User talk:MB-one/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:Feuerwehr-Flughafen-Muenchen.jpg

File:Feuerwehr-Flughafen-Muenchen.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

84.173.190.126 20:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:BVG_trams_in_Berlin

BVG trams in Berlin 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Liamdavies (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EvianLogo2.svg

File:EvianLogo2.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:High Line Park

High Line Park 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--FieldMarine (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bridges in Berlin

Hallo MB-one, wäre es nicht übersichtlicher, wenn die Berliner Brücken, die zwei Ortsteile verbinden (z.B. Hugo-Preuß-Brücke ) auch in der Category des jeweiligen Berliner Ortsteils (Berlin-Mitte) auftaucht. So ist es doch für alle, aber besonders für Ortsfremde, einfacher die Bauwerke zu finden. Gruß OTFW (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Naja, die "Bridges between Berlin-Mitte und Moabit" ist ja eine Unterkategorie, also braucht, die Mitte-Kategorie nicht noch einmal extra eingetragen zu werden. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --MB-one (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ships built in a certain year

Please have a look at the categories of ships built in certain years. You will find the ship name categories and NOT the IMO number categories. Please use the categorising as done before, or change all the categories for ships in a certain year. It is not definately wrong, but the system you are introducing was not chosen before and creates a hell of a lot of work. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since year built is specific to the hull, it seems logical to me, to categorize accordingly. Especially, if this hull served under different names. Furthermore I don't see a problem in changing the system step by step into a more desirable one. --MB-one (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is correct. But I see a hell of a lot of work to be done and think to change more than 20.000 ships you have to bring it in discussion first. For me: no problem at all if the work can be done by bot. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 3⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

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)

Human couples?

Not really? Sie haben auch "nur" zwei Beine, aber rechtfertigt das die Kategorie? ;-) Machst Du die Bearbeitungen selbst rückgängig? Gruß --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Schon geschehen. Habe das Bild bei einer Massenverschiebung übersehen. Danke für den Hinweis. --MB-one (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Gern geschehen - und das andere halbe Dutzend mache ich dann selbst rückgängig. --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

Dear MB-one,

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:

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

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Allianzrivierainauguration.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Allianzrivierainauguration.jpg, 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 ([[:File:Allianzrivierainauguration.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

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

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!

Leyo 23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

--MB-one (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-edition of the Photowikimeetup in Wikimania 2014

Hello MB-one! in the case that you are also visiting this year's Wikimania in London, you may be interested in attending the new edition of the photowikimeetup that took place in Hong Kong last year, and where you listed up. As the preparation is not yet settled, you are more than welcomed to take part in the discussion here. All the best, Poc o² 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Maybe, I will actually come this year. --MB-one (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport

Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Jean11 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller and video producer for the Wikimedia Foundation. I'll be looking to capture stories about Wikimedians at Wikimania in London in a week. Here is an example of the kind of thing that I'm aiming to do. I saw that you're attending Wikimania and I was wondering if you might have some time to talk about your work on Wikimedia projects. Anyway let me know if you are interested, I'll be at Wikimania from the 6th-10th of August and would need maybe 30 minutes of your time. I can answer any questions you may have. I’m best reached at vgrigas(at)wikimedia.org

Thanks!

Vgrigas (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:European Commission logo.svg

File:European Commission logo.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JurgenNL (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Allianzrivierainauguration.jpg

File:Allianzrivierainauguration.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

84.61.138.168 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vietnam Residence Ottawa.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 Just ok (the details are little bit too soft, but ok for QI IMO) --Cccefalon 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Red Bull Cola Mini at Piccadilly Circus.jpg

And also:

File:Red Bull Cola Mini in Cleveland.jpg

--  Gazebo (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Red Bull car at tuning party.jpg

And also:

File:Red Bull S-Class (W126).jpg

--  Gazebo (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:DFB Pokalfinale06.jpg

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Red Bull Cola Mini in Cleveland.jpg

--  Gazebo (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your mass declines in QIC

It's not state of the art to decline immediately images with flaws, which can easily be fixed. Usually you are doing a review and give the photographer some days to fix it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will keep it in mind. --MB-one (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kat und Unterkat

