Luckyprof

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Luckyprof!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

File:Bachschmiede in Wals.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 11:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Luckyprof,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

luckyprof

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

	luckyprof
	Hallo Luckyprof, Ich interessiere mich für das Gemälde von Schloss Maasbach. Sind sie im Besitz dieses Bildes ? Bitte um Antwort Mit freundlchen Grüßen Paul Üblagger Paulsen1992 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Die Bilder habe ich bei meinem Besuch bei dem jetzigen Eigentümer, Herrn Dietrich, in der Wirtsstube gemacht. Die Originale vom früheren Innenhof des Schlosses sollen im Kloster Reichersberg sein. Der Besitzer (Herr Dietrich, früherer Wirt) ist aufgeschlossen, man kann ihn also ansprechen. Ich bin noch auf der Suche nach einer Radierung, die es von Maasbach gibt, diese werde ich dann demnächst einstellen.

Was ist das für eine "Zeichnung" bzw. "Radierung", von der ihr da redet? Meint ihr den Kupferstich von Michael Wening aus dem Jahr 1721? Der stammt aus dem Werk "Historico Topographia" und befindet sich als Faksimile z.B. in der Universitätsbibliothek Passau. Lechthaler (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Schloss Teuffenbach - Foto von 1920.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Schloss Teuffenbach - Foto von 1920.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Schloss Teuffenbach - Foto von 1920.png]]).

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

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Schloss Maasbach Innenhof neu.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Schloss Maasbach Innenhof neu.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Schloss Maasbach Innenhof neu.png]]).

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

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Schloss Maasbach Zeichnung.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Schloss Maasbach Zeichnung.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

WLM 2011 is over

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, so leid es mir für dich tut, aber Wiki Loves Monument ist vorbei. Seit 1. Oktober. Bitte füge daher die Vorlage

{{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011|at}}

nicht mehr in deine Bilder ein.

Nebstbei wäre es nett, wenn du deine Bilder sinnvoll kategorisieren könntest. Du kannst dir gerne auf deiner Beobachtungsliste Anregungen holen.

lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Zu Schloss Maasbach: Es geht nicht um die Radierung von Wening, sondern ich habe vom jetzigen Eigentümer zwei Bilder von Rötelzeichnungen des Schlosses bekommen, aus denen erstmalig und einmalig auch die Gestaltung des Innenhofes hervorgeht, beide sind älter als 130 Jahre, aber leider wurden sie gelöscht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyprof (talk • contribs)

hallo Luckyprof, vermutlich wolltest du das weiter oben schreiben, aber es passt auch hier: die Bilder wurden gelöscht, weil du sie als eigene Werke ausgegeben hast, die sie ganz offensichtlich nicht waren. An einer Richtigstellung warst du offensichtlich nicht interessiert (du hättest die Bildbeschreibung entsprechend korrigieren können.). Du kannst aber über Commons:Undeletion_requests das Rückgängigmachen der Löschung beantragen. Und bitte signiere deine Diskussionsbeiträge mit den 4 Tilden: ~~~~ lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maasbach, Wimberg

Hallo Luckyprof,

Der Datensatz zu Maasbach ist leider teilweise unrichtig: Die von N. Grabherr als Vorgängeranlage von Maasbach genannte Burg Morspach ist eine Falsifikation. Vgl. OÖ Heimatblätter, Heft 1/2, 2011, 41.

Die "Mauerreste" der Burg Wimberg sind ebenfalls eine Falsifikation: Johann Ev. Lamprecht hat die Anlage schon in der 2. H. des 19. Jh. beschrieben und eine Planskize angefertigt. Es handelt sich um eine Plateaurandburg des Typus Unterpöring, von Mauerresten war schon damals keine Rede.

lg c.s.

Hallo Hamlet, Danke für die Hinweise. Es ist klar, dass ich von Grabherr ausgehe, dann die Lokalitäten aufsuche, mit den heutigen Besitzern rede (wenn das möglich ist) und noch weitere Textbelege suche (dass Grabherr auch von anderen lebt, ist mir schon klar geworden, solange ich aber nichts Besseres habe, geht ich von seinen Texten aus). Natürlich ist mir manches an Literatur nicht zugänglich. Wenn die Informationen aber falsch sind, so bitte ich um Korrektur, das ist ja auch der Sinn von wikipedia, dass hier eine Art gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion stattfindet. Bei Maasbach hat mit der heutige Besitzer auch noch weitere Bilder gezeigt, die gelöscht wurden, aber den Innenhof mit Arkaden zeigen.

hluke54

Bildbeschreibung

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, könntest du bitte die Beschreibung von File:Traunegg-2.jpg korrigieren. Weder stammt das Bild von dir, noch wurde es 2012 erstellt (Date of creation, when the original source (such as photograph of 3-D scene, digital file, or original 2-D artwork) was created.). Oder? Bei Scans von Kunstwerken, Stichen, etc. ist immer das Orignaldatum und nicht das Scan- oder Hochladedatum anzugeben. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ich habe wieder das gleiche Problem, dass ich die Beschreibung leider nicht ändern kann. Aber es ist klar, dass es sich um einen Stich von Georg Matthäus Vischer von 1674 handelt (das habe ich in der Bildbeschreibung auch so angegeben), ich habe das nur eingescannt, für die Zukunft verspreche ich Besserung. Jetzt finde ich auch die Leiste mit der Unterschrift nicht mehr, was ist nur los? luckyprof

edit button markiert

das gibt's doch nicht. Welche Skin hast du? Welchen Browser? Die Knöpfe sind an der selben Stelle wie in der deutschsprachigen WP. Skin findest du unter Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, Falls nicht ohnehin ausgewählt, würde ich dir die Standardskin Vector ans Herz legen. Bei kleiner Auflösung kann der Editbutton schon mal verschwinden. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nun habe ich es versucht und die Bilddatei umbenannt. Ich hoffe, es passt so. Vielleicht sollte ich ja einmal einen Kurs machen - wie gehe ich wikipedia um? Schaden tät's nicht. Luckyprof (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

danke für deine Geduld. Ich war mir sicher, es muss auch bei dir gehen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

