User talk:Joergens.mi

User talk:Joergens.mi/archiv

Ich hab dich mal in die Liste eingetragen, damit sollte das Kategorieumlinkproblem für dich gelöst sein. Lieben Gruß, Arnomane 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Polarlys#User:joergens.mi_als_Administrator Danke für deine im Chat avisierte Bereitschaft, dich zur Wahl zu stellen --Historiograf 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Joergens.mi, Gratulation! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons.

Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten zu lesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Die File File:Thomaskirche (Freiburg) 3.jpg wurde auf Commons:Löschanträge gemeldet, damit die Gemeinschaft entscheiden kann, ob sie behalten oder gelöscht werden soll. Es wäre gut, wenn du dich an dieser Diskussion auf der Antragsseite beteiligen würdest. Wenn du diese File geschaffen hast, solltest du beachten, dass dieser Antrag keineswegs bedeutet, dass deine Arbeit nicht geschätzt wird. Es bedeutet nur, dass jemand glaubt, dass es ein Problem gibt, zum Beispiel mit dem Urheberrecht oder einer Richtlinie. Bitte denke daran, auf die Begründungen der Antragssteller zu reagieren und diesen ggf. sachlich zu widersprechen. Aussagen, die auf den Antragsteller selbst abzielen, werden das Ergebnis des Antrags nicht beeinflussen. Vielen Dank! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Tut mir leid. Flominator (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ich musste nochmal nachlegen: Commons:Deletion requests/Thomaskirche Freiburg reloaded. Dennoch vielen Dank für den Marie-Ausbau und frohes Fest, --Flominator (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joergens.mi, I asked for a rotation of this file and noticed afterwards your comment: Don't rotate book pages. Is there a specific reason why you do not want book pages to be rotated? Suppose it would be a file to be inserted in an article, how can someone look at the image or read the description (if there is any) unless turning the head for 90%? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lotje I hope i can give a full answer. The books pages should be left as is, to keep the book as book, if a picture is needed it will be extracted, rectified, optimized and brought to an upright position. There are some pages with one picture only - wihtout text -, but other will fit on two pages or only on a part of a page. Therefore we decided in german language wikisource to do it that way. If you can tell me the specific page, an the optimized Version is missing, i'll add it. The naming convention is for the book page "File:Die Gartenlaube (1891) 004.jpg" the picture is "File:Die Gartenlaube (1891) b 004.jpg" --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 15:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example: I would like to start looking for images by Franz Molitor (Maler) and imo Besiegt (nach dem ölgemälde von J. Molito) is such a case. What do you suggest? Lotje (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see File:Die Gartenlaube (1885) b 061.jpg --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 17:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Lotje (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noch schnell kleine Korrektur --> J. Molitor Lotje (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This file has 20 duplicates. Perhaps your bot malfunctioned?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the images in Category:Lackschale are indeed lacquerware and not just some modern, high-gloss paint? Could you please reply at Category talk:Lackschale? - Takeaway (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Your bot has been listed at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag 5 as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure we'd like to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you wish for your bot to retain it's bot flag, please speak up on the deflag page. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can re-request the bot flag at Commons:Bots/Requests should you need it again. Regards, ~riley (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bergheimer Altar (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01203.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. --Ercé 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altarbild Orlier (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01107.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 Could you crop out the borders so that there's only red border left? I'm not sure if you can understand what I mean. --Basotxerri 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)  Done Thank you for this remark, Gzen92 07:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, that's it! Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isenheimer Altar (Colmar) jm01221 deriv.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. The Photographer Sat, 28 Apr 2018 17:04:35 GMT

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rue Morel (Colmar) jm01465.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 A bit soft everywhere but far from being unsharp. Lighting is good, verticals are vertical - good quality. Granada Tue, 01 May 2018 06:34:25 GMT