Hallo,

warum hast du denn hier die Oberkategorie wieder hinzugefügt? Die Registrierung ist doch eine entsprechende Unterkategorie und nach meiner Kenntnis ist diese Art der Kategorisierung zu vermeiden. Gruß, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 04:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Die Registrierung wurde für zwei verschiedene Maschinen verwendet, daher ist die die zusätzliche Kategorisierung nach Typ nötig. Oder man legt eben Unterkategorien für die beiden Maschinen an, was mir aber bei ein oder zwei Bildern reichlich überflüssig erscheint. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Danke. Das ist nachvollziehbar. Ich habe mal eigene Kats gemacht. Gruß, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lenco BearCat Ottawa Police-2.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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! First Ave School Ottawa.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 QI imo. --ArildV 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Building 54 CEF Ottawa.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. --JLPC 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Building 94 CEF Ottawa.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. --DXR 06:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Darmahall Ottawa.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 18:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hilton Hotel Leamy Lake.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. --Livioandronico2013 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Patterson Creek Pavilion.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. --Jacek Halicki 19:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Valade Residence.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. --JLPC 14:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Patterson Creek Pavilion bench.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 Support Good quality. --Jean11 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:D-ADNA (aircraft)

Hallo MB-one, hierzu wär mal eine Erklärung angebracht (dafür ist z.B. die Zusammenfassungszeile da). Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hallo,

alle in der Kategorie enthaltenen Bilder zeigen die Maschine in DCA-Livery. Auch habe ich auf den einschlägigen Seiten im Netz keinen Hinweis finden können, dass D-ADNA zu irgendeinem Zeitpunkt von Eurowings betrieben wurde. Daher bin ich von einem Fehler ausgegangen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Habe versucht zu ergründen, wie ich darauf gekommen bin, hab keine Hinweis gefunden. Darum geh ich jetzt auch von einem Fehler aus, danke für deine Erklärung. In machen Fotos vom letzten Jahr steht, dass die Band von Springsteen das Flugzeug gekauft hat, habe dazu im Netz leider auch nichts gefunden. Danke. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Main Diary Barn CEF Ottawa.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. --Taxiarchos228 06:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dairy Technology Annex CEF Ottawa.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 Support The building is not pretty, but it's a good photo--Lmbuga 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Frank St Ottawa.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. --JLPC 14:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Silver Mercedes-Benz E 63 AMG (S212) fr.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. --Livioandronico2013 12:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! James Fletcher Statue CEF.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. --Villy Fink Isaksen 16:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Silver Mercedes-Benz E 63 AMG (S212) rl.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.--ArildV 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hay House 2.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. --JLPC 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Inuksuk Quebec City.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 Ok.--ArildV 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ENAP Teluq UdQ.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.--ArildV 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Billings Bridge.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 Just barely; avoided seriously blown highlights on the clouds in what was a tricky exposure --Daniel Case 03:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Washrooms Patterson Creek Pavilion.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. --Jacek Halicki 21:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Kategorie

Hallo! Ich sah gerade deine Änderung bei der Datei File:Dülmen, Stadtjubiläum 700 Jahre, Umzug (Marktstraße) -- 2011 -- 8.jpg. Ich habe sie wieder rückgängig gemacht, es ist kein SUV. Der Ford Scorpio ist eine Stretch-Limousine. Er wirkt nur so hoch, weil er mal zum englischen Köndigshaus gehört hat. ICh hoffe, du siehst mir nach.--XRay ^talk 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo @XRay: ,

danke für den Hinweis. Da bin ich wohl auf den falschen Knopf gekommen.

Viele Grüße --MB-one (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Die Beschreibung habe ich angepasst, damit's demnächst eher auffällt. Auch den Hinweis auf das englische Königshaus habe ich mal ergänzt.--XRay ^talk 15:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bitte lass es

Inzwischen bist du mir mehrmals mit falschkategorisierungen aufgefallen. Was nutzt eine Kategorie, wenn man nachher nichts mehr wieder findet. Die Category:River cruise ships ist und bleibt eine Hauptkategorie, in die alle Flusskreuzfahrtschiffe hinein gehören. Die Unterkategorien führen alle in unterschiedlichen Kategorienbäume. Ich werde alle Deine Änderungen in diesem Bereich gleich revertieren. Bitte beschränke dich in der Zukunft auf die Bereiche, bei denen Du eine ausreichende Fachkenntnis hast. --Rolf H. (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo @Rolf H.,

bitte lies dir mal den Abschnitt zu Überkategorisierung durch. Da ist eigentlich alles erklärt. Wenn du noch Fragen hast, helfe ich gerne weiter.