File:Schloss Aigenegg-Portal.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Aigenegg-Gesamtansicht.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Brunnhausgasse - Wäscherhaus.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hättest du bitte zu File:Brunnhausgasse - Wäscherhaus.jpg ein bisschen mehr Beschreibung? Ort? Kategorien? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Unter http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonntal findet sich folgende Beschreibung: "Das Wäscherhaus (Brunnhausgasse 16): Das Wäscherhaus an der Ecke zum Hans-Sedlmayr-Weg auf den Mönchsberg steht seit langer Zeit im Eigentum des Stiftes St. Peter. Es ist in der Bausubstanz mittelalterlich." Ich schau aber, ob ich noch mehr finden kann. Luckyprof Luckyprof (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

aus der Bechreibung war mir nicht mal Salzburg klar. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, du Eifriger, sag mal: Stimmt die Adresse Brunnhausgasse 16 in der w:de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Salzburg-Salzburg/A–F nicht oder gibt es zwei Gebäude mit derselben Adresse? Denn ich hab dort schon vor langem das Haus mit dieser Adresse eingestellt, es ist das hier (hab nochmal auf das Hausnummernschild gezoomt, um nicht zu irren). Obwohl es mir immer schon eigenartig und nicht passend vorkam. --Eweht (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, da habe ich mich geirrt. Bin gestern bei meinem Spaziergang in die Nonntaler Hauptstraße nochmals vorbeigegangen und Dein Bild stimmt.

Bitte um Hilfe

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, kannst du bitte die beiden Bilder checken

Beide tragen die gleiche ObjektID 42705 und schaun sich so gar nicht ähnlich. Danke

Und könntest du bitte in der Beschreibung von File:Griesgasse 15.PNG ergänzen, ob das vordere oder das hintere Gebäude gemeint ist. Danke --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Danke für die Hinweise. Große Bitte: "File:Auerspergstraße 16.PNG" löschen, dieses Bild habe ich falsch bezeichnet (nur Auerspergstraße 16-neu.jpg ist richtig).

Das mit der Griesgasse 15 ist schwierig: Die Hausnummer ist auf dem vorderen Gebäude, was aber nicht heißt, dass nicht auch das Haus im Hintergrund unter der gleichen Nummer firmiert, da es sich um einen Hauskomplex, der bis zur Getreidegasse reicht, handelt. Wenn ich wieder nach Salzburg komme, schaue ich nach.

Hallo Luckyprof, ich habe bei File:Auerspergstraße 16.PNG mal die Kennzeichnung als Denkmal rausgenommen. Wenn du noch wüsstest, was das Bild darstellt, sollten wir es umbenennen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Das graue Haus in der Auerspergstraße müsste richtigerweise Nr. 26 lauten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyprof (talk • contribs)

Hallo Luckyprof, hab's verschoben, danke. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Buchholzerhof

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, du hast eine Latte von Bildern unter der Beschreibung Buchholzerhof und der Objekt ID 35737 hochgeladen, in der Liste aber unter unterschiedlichen Bezeichnungen und ids eingetragen. Bitte um Korrektur der Bildbeschreibungen. Danke lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, wie mir das passiert ist. Jedenfalls wird auf der Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Salzburg/Morzg alles richtig angezeigt. Mit Buchholzerhof hat das offensichtlich nichts zu tun. Luckyprof (Luckyprof (talk))

ist egal, wie das passiert ist, passiert ist passiert. Wichtig ist, dass du dich um die Richtigstellung kümmerst. Danke lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Darf ich nochmal wegen selber Sache anklopfen? Bei folgenden Dateien ist die Falsche ID 35737 eingetragen und die Beschreibung in den Bildern stimmt auch nicht überein. Kannst du das ausbessern?

LG --AleXXw 18:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wie gesagt, ich habe offensichtlich ein falsches Hochladeformat verwendet. Die Beschreibungen der Bilder sind an sich korrekt, da ich alle ausstehenden Sachen im Salzburger Stadtteil Morz/Gnigl abgearbeitet habe. Nochmals, ich kenne mit Commons in keinster Weise aus - leider. Zudem bin ich im Moment durch einen familiären Trauerfall sehr beeinträchtigt. Luckyprof (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, tut mir Leid mit deinem Trauerfall, mein Beileid, da hast du ganz andere Sachen im Kopf. Melde dich, wenn du wieder Lust verspürst hier zu arbeiten. So schwierig ist das mit Commons dann auch wieder nicht, das Editieren ist so ganz gleich wie auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia, sogar tw. in deutsch. Die Vorlagen für die deutsche und englische Beschreibung heißen {{De}} und {{En}}. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, kümmerst du dich noch darum? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckprof, ich räume einiges hinter dir her, ich würde mich also freuen, wenn du es der Mühe Wert finden würdest, die Beschreibungen der oben angeführten Bilder selber richtigzustellen, sowie den Bildern die passenden Kategorien zu geben. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Aufnahmedatum

