessen Erschaffer noch nicht 70 tot ist.--Tohma (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Tohma, Panoramafreiheit schließt noch eine Menge anderer Sachen mit ein, bzw. macht bestimmte Dinge zur Vorbedingung. Daher, und auf eindringlichen Wunsch des Burgherren, stelle ich die Anträge also nicht ohne Grund. Trotzdem Danke!--HOWI (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Burg-Efferen-Burghof-1090.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Photographer's Barnstar
Schöne Fotos von Koblenz hast du da eingestellt :-) Schängel (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke Dir Schängel, wäre schön wenn sie da oder dort der Aktualisierung dienen würden. Ich werfe ungern bei einem Anderen ein Bild raus, bestenfalls als Retourkutsche oder wenn es obermiserabel ist. Habe übrigens eine Reaktion erwartet, da ich ja recht massiv in "Deinem" Revier wilderte. Werde eventuell noch einen weiteren Tripp an die Mosel mache. Muss aber noch eine Menge schon geschossener Fotos sichten und die Spreu vom Weizen trennen. Gruß, --HOWI (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLM Köln 2013

[edit]

Hallo HOWI, Du hast an den Wiki Loves Monuments-Aktionen Köln in den letzten Jahren teilgenommen. Auch in diesem Jahr gibt es Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), und auch einen Fotowettberweb für Kölner Denkmäler dazu. Hier findest Du alle Informationen rund um WLM-Köln 2013. Zudem freuen wir uns auf einen Besuch am Aktionstag 8. September 2013 (Tag des offenen Denkmals) ab 10.00 Uhr vor dem Kölner Rathaus, wo wir Dir mit Denkmallisten, Rat und Tat zur Seite stehen. Den direkten Link zum Bilderupload für WLM-Köln findest Du hier. Viel Erfolg!

--Superbass (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (Team WLM-Köln)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wittlich, Pfarrkirche St. Markus. Orgelprospekt 1769.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Stanfield

[edit]

Hallo HOWI,

Du hast tolle Fotos im Koblenzer MRM gemacht. Unter anderem auch dieses: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cochem_an_der_Mosel_um_1861.jpg?uselang=de

Leider stimmt die Beschreibung nicht (und ich bezweifle, dass dem Museum ein solcher Fehler passiert ist!?). Es handelt sich bei dem abgebildeten Ort ganz klar NICHT um Cochem, sondern um Beilstein an der Mosel. Die Klosterkirche, die Burgruine sowie Teile der Stadtmauer (insbesodnere der Wehrtumr ganz links im Bild) sind noch heute ungefähr so erhalten wie auf dem Gemälde. Ein Ausflug nach Beilstein lohnt sich im Sommer immer ;-)

Soweit ich weiß, hängt aber AUCH ein Gemälde von Cochem (ebenfalls von Stanfield) im MRM. Hast Du das evtl. auch fotografiert? Es zeigt links das Stadttor mit rechteckigem turm und etwa in der Mitte die Klosteranlage sowie rechts dvaon etwas tiefer die Martinskirche. Konnte es leider nicht in Deiner Übersicht finden. Es wäre ganz großartig, wenn Du dieses Bild auch noch hast!?

Danke und viele Grüße --74albia (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)74albia[reply]

Hallo 74albia,

werde im nächster Zeit erneut das Museum besuchen und der Sache auf den Grund gehen. Ich kenne Cochem nicht, sonst wäre es mir aufgefallen. Dauert aber etwas, bin aus dem Kölner Raun und ohne Auto. Gruß, --HOWI (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given

[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. ~ Nahid Talk 07:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

[edit]

Hallo HOWI,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

Yours sincerely, Krd 05:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Datei-Verschiebung oder -Umbenennung

[edit]

Hallo HOWI,
wenn du, wie besprochen, Fotos mit einem Tippfehler im Dateinamen umbenannt (oder verschoben) haben willst, dann kannst du folgenden Befehl auf der Dateiseite irgendwo einfügen. Du musst lediglich bei 1= den neuen Dateinamen angeben, mit oder ohne File: .