Viele Grüße --MB-one (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Selten so einen Unsinn gesehen. Wenn ich ein spezielles Schiff suche, schaue ich in die alphabetische Auflistung der Hauptkategorie. Wenn ich das Flusskreuzfahrtschiff beispielsweise Bellriva suche, wo schaue ich als unbedarfter Benutzer nach? Mir fällt da nur die Übersichtskategorie ein. Was kostet eine zusätzliche Kategorie an Speicherplatz? --Rolf H. (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo nochmal,

dafür gibt es einerseits natürlich die Suchfunktion, andererseits kann man sich z. B. über FastCCI alle Bilder einer Kategorie (inkl. Unterkategorien) anzeigen lassen. Das Kategoriensystem ist im Gegensatz zu einem Tagsystem eine Hierarchie abzubilden. Durch Überkategorisierung wird dieser Vorteil jedoch verspielt.

Nochmals viele Grüße --MB-one (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, das ist insgesamt alles wie ein bischen schwanger. Bei der einen Reederei werden alles Schiffe nur in der Ships of...-Kategorie aufgelistet, Bei der anderen werden sie zusätzlich auch in der Hauptkategorie angezeigt (beispielsweise bei den Containerschiffen) - dabei verliert man den Überblick. Dadurch das bei manchen Schiffen fast jährlich die Charterer wechseln, ist mit dieser Kleinkategorisierung eine optimale Betreuung der Kategorie nicht mehr möglich. --Rolf H. (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Du bist natürlich herzlich eingeladen, dabei zu helfen, bestehende Inkonsistenzen abzubauen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ship's categorisation

The main category for ship is <Name> (ship, <year>). IMO categories is for combine categories of the same ship with different names. And there are only for small part of ships. Registrations, years of built, places of built and so on must be in name category. Customer in most cases search ship by name and don/t know IMO. Also moving category you complicates the work with them by bots, for example, catscan.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Mike1979 Russia,

If two items share some characteristics and they are already in a common category, it makes no sense, to apply common parental categories (e.g. built year, shipyard etc.) to each individual subcat. Also please read Commons:Overcat and don't revert edits based on that rule.

Best --MB-one (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this rule User talk:MB-one/Archive 2#Ship categorization. The categorisation is for simplify searching files and it is the BASE rule of Wiki. Your edits complicate searching. Please don't make edits that are need to revert. Also please read en:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm am not aware of any agreement based on the discussion you mentioned. Also, please be advised, that 1) Commons is not en-wikipedia and 2) "Ignore all rules" does not mean "break (any/all) rules". In conclusion: edits, that conform with the rules and guidelines, should not be reverted. Best --MB-one (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. 2) Edits, that ignored the consensus, must be reverted.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no consensus, that overcategorization is ok (except temporarily, which is not the case here). Maybe you can explain, what is the sense of IMO categories, if not to consolidate parental categories of a ship, that is know under various names over time? Maybe we should suspend any work on those categories as long, as there is no clear strategy. Thank you. --MB-one (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

1) There is consensus how to categorise ships. There is consesus that Wiki project is NOT BUREAUCRACY. In my opinion your idea of the overcategorization is based on a literal interpretation of the rule and ignoring the refinement that we have already discussed (User talk:MB-one/Archive 2#Ship categorization). 2) I have wrote about IMO category in my first edit in this branch. IMO categories have a different purpose than to consolidate parental categories of a ship. 3) Maybe you suspend any work on ship categories because you make unconsensusal edits which complicate the work of other users. We will not give up work just because single user does not agree with the current consensus.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there is no consensus here, because not all participants agreed. I disagree on the notion, that overcategorizing and single-use categories will have any positive effect. --MB-one (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there is consensus because only single participant disagreed who don't work regulary in this theme (en:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). And in my opinion there is no any overcategorisation or IMO categories are single-use. I think you must know this (User talk:MB-one/Archive 2#IMO numbers).--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Mike1979 Russia in this. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! BPol BMW F11 Hamburg-Altona.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. --Livioandronico2013 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment The car is a little bit dark.--XRay 14:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes right,but is accetable? I think yes,you no?
Comment Thanks for the advice. I'll try to rework and upload a new version soon. --MB-one 10:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kategorisierung der Container Schiffe