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, vielleicht kannst du dich noch erinnern, wann du dieses Foto aufgenommen hast und das Datum nachtragen. danke lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Danke für die Nachfrage. Das Bild stammt vom 3.1.2012 (12 Uhr 21). Luckyprof

Danke, habs beim Bild nachgetragen (aber das könntest du auch). BTW, wenn du mit den vier Tilden ~~~~ signierst, entsteht sinngemäß folgendes: Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Aufnahmedaten fehlen

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, ich weiß, ich bin lästig, aber beim Kategorisieren deiner Bilder ist mir aufgefallen, dass bei diesen da das Aufnahmedatum fehlt. Könntest du das bitte nachtragen. Danke lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Danke für den Hinweis, das mit dem Datum sollte ich nun erledigt haben. Lg Luckyprof

danke, lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Kategorien

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Danke für die vielen Bilder, aber könntest Du bitte Kategorien vergeben. Wenn dir das alles zu kompliziert und/oder zu fremdsprachig ist, wenigstens eine einzige, nämlich in diesem Fall ganz einfach den Ort. Also für irgendetwas in Salzburg wenigstens [[Category:Salzburg]]. Diese Kategorie findet man eigentlich immer in der Wikipedia beim Artikel zum Ort als "Commons-Link". Meist einfach der Gemeidnename, bei mehrdeutigen Orten mit einem Zusatz des Bundeslands auf Englisch. Das macht die Bilder viel leichter auffindbar. Vielen Dank. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

WLM 2011 ist vorbei

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, aber WLM 2011 ist seit September 2011 vorbei. Siehe etwa diese Änderung. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Danke, bisweilen verwende ich eine nicht mehr aktuelle Vorlage, sorry! Luckyprof

Ibm

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, kannst du dich noch an das Aufnahmedatum von diesem Bild erinnern und es eintragen. Kategorisiert habe ich das Bild schon. Danke lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Danke für den Hinweis, habe ich erledigt! Luckyprof (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Die Edlbrucker Brücken

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, irgendwie sind die beiden Edlbruckerbrücken durcheinander geraten: File:Große_Edlbrucker_Brücke-rechter_Pfeiler.jpg und File:Große_Edlbrucker_Brücke.jpg tragen dieselbe id, aber sind an unterschiedlichen Stellen in die Denkmalliste eingefügt. Könntest du bitte klären. (bei einem Bild fehlt das Aufnahmedatum, bitte erg.) lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Herzi Pinki, das Datum wurde von mir eingefügt.

Über die beiden Pferdeeisenbahnbrücken wurde ich zuerst von Einheimischen falsch informiert: Das von mir als "Große Edlbrucker Brücke" bezeichnete Bild müsste korrekt "Kleine Edlbrucker Brücke" heißen. Zumindest geht das aus dem Heimatbuch über Leopoldschlag so hervor. Da ich die Bildbezeichnung nicht ändern kann, habe ich zumindest in der Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Leopoldschlag die Bilder korrekt eingefügt. Luckyprof (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, habe File:Große_Edlbrucker_Brücke.jpg -> auf File:Kleine_Edlbrucker_Brücke.jpg umbenannt. Und die id getauscht. Du kannst übrigens mit der Vorlage {{Rename}} ein Bild umbenennen lassen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

File:Planskizze Preen.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Planskizze Lamprecht-3.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 08:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WLM 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, habe 2 deiner Bilder von de nach Commons verschoben (siehe Category:Antiesenhofen), wenn du beabsichtigst, sie ins Rennen um WLM 2012 zu schicken, dann müsstest du noch die Vorlage {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|at}} in die zwei Bilder einfügen. Ansonsten empfehle ich dir, die Bilder gleich auf Commons hochzuladen. Ein bisschen Kategorisierung ist mir nach wie vor ein Anliegen. Größere Auflösung wäre auch ganz nett. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Luckyprof,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Nordturm.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Zufahrt.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Gefangenenzelle.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Gerichtsgebäude.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Stiegenhaus.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Sonnenuhr.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Westseite mit Kapelle.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Tillysburg-1.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Kupferstiche von Vischer

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

lb Luckyprof, ich habe gerades gesehen, dass du von schloss Tillysburg ein paar Stiche hochgeladen hast. Zu deiner Information möchte ich Dir sagen, dass ich gerade dabei bin, im Zuge des Buchscannerprojekts mit dem Bundesdenkmalamt, alle dort vorhandenen Stiche einzuscannen. Mit der Steiermark bin ich gerade fertig geworden - siehe hier. Oberösterreich und Niederösterreich folgen, was sonst noch da ist, ich werde es nicht auslassen. Aber ich brauch noch ein bisserl Zeit.