{{Rename |1=|2=5|3=typo|user=HOWI}}


Gruß --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aachener Dom, Krönungsloge für die Ehrengäste im Hochmünster.jpg ist schon von einem anderen korrekt umbenannt worden. Schöne Prespektive, das Foto. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 - Ein Wiki-Beitrag für die Denkmaltopographie

[edit]

Hallo HOWI,

vor zehn Tagen endete der vierte Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments. Du hast daran aktiv teilgenommen und wir möchten Dir dafür herzlich danken.

Mit mehr als 35 Tausend Fotos hat Deutschland wie in den Vorjahren ein gutes Ergebnis erreicht und einen Anteil von 14 % an diesem internationalen Projekt erbracht, an dem sich 40 Länder beteiligten. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl an 651 Teilnehmern allein in Deutschland. Schon zum Abschluss des Wettbewerbs waren rund 6000 Fotos (=17 %) in Listen und Artikel eingebunden. Einen detaillierten Überblick zu den Fotos, den Bundesländern und Teilnehmern findest du auf unserer WLM-Projektseite.

Die deutsche Jury hat nun die eingereichten Beiträge übernommen und ist gegenwärtig dabei, diesen wertvollen Fotobestand zu den Kulturdenkmalen zu sichten. Am nächsten Wochenende wird in Hamburg die entscheidende Jury-Sitzung stattfinden. Wir wünschen auch Dir mit Deinem Foto-Beitrag dabei viel Glück und Erfolg. Du darfst gespannt sein und all Deine Freunde bitten, Dir die Daumen zu drücken.

Die preisgekrönten 100 Gewinner-Fotos werden in der Woche ab dem 20. Oktober veröffentlicht. Auf dieser Grundlage wird auch in diesem Jahr ein Kalender-Poster für 2015 gedruckt werden.

Auf zwei Möglichkeiten einer weiteren aktiven Mitwirkung an unserem Denkmal-Projekt möchten wir bei dieser Gelegenheit hinweisen bzw. Dich dazu einladen:

  • Unsere Freunde in Österreich haben mit einem gerade gestarteten Denkmal-Cup das Editieren von Denkmallisten und Denkmalartikeln in den Focus gerückt. Bis Ende des Jahres kannst Du Punkte sammeln und Preise gewinnen. Dabei geht es mit diesem Wettbewerb nicht nur um Kulturdenkmale in AT oder D, sondern generell um Denkmale in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia, als offen für alle Länder.
WLM-Aktivisten sind herzlich eingeladen, bei der Betreuung des Messestandes sowie in den Gesprächen über Möglichkeiten einer partnerschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit mit den Denkmalbehörden mitzuwirken. Die Reisekosten übernimmt für 8-10 registrierte Standbetreuer WMDE. Es muss nicht der gesamte Messezeitraum sein, auch eine Mitwirkung an 2 Tagen hilft uns, den Beitrag der Wikipedia für die Denkmaltopographie sichtbar zu machen.

Und schließlich gilt: Nach dem Wettbewerb ist vor dem Wettbewerb. Bereits jetzt kann jeder mit der Planung von Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 beginnen. Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross), 11.10.2014

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Blick von den Weinbergen in Höhe Burg Stahleck (Bacharach).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOWI, du hast wohl nur vergessen, deinen üblichen Lizenz-Baustein auf die Bild-Seite zu setzen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis Túrelio, habe die fehlende Image license nachgetragen und den Baustein entfernt. Grüße nach Aachen, --HOWI (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bingen am Rhein, Mäuseturm.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Friedrich-Spee-von-Langenfeld-109.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image needs photographer's license--Jarekt (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Das Foto hatte ursprünglich eine PD-Old-Lizenz, die aber von jemandem durch FOP ersetzt worden ist[4].
@HOWI, da du das Foto aufgenommen und daran das Urheberrecht hast hast, kannst du hier deinen üblichen Lizenzbaustein benutzen. --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Danke an alle Beteiligten, ist nun erledigt.--HOWI (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der WLM-Countdown hat begonnen

[edit]

Hallo HOWI,

nun ist es wieder soweit. Vom 1. bis zum 30. September findet zum fünften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Im Mittelpunkt steht bekanntlich das Fotografieren von Kulturdenkmalen. Du hast an einem der letzten Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen und wir freuen uns auf weitere Bildbeiträge von Dir.