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isenheimer Altar (Colmar) jm01227.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. --Granada 06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isenheimer Altar (Colmar) jm01229.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. --Granada 06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isenheimer Altar (Colmar) jm01231.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. --Granada 06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altarbild Orlier (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01079.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. --Halavar 10:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bild (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01099.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. --Suisant7 19:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bild (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01101.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bild (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01103.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. --Peulle 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bild (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01105.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. --Peulle 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Die Hochzeit zu Kana (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01319.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. --Peulle 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kapitell,Letzte Kommunion der Heiligen Maria von Ägypten (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01417.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. --Pudelek 11:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johannesaltar (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01323.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 for me. --Rbrechko 10:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quai de la Poissonnerie (Colmar) jm01502.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. --Podzemnik 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reliquiar St. Hippolyt (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01085.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 A little bit noisy in unfocused areas, but good for me at all. --Rbrechko 10:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quai de la Poissonnerie (Colmar) jm01475.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. --Milseburg 12:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quai de la Poissonnerie (Colmar) jm01495.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 Slight drawback: the cropped person on the right. Otherwise it's OK and since the buildings are the subject, I think it's good enough for QI. --Peulle 15:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Martin (Colmar) jm01450.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 15:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unterlinden-Museum (Colmar) jm01071.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. --Ermell 19:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unterlinden-Museum (Colmar) jm01055.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. --Ermell 19:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Place de la Mairie (Colmar) jm01547.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 There is some tilt and the left crop should be improved --Poco a poco 13:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done Gzen92 09:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quai de la Sinn (Colmar) jm01445.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 --Michielverbeek 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quai de la Sinn (Colmar) jm01447.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. --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unterlinden-Museum (Colmar) jm01043.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. --Ralf Roletschek 08:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rue des Marchands (Colmar) jm01525.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, --Fischer.H 17:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unterlinden-Museum (Colmar) jm01045.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 for me --Megatherium 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isenheimer Altar (Colmar) jm01221 (retouched).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. --Peulle 12:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rue du Rempart (Colmar) jm01047.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 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le petit vigneron (Colmar) jm01509.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. --Trougnouf 10:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rue des Écoles (Colmar) jm01503.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 needs a vertical perspective correction --Poco a poco 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done Gzen92 10:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rue de Têtes (Colmar) jm01042.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. --Trougnouf 11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kreuzigung (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01213.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 A bit grainy but OK for me. --Basotxerri 12:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Melancholie Cranach der Ältere (Unterlindenmuseum Colmar) jm01307.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 20:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:PK1 jm65263.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trauernde Theologie (Emil Stadelhofer) jm24933.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 012.png

And also:

• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 014.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 134.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 136.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 226.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 227.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 228.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 330.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 331.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 349.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 400.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 556.png
• File:De Reise Marco Polo (Bürck) 586.png

Yours sincerely, Tyler de Noche (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moin von der Küste,
es ist schon so viele Jahre her, dass wir uns in Nürnberg getroffen haben, wir (Ailura und ich) planten deshalb einen Fotoworkshop im Frühjahr 2019. Als wir erfuhren, dass Sebastian ebenfalls in Frühjahr ein BarCamp plant, entschlossen wir uns, zusammen zu arbeiten. Wir gliedern uns organisatorisch an diesem BarCamp an, sprich sind im gleichen Hotel, essen gemeinsam und nutzen ein Raum des Camps für unsere Fotovorträge, ähnlich wie auf der WikiCon 2011 in Nürnberg.
Wie Ihr vielleicht mitbekommen habt, ist Gnu zu seiner letzten Wanderung aufgebrochen, daher möchten auch wir seiner Gedenken.
Die weiteren Tage wollen wir gemeinsam ein Programm aus Fototouren und Vorträgen zusammenstellen, es ist noch viel Luft für Eure Ideen und Vorträge. Den geplanten ausführlichen LR Workshop wird zu einem anderen Zeitpunkt im Frühsommer ( WMDE gibt den Ort vor) stattfinden, da dieser sehr weit in die Tiefe gehen soll. Ich würde mich freuen, Euch in Nürnberg begrüßen zu können, wundere Dich nicht über meine Nachricht auch wenn Du lange nichts mehr editiert hast, ich habe Deinen Namen aus den letzten FWS kopiert. ;)