Wenn du spezielle Wünsche hast, sags einfach. Die Bibliothek vom BDA ist recht groß (so ca 90T Bände). Theoretisch sind davon 5-10% für uns geeignet. Ich werde diesen Monat noch den ersten größeren Bericht liefern.

lg aus Wien

--Hubertl-AT (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lieber Hubertl, vielen Dank für den guten Hinweis. Ich habe für meine Burgenbeschreibungen bereits alle Burgen von Vischer von Oberösterreich eingescannt. Dann auch noch alle Burgenbilder von Michael Wening (Gericht Burghausen). Falls gewünscht, kannst Du das alles haben (bitte E-Mail Adresse beifügen). Luckyprof

Copyright status: File:Forschungszentrum Edmundsburg - Eingang.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Forschungszentrum Edmundsburg - Eingang.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Denniss (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Forschungszentrum Edmundsburg - Wappen der Äbte von St. Peter.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Forschungszentrum Edmundsburg - Wappen der Äbte von St. Peter.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Denniss (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nochmals Kategorisierung

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, es ist ja toll, wie viel Nützliches Sie hier einstellen. Aber vielleicht nehmen Sie sich doch mal die Zeit, Ihre Bilder auch zu kategorisieren. Wenn ich richtig gezählt habe, ist das die 6. Bitte dieser Art auf Ihrer Diskussionsseite. Nichts für Ungut. Gruß --Passerose (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Geht's ein bisschen größer?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, davon hast du doch sicher mehr als die 14KB Variante. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tut mir leid, aber ich kann das nicht mehr lesen. Bitte größer, oder bleiben lassen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nächste Woche fahre ich nochmals dort hin. Bis dahin Geduld!93.209.123.31 07:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aufnahmedatum

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, vorerst mal ein recht herzliches Dankeschön für deine fortgesetzte fleißige Mitarbeit und für dein merkbares Bemühen um Verbesserungen in der Qualität deiner Arbeit. Danke auch für die Beiträge zu WLM 2013. Ich bin gerade über die September-Krippe gestolpert, noch immer gilt, dass bei den Fotos unter Date das Erstellungs- und nicht das Hochladedatum anzugeben ist. Gerade bei den Denkmalbildern ist dokumentarische Genauigkeit wichtig. Gilt vermutlich für die anderen Bilder der Kategorie genauso, der Hochaltar etwa ist mit strohsterngeschmückten Nadelbäumen verziert. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ja, das stimmt. Ich bin beim Aufräumen auf diese Bilder gestoßen. Das Aufnahmedatum war 2011-12-11!Luckyprof (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Danke für die Info. Könntest du so nett sein, und das in deinen Bildern korrigieren? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Erledigt! Luckyprof (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Danke --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kamerareinigung?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, deine Kamera scheint dreckig zu sein, Sensor oder Linse, jedenfalls erfreut das Ergebnis nicht. Könntest du sie bitte bei Gelegenheit reinigen (lassen) oder was bei den Klecksen schwierig werden dürfte, mit passender Bildbearbeitung die Bilder säubern? Es ist doch schade, du fährst viele km für deine Fotos, da sollte das Ergebnis dann schon passen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Lageplan Burgstall Kögerl.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Lageplan Burgstall Kögerl.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Ju Ta 21:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bildlizenz

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, handelt es sich bei dir um Franz Brosch oder wie kannst du sonst sein Werk als CC-BY-SA hochladen (dies ist gemeint)? Viele Grüße --Friechtle (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, die Lageskizzze wurde offensichtlich mit Einverständnis von Franz Brosch in einer im Internet zugänglichen Publikation veröffentlicht: "Franz Wilflingseder: Die ehemalige Burg Lonstorf bei Linz und ihre Besitzer. Sonderpublikationen zur Linzer Stadtgeschichte, Linz (1955)." Franz Wilflingseder ist zwischenzeitlich verstorben (1985), ebenso Franz Brosch 1962 (vgl. http://data.onb.ac.at/nlv_lex/perslex/B/Brosch_Franz.html). Zudem würde ich von der Skizze meinen, dass sie eine geringe Schöpfungshöhe besitzt (Strichzeichnung aufgrund eines Kartenausschnittes). Insgesamt habe ich deshalb gemeint, dass man eine solche Lizenz anwenden könnte. Vielleicht gibt es aber eine andere Lösung? Luckyprof (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, bei deinem Link finde ich nirgends den Hinweis, dass Werke unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht sind. Übersehe ich etwas? Ob das Schöpfungshöhe hat oder nicht kann ich nicht beurteilen, aber so weit ich weiß kann man nur bedingt von der Einfachheit eines Werkes auf die Schöpfungshöhe schließen. Würde allerdings keine Schöpfungshöhe bestehen, dann wäre die Lizenz falsch, da das Werk gemeinfrei wäre. Ich würde vorschlagen, es irgendwie prüfen zu lassen, bspw. durch einen Löschantrag!? --Friechtle (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Einen Löschantrag braucht man vielleicht nicht machen, man kann dies sicherlich auch bei Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen einstellen. --Friechtle (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Luckyprof,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Steingruber

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckprof, bist du Christian Steingruber? Wenn nicht, brauchst du eine Freigabe des Fotografen, d.h. von Christian Steingruber für diese Bilder, siehe COM:OTRS. Und {{own}} ist dann wohl nicht der Fall. Wenn ja, de:WP:IK?, siehe auch de:Diskussion:Christian_K._Steingruber. Mir ist auch nicht klar, wie deine Selbstbeschreibung (die Studenten) zu einem Leiter einer Tontechnik-Firma passt. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bist du etwa auch Hagen von Tronje, oder ist Steingruber selbiger? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wie schon gesagt, Christian Steingruber ist Hagen von Tronje. Dass dieser eine Tontechnikfirma betreibt, finde ich nicht so ungewöhnlich, da er ja von etwas leben muss; sein Hobby ist jedenfalls die Burgenforschung und hier ist er durch einschlägige Publikationen ausgewiesen. lg Luckyprof (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

habe mich wohl unklar ausgedrückt, du versuchst immer mir eine Antwort zu geben, aber ich frage nur stellvertretend für das Projekt. Gut du bist nicht Steingruber, dann erübrigt sich die Frage nach den Studierenden.