Viele interessante Motive, nicht nur Burgen und Schlösser, sondern auch Fachwerkhäuser, Brücken und Brunnen, technische und Industriedenkmale und vieles mehr gibt es noch zu fotografieren, damit sie in der Wikipedia dokumentiert werden können. Nützliche Tipps findest du auf unserer WLM-Projektseite. Du kannst gerne individuell Fototouren durchführen oder aber Dich auch Gruppentouren anschließen. Besonders freuen wir uns auf Fotos, die Lücken in den Denkmallisten der Wikipedia ausfüllen.

Darüber hinaus kannst Du auch an der Arbeit der Jury teilnehmen, die Mitte Oktober die Fotos bewerten und die Gewinner ermitteln wird. Bis zum 15. August kannst du hier Deine Bewerbung einreichen.

Viel Erfolg und Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia in den bevorstehenden Wettbewerbswochen wünscht Dir das Orga-Team. Wir freuen uns auf Deine Fotos.

( Bernd Gross, 6. August 2015)

Hallo HOWI, zur Information. Das o. g. von Dir fotografierte und von mir bearbeitete Gemälde wurde von der Rhein-Zeitung Neuwied in einem Artikel von Lieselotte Sauer-Kaulbach verwendet, s. hier. Immerhin haben sie „Foto: Wikipedia“ dazugeschrieben, auch wenn im urheberrechtlichen Sinne die Herkunft einer Abbildung eines gemeinfreien Werkes nicht so relevant ist. Viele Grüße von Ras67 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ras67, Damk für deine Aufmerksamkeit und die Mitteilung! Gruß aus der Kölner Bucht,--HOWI (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:St-Kolumba-Köln-0985.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Code (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

Code (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Die Gerichtslinde Walburgisstraße in Walberberg.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completed, thanks.--HOWI (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

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

[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Haseluenne-Wacholderhain

[edit]

Dear HOWI,

we are currently working on a student textbook with the title “Biologie” scheduled to be published in 2019. In addition an electronic version of this book is planned which will be sold to scientific institutions and libraries. In this book we would like to use the following illustration

Haseluenne-Wacholderhain

We want to kindly ask you for the nonexclusive permission to use this material in this and future editions of our book including the electronic version and for the German speaking countries (Germany/Austria/Switzerland). Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Kindest regards--UniDuE Biodiversity (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falsches Bild bei Denkmal Nr. 74, Walberberg, Kitzburger Straße 28

[edit]

Hallo, die Abbildung, die du bei dem Denkmal Nr. 74 (Kitzburger Straße 28, Walberberg) eingestellt hast, zeigt nicht das denkmalgeschützte Gebäude mit der Hausnummer 28, sondern das Gebäude mit der Hausnummer 22, wie unschwer zu erkennen ist. Das Gebäude mit dieser Hausnummer ist in der Denkmalliste von Walberberg nicht enthalten.--Geyersberg (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dazu siehe heutigen Textbeitrag in der entsprechenden Denkmalliste und ein dazu hochgeladene Foto s. h. --HOWI (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, deine Argumentation überzeugt nicht. Die von dir erwähnte Tafel dient der Information und ist kein Beweis, dass der Gebäudekomplex unter Denkmalschutz steht.--Geyersberg (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, auf meine Anfrage, die ich am 30. Oktober 2017 wegen der unterschiedlichen Auslegungen beim Denkmal Nr. 74 (Walberberg, Kitzburger Straße 28) an die Denkmalbehörde der Stadt Bornheim gerichtet habe, ist per E-Mail folgende Antwort eingegangen: ". . . gerne teile ich Ihnen mit, dass das Fachwerkhaus Kitzburger Str. 28 unter der Nummer 74 in die Denkmalliste der Stadt eingetragen ist. Das Gebäude Kitzburger Str. 22 ist weder in die Denkmalliste eingetragen, noch zur Eintragung vorgesehen." Aufgrund dieser Klarstellung sind für das Denkmal Nr. 74 in der Denkmalliste Walberberg einige Änderungen geboten, damit alle Aussagen korrekt sind, was sicherlich auch in deinem Interesse ist.--Geyersberg (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@ Geyersberg, bei der Unteren Denkmalbehörde werde ich in der nächsten Zeit persönlich vorsprechen und um Informationen bitten. Jetzt zu Deiner Mäkelei.

