User talk:PetrusSilesius

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

herby[edit]

Nia ładuj proszę herbów i flag, które mogą zosta zwektoryzowane na commons!

Pozdrawiam --WarX 11:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja tylko ładowałem Image:Arms Lewin Brzeski.png bo zostało skasowane i Image:POL Lewin Brzeski COA.svg nie jest prawidłowym herbem miasta. Jak svg-wersja zostanie poprawiona, "mój" herb może zostać skasowany. Tworzyć svg-herby jest dobrym pomysłem, ale autorzy muszą uważać aby rysować 1:1 a nie tworzyć nowe herby. Pozdrowienia --PetrusSilesius 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  Esperanto  français  galego  italiano  lietuvių  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Ελληνικά  македонски  русский  українська  հայերեն  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  فارسی  +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I've solved this problem. --PetrusSilesius 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej! Nie wiem jak inne twoje fotki, ale ta wygląda na lekko przekompresowaną :) Wystrzegaj się tego na przyszłość :P

Pozdrawiam --WarX 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewin Brzeski COA...[edit]

.. so, firstly, I don't know how good do you understand Polish, so I hope you would understand this text, copied from official web page of the city of Lewin Brzeski.

Za herb gminy przyjęto herb miasta wzorowany na odcisku pieczęci z 1333 roku. W obecnym kształcie został ustalony 18 czerwca 1998 roku w statucie gminy. Przedstawia on złotego lwa wspiętego w prawo i wspartego na trzech wzgórzach. Jest to tak zwany herb "mówiący", który nawiązuje do niemieckiej nazwy Lewina Brzeskiego tj.: Löwen (Löwe - lew).

In short: there is no "original" version of the COA, and every version showing "a gold lion rested on three hills" is good. So is the vector version of the COA by Poznaniak good. /odder 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Hello!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. 85.181.241.92 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Hello!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. 85.181.241.92 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zabrze's admiral[edit]

Definitely this week's most suprising gem for me (while looking for and categorising architecture): the Admiral Palace in Zabrze. Do you happen to know who its architect was? The only thing I could find out is that it is (was?) a hotel. Thank you! Fransvannes 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that my answer comes so late, but I see that you have already found the architects: Bielenberg and Moser. Yes, the Admiral Palace from 1924-28 is a great building and there are a lot of pictures on this site http://www.zabrze.aplus.pl/zabrze%20hotel1n.html. But actually it is no more a hotel and the building itself is unfortunately run down, like many other buildings in Zabrze... Greetings --PetrusSilesius 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did find the architects in the meantime, as well as the site you mentioned (may be that was the one wich gave the clue), but thank you anyway. I understand that I have to wait a bit before I visit Zabrze. Do 20th century monuments in Poland have some official protected status? Best, Fransvannes 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@ official protected status: I'm not sure, but I think so. But there's a mass of buildings (also older ones), which are run down, although they have a protected status - so it could be better to visit them now before it's to late. F.e. I've read about a worker settlement in Knurow, built by Karl Henrici, which got partly broken off this year, because it was not protected and had to make room for a new motor-way :( --PetrusSilesius 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad. Maybe I've become a bit too optimistic, while categorizing pictures of interesting buildings over here. The gallery below shows why: all these buildings were renovated since I've visited them (or at least visited the respective cities without knowing about the buildings, which were all very run down).
No guarantee of course. Best, Fransvannes 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Prag Teynkirche Süden.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}}}


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‎  +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

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

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

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source --PetrusSilesius (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY - I've added the license informations --PetrusSilesius (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Marien am Behnitz Hochaltar.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 I like! Mrmariokartguy 00:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bad Mergentheim Michaelskapelle.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 details --Mbdortmund 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spandau Denkmal Joachim II.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 --Massimo Catarinella 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