Die Bilder stammen von Steingruber, du musst einen nachvollziehbare Freigabe von ihm für die gewählte Lizenz organisieren und du kannst nicht gleichzeitig seine Bilder als eigene ({{own}}) ausgeben. Also der Hr. Steingruber soll doch bitte eine Mail an das OTRS-Team senden mit der Freigabe der Bilder, gerne auch in Deutsch. Du musst die Quelle in den Dateien ändern, damit dort nicht mehr {{own}} steht (siehe {{Information}} für die Parameter). Und gut isses. Sonst müssen die Dateien wieder gelöscht werden, es wäre aber schade. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Die Mail an Herrn Steingruber ist abgegangen. Dazu eine Frage: Kann man die Diskussion zu de:Diskussion:Christian_K._Steingruber löschen? Die dort angeführten Behauptungen sind beinahe ehrenrührig. Herr Steingruber hat mir sogar noch angeboten, dass er nach einer Gehaltsabrechnung sucht, die er für seine Beteiligung an der Grabungskampagne in Stillfried erhalten hat. Aber ich denke, das muss nicht sein.

[[:{{{1}}}]]

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as [[:{{{1}}}]]. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Luckyprof (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

(bist du sicher, dass du den Absatz davor so wolltest - auch wenn der Effekt interessant ist?)

Danke für das Kümmern um die Freigabe. Ich mache dich auf die Formalitäten aufmerksam, auch weil wir an anderer Stelle schon mal ein paar Hundert Bilder verloren habe, weil die Formalitäten nicht eingehalten worden sind, ich dem Uploader geglaubt habe, und der Uploader zum Zeitpunkt des Löschverfahrens (von anderer Seite initiiert) nicht mehr mitgelesen hat oder mitlesen wollte.

Ich habe mit 17 in den Ferien den Pinsel an irgendwelchen Awarengräbern gehabt, würde das aber nicht als relevant für meine Biographie betrachten - selbst wenn ich Archäologe geworden wäre. In diesem Sinn war die Frage nach Belegen für die Bedeutung von Stillfried für Hrn. Steingrubers Biographie keine, die die Tatsache seiner Teilnahme in Frage stellt. Es war eine Frage nach der Relevanz für seine Biographie und seiner Mitautorenschaft an den im nächsten Satz erwähnten Publikationen (zu Stillfried). Das ist nix Ehrenrühriges, die Frage war auch an den Autor des Artikels (dich) und nicht an den Gegenstand des Artikels (Steingruber) gerichtet. Du antwortest oft mir, aber du bist die Antwort dem Artikel schuldig. Hr. Steingruber muss den Nachweis nicht erbringen und nach de:WP:Belege könnte er das auch nicht, indem er dir eine Kopie seiner Gehaltsabrechnung zuschickt. Es geht um seine Beteiligung an der (im Folgesatz erwähnten) Publikation und seine Rolle dabei. Es fehlt einfach die Publikation zu Stillfried mit der Mitautorenschaft Steingrubers. Vielleicht kannst du ja einen Einzelnachweis basteln. Aber von mir aus lass es auch so stehen. Die Disk würde ich daher nur ungern löschen.

Zugegeben, ich habe erst gedacht, dass du mit Steingruber identisch bist, auch aufgrund des Kuddelmuddls in den Bildbeschreibungen hier. Aber ein gewisses Naheverhältnis zum Gegenstand des Artikels Steingruber besteht offensichtlich. Beachte daher bitte de:WP:IK. Du machst supertolle Arbeit mit den Burgen und -ställen, weiter so. Ich argwöhne nur manchmal ein bisschen de:WP:OR. Und ein bisschen habe ich Angst, dass das keiner / keine warten kann, solltest du einmal nicht mehr wollen. Du bist als Autor allein auf weiter Flur bei diesen Artikeln. Da sind nachvollziehbare Belege einfach wichtig. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

File:Bergham (1).jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Unabhängig von der URV Frage oben, kannst du bitte erläutern, wieso Hagen von Tronje bereits Oktober 2011 vom Abriss des Schlosses Bergham berichtet, du aber noch Juni 2012 ein Foto machen konntest? Irgendwas stimmt da nicht. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Das Foto wurde mir von Herrn Christian Steingruber zur freien Verwendung zur Verfügung gstellt. Das Pseudonym von Herrn Steingruber auf der Burgenseite ist "Hagen von Tronje". Ich arbeite regelmäßig mit Herrn Steingruber zusammen, da er über eine große Anzahl von Bildern über praktisch alle Adelssitze in OÖ verfügt und mir das meine Arbeit wesentlich erleichtert. Zudem hat er großes Interesse gerade an der Unterschutzstellung gefährdeter Objekte. --Luckyprof (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wenn du die Freigabe hast, das {{own}} ausgebessert hast, dann stimmt das Aufnahmedatum immer noch nicht. Vielleicht kann dir ja der Hr. Steingruber selbiges mitteilen. Es ist logisch unsinnig, ein Aufnahmedatum nach einem Abrissdatum zu postulieren. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, Gutes Neues. Wie schaut's aus mit der Freigabe von Steingruber? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Herzipinki, Herrn Steingruber habe ich vor Weihnachten das Formular mit der Freigabeerklärung und alle Files zugesandt. Offensichtlich will er aus den bekannten Gründen nicht so recht. Wie gesagt, er hatte mir alle Bilder zum Hochladen auf Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt. Ich werde es jetzt nochmals versuchen. Luckyprof (talk)