  • ich habe nicht behauptet das Denkmal wäre die Nr. 22, sondern statt einer Nahaufnahme, eine Gruppe von Häusern abgebildet
  • dabei verwies ich auf eine Infotafel der Stadt sowie auf das dort angebrachte offizielle NRW Denkmalzeichen
  • zu dieser Hinweistafel schreibst Du „Die von dir erwähnte Tafel dient der Information und ist kein Beweis, dass der Gebäudekomplex unter Denkmalschutz steht.“ Auf das daneben angebrachte Denkmalschild gehst Du trotz meines Hinweises nicht ein.
  • Interessant sind in dem Zusammenhang eine Auswahl der von Dir selbst mehrfach hochgeladenen Aufnahmen solcher Stadtinformationen, die ja von Dir als wertlos und nicht beweiskräftig angesehen werden

hier hier hier

  • Ich frage mich auch, warum auf den von Dir separat als Denkmal 74 bezeichneten Abbildungen KEIN Denkmalschild zu sehen ist
  • So wie man dem Mail- Zitat entnehmen kann (wenn es denn eine gab), ist dort nur von der Nr. 22 u. 28 die Rede, aber nicht vom Inhalt der Erklärungen zum Heisterbacher Hof (auch kein Hinweis in der Bornheimer PDF- Denkmalliste). Daher vermute ich, dass Deine Anfrage überhaupt nicht der Geschichte galt, da sie Dich nicht (wie ich an anderer Stelle schon anmerkte) interessiert. Auch entsprechende Literatur ist wohl bei Dir nicht zu finden, da, wie das Beispiel Wegekreuz Kuckucksweg zeigte, offenbar nicht recherchiert wird. Also, Schuster bleib bei Deinen Leisten (pardon Laubfrösche), denn mehr (wenn ich nichts übersah) ist von Dir in der WP nicht da.
  • Fazit: Da es hier zwei konträre Ansichten gibt sollte keiner meinen die Wahrheit gepachtet zu haben. Eine Klarstellung für das Denkmal Nr. 74 in der Denkmalliste Walberberg ist noch nicht herbeigeführt, daher sind bis zu einer solchen, noch keine Änderungen geboten.--HOWI (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry HOWI,
in dieser Sache liegst du eindeutig falsch

  1. die Hausnummer ist eindeutig - eingetragen ist die Nummer 28, nicht die Nummer 22 - auf beiden Häusern sind die Hausnummern deutlich erkennbar.
  2. das von dir gezeigte Hinweisschild enthält kein NRW-Denkmalschild und an den Gebäude Nr. 22 und dem abgebildeten Nebengebäude ist auch keines angebracht
  3. die Antwort von der Denkmalbehörde ist ebenfalls kaum falsch zu verstehen.