Bitte lass einfach mal Deine Finger von den Schiffskategorien. Ich bin die Category:Container ships derzeit komplett am umbauen, da solche Spezialisten deiner Art andauernd ungenau arbeiten. Die Category:Container ships by shipping company wird in Kürze nicht mehr in der Oberkategorie Container ships erscheinen und in einem anderen Kategoriebaum verwendet. --Rolf H. (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo @Rolf H.: ,

na, da bin ich ja mal gespannt. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC) PS: bei der Gelegenheit, möchte ich Dich auf diese Diskussion hier Aufmerksam machen. Würde mich über deinen Input freuen.

Category:Geograph images in X

Hi; traditionally we have not categorised these under "X" because this amounts to overcategorisation; each such image should already, or will eventually, appear in the X hierarchy by place-name and type of image, e.g. Farms in Y, where Y is a place in X. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Rodhullandemu: ,

I guess the individual images should be categorizied to more specific locations. So, there will be very little chance of overcategorizing. What do you think? --MB-one (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Geograph images in X" categories have never been subcategorised, since this already occurs in the "Images in X" hierarchy. When images are being checked for categorisation in "X", CatScan is used to check for otherwise uncategorised Geograph images and further subdividing those would be duplicating effort and lead to errors. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Chevrolet Suburban (1973-1991)

I just had to split your Category:Chevrolet Suburban (1973-1991) into Category:Chevrolet Suburban (1973-1980) and Category:Chevrolet Suburban (1981-1991). Chevy Suburbans were redesigned slightly in 1981 just like all other GM Light-duty trucks. I just thought you ought to know this. ----DanTD (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@DanTD: Thanks for the notice. Best. --MB-one (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamaica Bay (ship, 1987)

Three different yards, also LURSSEN BARDENFLETH - BARDENFLETH, GERMANY (Shipspotting and http://maritime-connector.com) Any idea of the correct one? --Stunteltje (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Transport in France

Hello,

I've read your comment on your contribution about Transport in France, but when I go to Category:France, I see that it is categorized under:

Countries of Europe
Western Europe

Then I wonder why it wouldn't be possible to have the same tree with "Transport in France". Also, France would be the only one country of Europe not categorized under Europe. Other European countries have oversees territories, especially the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Anyway they have their Transport category under Europe. It would be useful to have a continent for categorizing France somewhere. But then, where? There is a category called "Metropolitan France" but nothing but regions are categorized under this one. It would be a big change to categorize everything under it (for example Category:Economy of France which is correctly categorized under "Economy of Europe by country")... Do you have any idea? Thank you. Jeriby (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Many other categories are to be moved. UK, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey and Spain (I may have forgotten more) are not entirely in Europe, so they shouldn't be categorized as such. Category:Metropolitan France is the main category to put everything that is in Europe. To be thorough, we need categories "xy in Metropolitan France", which should be categorized as "xy in Europe". --MB-one (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mausoleum, Gutspark Pütnitz (DSC04875).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 19:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 1923 14th St NW in DC.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. --Livioandronico2013 22:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! US Capitol Police Cruiser Ford Crown Vic fr.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. --Livioandronico2013 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment The front is in my opinion too bright. -- Spurzem 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Omega-Seamaster-2531.jpg

File:Omega-Seamaster-2531.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ashley Pomeroy: Thanks for letting me know. In obvious cases, you can nominate images for speedydeletion, as I did now. --MB-one (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steam Whistle Brewing Water Tower Toronto.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. --Livioandronico2013 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wohnhaus, Kirchstr 1, Ribnitz-Damgarten (DSC04826).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. --Uoaei1 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arlington

Warum hast du meine Bilder aus der Kategorie genommen? Sind doch alle auf dem Friedhof entstanden? --Ralf Roleček 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Ralf Roletschek,

ich habe deine Kategorie unter die Friedhofskategorie gesetzt. Wenn Du das nicht für sinnvoll hältst, kann das aber auch zurückgesetzt werden. Ansonsten habe ich die Bilder von Washington nach Virginia verschoben, weil der Friedhof dort liegt (fallst du das meintest). Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Versteh das bitte nicht als Meckermeldung, ich verstehe es nur nicht. Ich habe nur Stichproben angeklickt und z. B. hier hat das Bild jetzt keine öffentliche Kategorie mehr? Ich muß zugeben, daß Kategorien absolut nicht meine Stärke sind ;) --Ralf Roleček 21:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nein, Du hast wahrscheinlich recht. Ich die Bilder wieder zurück in Category:Arlington National Cemetery. Dann ist die Benutzerkategorie getrennt vn der Themenkategorie. Ist wohl besser so. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Thanks. --MB-one (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lunch at Wikimania