This message was added automatically by John Bot, if you need some help about it, ask its master ( John Bot(My Operator|My Contribs) ) or go to the Commons:Help desk. -- John Bot(My Operator|My Contribs) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bad Mergentheim Marktplatz.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 perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)It's corrected now... --PetrusSilesius 17:49, 19 October 2008 -- Definitely QI! -- MJJR 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neuzelle Klosterteich.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 It's OK, very good sharpness. --Lestath 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neuzelle Klosterkirche Fassade.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. Good colours and perspective. --Lestath 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neuzelle Klosterkirche SO.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 Perspective overcorrected. --Lestath 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC) It's more natural now -- PetrusSilesius 17:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Now it's OK. --Lestath 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prośba![edit]

File:Schlesien (flag & coa).png

Zwracam się z wielką prośbą, jakbyś mógł stworzyć herb Śląski taki jak jest umieszczony na tej fladze Wappens von Schlesien - właśnie taki oraz czy mógłbyś stworzyć herb Grafschaft Glatz (Hrabstwo kłodzke) jaki był przed wojną Wappen von Grafschaft Glatz - właśnie taki. Będę ci za to bardzo wdzięczny. Przede wszystkim i tak ci dziękuję za twoje zaangażowanie się!!
Pozdrawia Ślązak --84.10.26.204 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spandau Nikolaikirche Turm.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}}}

TUSC token 16888e192d7243c3ba2ba73fa24006b1[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Przerzucanie Commons Helperem[edit]

Zwroc uwage, ze to narzedzie ma problem z polskimi czcionkami ([1]) i trzeba je recznie poprawic. Masur (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

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


Hello, PetrusSilesius!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 22:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw_Archicathedral.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!

Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Category:St John Sarkander Churches 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 category, 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.

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!

NeverDoING (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

JDavid (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stary herb Gliwic[edit]

Postaram się, ale niestety nie mam już tyle czasu co na studiach, więc nie obiecuję kiedy to będzie. Pozdrawiam Poznaniak (dyskusja) 20:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ktoś ci tu jakieś uwagi wrzucił. Przykuta[edit] 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Map Zawiercie.png[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jarekt (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cześć, nazywam się Artur Jemielita. Piszę na wikipedii hasła związane z historią i strukturą administracyjną kościołów starokatolickich. Potrzebuję zdjęcia budynku ul. Falista 28, znajduje się on na bytomskim Karbie. Chce zilustrować hasło "Parafia św. Ojca Pio w Bytomiu". W budynku znajduje się kaplica kościoła starokatolickiego, chociaż budynek może na taki nie wyglądać. Chodzi mi o zdjęcie bryły budynku. Czy możesz mi pomóc? Proszę o kontakt artur_jemielita@tlen.pl. Michcik (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar
Dzień dobry,

chcielibyśmy Pana poinformować, że zdjęcie (Wiki-Commons)

przedstawiające kościół św. Hieronima w Bytomiu Odrzańskim

– oczywiście po podaniu informacji dot. praw autorskich – zostało umieszczone na stronie naszego niekomercyjnego projektu << Kalendarza FVKS "W Podróży" 2013 >>. Motywem przewodnim są "wieże". Nie wykluczone, że pojawią się tam także kolejne zdjęcia Pana autorstwa.

http://kalender.fvks.eu/pl/

http://kalender.fvks.eu/pl/2013/02/22/wieza-kosciola-sw-hieronima-bytom-odrzanski-pl-2/

Mamy nadzieję, że wszystko się zgadza.

Aktualnie kalendarz towarzyszy także naszemu Konkursowi Fotograficznemu (konkursfotograficzny.fvks.eu).


Pozdrawiamy FVKS - Förderverein Kulturstadt Görlitz-Zgorzelec e.V. (Stowarzyszenie Promocji Miasta Kultury Görlitz-Zgorzelec t.z.) kalender@fvks.eu, Agata, Cornelia, Matthias

fvks (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Pionersky coat of arms.jpg[edit]

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‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Pionersky coat of arms.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:Pionersky coat of arms.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!

JuTa 03:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Town privileges Wroclaw.gif 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!

Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar
For the picture of St. Paul's church in Nowy Bytom! Aarp65 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to copyright
File:Berlin Bonifatiuskirche Altarraum.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.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: artist born 1930, no fop
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  +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuznia Raciborska arms.png 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!

Harry-C (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]