Hallo Luckprof, was meinst du mit bekannten Gründen? Ich hoffe es liegt nicht an den inhaltlichen Fragen an dich zum Artikel über ihn. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Naja, Herr Steingruber war mehr als verschnupft wg. des Textes in der Diskussion über seinen Eintrag (die Diskussion habe ich dann vorsorglich gelöscht); aber wie auch immer, ich habe ihm wieder eine Mail geschickt und hoffe auf eine Antwort. Lg Luckyprof (talk)

Hallo Luckyprof, was machen wir jetzt mit den Steingruber Fotos? Du hast ja noch nicht mal begonnen, das own aus den Fotos zu entfernen. Bekommst du noch eine Freigabe oder habe ich das endgültig vergeigt und die Bilder müssen wohl gelöscht werden? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, es ist momentan schwierig, da Steingruber durch eine Krebserkrankung in seiner Familie gehandicapt ist. Ich versuche nochmals, ihm die vorformulierte E-Mail zu senden. Luckyprof (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, ein halbes Jahr Geduld ist um. Woran scheitert es noch? Es ist, btw, deine Aufgabe als Uploader für die korrekte Freigabe zu sorgen, ich könnte es mir einfach machen und einfach einen DR auf die Bilder stellen (DR=LA). lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in der Zwischenzeit hat es doch einen Austausch mit Herrn Steingruber gegeben und der File "Bergahm" sollte auch unter den von ihm freigegebenen Dateien sein. Oder täusche ich mich? Lg Luckyprof (talk)

Mein letzter Stand ist, dass er an dem OTRS-Mechanismus gescheitert ist. Ich habe darauf eine Liste der Dateien zusammengestellt, und bin davon ausgegangen, dass du ihm ein vorformuliertes Schreiben mit einer Liste dieser Dateien schickst, damit er seine Freigabe konkret für diese Dateien an das OTRS-Team schicken kann. (Frage: Ist das passiert? Das letzte was ich habe ist die Mail vom 23. Mai 2014, die weder den vorformulierten Musterbrief noch eine Aufforderung an Hrn. Steingruber enthält. Und die nur in Kopie an Steingruber gegangen ist.) Es kann natürlich sein, dass das OTRS-Team säumig ist, … Jedenfalls sind die Steingruberschen Dateien noch nicht von OTRS markiert worden. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mein letzter Email-Wechsel mit Steingruber ist untenstehender; man kann daraus entnehmen, dass er bereit ist, seine Bilder der Wikipedia zur Verfügung zu stellen, also - vielleicht könntest Du für ihn das erledigen (ich hatte schon eine entsprechende mail für ihn vorbereitet mit allen files, aber scheinbar hat das nicht funktioniert):

"From: Steingruber To: hluke54 Subject: Re: Bildlizenzen Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:59:11 +0200

Lieber luckyprof,

Wie vereinbart, hätte ich mehrere Male versucht, die Erlaubnis für die Aufnahme meiner Bilder in die Bildersammlung auf wiki-commons zu geben, allerdings (offensichtlich) ergebnislos.

Nachdem ich längere Zeit keine Antwort bekommen habe, erhalte ich soeben das Mail eines Herrn Christian Nagy , der mir aber mitteilt, dass er meine Bilder “nicht eindeutig zuordnen kann” (??)

Ich weiß jetzt leider auch nicht mehr, was ich tun soll . Die Wikipedia entpuppt sich immer mehr zu einem Mysterium (Erinnert stark an das berühmte “Salzamt”).

beste Grüße Ihr Chr. Steingruber

Sehr geehrter Herr Steingruber,

vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht.

Leider kann ich Ihre Freigabe den Ihrerseits verlinkten Bildern nicht eindeutig zuordnen. Bitte teilen Sie uns daher die genauen Dateinamen der Bilder mit, auf die sich Ihre Freigabe bezieht.

Für Ihre Bemühungen danke ich im Voraus.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Christian Nagy Wikimedia-Support-Team"

Beste Grüße Luckyprof (talk)

Hallo Luckyprof, das was du da schreibst, ist der Stand auf den ich mich beziehe. Ich kann natürlich nicht die Freigabe für Herrn Steingruber erledigen, nochmals, es ist deine Aufgabe als Uploader dich darum zu kümmern, und seine, eine explizite Freigabe zu erwirken. Ich kann nur Deletion Requests stellen, … lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nun habe ich nochmals einen vorformulierten Brief zwecks Freigabe der Bilder (mit der BIlderliste) an Herrn Steingruber mit der Bitte gesandt, diesen an [email protected] weiterzuleiten. Hoffentlich wird dies nun funktionieren. Viele Grüße Luckyprof (talk)

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Luckyprof,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

File:Schloss Weidenholz-Innennhof mit Arkaden.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

illegal form of date: 2012-09-p4. Tsor (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

War nur ein Tippfehler, wurde von mir korrigiert.Luckyprof (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lizenzfrage :-)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, mögest du dich noch vieler Jahre bester Gesundheit erfreuen. File:Saxen-1.jpg könnte ergo eine andere Lizenz vertragen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Saxen-2 (Saxen Haus Nr. 3).jpg noch eins.

Da habe ich scheint's auf die falsche Zeile gedrückt. Sollte so stimmen. Luckyprof (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bildbeschreibung

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckprof, könntest du bitte die Beschreibung von File:Eugendorf_(Kirche_St._Georg-5).jpg korrigieren. Die Kirche ist es ja nicht. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Die Bildbeschreibung habe ich geändert ("Neubau an Stelle des ehem. Mesnergütls"). Danke für den Hinweis. Luckyprof (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Lamprechtshausen Deckblatt.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Lamprechtshausen Deckblatt.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） ∙ +/−

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Turntobl (14).JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Ist unter Waldneukirchen kategorisiert, und wird in de:Burgstall Turnertobl in Kefermarkt verwendet. Kannst du bitte aufklären? Könnte auch ein falsches Bild sein, … --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

BTW: Steingruber?

