User talk:Angerdan

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Angerdan!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

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 Nikbot, 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. --Nikbot

File:Fahndungsplakat_NSU.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!

80.187.103.174 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:RAF 1(1).jpg[edit]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:RAF 1(1).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:RAF 1(1).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Kobac (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nikbot, 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. --Nikbot 11:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

File:KdoStratAufkl Wappen.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!

Gunnar.offel (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:KdoStratAufkl (v).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Gunnar.offel (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Angerdan,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:DPAG 2013 445 Ischtar-Tor.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

--Correlatio (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikaktualisierung[edit]

Hallo Angerdan, du hattest letztes Jahr so schön diese Grafik [1] aktualisiert. Möchtest du es dieses Jahr wieder machen? Falls ja, die aktuellen Daten sind hier [2] Viele Grüße, Andol (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Andol, die Daten aktualisiere ich gerne wieder. Jedoch könnte ich etwas Unterstützung bei der sauberen Erstellung/Ausgabe in gnuplot gut gebrauchen. Die Jahreszahlen sind seit meiner Version nicht mehr bündig mit den Balken. --angerdan (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen Dank! Was es mit gnuplot usw. auf sich hat weiß ich aber leider nicht. Ich kann dir deswegen nicht erklären, wieso es dort zu Problemen kommt. Viele Grüße, Andol (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerade erst deine Aktualisierung für 2019 gesehn, mir scheint, du nutzt da eine Voreinstellung? Ich versteh jedenfalls nicht, weshalb in der Breite bei dir 10 Extrapixel sind und du Erdgas und Kernenergie wieder getauscht hast, war das beabsichtigt? --Lightkey (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, du liegst in beiden Punkten richtig ;) Beides habe ich nun korrigiert. --angerdan (talk)

Warning[edit]

Hi Angerdan. I noticed that you've made a malformed deletion request. When you want to delete a file with the {{Delete}} template, you must follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion. Alternatively, you can click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the left sidebar, under the "tools" section, which does all of the work for you. Please do one of these, otherwise you create a lot of work for other people. If you don't see the "Nominate for deletion" link in the left sidebar, you can use the JavaScript method of enabling AjaxQuickDelete on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets once and then refresh once.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, i did create and follow the instruction with best intentions and as i understood. Can you please tell me what page is affected and what's the fastest and easiest way to solve the malform? --angerdan (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Category:SVG_Information_Technology has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habe ich nach Eröffnung des Hotels umbenannt in “historic entrance” Hamlet 570 de (talk) 22:10, 11. Februar 2023 (UTC)

Danke für die Info zur Umbenennung in Estación de Canfranc (historical entrance) --angerdan (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Takumar categories[edit]

Hi, regarding your recent moves: The resaon I had the mount in the category name is that both the Takumar 58mm F2.4 and the Takumar 100mm F3.5 also exist in M37 mount, i.e. to distinguish them from Category:Takumar 58mm F2.4 (M37 mount) and Category:Takumar 100mm F3.5 (M37 mount). I'm fine with e.g. Category:Takumar 100mm F3.5 being the main category for both versions, but the Category:Takumar 100mm F3.5 (M42 mount) should hold images of the M42 version.

You also removed a bunch of lenses from as "redundant" that are now not in any subcategory thereof, might want to fix that somehow. Cheers, El Grafo (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, currently the images don'nt show the bajonett. :What would you suggest to have a clean structure and being able to distinguish lenses with visible different mounts?
How about creating a category "Asahi lenses" analogous to Category:Pentax prime lenses to have a own subcategory? --angerdan (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, images don't show the mount (screw mount, not bayonet), but the M42 version can be clearly distinguished from the M37 version at a glance. Putting the mount in the category name is for distinguishing two lens models for different systems. This is about the lenses, not their mounts, mounts are just used as qualifer. Images used to illustrate the mounts themselves should go directly into Category:M42 mount, Category:M37 mount, etc. rather than subcategories for individual lens models.
I don't think there were any Asahi-branded lenses, all the M37 ones for the Asahiflex cameras were branded Takumar. Calling them "Asahi lenses" does not make sense. Otherwise we would have to call the M42 Takumars "Pentax lenses" too, because they came with the Spotmatics. What brand the corresponding camera had doesn't really help anything for identifying the lens. Back then, things were much more interchangeable and you could easily stick an M42 mount Takumar lens produced by Asahi Optical Corp (=later Asahi Pentax = later Pentax) on a Soviet Зени́т camera.
In my opinion, brand and mount are the best qualifiers, and in that order. So have Category:Takumar lenses as the top level and then distinguish my mount into Category:Takumar lenses (M42 mount)‎, Category:Takumar lenses (M37 mount)‎, Category:Takumar lenses (K-mount)‎, and Category:Takumar lenses (Pentax 6×7 mount). That works well for the Pentax-branded lenses too, where we distinguish, between K-mount, Q-mount, 6×7 mount, etc. El Grafo (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! -- angerdan (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you redirected this? Your comment says, "Angerdan moved page Category:Block heaters to Category:Auxiliary heater: Separation between preheaters, auxiliary heaters and engine heaters", yet this move has done the opposite of that and Category:Block heaters are now lumped in with Category:Auxiliary heaters, when they're very different devices.

You've also created Category:Parking heaters, but mostly put Block heaters into it. Nor is it clear what the difference between Parking heaters and Auxiliary heaters is (we don't have a clear one on WP or Commons, at least).

Also Category:Auxiliary heater is against naming policy and it should be Category:Auxiliary heaters. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was everything mixed together: electronic and fuel powered heaters as well as pasenger compartment and motor block heaters. To make a a start and be able to separate technology and purpose, i used the name convention mainly used by Eberspächer, Webasto, Calix and DEFA.
I did fix the "s" in "Auxiliary heaters" in the images. I didn't see the older already existing category. --angerdan (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aktualisierung[edit]

Hallo Angerdan, kannst du wieder diese Grafik aktualisieren? Die aktuellen Daten finden habe ich hier verlinkt. Viele Grüße, Andol (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]