Darüber hinaus: Dein Ton in dieser Diskussion und im von dir betriebenen Editwar in der Denkmalliste ist unmöglich - gespickt von Unterstellungen, Beleidigungen und Drohungen - ich bitte dich dringend, dies einzustellen und zu einer gemeinsamen und konstruktiven Zusammenarbeit zurückzukehren. Euch beiden ist an einer korrekten und guten Darstellung gelegen, das lässt sich gemeinsam besser machen als gegeneinander. Da ich euch beide kenne und schätze, würde ich mir einen Handschlag wünschen - ihr könnt in der Sache nur damit gewinnen. Meine Meinung dazu als Jundspund in der Runde -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

[edit]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ːweledigt --HOWI (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

korr., erlrdigt--HOWI (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Böckler-Straße 163

[edit]

Hallo,

bist du dir sicher, dass dein Bild die Villa Holzbauwerke zeigt? Ich war am Wochenende mal schauen und habe an dieser Adresse dieses Haus gefunden. Dein Haus steht in der gleichen Straße aber mit Hausnummer 192 oder so ähnlich.

Wenn du nicht sdagegen hst taushe dich die Bilder zu Villa Holzbauwerke aus. Aber ich will mich hier mit dir vorher absprechen. Vielleicht ist ja auch nur die Adressangabe in der Denkmalliste falsch.

Siehe [5] --Gelli63 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auch Hallo, dazu kann ich im Moment nichts sagen, müsste ich mich erst schlau machen. Zwar ist das Bild von mir (auch das davor) so benannt , aber es sind noch Angaben von BenutzerːG-Michel-Hürth. Tausche ruhig, wenns nicht OK ist, erneut Auswechseln. --HOWI (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Gelli63 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2018

(UTC)

Wie ich vermutete > 26. April 2011 um 21:08 Uhr durch G-Michel-Hürthǃ --HOWI (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Georg-Simon-Ohm-107.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Georg-Simon-Ohm-107.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georg-Simon-Ohm-107.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 16:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Könntest du hier auch noch eine Lizenz für dein Foto vergeben? --Quedel (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 01:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Karl-Borromäus-Köln-Sülz-Langhaus-und-Rechteckchor.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin Sg. (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Mauritius-Köln-Chor-0028.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Mauritius-Köln-Chor-und-Fenster-0023.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Mauritius-Köln-Dacharchitektur-0027.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Mauritius-Köln-Innenraum-Nordseite-0034.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin Sg. (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Einspruch gegen den Löschantrag des Benutzers Martin Sg.

bez. des Fotos Aachener Dom Hauptaltar. Übergang Oktogon Chor (H).

Jeder neutrale Betrachter des Fotos wird feststellen, dass das Chor-Fenster im Hintergrund nicht Zweck und Zielobjekt der Aufnahme war. Es ist lediglich „Nebensächliches“, inTemplate:§ UrhG – auch als Unwesentliches Beiwerk bezeichnet. Daher gilt: das Bild muss individuell geprüft werden, da es sich bei dem Fensterausschnitt im Hintergrund nur ‎‎um einen Bruchteil des Gesamtfotos handelt‎. Die Aufnahme mit 17mm Blende (s. Metadaten), erhielt von mir den Titel „Aachener Dom Hauptaltar. Übergang Oktogon Chor“. Mein Standort zur Aufnahme war ca. 3 m vor der Altarabsperrung. Da die Länge vom karolingischen Umgang bis zur östlichen Wand der gotischen Chorhalle 25, 74 Meter misst [1], war ich vom Hintergrundfenster rund 30 m entfernt, wodurch die Kamera, verdeckt von Pfeilern und Gewölbe im Vordergrund, nur einen Bruchteil der Chorverglasung erfassen konnte. Gemessen an diesen Fakten, hat der Löschantrag keine Grundlage. --HOWI (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sankt Michael Blessem.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rathaus Hürth, Ziegelrelief der Künstlerinnen Schausten und Schlasa.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2001:16B8:129D:CF00:55BF:215A:C312:EE11 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Köln-Theater-Glockengasse-1872.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Xocolatl (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Gisbert Knopp, Ulrike Heckner: Die gotische Chorhalle des Aachener Doms und ihre Ausstattung. S.11