LUNCH meetup for Wikimedia and video - Sunday 1pm, grab lunch, go to 4th floor Conservatory #wikimania2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzheado (talk • contribs)

Thanks. --MB-one (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Memorial Minto Park Ottawa.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 Support Good quality. --XRay 15:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! German Embassy Ottawa.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 Support Good quality. --XRay 15:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Exterior of Elizabeth Tower

Why would you keep putting images of the whole exterior of the Palace of Westminster within Category:Exterior of Elizabeth Tower? Category:Exterior of Elizabeth Tower implies the images focuses on the tower, not that it happens to contain the tower as a part of the palace. -- KTC (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @KTC,

It doesn't have to be the main focus. It's enough, if the subject of the category is clearly visible.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gutshaus mit Park, Pütnitzer Str 16, Ribnitz-Damgarten (DSC04851).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. --Uoaei1 10:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! DLRG-Station Ahrenshoop (DSC04787).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. --Ximonic 10:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Building 75 CEF Ottawa.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. --Livioandronico2013 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Post box Nordbrief, Ribnitz-Damgarten (DSC04840).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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kriegerdenkmal, Kirchstr, Ribnitz-Damgarten (DSC04831).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.--ArildV 07:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Glacial erractic (4-3F), Berlin (20150511-DSC05079).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 --DKrieger 20:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wohnhaus, Dorfstraße 5, Ahrenshoop (DSC04816).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 -- Spurzem 20:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wohnhaus, Strandweg 2, Ahrenshoop (DSC04819).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. --Berthold Werner 12:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Rhein-Kats

Hallo MB-one, in Baden-Württemberg gibt es neben dem Oberrhein auch den Hochrrhein und den Seerhein. Es ist daher keine gute Idee, die ganze Category:Rhine in Baden-Württemberg in die Category:Upper Rhine zu stellen. Das geht nur nach Landkreisen, bzw. im Lkr. Lörrach, der an Ober- und Hochrhein liegt, nur nach Orten. Gruß, --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Sitacuisses,

Du hast Recht. Das hatte ich nicht bedacht. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! VW Golf GTE Taxi (20150511-DSC05164).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 Weak good quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment The background is disturbing and distorted at the right. For me it would be no QI though the main object is sharp. -- Spurzem 21:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hölzerner Grenzpfahl, Ahrenshoop (DSC04812).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
Comment Can you tilt it a bit to the left and perhaps vertical correction?--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 12:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Done--MB-one 21:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Support QIfor me.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sign for natural monument (20150503-DSC04964).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 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Frage

Ist eine Metropolregion ein Fluss... hmmm... nein, warum ist Category:Rhein-Ruhr über Category:Rhine in North Rhine-Westphalia/Category:Rivers of North Rhine-Westphalia kategorisiert. Siehe auch diese Änderung.

Wenn man nun der hierarchischen Kategorisierung folgt, findet man jede Menge Objekte in Category:Rivers of North Rhine-Westphalia - die überhaupt nichts mit einem Fluss zu tun haben (Kunstwerke/Stopersteine/Fahrzeuge: siehe diese Übersicht User:Atamari/BotGallery/Geology/2015 June 1-10).

Was nun? (evtl. muss man alle diese Änderungen der IP hinterfragen) --Atamari (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Atamari,

Eigentlich hast du Recht. Die Region ist ja nur nach den Flüssen benannt und befindet sich nicht vollständig im Fluss. Also würde ich eine Verschiebung nach Category:Things named after the Rhine vorschlagen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ja, vielleicht ist dies besser als komplett zu entfernen. Dann auch noch analog "Things names after the Ruhr". Warum erinnert mich das nun an diese Änderung? ;-)