Habe nun das Bild auf Neumarkt im Mühlkreis umkategorisiert, auch ein Erbe von Steingruber! Luckyprof (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Der Artikel wo das Bild verwendet wird, beschreibt den Burgstall immer noch in Kefermarkt. Sollte es, falls es den Burgstall abbildet, nicht auch in Kefermarkt kategorisiert sein, oder alternativ aus dem Burgstall Turnertobl Artikel entfernt werden? Kenne mich immer noch nicht aus. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ja, der Burgstall liegt im Gemeindegebiet von Kefermarkt, habe das geändert. Mein Irrtum kam zustande, weil man den Burgstall besser von Neumarkt aus erreichen kann. Luckyprof (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Wald an der Alz-2.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Wald an der Alz-2.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Habe nun versucht, die vergessenen Lizenzen einzutragen (Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0). Luckyprof (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, sehe das zufällig, aber irgendwas ist da schiefgelaufen. Falls die Bilder von dir sind, vielleicht solltest du, wie Jarekt oben gesagt hat, ihn auf seiner talk page kontaktieren. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Danke für den Hinweis, ich habe die Freischaltung unter der Lizenz {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} beantragt. Luckyprof (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

… ihn auf seiner talk page kontaktieren … lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Vermischung

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, du hast neue Bilder in die Category:St._Pankraz_am_Haunsberg gefüllt. Diese Kategorie beschreibt die Kirche. Für das Gasthaus gibt es keine eigenen Kategorie, könnte man aber machen, aber könntest du bitte die Bilder zum Gasthaus unter der ID 12241 ablegen, wo sie hingehören und die Beschreibung richtig stellen. Im Zweifelsfall ist die Karte mit den GstNr. zu Rate zu ziehen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Habe nun versucht, die Bilder neu zu kategorisieren (das Gasthaus heißt nun "Wirtshaus Schlössl" [früher "Schlößl am Haunsberg"]). Aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob mir das wirklich gelungen ist. lg Luckyprof (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

wird schon. Wenn du die Vorschau siehst, und da kein Baustein mit der ID sichtbar wird, dann lohnt sich vielleicht noch eine Runde. Bei File:St. Pankraz am Haunsberg-6.jpg und File:St. Pankraz am Haunsberg-2.jpg glaube ich nicht, dass das zur Kirche gehört, das Marterl steht daneben (hast du vielleicht Koordinate), was die Tür darstellt, ist unklar (Keller, Geheimgang zur Burg, …). Vielleicht könntest du dich nochmals um deine Bilder bemühen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Abtenau (Markt 5-2).jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Abtenau (Markt 5-2).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） ∙ +/−

Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quellenangabe

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, bei der Quellenangabe von File:FH-Regensburg-Bücherschrank.jpg hat Dir wohl die automatische Textergänzung einen Streich gespielt, oder ? :-) --HH58 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vielen Dank, ich habe die Quelle nun auf "eigenes Foto" geändert. Luckyprof (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Schleuse

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof! - Das Bild (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pielenhofen_%28Kammerschleuse-1%29.jpg) steht für mich in keinem Zusammenhang mit dem Bild, dass das BLfD für dieses Baudenkmal verwendet. Ich denke eher, dass es die Einbauten in den Mühlbach an der ehemaligen Mühle darstellt. Habe entsprechende Änderungen durchgeführt. Servus - --Flo Sorg (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Danke für den Hinweis, habe nun das neue Bild einegfügt. Passt das so? Luckyprof (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

File:Simbach-Inn Markt-neu.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Simbach-Inn Markt-neu.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） ∙ +/−

Diwas (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Burg Nowy Sącz-6.JPG

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Burg Nowy Sącz-6.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Burg Nowy Sącz-6.JPG]]).

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

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Obernankau (Glockenturm)-1.JPG

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Obernankau (Glockenturm)-1.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Obernankau (Glockenturm)-1.JPG]]).

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

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Struberkaser.JPG

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Struberkaser.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Struberkaser.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Cording-Clemens-2.jpg

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Cording-Clemens-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） ∙ +/−

194.94.134.245 11:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Cording-Clemens-2.jpg

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cording-Clemens-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 ([email protected]). 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:Cording-Clemens-2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Didym (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Sagis Auszug, Piesendorf.jpg

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Sagis Auszug, Piesendorf.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） ∙ +/−

Eweht (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:Effenricht (Kapelle)-2.JPG

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Luckyprof, is this a chapel in Effenricht? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lotje: I am sure, that I made the foto in Effericht. But perhaps there is a second church there. --Luckyprof (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Luckyprof, vielen Dank für Deine vielen schönen Bilder, die hier sehen nach der Marienkapelle Kleinmittersdorf (bei Effenricht) aus. Wollen wir die Bilder eventuell umkategorisieren? Viele Grüße --DALIBRI (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DALIBRI: Hallo DALIBRI, ich muss mich auch für Deine vielen Bilder bedanken, auf die ich immer wieder stoße. Leider gibt es noch so viel zu tun, aber ist das eben so. Gerne kannst Du das Bild umsignieren, wenn Du das korrekte Objekt eruiert hast. Das von mir gemeinte Objekt (Filialkirche Effenricht) muss man dann wohl nochmals aufsuchen. Vielen Dank und noch ein schönes Wochendende. --Luckyprof

