User talk:Reclus

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

On Wikidata[edit]

Hallo, hab das bemerkt [1], ist mir noch neu. Es gibt ja zwei Items für Witten, Q3764 Artikel/Galerie und Q7370197 Kategorie. Sollten Verlinkung bei Interwikis und ID in der Vorlage nicht übereinstimmen? Also nicht, dass das irgendein Bot wegen der Vorlage durcheinander bringt, weil jetzt die Commonskategorie mit beiden Items verknüpft ist. Holger1959 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis! Ich habe "On Wikidata" wieder gestrichen. Der Eintrag in Wikidata ist sowieso viel besser. War mir nicht bewusst, dass der existiert. Reclus (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Machno-Senf.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!

Jespinos (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neue EN-Bilder[edit]

Hallo, hab mir User:Holger1959/EN einrichten lassen. Darein packt OgreBot neue Bilder sofern sie schon in einer der vielen EN-Unterkategorien sind. Mit Haken markier ich sie, wenn Beschreibung und Kategorisierung ok sind. Kannst gerne mitbeobachten und mithelfen. :) Holger1959 (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super, danke! --Reclus (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze[edit]

Hallo Reclus,

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

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

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

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

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

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

Hallo Reclus, weiß nicht was das für ein Baum war, vielleicht eine Rotbuche. Aber ziemlich sicher keine Eibe, bei der die Rinde ganz anders aussieht. Vielleicht passt das Bild zu einem anderen ND? Gruß Holger1959 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank! Ja, da stimmt etwas nicht. Vor Ort hatte mich ein freundlicher Anwohner, der zufällig Gärtner war, zum Baum am Rande des Walds geführt (an dem auch ein Schild "Naturdenkmal" angebracht ist) und mir über den Stumpf Auskunft gegeben, so dass ich hingefunden habe. Ich meine, er sagte, der Baum am Rand des Walds wäre eine Eiche und der Stumpf von einer Rotbuche, aber da kann ich mich falsch erinnern. Im GIS des Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreises steht aber etwas von einer Rotbuche und einer Eibe. Laut GIS würde die Eibe aber auch an einem anderen Ort des Grundstücks stehen. (Ich hatte sie auch an einem anderen Ort in OpenSreetMap eingetragen.) Ich vermute, da handelt es sich um eine Verwechselung. --Reclus (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also der Baum mit dem Efeu und der glatten Rinde sieht mir auch nach Rotbuche aus. Die beiden Eichenarten sehen anders aus: Category:Quercus robur bark und Category:Quercus petraea bark. Die ND-Eibe steht dann bestimmt an einer anderen Ecke versteckt. Holger1959 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, danke! Ich repariere das dann mal in OSM, Commons und WP. --Reclus (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ist jetzt passiert. Auf den Luftbildern der Stadtwerke sieht man, dass der Ex-Baum rote Blätter hatte (wie der kleine Baum im Hintergrund), also wohl eine Blutbuche war. --Reclus (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich glaub wegen der "Panoramafreiheit" wärs gut wenn du noch dazuschreibst, wovon du das abfotografiert hast. Die Signatur unten rechts kann ich leider nicht ganz entziffern. Holger1959 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis! Habe ich ergänzt. Die Zeichnung kannst du am Gebäude auch bei Bing sehen. --Reclus (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
super, danke! Soll ja keiner kommen und einen Löschantrag stellen. Die Zeichnung scheint echt groß zu sein, bei dem Foto hätt ich eher gedacht es hat die übliche Infotafelgröße ;) Holger1959 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der WLM-Countdown hat begonnen[edit]

Hallo Reclus,

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

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

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

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

( Bernd Gross, 6. August 2015)

File:Radio Libertaire 10 ans Léo Ferré 2.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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio Libertaire 10 ans Léo Ferré 4.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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denkmalliste Witten[edit]

Hallo Reclus, weist du vielleicht was alles zum Baudenkmalumfang bei Nr. 2 "Zeche Nachtigall" gehört? Ich mein Mal gelesen zu haben, daß die Ziegelei und auch Teile der Außenanlagen nicht unter Denkmalschutz stehen (nur die eigentlichen Zechengebäude), finds aber nicht wieder. Holger1959 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, ich habe leider überhaupt keine Ahnung. Tut mir Leid! Reclus (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
danke für die Antwort, schade! Holger1959 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio Libertaire 2.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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demonstration Radio Libertaire 1983-09-03 2.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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio Libertaire 10 ans Léo Ferré 1.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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio Libertaire Siné 1983-09.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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pinus[edit]

Halo Reclus, hast du [2] gesehen? Scheint eine andre Art zu sein. Holger1959 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jetzt schon. Danke! In Herbede steht auch so einer. Der Herbeder Baum ist wohl aber auch Pinus reflexa und nicht Pinus strobiformis. Siehe auch die Diskussion zum Foto dort. --Reclus (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Vandalism warning[edit]

العربية  বাংলা  čeština  словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  suomi  français  עברית  magyar  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  日本語  македонски  norsk bokmål  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tok Pisin  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−


float 
You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

You have destroyed about 200 categories in Commons by wrongly using of replace !!!Jasc PL (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with my edits? I think I improved the pages I edited. Even if I'm wrong, it's clearly not vandalism. Please see Category:OpenBSD. I also added authority control to Wikidata which is now displayed in Category:OpenBSD. --Reclus (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asking me? I hope you checked at start or till now at least some bigger difs showing results of your work - before you start the batch? I see you don't, and you still continue your destructive work. Here is one of hundreds examples of your "improvements": Category:DIE PARTEI; where are now effects of many work of many people e.g. here? Nowhere? At the trash? OK, now I know that's not an usual vandalism, but serious mistake and... routine. OK, now more constructive :).
The main idea of placing some kind of infoboxes in Commons, linking categories with other our resources, in simple words - is absolutely right. I understand it so much, that I yesterday - before I discovered your editions and discussion of such infoboxes - allocated some hours to create a working draft of something similar for many categories I'v created and working on. It's effect of my assumptions that categories and galleries here should be as good, complete, intuitive and useful for regular users as possible. Maybe it could be my small contribution to discuss about such things. I'm near newbie, very unexperienced user, but after 1.5 months of intensive everyday work here I have also some observations, conclusions and ideas.
So, my short summary is, infoboxes - YES, but:
  • horizontal, at the top of pages, more compact - something like recent Navbox template
  • in the vertical form as now, they looks very bad, interfere with pages composition, and lacking the usability
  • a list of Wikipedia's links at the start of pages, often awful long, must be removed to automatic lang switch in infobox, of course
  • they should be so universal as possible for various needs and -
  • they must be editable in the simple and easy way by users (also good documented), who will to match with specific needs concerned with respective page
  • all former descriptions in various languages should be converted (not removed!) by dedicated, properly implemented and tested script to lang switch mode
  • all other proper editions must be preserved
  • probably, they should be placed automatically, by creation a new category page
  • ... and many minor changes and improvements
I feel I should place above arguments at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox - what do you think? Greetings, --Jasc PL (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're completely wrong (obviously). Category descriptions on Commons are awful. They're chaotic, complex, often single-language or missing, a lot of different templates ares used… It's nearly always an improvement to replace Commons descriptions by Wikidata (or Wikipedia). If you really think the infoboxes should be horizontal instead of vertical (a question of taste) please talk to the developers of c:Template:Wikidata Infobox, not to me. It seems like you invested some time into handcrafting some pretty category descriptions, but the the automatically generated are not only prettier (which is subjective, of course), but also multilingual (also Polish!), contain more information (authority control, website, link to Wikipedia, map, logo…) and are much easier to maintain. They are obviously an improvement. Sorry for that! --Reclus (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for all your answers and... some patience: certain of my posts at the start was, probably, some too offensive. The reason is, this matter is really important for me. I understand your substantive arguments but... you have a years of wide experiences here at the much higher level - I have a something like "fresh look" and, maybe, some better understand certain things from an usual (outside) users point of view. Some knowledge about usability in context of various web pages also I have.
So, now I go to the template discuss page for at first reading all and then present my arguments. Grüße! --Jasc PL (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dont suppress the short descriptions in the categories ![edit]

Hello. In the categories of Commons, OK to suppress interwiki links when the information is provided by wikidata, such as in Category:Arte TV.

But why do you suppress the short descriptions in several languages that allow people to learn the content of the category. For example in Category:Paris Commune (I reverted) you have information such as for English readers :

   The Paris Commune or Fourth French Revolution was a government that briefly ruled Paris from March 18 (more formally, from March 28) to May 28, 1871. It existed before the split between anarchists and Marxists had taken place, and it is hailed by both groups as the first assumption of power by the working class during the Industrial Revolution. Debates over the policies and outcome of the Commune contributed to the break between those two political groups.

And it is available in 50 different languages ! And with LangSwitch, it appears in the language of the reader ! Why do you suppress that ? --Tangopaso (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Commons is made for the storage of media, not for text. Text should be put into Wikipedia. Category descriptions in Commons are chaotic, complicated (lots of different templates) or often missing. Automatically generated descriptions from Wikidata are better in every way and much easier to maintain IMHO. --Reclus (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no languages in the LangSwitch template for which there is no Wikipedia article. The descriptions seem to be taken from the Wikipedias and they should be read in the Wikipedias IMHO because the WP versions are the most up to date (and much easier to edit/maintain). --Reclus (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what is a synthesis? In category:Paris Commune we have a synthesis of 3 lines easy and quick to read. On Wikipedia in English we have an article with perhaps 500 (useful) lines. OK to suppress the interwikis replaced by wikidata. But not to suppress the quick descriptions.
And the categories on Commons are not so bad that you say. OK some of them are. But please modify them to make them better. Propose rules to have better trees of categories. Create new sub categories. But suppressing the short descriptions will not make the categories better. Only less readable and less understandable. --Tangopaso (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely at your side @Tangopaso and I find @Reclus arguments only his subjective point of view. Take a part of discuss about it in Template talk:Wikidata Infobox and Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_bot-deploy_Wikidata_Infobox, please. --Jasc PL (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasc PL: I apologize, but my knowledge of English language is not sufficient for discussing in those pages. I discovered {{Wikidata infobox}} . It is a good idea. I added 1 in Category:Musée du Louvre. But according to my opinion the small descriptions by mld or langswitch have to been kept. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox für Category:Rhede (Ems)[edit]

Hallo Reclus, hier hast Du eine fehlerhafte Infobox installiert. Das Bild zeigt eindeutig den Ort Rheden (Lower Saxony), nicht aber Rhede (Ems). Ansonsten muss ich sagen, dass ich gar kein Freund dieser Infoboxen bin. Der Grund ist, dass eigentlich harmlose Fehler wie etwa falsche Bilder nicht einfach von jedem Benutzer korrigiert werden können. Ohne spezielle Programmierkenntnisse geht da nix. Lasse Commons doch bitte für jeden Benutzer und nicht nur für eine Elite von Programmierern editierbar. Demokratie statt Technokratie! Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis! Die Daten für die Infoboxen kommen aus Wikidata. Ich hatte da nichts eingetragen, aber habe das Bild dort ausgetragen. Es wurde aus der ukrainischen Wikipedia importiert. Dort habe ich das Foto auch gelöscht. Es kann sein, dass es in anderen Wikipedias noch falsch steht. Es kann auch sein, dass es dann wieder falsch in Wikidata importiert wird. Hilf mit!
Bezüglich deiner "Technokratie"-Kritik: Es ist genau andersrum. Commons ist sehr schwer benutzbar, gerade für neue Benutzer. Du hast dich nur seit Jahren eingewöhnt, hattest anfangs aber sicher viele Mühen. Ich erinnere nur an die vmtl. tausenden von Vorlagen in Wikitext (oft auch mehr als einer für den gleichen Zweck), dank der Commons tatsächlich "nur für eine Elite von Programmierern editierbar" ist. Wikidata dagegen ist dank Javascript-Interface wesentlich einfacher benutzbar, gerade für neue Nutzer. Im Moment wird an der Überarbeitung von Commons mit Wikidata-Technik gearbeitet. Wenn das fertig ist, wird alles besser. Konservatismus hilft gerade beim Nutzerschwund nicht weiter. --Reclus (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ich reiche hiermit nach, womit du meiner Meinung nach helfen kannst: 1. Ein Bild für Rhede (Ems) finden, das in Wikidata und Wikipedias eingetragen werden kann. 2. Das falsche Bild in den verschiedenen Wikipedias (=verschiedenen Sprachversionen des Artikels) finden und ersetzen oder wenigstens löschen. --Reclus (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2018 (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:Donald Rooum.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:Donald Rooum.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file was sent to me via E-Mail (via another person). Donald Rooum told me what I wrote in the english description. The image was published before, but only in lower quality. (You can check that.) --Reclus (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ciell (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2018 (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:Witten Freizeitbad Heveney Drohne 2.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:Witten Freizeitbad Heveney Drohne 2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:38, 20 January 2019 (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:Witten Freizeitbad Heveney Drohne 1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:38, 20 January 2019 (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:Witten Blue Beach Drohne.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:Witten Blue Beach Drohne.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  বাংলা  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  suomi  français  galego  עברית  हिन्दी  magyar  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  Nederlands  polski  português  русский  sicilianu  svenska  Türkçe українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−


Hello Reclus, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Witten Blue Beach Drohne.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, — Racconish💬 05:28, 28 January 2019 (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:Radio Libertaire 10 ans Léo Ferré 3.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:Radio Libertaire 10 ans Léo Ferré 3.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content.

We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.

In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files.

Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.

Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  suomi  français  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  မြန်မာဘာသာ  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  русский  中文  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  বাংলা   +/−

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anarchist Book Fair at the Crucible in Oakland. Ends at 6. Come visit the Justseeds table! -printmaking -justseeds (13337608145).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!

Lucifer our Lord (Talk to satanist) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]