Aber wenn man jetzt zurück geht, zurück auf Category:Rhine... hätte man die Metropolregion (also auch die ganzen Ruhrgebietsgemeinden). in:

also Themen aus beispielsweise Köln tauchen in Category:Rivers of the Alps auf. Eine richtig saubere Lösung ist das nicht. --Atamari (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Rhein-Ruhr" ist nicht nur nach dem Rhein benannt, sondern entspricht auch einer Lagebeziehung (auch kausal spielt der Fluss als Absatzweg ein Rolle fürs Entstehen der Metropolregion). Das Kategoriesystem dient hier mehr zum Finden von Bildern durch mitdenkende Menschen und weniger zum exakten Ausschließen von Themen durch simpel programmierte Bots. Die logische Operation lautet tendenziell eher "könnte enthalten" als "ist gleich". In Commons:Categories#Types of reflected relations finden sich sehr unterschiedliche Gründe fürs Setzen einer Kategorie. Logische Fehler, die sich über mehrere Ebenen summieren, kann der mitdenkende Mensch verarbeiten. In de.wp werden teilweise Klimmzüge veranstaltet, um solche Fehler auszuschließen, durch die dann aber der User ohne Vorwissen über die Struktur kaum noch den Weg zu allen vorhandenen Zweigen findet. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2015 - die Organisatoren sagen Danke

Hallo MB-one,

am 31. Mai 2015 endete der Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth, an dem Du mit Deinen Bildern teilgenommen hast. Dafür möchten wir Dir herzlich danken.

Dieses Jahr haben sich 26 Länder am Wettbewerb beteiligt, insgesamt wurden dabei 108.444 Bilder hochgeladen. Aus Deutschland kamen 14.115 Fotos, was einem Anteil von 13 % entspricht. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl von 1000 Teilnehmern allein beim deutschen Wettbewerb. Einen Überblick findest du auf unserer Ergebnisseite.

Die deutsche Jury hat Ende Juni auf einer Sitzung in Fulda die Top100 und die Preisträger ausgewählt. Eine Entscheidung der internationalen Jury wird noch im Juli erwartet.

Ein anderer Fotowettbewerb steht bereits vor der Tür. Im September findet zum fünften Mal der Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt, bei dem Kultur- und Baudenkmäler bebildert werden sollen. Mit dem Fotografieren dafür kann jetzt schon begonnen werden. Vielleicht möchtest Du Dich sogar an der Organisation dieses Wettbewerbs oder von Wiki Loves Earth 2016 beteiligen?

Wir würden uns über weitere Beiträge von Dir freuen.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht das Orga-Team.

--Blech (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ford F-4000 20150715-DSC05376.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. --Kszapsza 20:58, 31 July 2015

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chevrolet Onix 20150814-DSC05650.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. --Ralf Roletschek 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ford B-Series Blue Bird 20110613-IMG 3569.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. --Ralf Roletschek 05:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Coqueirinho beach Paraíba.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 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coqueirinho beach Paraíba.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) 03:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

--MB-one (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steam Weaver 20110613-IMG 3583.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. --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lokation und Zweck der Anlage auf deinem Bild

zeigt Tanks, die vermutlich befüllt werden. Ist es tatsächlich ein Ölkraftwerk in Rheinland-Pfalz (wo?) oder eher eine verarbeitende Anlage? Danke für ergänzende Infos. --1-1111 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Das BHKW steht in Oberhonnefeld. Die Kategorie wurde nachgetragen. --MB-one (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Peugeot 508 sedan

Hello MB-one, why did you choose "Peugeot 508 sedan" instead of Peugeot 508 sedans as category name? Parent category is named Peugeot sedans and we have the rule that category names havt o be in plural.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Since it's not an official model designation, we could as well move it. --MB-one (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Domplatz

Hallo MB-one, bitte mache nicht ständig die Kategorisierung rückgängig. Es hat durchaus seinen Grund, dass das Bild auch in der Kategorie des Domplatzes steht und nicht nur bei den Häusern. Denn es zeigt sowohl einzelne Häuser als auch den Platz, der aber nunmal keine Unterkategorie zu sich selbst ist. Wenn du schaust wird das systematisch an vielen Stellen so durchgezogen.

Viele Grüße.--Cirdan (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Cirdan,

Das Haus ist Teil des Platzes und daher entsprechend kategorisiert. Das Bild gehört demnach nur in die spezifische Kategorie, nicht zusätzlich in die übergeordnete Kategorie. Wenn da ein Problem besteht, sollte das auf Commons talk:Categories geklärt werden. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Das Haus ist Teil des Platzes, aber das Bild zeigt auch den Platz als "Objekt an sich", nicht nur das Haus. Ich möchte also gerne Kategorien haben, in denen ich die Bilder von Straßenzügen und Ansichten von Plätzen (auf denen natürlich zwangsweise die Häuser zu sehen sind), einordnen kann. Im konkreten Fall also Bilder, die das, was in de:Domplatz (Limburg an der Lahn) beschrieben ist, illustrieren. Müsste ich der Systematik nach dafür Category:Views of Domplatz (Limburg an der Lahn) oder sowas anlegen? Ich bin da für Vorschläge offen, aber rein von der Systematik her muss es die Möglichkeit geben, nicht nur Bilder von Häusern, sondern eben auch Bilder von Verkehrsbauwerken eindeutig zuzuordnen.--Cirdan (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ich verstehe das Problem. Eine Kategorie General views of Domplatz (Limburg an der Lahn) könnte tatsächlich Abhilfe schaffen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Carmel, Olinda20150715-DSC05360.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 Support--Jebulon 09:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Largo do Pelourinho, Salvador 20150719-DSC05452.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. --Ralf Roletschek 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pfarramt, Ribnitz-Damgarten 20150404-DSC04762.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. --Ralf Roletschek 19:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeep Renegade mule

Hello, in this pics: File:Fiat-Jeep B-SUV prototype test based Fiat 500L.JPG we have a jeep renegade and 500X platform with 500L chassis, this is a development mule, the esterior is only provvisory and not pertinent. See description (in italian) please let it now if you believe the amendment restores the correct version--Pava (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pava,

OK, I see. So technically, the image is showing neither a 500X, nor a Renegade, but a 500L on a different platform. Maybe it should belong to a category specific to the platform rather than specific to the models. --MB-one (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

from automotive's point of view, the vehicle body does not matter much. If you think that better understanding and navigability we can create a specific category, can you think this? --Pava (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

File:FPV F6X white.jpg

File:FPV F6X white.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Carmel, Olinda 20150715-DSC05362.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.--ArildV 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Portland, Oregon seal.svg

File:Portland, Oregon seal.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Blue NSWPF FPV FG F6 fr.jpg

File:Blue NSWPF FPV FG F6 fr.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Bidgee (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:360 Spider F1.jpg

File:360 Spider F1.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Michi1308 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jeep_Grand_Cherokee_(ZJ)

Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

197.78.128.146 09:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I really appreciate all of the work you did on the vehicles in the parade photos. Thank you very much. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's no big deal for me, but I'm glad to hear that. --MB-one (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

File:EasyJet A320 taxis to runway at Gibraltar (2).jpg

Erm, those photos are all of the same plane. I don't know the difference between an A319 and an A320, but whatever the plane in that photo is, the rest of the photos in that series are of the same thing, so if it's an A320 the rest of them should be moved rather than just the one. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right. They should be renamed. --MB-one (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


	All the best for 2016 !!!. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Tourismo IC Bus Berlin-Sudkreuz 2015.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. --Jacek Halicki 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Steam Whistle delivery van 20110613-IMG 3587.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. --Jacek Halicki 14:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ruins, Olinda 20150715-DSC05374.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. --Hubertl 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

File:BlackBerry 8800.jpg

File:BlackBerry 8800.jpg 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 ∙ +/−

–Totie (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

File:BlackBerry 8100 (Pearl).jpg

File:BlackBerry 8100 (Pearl).jpg 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 ∙ +/−

–Totie (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

2 CV...

Hi!

The pic was in Category:Citroën 2CV because we don't know wich type is it. A Club, a Special, an AZL or AZAM ? Where do you see an overcat...

You've just created Category:Citroën 2CV (unidentified model) and I thought "model" was for toys and "type" should be better. I'm not sure...

--LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 15:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi LW² \m/ ,

You are right, “type” might be better. --MB-one (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And about overcat? --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 12:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion that problem is solved with the creation of the new category. --MB-one (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's solved that's good but what did you considered as overcat to have to move all pics in a new cat' ? It was best before... Every new upload will be in 2CV's mother cat' and I don't really see the interest of the new cat' :(

--LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 15:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem was, that some images, where already sorted in some more specific categories, like 2CV in France but also in the parent category; that's overcategorization. --MB-one (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi MB-one

I don't know anything about Potzdammer Platz, in Berlin. Maybe you can help me. I was wondering whether Category:Linkstraße 6 and Category:Rogers Twins should be merged into just one category. SethWhales^talk 01:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fahhradstraßen

Hallo MB-one, in Sachen Kategorisierung bei den Fahrradstraßen wäre IMO zu klären, welche Berechtigung die 2014 neu angelegte deutschsprachige Category:Fahrradstraße hat und in welchem Verhältnis sie zu Category:Bicycle boulevards stehen soll. Meines Erachtens müsste sie regelgerecht eher Category:Bicycle boulevards in Germany heißen. Die Kategorie Category:Zeichen 244, StVO 1992 wäre deren Unterkategorie. Sie würde Dateien enthalten, die das Verkehrszeichen zeigen. Ist auf einem Bild mehr von einer Fahrradstraße zu sehen als nur das Verkehrszeichen, dann kommt eine Mehrfachkategorisierung auch in über-/untergeordneten Kategorien in Frage. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Sitacuisses, was die Kategorien angeht stimme ich dir zu, nicht jedoch bezüglich der Überkategorisierung. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Deine letzte Aussage muss man wohl als solche stehen lassen, ein Erkenntnisgewinn ergibt sich für mich nicht daraus und richten werde ich mich auch nicht danach, sondern nach der Nützlichkeit der Kategorisierung. Ein Bild wie File:20150620 66 KA-Fahrradstraße.jpg, das groß eine Fahrradstraße zeigt und klein zwei Verkehrsschilder, wird man vernünftigerweise nicht alleine nach dem kleineren Bildanteil kategorisieren, und ein Nutzer, der Bilder von Fahrradstraßen finden möchte, wird ein solches Bild auch nicht in der Kategorie eines Verkehrszeichens suchen. Wenn jemandem nun die Buchstaben von COM:OVERCAT wichtiger sind als der Sinn, und er ein Bild partout nicht in übereinander geordneten Kategorien haben möchte, dann wäre es immer noch vernünftiger, nur den größeren Bildanteil zu kategorisieren als nur den kleineren, in dem Fall also auf die Verkehrsschilder-Kat zu verzichten. Aber dafür sehe ich auch keinen zwingenden Grund. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2016

Hallo MB-one,

Du erhältst diese Nachricht als Teilnehmer von Wiki Loves Earth 2014 oder 2015. Dieses Jahr wird sich Deutschland wieder am Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth beteiligen. Wir würden uns über weitere Bilder von Dir freuen. Der Zeitraum für das Hochladen der Naturbilder ist vom 1. bis 31. Mai 2016.

Für die Weitergabe an den internationalen Wettbewerb ist ab diesem Jahr eine Mindestauflösung von 2 Megapixeln erforderlich. Bitte gib an, in welchem Schutzgebiet oder an welchem Schutzobjekt (z.B. Naturdenkmal, Geotop) die Fotos gemacht wurden. Wenn Bilder gar nicht zugeordnet werden können, gelangen sie nicht in die Wertung. In die Bilder eingefügte Zusätze wie der Name des Fotografen, Datum, Beschreibung oder ein Rahmen sind unerwünscht.

Seit der letzten Runde sind unter anderem Listen aller FFH-Gebiete und EU-Vogelschutzgebiete in Deutschland erstellt worden, die nun ebenfalls auf Bilder warten.

Dieses Jahr wird eine Vorjury die Vorauswahl der Bilder nach den Wettbewerbsregeln übernehmen. Als Teilnehmer aus den Vorjahren kannst Du Dich daran beteiligen. Bei Interesse bitte unter WLE-Vorjury eintragen, ein Zugangscode kommt per E-Mail.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams,

--Blech (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Bosch-Logo.svg

File:Bosch-Logo.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Madzia29734 (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

2CV again...

Hi!

Please can you help creating Category:Citroën 2CV fourgonnette (unidentified model) in Category:Citroën 2CV fourgonnette as you did with this cat'? It'd be very kind of you (I'm bad with ~~hotcat~~ cat-a-lot...).

Thank you. a lot. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 00:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant "I'm bad with cat-a-lot" not hotcat... but I did move all pics to the new cat. Thanks again

. Have a good end of week. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear MB-one,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth 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 (2015) 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. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)