Tschüß
Euer
-- Ra Boe watt?? 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich habe von zweien Deiner Bilder Ausschnitte mit den Inschriften erzeugt: Teil 1, Teil 2. Ich wollte das auch von einem dritten Bild tun, aber das Ergebnis ist leider nicht so gut. Dein Bild: Le Mont Ste. Odile (Odilienberg) jm3121.jpg, mein Ausschnitt (übrigens leicht aufgehellt und geschärft): Bild "inscriptionbackcropley1kn3.jpg" (ich werde dieses Bild später wieder löschen, wenn Du es dir angesehen hast). Hast du vielleicht noch Material zurückgehalten, weil das Gesamtbild nicht so gut war, wo aber eventuell die Rückseite der Sonnenuhr im Bereich der Inschrift besser erkennbar ist? Übrigens stimmt die von dir in Commons eingetragenen Übersetzung für den Vorderteil nicht. Auch im Dewiki ist das falsch. Das will ich dort ändern und die drei Ausschnitte dort einfügen. — Speravir – 23:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann mal schauen ob ich noch ein anderes Bild davon habe. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 05:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heilige Familie (Freiburg) 03.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Blasius (Zähringen) jm4062.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gehört File:Green carrot jm103186.jpg wirklich zum Festivalsommer? Atamari (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dnake mein Fehler. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 17:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Joergens.mi, hervorragende Arbeit! perfekt arrangiert und dokumentiert... Ach, wenn nur ein Viertel der Wiki-Bilder auf diesem Level wären... Da mich interessiert hat, wie diese Composition auf einem neutralen/weißen Untergrund aussehen würde, habe ich mir eine Version erlaubt. Das "einstellen/nutzen" der Version überlasse ich dem Urheber der Vorlage ;-). Eine kleine Anregung: Vielleicht wäre eine Ansicht des geschlossenen Messers von der Seite interessant, da es für den Tragekomfort (z.B. in der Hosentasche) recht aussagekräftig sein könnte... nochmal Danke für die Arbeit, mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Auge=mit (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catgory:UGC objects 10000–10999 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 gallery, 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 2722 is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: GA1: Gallery without images or other media files If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

CptViraj (📧) 14:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 3175 is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: GA1: Gallery without images or other media files If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

CptViraj (📧) 14:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.Sorry, I had emptied it because I thought it is meaningless and I didn't notice that there were similar categories ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everthing is fine. I forgot to fill it yesterday night --08:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Joergens.mi!

Zuerst mal danke für die vielen Apfelfotos! Aber in Commons sollen alle Kategorie-Namen einheitlich in englischer Sprache gefasst werden. Also schreib bitte "October" statt "Oktober"!

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:St. Andreas (Freiburg) 03.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin Sg. (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:St. Petrus Canisius (Freiburg) 02.jpg

And also:

• File:St. Petrus Canisius (Freiburg) 03.jpg
• File:St. Petrus Canisius (Freiburg) 14.jpg
• File:St. Petrus Canisius (Freiburg) 15.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Joergens.mi ich lade ab und an extrahierte Illustrationen der Gartenlaube nach Commons. Bei Bildern des Jahrgangs 1896 fällt mir auf, dass es einen Fehler im Template aufzeigt - vgl c:File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1896)_b_0756_a_1.jpg Bei der Beschreibung steht in rot Expression error: Unrecognized word "die".

Womöglich aber setze ich die Parameter falsch im Template?

Danke! --Mfchris84 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mfchris84, du machst nichts falsch, da hat wohl wieder mal einer gemeint wer kann es besser als andere und hat was am Template gefummelt.

--Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 15:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin Sg. (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin Sg. (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friedenskirche (Freiburg) 3.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Gestumblindi (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:Kunst Helmut Lutz (Breisach am Rhein) jm56939.jpg

And also:

• File:Kunst Helmut Lutz (Breisach am Rhein) jm56941.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:St. Michael (Freiburg) 02.jpg

And also:

• File:St. Michael (Freiburg) 03.jpg
• File:St. Michael (Freiburg) 04.jpg
• File:St. Michael (Freiburg) 06.jpg
• File:St. Michael (Freiburg) 07.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:Glasfenster (Münster Freiburg) jm3559.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joergens.mi

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joergens.mi,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joergens.mi. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you -- CptViraj (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin Sg. (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heilige Familie (Freiburg) 02.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pentax K-3-III 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 ∙ +/−

Grund: Kategorie für Fotos der K-3 III auf Commons existiert bereits seit 2. April 2021: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pentax_K-3_III --angerdan (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hättest mich auch direkt anschreiben können --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 11:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please take a look at this report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason) as these are serious everyday violations of the Commons rules and protection of meaningless names (in this case, Kalumny which translates as Columns). User Kazimier Lachnovič with filemover rights constantly performs violations of the Commons rules, creates instability issues and protects meaningless names, thus creates confusion. His Commons admin rights previously were lifted, but it is clear that it is not enough. -- Pofka (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 03.jpg

And also:

• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 06.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 01.jpg

And also:

• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 02.jpg
• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 10.jpg
• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 11.jpg
• File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 12.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen that you uploaded in 2009 the whole book of "Atlas Cosmographicae".

Is it possible to know the source of the scan and which version of the book is the uplaoded one?

thank you!Sette-quattro (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, kannst Du mir helfen? Ich habe Probleme mit dem Admin Racconish. Siehe! --GFHund (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Affected:

• File:Herz Jesu-Kirche (Freiburg) 03.jpg

And also:

• File:Herz Jesu-Kirche (Freiburg) 07.jpg
• File:Herz Jesu-Kirche (Freiburg) 08.jpg
• File:Herz Jesu-Kirche (Freiburg) 16.jpg
• File:Herz Jesu-Kirche (Freiburg) 19.jpg
• File:Herz Jesu-Kirche (Freiburg) 20.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joergens.mi. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your admin rights and also additional permissions (bureaucrat/oversighter/checkuser/interface-admin), if any, on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2022 before 11th March, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose their rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you! -- 4nn1l2 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Do you use a specific tool to convert Google Books PDF to GIF or PNG ?

Arflhn (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Most of the times the books go directly to commons, or I've use the pdftools to convert, but most freeware tools will do. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 03:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, du hast vor langer Zeit die Vorlage Template:Gartenlaube (1899) (und ähnliche für andere Jahre) angelegt. Die Versionen für 1898 und 1899 funktionieren anscheinend etwas anders als zum Beispiel Template:Gartenlaube (1895): dort werden als Parameter nur die Seitennummern übergeben, bei 1898 und 1899 dagegen die ganzen Namen der gescannten Seiten. Dadurch kommt es beim Berechnen der Seitennummer mit expr zu einem Fehler (Expression error: Unrecognized word "die").

Vermutlich könnte man in den meisten Fällen das Problem lösen, indem man das Schema von 1895 verwendet; mögliche Ausnahmen sind Seitennummern wie "0036_a". Natürlich genügt es nicht, die Vorlage zu ändern; auch alle Aufrufe dürfen dann nur noch die Nummern verwenden.

Was meinst du, sollte man das umstellen, auch wenn es bei Seitennummern mit a/b/c nicht funktioniert? Ich wäre bereit, da ein bisschen Zeit zu investieren. (Das musste ich bereits, um das das Problem zu verstehen. ☻)

-- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renardo la vulpo: I have just created {{Gartenlaube}} to replace all year-specific templates and correct the expression errors. You can see a few examples here. I'm waiting for my bot to be approved to start programmatically replace the old templates with the new one. I'll work from the earliest year to the later years. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke / Thanks / Merci / Dankon / Спасибі, Дякую. – Renardo la vulpo (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Du hast vor etlichen Jahren die Scans File:Saxoniae Inferioris (Merian) 001.jpg etc. hochgeladen, die als Vorlage für s:de:Index:Topographia Saxoniae Inferioris dienen. Bei den Scans gibst du als Quelle "scan eines Faksimile Drucks aus Privatbesitz" an. Bei Wikisource steht, es handele sich um die Ausgabe des Frankfurter Kunstvereins (1853), was aber leider nicht nachprüfbar ist. Deshalb zwei Fragen:

1. Stimmt das?
2. Weißt du Genaueres über die "Basisausgabe"? Es könnte sich um dieselbe Ausgabe wie bei der Uni Heidelberg handeln. Die Ausgabe bei der Uni Düsseldorf kommt dagegen nicht in Frage, was an der Einbindung der Tafeln zu erkennen ist (z. B. beim Scan der Seite 110 und der folgenden T16).

Es wäre schön, wenn du das herauskramen könntest. -- PaulSch (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Das erste stimmt, ich hatte das Faxsimile und habe dies selbst gescannt.
2. Das zweite stimmt auch. Es ist die Ausgabe des Frankfurter Kunstvereins, von dem das Faksimile stammen müsste. Näher kann ich es nicht nachprüfen, das das Exemplar nicht mehr in meinen Händen ist. Wenn da nichts mehr in den Scans selber steht, habe ich auch keine zusätzliche Informationen --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 17:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Klarstellung. Spricht etwas dagegen, die Info "Frankfurter Kunstverein, 1853" dadurch zu dokumentieren, dass man deine Scans in eine neue Unterkategorie Topographia Saxoniae Inferioris (1853 edition) (oder so ähnlich) von Topographia Saxoniae Inferioris (Merian) verschiebt und den Frankfurter Kunstverein dort erwähnt?

PS: Übrigens fehlt bei deinen Scans die Tafel T16 (Halle Gegen Morgen/Abend, zwischen Seite 110 und T17). Die ist dir durch die Lappen gegangen oder du hast vergessen, sie hochzuladen. --PaulSch (talk:) 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke fürs nachladen.

Eine weitere SubKategorie halte ich nicht für sinnvoll, da es unwarscheinlich ist, daß eine weitere Ausgabe des Werkes hinzukommt. Es sind jeweils Nachdrucke desselben oroginals ohne Variantionen - anders als bei grimms Märchen mit mindestens 7 Ausgaben die sich unterscheiden vom Inhalt. Falls das aber doch einmal der Fall sein sollte kann man es dann machen, es würde auch die Systematik des ganzen Werkes durcheinanderbringen - soweit das noch geht, es scheinen einige Kategoriesierer drübergegangen zu sein, Es fehlen inziwchen die Links zwischen den Bildern weil irgenjemand aus dem Nutzen der Vorlage plötzlich eine "Artwork" Vorlage reingebaut hat. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 20:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe das hier nach Wikisource kopiert und ein wenig erweitert. --PaulSch (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected:

• File:Ludwigskirche (Freiburg) 05.jpg

And also:

• File:Ludwigskirche (Freiburg) 06.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Joergens.mi, wenn ich es richtig sehe, bist Du gelegentlich in Freiburg unterwegs. Ich habe einen neuen Abschnitt: im Artikel "Radverkehrsanlage" ( https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radverkehrsanlage&diff=229095785&oldid=226901679 ) und im Artikel über Freiburg ( https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freiburg_im_Breisgau&diff=229096931&oldid=229056848 ) eingefügt. Wäre es vorstellbar, dass Du von dem neuen überdachten Radweg ein Foto machen könntest? (PS: Ich hatte hier schon nachgefragt, aber eben erst gesehen, dass der User im Moment inaktiv ist.) Viele Grüße Mach ich gerne--Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 21:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joergens.mi. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your admin rights on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2023 before 13 March, and also to make at least 5 further admin actions in the following 6 months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose their rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you! -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign in the Admin Responses section to confirm. 1989 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]