@DALIBRI: Ich sehe gerade, dass ich in Kleinmittersdorf die andere Kapelle angegeben habe. Das müsste man dann auch umsignieren. Nochmals vielen Dank --Luckyprof

Hallo Luckyprof, hab beide umgestellt. Nochmals vielen Dank und Dir auch ein schönes Wochenende. --DALIBRI (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DALIBRI: Hallo DALIBRI, vielen Dank für die Umstellung und entschuldige, dass ich da zwei Ortsteile verwechselt habe. --Luckyprof

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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. Wolfgang (Kümmersbruck)-1.JPG

And also:

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:Luftaufnahme Burg Rieden.PNG

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo, das ist doch offensichtlich keine von dir erstellte Luftaufnahme, sondern ein abfotografiertes Bild. --Magnus (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Kapfelberg.PNG

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Kapfelberg.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Kapfelberg.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:Bonhoeffer-Gedenkmal.JPG

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Altenthann.PNG

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Altenthann.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Altenthann.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Inzing-1.PNG

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Inzing-1.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Inzing-1.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Binabiburg (Michael Wening).PNG

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Binabiburg (Michael Wening).PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Binabiburg (Michael Wening).PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Deutenkofen (Michael Wening).PNG

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Deutenkofen (Michael Wening).PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Deutenkofen (Michael Wening).PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Orgelempore (St. Michael, Eitlbrunn).jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Orgelempore (St. Michael, Eitlbrunn).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) 17:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Schloss Dießfurt

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, du hast zwei Dateien in diese nicht existierende Kategorie einsortiert. Bringst du es selbst in Ordnung? --Leyo 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Passt das so? Mit den Kategorisierungen kenne ich mich nicht so gut aus, vor allem mit der Einordnung in eine Oberkategorie. --Luckyprof (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Es muss immer mindestens eine passende Oberkategorie angegeben werden. Am besten orientierst du dich dabei an vergleichbaren Gebäuden (Standort, Denkmalschutz, Baustil). --Magnus (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Burgstall Schrotzhofen.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Burgstall Schrotzhofen.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Burgstall Schrotzhofen.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Frauenbühl-Lageplan.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Frauenbühl-Lageplan.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Frauenbühl-Lageplan.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

File:Schloss Haiming.PNG

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Abschnittsbefestigung Höresham.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Abschnittsbefestigung Höresham.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Abschnittsbefestigung Höresham.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Burg Gruttenstein.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Burg Gruttenstein.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Burg Gruttenstein.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Burgstall Burggen.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Burgstall Burggen.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Burgstall Burggen.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Burgstall-Lageplan.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Burgstall-Lageplan.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Burgstall-Lageplan.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Abschnittsbefestigung DünzingPNG.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Abschnittsbefestigung DünzingPNG.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Abschnittsbefestigung DünzingPNG.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 13:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Sattelberg.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Sattelberg.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Sattelberg.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiDaheim 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Luckyprof, ich habe bemerkt, dass du Bilder von und über Österreich hochgeladen hast, etwa Grabmal Franz Xaver Graf Schaffgotsch.jpg, die wunderbar in unseren jährlichen Fotowettbewerb WikiDaheim 2023 passen würden. Ich finde es schade, dass du deine Bilder nicht für den Wettbewerb nominiert hast, es würde den Wettbewerb bunter und breiter gestalten und deinen Bildern mehr Sichtbarkeit geben. Bilder nehmen automatisch am Wettbewerb teil, wenn du sie über Wikidaheim.at oder über eine der vielen Listen (Denkmallisten, Naturdenkmäler, Public Art, Immaterielles Kulturerbe, etc.) hochladest. Bilder, die nach dem 1. Juli hochgeladen wurden, können nachträglich mit dem Baustein {{WikiDaheim}} im passenden Themenbereich nominiert werden. Beim konkreten Bild wäre das etwa {{WikiDaheim|2023|at|topic=Cemeteries}}. Zu Regeln und Preisen siehe bitte WikiDaheim 2023. Der Wettbewerb läuft noch bis 8. Oktober. Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Burg Aufkirchen.PNG

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Burg Aufkirchen.PNG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Burg Aufkirchen.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Turmhügel Günzenhausen.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Turmhügel Günzenhausen.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Turmhügel Günzenhausen.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Hubenstein.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Hubenstein.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Hubenstein.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Kirchenburg Kinding.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Kirchenburg Kinding.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kirchenburg Kinding.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Titting-Lageplan.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Titting-Lageplan.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Titting-Lageplan.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 10:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Old maps

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Non commercial and non derivative licenses are not allowed on Commons, but any document from the 19th century is out of copyright. Please add {{PD-old-100-expired}} to your files. PS: Please archive your talk page. Yann (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Zinneberg-Lageplan.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Zinneberg-Lageplan.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Zinneberg-Lageplan.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Karl Wolf (Pädagoge).jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Karl Wolf (Pädagoge).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Karl Wolf (Pädagoge).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Grabstein Prof. Dr. Karl Wolf.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Grabstein Prof. Dr. Karl Wolf.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Grabstein Prof. Dr. Karl Wolf.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Burgstall Oberföhring.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Burgstall Oberföhring.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Burgstall Oberföhring.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Prandtenhof.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Prandtenhof.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Prandtenhof.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Schloss Pürkelgut.png

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Schloss Pürkelgut.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Schloss Pürkelgut.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic