User talk:Historiograf

Hallo Histo, was machen wir nun mit meinen Bildlöschanträgen bezüglich der Bundespräsidentenbilder, die seit geraumer Zeit auf der DeletionRequest-Seite herumgammeln? Ich kenne mich mit den Usancen auf Commons leider nicht so aus. --Mogelzahn 10:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC) PS: Habe heute schon wieder so ein Pseudo-PD eingetragen.[reply]

Ich werde mir was überlegen. Gruß --Historiograf 19:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welche Bilder? ;-) --134.130.68.65 20:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for advice

Hi, Historiograf. I've been given your name in the Village Pump with regard to a question that I posted there (License_of_an_old_map). The question was this:

I'd like to use an old Gibraltar map to show a point in an article on its status. I've found this one: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/unicorn/chartZoom.cfm?imageID=F0151&x=4548.26666667&y=3313.48333333&zoomlevel=4&#content. It's a 18th century map. If it were in a USA site, it would be clear that according to their laws, the bidimensional photo o a bidimensional artwork (a map here) is in the public domain. However, as long as this photo is exposed in an academic site in the UK, may I assume also that the picture is in the public domain? Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you can help me, but anyway, thank you for the time spent reading this question. Best regards --Ecemaml 20:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman vs. Corel, a NY decision, has shown that also according UK law such reproductions are not copyrightable. UK lawyers are sceptic. Nevertheless we use in the German branch of the Wikipedia such pictures regardless from which website they are and I think this is the de facto policy in Commons. --Historiograf 23:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jan hus

Ja, das ist die verdammte Statue auf dem Altstädter Ring im Prag. Am besten das Ding zerbomben. Leider verschandelt das Ding den geammten Altstädter Ring. Ich sehe was ich machen kann für Dich. mfg --Paddy 20:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank, das erste Bild wäre geeignet, aber ohne eine Quellenangabe entspricht es nicht meinen Maßstäben und das zweite scheint mir qualitativ nicht besser zu sein als unser Bild. --Historiograf 21:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sind 100 Jahre genug?

Auf Commons_talk:Licensing#Assume_PD_for_Images_older_than_100_years hat dbenbenn mich darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass es Fälle gibt, in denen ein Bild (in den USA) mehr als 100 jahre geschützt sein kann - nämlich wenn es erst nach 1979 veröffentlich wurde. Schau dir bitte Commons:Deletion requests/Archives05#Image:Wintu Women circa 1900.jpg und en:User talk:Duncharris/archive8#Copyright violation request an.

Wenn das stimmt, müsste man das auf "vor mehr als 100 Jahren veröffentlicht" ändern... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ist mir schnurzpiepegal, was in den USA gilt. Unsere 70 Jahre pma sind an sich schon inakzeptabel. Mein Vorschlag ist: Commons richtet sich nach dem Recht des Entstehungslands der Aufnahme, sofern es sich um die USA handelt, und in allen anderen Fällen nach der 70-Jahre pma-Regel. --Historiograf 21:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Bilder evtl. URV?

Hallo Historiograf, könntest du - wenn du mal Zeit hast - einen kurzen Blick auf meine Bilder werfen. Vorallem bei Image:Disneyland_paris.jpg, Image:Efteling anton pieck plain netherlands.jpg, Image:Efteling house of the five senses entrance netherlands.jpg und Image:Wellenflug.jpg bin ich mir nicht sicher ob sie nicht eine URV sein könnten, falls die Gebäude bzw. das Design schützbar sind. Das erste ist aus Frankreich, das zweite und dritte Niederlande und das vierte Spanien, alle auf privatem Grund. Die anderen unter Fairs, Roller coaster and Themeparks sind vielleicht auch einen Blick wert, aber bei denen bin ich mir nicht so unsicher wie bei den oben genannten. Wäre schön wenn du eine kurze Einschätzung abgeben könntest, damit ich meine Sorgen begraben oder Löschanträge stellen kann. Viele Grüße --Boris23 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das sieht alles nicht gut aus. So gut wie alles im Disneyland muss weg (Innenaufnahmen, Außenaufnahmen urheberrechtlich geschützter Gegenstände z.B. der Burg, in F gilt keine Panoramafreiheit), die Achterbahnen können wohl drinbleiben. Da sind leider überall urheberrechtlich geschützte Darstellungen nicht nur Beiwerk, das man sich wegdenken kann. Sorry --Historiograf 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine Einschätzung. Ich habe für die von mir genannten Bilder einen Antrag gestellt. Wenn ich dich richtig verstanden habe spielst du noch auf weitere Bilder an, welche wären das? Viele Grüße --Boris23 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hoffe ich nerve nicht, aber ich hab noch eine Frage: Wie sieht es mit den Bildern unter Breakdance aus? Da die Dinger ja transportabel sind, dürften sie nicht unter Panoramafreiheit fallen (das Bild aus Belgien ja sowieso nicht). Und sie sind teilweise aufwändig gestaltet also wahrscheinlich schützenswert. Viele Grüße --Boris23 19:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tja da muss ich dir leider zustimmen, auch wenn mir diese engstirnige Auslegung nicht gefällt. --Historiograf 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PD or not PD, that is the question...

File:Fußballglobus stuttgart schlossplatz.jpg

Hallo Histo, bitte wirf mal einen Blick auf Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Fußballglobus stuttgart schlossplatz.jpg. mMn greift die Panoramafreiheit hier nicht, aber das Bild sollte trotzdem OK sein, weil ein Fußball als design keine ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe hat. Was meinst du?

Nebenbei: bei de:Bild:Hamburg Fussball-Globus 01 KMJ.jpg hätte ich Bedenken, da die Beleuchtung schon die nötige Schöpfungshöhe haben könnte. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich stimme dir in beiden Fällen zu, wobei man das Hamburger Bild als Grauzone eher drinlassen könnte. Wir werden wohl kaum Ärger damit bekommen. --Historiograf 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danke - schreibst du das noch auf die Lösch-Disku, oder kann ich dich dort zitieren? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du kannst mich dort zitieren. Danke --Historiograf 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PanzerIIIj.jpg

PD? es steht ein langer schwanz als begründung dran, ich vermute du wirst erklären können warum das vermutlich nicht stimmt?! .. dann wäre ein LA fällig; ich kenne mich aber halt nicht so aus in dem bereich und bin von der erklärung erstmal beeindruckt ;) ...Sicherlich ^Post 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Es steht ja auf de WP:Bildrechte etc. oft genug, dass diese Uraltinfos MIST sind. Ist das Foto nach heutigem Maßstab ein Lichtbildwerk? Ich würde das im Zweifel immer bejahen. Gilt dann § 137f UrhG ? Ja, die erloschenen Schutzrechte leben wieder auf. Ergo: URV (de-Policy wäre zusätzlich: n-100, OK, wenn 1906 oder früher). Ebenso auch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_Domain#World-War_II_images Einen freundlichen Gruß entbietet dir --Historiograf 19:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

danke; habe das ja auch so gesehen aber wie gesagt; Bildrechte sind nichts wo ich mich sonderlich wohl drin fühle ;o) ... danke für den link im englischen; werde ihn gleichnoch hinzufügen ;) ...Sicherlich ^Post 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia O'Keeffe

Da scheint jemand eine ganze Menge Bilder fälschlicherweise as "public domain" bezeichnet zu haben. Georgia O'Keeffe starb 1986!! Auch wenn diese Gemälde vor 1923 entstanden sind, heisst das noch längst nicht, dass sie auch vor 1923 veröffentlicht worden wären. Vgl. Berne Convention, §3.3: "the exhibition of a work of art [...] shall not constitute publication", und 17 USC 101: "A public [...] display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Siehe auch Circular 40 vom U.S. Copyright Office: selbst der Verkauf eines Kunstwerks an einer Auktion oder durch eine Galerie, wo das Werk ja fast zwangsläufig der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht würde, sind keine Publikationen. (Alle Hervorhebungen von mir.) Mir scheint, für Kunstwerke ist generell 70 Jahre p.m.a anzunehmen. (Ich weiss nicht, was denn nun eine "Publikation" eines Kunstwerks wäre. Evtl. der Verkauf von Kunstdrucken des Gemäldes? Oder ein Abdruck in einem Buch über Kunst? Zugegebenermassen weiss ich auch nicht, was denn früheres US-Recht zu diesem Thema zu sagen hatte.) Jedenfalls scheinen mir die Uploads von File_Upload_Bot_(Cobalty) etwas fragwürdig, und die Diskussion auf User talk:File Upload Bot (Cobalty) sollte zumindest hinterfragt werden. Was meinst Du? (P.S. Siehe auch en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Art, wo ich das gleiche Thema angeschnitten habe.) Lupo 13:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin ganz deiner Meinung. Wir sollten weder auf en noch auf Commons Werke haben, deren Urheber nicht 70 Jahre tot ist (von Ausnahmen abgesehen). Ich habe leider keinen Kommentar zur RBÜ, daher kann ich zur Auslegung von "Veröffentlichung" bei Werken der bildenden Kunst im Augenblick nichts beitragen. Ich hätte eigentlich eine Ausstellung darunter gefasst, aber im deutschen Recht spielt die Erstveröffentlichung angesichts der 70 Jahre pma-Frist keine große Rolle. Grüße --Historiograf 23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bildfreigabe

Hi Histo, guckst du mal kurz hier vorbei, ob die Lizenzierung so ok ist von der Ausschnittsbearbeitung ... Gruß, Schusch, nicht angemeldet -- 84.173.196.163 07:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --Historiograf 22:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ich habe sie auf das jetzige Aussehen geändert und auf die Quelle hingewiesen ... dann scheinen meine Änderungen ok zu sein - oder übertrieben? Grüße, -- Schusch 11:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab keine Ahnung, worauf du hinaus wolltest. Vielleicht erklärst du es mir mal ausführlich, weil ich nix kapiere, wo das Problem ist. Das Bild war PD, richtig? Es darf also jeder damit anstellen, was er möchte, richtig? --Historiograf 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

na gut, dann ausführlicher (ich will aber nix gegen ML Carl sagen, sondern nur wissen, ob die Bildbeschreibungsseite nach den von mir gemachten Änderungen im Sinne der Rechteinhabers und der Rechteverwerter besser bzw. genauer sind): das war der Ausgangszustand, so habe ich es geändert. Ich fand es komisch, das ein Verweis auf die Quelle fehlte, das Bild, das nur einen Ausschnitt deines Bildes zeigt, freigegeben wurde mit dem sinngemäßen Text: "Ich gebe frei" - weiterhin ohne Hinweis auf den Urheber des eigentlichen Bildes. Ist der Akt des Bildbeschneidens so schöpferisch, dass er ein eigenes Urheberrecht bewirkt, das auch eine Freigabe des Bildes unter eigenem Namen erlaubt bzw. notwendig macht? Nach allem, was ich bisher verstanden habe, zumindest in so einem Falle nicht, weshalb ich versucht habe, das gerade zu biegen. Grüße, -- Schusch 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: bei der Gelegenheit habe ich das Aufnahmedatum deines Fotos korrigiert von 2006 auf 2005; irgendwie kannst du das Bild sonst nicht im März 2005 hochgeladen haben ...

Meine Güte, was war denn an (Löschen) (Aktuell) 06:46, 6. Mär 2006 . . ML Carl (Talk) . . 1087x1536 (1312331 Byte) (*Denkmal in der Ortsmitte von Köln-Worringen - selbst fotografiert (Klaus Graf), 28.2.2006 *Ausschnittbearbeitung ML Carl (06.03.2006)) so unkorrekt. ML Carl hat mich artig unnötigerweise vorher gefragt, ob sie einen Ausschnitt haben könne und ich hab ihr sinngemäß geantwortet: mach ruhig, ich bin nicht der beste Ausschneider vor dem Herrn. Aufgrund der PD-Angabe hätte sie alles mögliche mit dem Bild machen dürfen, nach meiner Ansicht es sogar als eigenes Werk ausgeben können usw. Und nun kommst du und machst so einen Bohei? Sicher in der besten Absicht, aber du hast mindestens 10 Minuten Lebenszeit von mir gestohlen. --Historiograf 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hättest du nachgedacht und dir die Versionsgeschichte kurz angeschaut, wäre es schneller gegangen ... die Höflichkeit in Person, wie immer. Fragt sich wer hier wem die Zeit klaut, weil er es eilig hat. -- Schusch 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen von Diskussionsbeiträgen

Hallo, wenn du noch einmal Diskussionsbeiträge anderer Nutzer löschst, sehe ich das als Vandalismus an. Persönliche Angriffe, wie dein Bearbeitungskommentar vermuten lässt, kann ich nicht erkennen, sondern nur ein paar Links, die du dir endlich zu Herzen nehmen solltest. Deine ständigen Angriffe gegen alle, die sich auf deinem Fachgebiet nicht so auskennen wie du, nerven! -- aka 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Es besteht hier kein Recht und erst recht keine Notwendigkeit, mein Auftreten in anderen Foren unter Klarnamen hier zu verlinken. Ich weise deinen Beitrag zurück --Historiograf 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du hattest weit mehr gelöscht als diesen Link auf den Klarnamen. Die Form, die du nun im dritten Anlauf gewählt hast, ist aber akzeptabel. Danke. -- aka 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So wichtig scheinen Dir diese Grundsätze aber sonst nicht zu sein. Ich hätte sonst noch en:WP:BITE und en:WP:DICK anzubieten. Im Übrigen, wenn ich offensichtlich gleich mit dem naheliegendsten Google-Ergebnis voll ins Schwarze treffe, dann kann das Posten jenes Links doch keine so dramatische Enthüllung sein, dass ein Löschen des Diskussionsbeitrags gerechtfertigt wäre. --Dschwen 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ob ich gelegentlich erkennen lasse, wer ich bin, ist wurscht. Du hast dich an die Grundsätze des Projekts zu halten und nun troll dich --Historiograf 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverbesserlich. --Dschwen 13:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neue Kategorie :-)

Habe unter der Kategorie "Books" eine neue Unterkategorie gemacht; wie Du siehst, folge ich stets Deinen Vorschlägen; kannst gerne daran weiterbasteln ... Herzlichen Gruß --Felistoria 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilder aus Weinsberg

Sehr geehrter Herr Historiograf,

bei nachfolgend genannten Bildern kann ich nicht erkennen, daß die Behauptung, die Schutzdauer sei abgelaufen, zutrifft. Da ich mich bei Commons nicht auskenne, Sie mir aber in der deutschsprachigen WP als "Urheberrechtspapst" annonciert wurden, möchte ich Sie bitten, sich der Fälle anzunehmen und ggfls. eine Löschung zu bewirken.

Vielen Dank und ergebenste Grüße --84.142.54.145 11:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe das nicht anders, die Bilder sind leider noch geschützt. Löschanträge kann hier jeder stellen, wieso sollte ich die Löschung bewirken können? Hier auf Commons habe ich nichts zu sagen --Historiograf 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama freedom

Sorry, for my late response. I am currently under a high real life pressure and have little time for Wikipedia. However, I should get some more free time soon. I'll try to start the work on the translation in 2-3 days. Alx 12:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the article here. The task seems to be more difficult than I initially assumed. I've already collected some links and written the intro to the article. My plan is to present the different kinds of rights that may be granted by different Panoramafreiheit clauses and then present the list of regulations in particular countries. It seems that tere is no fixed term like "panorama freedom" in English so I avoided using it in my intro. However, maybe you think it's OK to introduce this OR term anyway? Alx 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "this OR term" - what's OR? "Original research"? I think it would be appropriate to use Panorama freedom as term. It is a simple translation of the wellknown Panoramafreiheit and nor Original Research. On discussion and project pages OR is allowed! (and I think it is no problem to have some OR in articles too.) --Historiograf 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the "original research". I think the term "panorama freedom" is neat. I also think it is useful so let's use that. I was a bit reluctant to include that as a translator must be careful with such neologisms. I think also that there is no harm in introducing this neologism on wikipedia project pages.

I've adapted much of the Panoramafreiheit text in the draft. Your comments and edits are welcome. Alx 10:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that panorama freedom should be admited. I think though that a better strategy to achieve it on commons is to boldly state something like

there is no way to get equivalent pictures,
much of the existing surroundings of people will be forbidden without panorama freedom,
in most cases there is no harm for Wikimedia Foundation if the photos are kept on commons,
in other cases pictures should be banned,
in all cases the pictures should be marked as panorama freedom.

And of course, many people must voice for admiting panorama freedom. Bests, Alx 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wappen und Urheberrecht

Irgendwie verstehe ich nicht so ganz, wie Template:PD-Coa-Germany begründet ist. Kannst Du mir da 'mal aushelfen? Siehe meine Frage auf Template talk:PD-Coa-Germany. Danke! Lupo 08:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nochmal Lemma Guillotine

Hallo Historiograf, danke für die Warnung mit dem Hinweis auf die pragmatische Lösung in de, die bei Commons nicht gilt... So lange mir nun niemand einen konkreten Tipp für Commons geben kann: Wäre es aus deiner Sicht denn wenigstens Ok, wenn ich ein Bild aus der Zeit vor 1906 (zB eine Zeichnung, einen Druck des 19. Jahrhunderts) auf de unter PD-old einstelle? Du kannst mir auch auf meiner Benutzerseite "Kauko" hier in Commons oder an der Stelle der ursprünglichen Frage antworten oder hier, ist egal. Danke für jede Hilfe - --Kauko 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klar, lies dazu de:WP:BR --Historiograf 14:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Historiograf, könntest Du bitte noch mal auf Commons:Forum zum o.g. Stichwort nachschauen? Ich hab eine neue Frage. --Kauko 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de-WP

Hallo Histo, willst du nicht doch wieder bei de einsteigen? Das Gejammer auf deiner dortigen Disku ist ja oberpeinlich. Du wurdest von einer IP schon zu Wikiweise eingeladen. Ganz am Rande, deine Meinung zu de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#PD-Soviet_auf_Commons_wird_zum_Risiko_f.C3.BCr_das_Projekt würde sicherlich geschätzt werden.--Wiggum 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was kann ich für das Gejaule, wenn mir auf den Schwanz getreten ward? Es gibt nun mal Geräusche, wenn etwas knirscht. Ihr kommt sehr gut ohne mich aus ... --Historiograf 01:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte um Hilfe

Hallo Historiograf, wärst du so freundlich, mir bei hier etwas zu helfen? Ich habe hier für eine US-Musikaufnahme von 1934, deren Interpretin noch keine 70 Jahre tot ist, einen LA gestellt, der User Infrogmation stellt dies aber in Frage aufgrund der damals üblichen vollständigen Rechteübertragung, wobei ja nach unserer Rechtsprechung das Urheberrecht gar nicht aufgegeben werden kann. Viel genauer als in meiner Replik kann ich es aber auch nicht erklären, dazu bin ich mir etwas zu unsicher in den Details solcher Fragen. Für deine Hilfe bzw. Einschätzung der Lage wäre ich dir verbunden (und bedaure deinen Absprung in der de nach wie vor), Gruß, Denisoliver 23:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons talk:Trademarks

Hallo Histo, hast du zufällig Lust, in die Schlacht zu ziehen? Gruß, --Flominator 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Und wieder

[1] + [2] . --Steschke 13:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keine Erlaubnis, wohin damit?

Moin! 8) Ich habe versucht von der Stadt Tacoma eine GFDL-Freigabe für deren Logo und/oder Siegel zu bekommen. Die Stadt hat, wie befürchtet, dankend abgelehnt. Für meine Anfrage habe ich eine Email-Vorlage von hier benutzt. Wo bleibe ich mit der Absage? Soll ich die Emails irgenwohin schicken? Oder den Text der Emails in die Beschreibung der Bilder auf der englischen Wikipedia einbauen? Oder einfach vergessen? 8-) Ich habe Dich einfach rausgepickt, weil ich Deine Kommentare zu (c)-Fragen oft gelesen habe und ich denke, dass Dir das auch schon mal eine Absage in die Mailbox geflattert ist. Ich danke Dir für Deine Zeit! --Hedwig in Washington 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, ist mir noch nicht, weil ich nicht so dämlich bin zu fragen, wenn ich genau weiss, was dabei rauskommt. Vergiss das ganze einfach! Gruß --Historiograf 02:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na dann weiss ich ja endlich, dass ich daemlich bin. --Hedwig in Washington 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Closing

Histriograf, I am sorry to say that, at 67.9% of support vote, your recent RFA failed to meet the 75% requirement at commons and therefore failed.

As this vote was close, it is evident that there are many individuals who feel that your skills and knowledge would make you a valuable system administrator. Perhaps take some time to review why some of the people who voted against your RFA did so, attempt to address those issues, and try again in a few months.

Again, thank you for all your useful and valued contributions. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fette Henne

Magst Du mal bitte gucken, ob der LA-Steller da recht hat (ich befürchte, er hat, wollte doch aber lieber jemanden Fragen, der sich damit besser auskennt als ich). Danke! --Mogelzahn 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vossische 1914 0208.jpg

Hallo Histo, ich würde mich freuen, wenn du hier mal deinen Senf abgeben würdest. Danke im Voraus, --Flominator 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wie wärs, wenn du VORHER fragst statt dich so zu verrennen? --Historiograf 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ich hielt es für eine simple 01815-URV und habe nicht genau erkannt, was es war. Danke für die Hilfe. Bezieht sich deine Antwort dann auf alles aus Category:Newspapers of Germany? --Flominator 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab bei keinem dieser Bilder ein Problem, bei dem letzten kann man geschützten Content ohne technische Hilfsmittel erst gar nicht lesen --Historiograf 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schön! Was klatsch ich da nun für einen Baustein rein? Template:PD-because? --Flominator 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inelegible --Historiograf 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dankeschön. Nun habe ich alle Löschdiskussionen zum Thema abgebrochen. Image:Taxfree.jpg war auch ok, oder? --Flominator 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ja --Historiograf 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Witch

Hi, purely by accident I came across your use page and noticed that you appear to be working on Category:Witch. Shouldn't that be Category:Witches by convention? Siebrand 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed if such a convention exists, please feel free to cahnge the name --Historiograf 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Image:Demon_lovers_cover.JPG ==

I saw this image while I was scanning Commons for covers. The problem is that the painting is for sure PD, however, since the book was published in 2002, I doubt the cover itself is PD. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US and German right does'nt accept the sweat of the brow concept - the cover is ineligble for copyright. Ask Lupo --Historiograf 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnung vor dem Meineid

I'd prefer to move it to Perjury? .:. Sarazyn 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Demon lovers cover.JPG

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Demon lovers cover.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Book covers are generally not allowed on commons. GeorgHH 16:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für deine aussagekräftige Nachricht auf meiner talkpage. Nimm mal deinen Anstand zusammen und erklär mir sachlich wann ein Buchcover gemeinfrei ist und wann nicht. --GeorgHH 08:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dazu gibt es auf de:WP:UF, de:WP:BR und de:Schöpfungshöhe mehr als genug Material. Es ist deine Pflicht, vor Stellung eines Löschantrags dich zu informieren. Auf Commons:Forum habe ich begründet, wieso ich nach keinem nationalen Recht einen Urheberrechtsschutz sehe. --Historiograf 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bahndienstfernschreiben.jpg

Hallo Histo, bitte gib hier einmal deinen Senf ab. Danke, --Flominator 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, dann schau im Gegenzug aber auch, dass http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish verschwindet. Wir haben in der EU eine einheitliche Frist 70 Jahre pma, nationale Regelungen sind irrelevant, da sie außerhalb der Nation nicht gelten --Historiograf 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was ist mit dem Einwand von Alx auf Template talk:PD-Polish? --Flominator 09:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Der betrifft im wesentlichen eine polnische Gerichtsentscheidung, die nach polnischem Recht erging. Formvoraussetzungen sind nach der RBÜ nicht zu beachten. Es ist für Commons schlichtweg unerträglich Bilder aus einem EU-Mitgliedsland hier zu haben, die in genau einem Staat PD sind. Seit 1.1. kann der Urheber auch in Rumänien und Bulgarien klagen, ihm steht in jedem EU-Land Inlandsschutz zur Seite. --Historiograf 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WarX hat versprochen, sich noch einmal rechtlich abzusichern und dann loszulegen. --Flominator 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boennecken_brief_1.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boennecken_brief_3.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boennecken_brief_2.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hilfe bei löschantrag

kannst du dir mal bitte Commons:Deletion_requests/Article_72_UrhG anschauen, User:Andros64 vesucht da zu erklären, dass WW2 Bilder eigentlich nur Lichtbilder sind und sowieso nicht geschützt werden können, da Bilder im Auftrag von staatlichen Agenturen von damals nicht geschützt werden können. Danke -- Gorgo 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chimpanzee_congo_painting.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Chimpanzee_congo_painting.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

Siebrand 12:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Fusstapfen goeppingen 1964.JPG

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fusstapfen goeppingen 1964.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Yann 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If the drawing is from 1964, it is not old enough for "PD-art". Regards, Yann 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from www.imf.org

Hallo Historiograf, vielleicht könntest Du einen Blick auf diesen Löschantrag werfen. Es gilt um als public domain gekennzeichnete Bilder des IMF. Der Antragsteller ist hier der Meinung, dass dies nicht ausreichen würde, um solche Bilder in die Commons zu übernehmen. Ich bin bei Bildrechten kein Experte und würde mich deswegen über Deinen Kommentar dazu freuen. Vielen Dank und herzliche Grüße, AFBorchert 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Karl_julius_weber.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

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

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006mai saffig 023.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:2006mai saffig 023.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Siebrand 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006mai_saffig_023.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:2006mai_saffig_023.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

Siebrand 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bild von Infotafel abfotografiert

Hallo Histo, du wirst hier: de:Wikipedia:Bilderwerkstatt/Archiv/2007/April#Bild zurechtrücken als Kronzeuge benannt. Es geht auch um folgendes Bild das von einer Infotafel abfotografiert wurde. Könntest Du bitte klären wer dich hier falsch oder aber auch nicht versteht.--Wuselig 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freistellen bei Panoramafreiheit kann vertreten werden --Historiograf 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke geb ich weiter--Wuselig 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sehe ich durchaus nicht so. Unter der Prämisse könnte ich jegliches urheberrechtlich geschützte Werk unter der Behauptung einstellen, es sei unter Panoramafreiheit entstanden und lediglich freigestellt worden. Das ist ja gerade der Trick mit der Panoramafreiheit: Die Umgebung schon noch erkennbar sein, auch wenn manche Bilder grenzwertig sind. Das ist bei Deinem Bild nicht der Fall, das sieht aus wie direkt aus dem Album des Urhebers eingescannt. --Eva K. ^Message 07:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wer sich auf eine Schranke des Urheberrechts beruft, muss das Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen beweisen, daher ist es sinnvoll zur Beweissicherung den Kontext mitaufzunehmen. Öffentlich wiedergegeben werden darf das Werk unabhängig davon, wiviel von dem Kontext sichtbar ist. Und nun möchte ich dich bitten, diese Diskussionsseite zu verlassen, ich werde künftige Beiträge von dir löschen --Historiograf 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich beziehe mich nur auf Deine anderwärts berufenen Statemens diesbezüglich, Herr HistorioGraf. Für mich zählen daher Deine Einlassungen nicht mehr, und ich werde auch empfehlen, Deine „Ratschläge“ mit Vorsicht zu genießen. Get a life. --Eva K. ^Message 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Klaus_lehranstalt_01.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, thank you your nice offer. I have not the intention, I repeat: I HAVE NOT THE INTENTION, to add the neccesary information. Feel free to speedy delete the file. --Historiograf 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Klaus_lehranstalt_19.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Klaus_lehranstalt_19.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Oxam Hartog 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malerische reise 1.jpg

Hi, ich habe auf de.wikisource im Rahmen des Projekts "Schwäbisch Gmünd" die vier Seiten aus der "Malerischen Reise" Augen-OCRd. Hast Du vielleicht den Rest des Buches auch als Scans? Auch wenn ich selber es wohl nicht schaffen würde, das ganze Buch abzutippen, fände ich es schön, es komplett auf Commons zu haben. Grüße, Magnus Manske 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naja, du kannst dir mit dem Abtippen ja ein paar Jahre Zeit lassen, und so umfangreich ist es nicht. Ich hab leider das Buch selber nicht, nur vielleicht 50 % als Kopien, die ich scannen muss, aber ich kann versuchen auch den Rest als Kopie zu organisieren. Damit du weitermachen kannst, lad ich mal ein paar weitere Seiten hoch, danke sehr für dein Interesse --Historiograf 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ein_feste_Burg_ist_unser_Gott.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:Laufenburg aargau ansicht.jpg

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

Hello!

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Samulili 09:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramafreiheit für Wahlplakate?

Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BlocherPlakatrandaliertinTessin.jpg... was ist Deine Meinung? Lupo 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amt für Information, Brandenburg, 1951

Hi Histo, führe gerade eine (aus meiner Sicht, bin aber Laie) interessante Fachsimpelei mit Lupo in User_talk:Lupo#Amtliches Werk?. Ich neige dazu, das amtliche Stalin-Plakat trotzdem hochzuladen und es einer Löschdiskussion anheim zu geben, die aber vermutlich auf englisch geführt werden wird - und da muss ich wohl eher passen. Hochladen oder bleiben lassen? Grüsse Mutter Erde 10:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrecht Aktie

Ich möchte für einen Artikel die Abbildung einer Aktie verwenden. Diese Abbildung habe ich in einem Auktionskatalog online gefunden. Nun möchte ich vorab klären, ob hierbei Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu befürchten sind. Die Aktie ist von 1954.--WerWil 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Du hast einen Link zur Abbildung vergessen --Historiograf 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab sie ja noch nicht hochgeladen und so steckt sie in einer PDF Datei. Hier der Link auf die Quelle: [3] Es ist das Los 176.

Oder soll ich die Abbildung trotz unklarer Rechtslage zur Begutachtung hochladen?--WerWil 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In der de WP fordern wir in einem solchen Fall auf, falls keine Internetadresse existiert, unter der man das Bild ansehen kann, es auf einem Flickr- oder vergleichbaren Account hochzuladen. Es ist eine geradezu abstruse Annahme irgendjemand könnte irgendetwas sagen, ohne das Bild gesehen zu haben. Nach einem Blick in das PDF hätte ich keinerlei Bedenken, das Bild hochzuladen. Lizenz: ineligble. --Historiograf 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe es so gemacht wie du sagst. Danke für deine Mühe.--WerWil 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Art page

I wanted to let you know my reasons for reverting your last changes to that page. You effectively removed the long-standing Commons rule that the image must be PD in the home country as well as in the US. Commons does not apply US law only, and Erik's statement was never intended to suggest that we should ignore UK or Nordic laws. Different countries have different criteria as to the minimum required level of originality, and the UK a photograph taken from afar meets the required level whereas a simple scan or photocopy does not. If you believe that US law only should apply, or that Erik's statement overrides local laws, can you make a proposal for change on the discussion page? Regards, --MichaelMaggs 07:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that I am long enough here to know that it isn't a long-standing Commons rule. The PD-Art page was invented without sufficient consensus (nor contact to the WMF) , and I see that Erik's statement is quite clear: We have to ignore national interpretations (please do not confuse commentary literare with law) if they are not according Bridgeman v. Corel. There is no - I repeat: no - international convention (Berne etc) that says that such claims should be respected. Did you ever read Bridgeman v. Corel? I did in 1999 (and often in the meanwhile). --Historiograf 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't feel able to discuss this in the proper place; repeated reverts are not helpful, and I'm sure you have been here long enough to understand that. Could you comment, please, on your position as regards the rule set out at Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law? I assume you will disagree with that. Am I right in my understanding of your position: you feel that Commons should ignore national laws where they are more restrictive than US laws? BTW, the answer to your last question is yes - of course. --MichaelMaggs 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in community discussion and stop arbitrarily changing Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Edit wars can waste huge amounts of time, and you must know perfectly well that policy changes - particularly those as important as this - require full discussion on the talk page. This is not the first time you have been asked to do this. Both Lupo and I have asked politely and we have both been ignored. Please discuss on the talk page before you think about changing anything again. Thank you. --MichaelMaggs 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Wappen_Sayn.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

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

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

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. -Nard 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kat/Cat Problem

Hallo. Habe mich wieder mal mit dem Anlegen einer Cat in Commons versucht. Jenins sollte es sein, damit hier der rote Link verschwindet. Herausgekommen ist das hier - ich wollte es aber eins drüber, als Unterkategorie von Cities and villages in the canton of Graubünden - und nicht als "Seiten in der Kategorie „Cities and villages in the canton of Graubünden“ - ich werd das nie kapieren, tönt alles gleich. Gruss - mit Bitte um Nachsicht!--Parpan 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte wende dich an einen deutschsprachigen Admin, der kann die ungewünschte Seite löschen und dir erklären, wie du eine Kategorie anlegst oder wen du darum bitten kannst. Ich habs ja offenbar nicht geschafft, obwohl ich dachte, man müsse es kapieren --Historiograf 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amalie hessen.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Amalie hessen.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Yuval Y § Chat § 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... könnte man nicht von diesem Bild (von hier) einen ovalen Ausschnitt (Rahmen weg) machen? Falls ja, wäre das Ergebnis wohl sowieso schöner als ein Buchumschlag, auf dem das Bild durch den Text verunstaltet ist... Lupo 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICH MÖCHTE NICHT DASS DU AUF DIESER SEITE IRGENDETWAS SCHREIBST. DU HAST HIER NICHTS ZU SUCHEN. HABE ICH MICH DEUTLICH AUSGEDRÜCKT? --Historiograf 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amalie_hessen.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Amalie_hessen.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

Yuval Y § Chat § 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historiograf, Du (bzw. das Impressum) gibst da als Maler nach G. H. Schröder an. Ich finde aber nur den (unter anderem badischen) Hofmaler Johann Heinrich Schröder (1757-1812). Ist der damit gemeint? Grüsse Mutter Erde 09:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Das steht so im Buch, die Bilder Amalies werden dort leider nicht behandelt, ich kann dir leider nicht weiterhelfen --Historiograf 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Promotion_neumann_1899.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Promotion_neumann_1899.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

abf /talk to me/ 12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montfortfahne

Danke für die Ergänzung bei category:Gonfanon of Montfort. Wie ich die paar Tübinger Fahnen, die es auch auf heutigen Wappen gibt, noch unterbringen soll, weiß ich noch nicht, ich hab sie einfach mal in Category:Gonfanons in heraldry gepackt. Ist ja letztlich auch egal, die Kategorien sollen die Wappen ja nur besser auffindbar machen. Dass es derart viele gibt, war mir vorher gar nicht klar. Und ich hab sicher nicht alle gefunden. Gleiches gilt für den Category:Zisterzienserbalken, wo ich in den letzten Tagen auch ein wenig herumdilettiert habe: auch dort bin ich um jede professionelle Hilfe dankbar, ich habe das bisher mehr als Schatzsuche/Stoffsammlung betrieben. Ich habe allerdings für alle, die ich so kategorisiert habe, halbwegs gute Anhaltspunkte gefunden, dass es wirklich ein Verweis auf die Zisterzienser ist. Was der Balken allerdings im Wappen von w:de:Herbrechtingen soll, lt. WP als Hinweis auf die Augustiner-Chorherren, weiß ich nicht so recht... --AndreasPraefcke 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (Dem Baselstab hab ich jetzt auch mal eine Kategorie spendiert)[reply]

Dank

Vielen Dank für die Pflege und die "Rettung" der von mir eingestellten Bilder! Herzlichen Gruß von --Felistoria (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board position

Do you have a comment on this? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token ddec9285f099d223f92b8ae1812ea515

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Danke, hab Bilder von Heubach damit hochgeladen --Historiograf (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Lupo's fanatism is of any help. [...] --Historiograf 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Das muss doch nicht sein, oder? Auf de.WP geht das Bild locker, hier nicht. Ich nehme an, du hast die Datei noch, wenn dem nicht so ist, stelle ich sie gerne für dich wieder her. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 09:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn du die Güte hättest, das Bild genau zu bezeichnen, das gelöscht wurde. Es ist auch eine ziemliche Unverschämtheit mich mit einem unverlinkten Satzfetzen zu konfrontieren in der Hoffnung, dass ich selbst danach suche. Ich sehe auch nicht, dass wir hier Lupos Fanatismus irgendwie gebrauchen können und wenn du anderer Ansicht bist, interessiert mich das nicht --Historiograf (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte eig. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Promotion neumann 1899.JPG verlinkt. Vielleicht hab ich es aus Versehen rausgenommen, bitte entschuldige. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ich wäre dir außerordentlich dankbar, wenn du dich hier dauerhaft raushalten könntest. Ich möchte hier nichts mehr von dir sehen und lesen, deine Löschentscheidung ist absurd. ich möchte auch sonst nichts mehr mit dir zu tun haben. --Historiograf (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Joseph_wolf_titel.jpg

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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Joseph_wolf_titel.jpg. This image 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ([email protected]).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. -Nard the Bard 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Histo, ich war so frei, das hier zu kommentieren. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ist inzwischen erledigt, d.h. die Markierung wurde von Nard the Bard selbst entfernt, der sich für das Versehen entschuldigte. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danke --Historiograf (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jenny zietz autogramm.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Jenny zietz autogramm.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

--Patrícia ^msg 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests#German signatures

Hallo Histo, ich war so frei, eine Löschprüfung für die bereits gelöschten deutschen Unterschriften zu eröffnen und würde mich freuen, wenn Du ein Blick darauf werfen könntest. Du bist herzlich eingeladen ggf. meine Ausführungen zu korrigieren bzw. noch zu erweitern. Vielen Dank für Deine Unterstützung, AFBorchert (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ist doch schon durch, aber es ist absolut daneben, irgendwelchen Urheberrechtsschutz zu behaupten, wenn nicht für jedes Land der Erde nachgewiesen ist, dass Autogramme keinen Schutz genießen. Ich möchte dich dringend bitten, dich mit den Grundlagen des Schweizer Urheberrechts zu befassen, damit du nicht künftig deine Unkenntnis bekennen musst. Nach der Wachmann-Meili-Entscheidung scheint es mir ganz und gar ausgemacht, dass ALLES, was in Deutschland gemeinfrei ist, auch in der Schweiz gemeinfrei ist und mehr. Wenn ein Foto keine SH hat, wie dann eine Unterschrift? --Historiograf (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Histo, zusammen mit MichaelMaggs plane ich, mich an der Erstellung einer {{PD-signature}}-Vorlage bzw. einer zugehörigen Richtlinie zu engagieren, bei der wir dann auch relevante Entscheidungen bzw. rechtlichen Grundlagen einzelner Länder aufnehmen können. Danach dürften, so hoffe ich, Unterschriften zumindest weitgehend auf Commons überlebensfähig sein. Dass ich noch einigen Nachholbedarf (im Vergleich mit Dir ohnehin) beim Urheberrecht habe, ist klar. Bevor ich bei der Wikipedia einstieg, hatte ich nur einen gewissen Überblick, der für Wissenschaftler, Informatiker und Internetdiensteanbieter relevant ist, aber hier bei den Projekten erweitert der Horizont sich deutlich und ich lerne auch gerne hinzu. Zwar schätze ich, dass die Rechtslage für Signaturen in D-A-CH halbwegs ähnlich angesichts der Verwandtschaft der Rechtstraditionen ist. Aber ich konnte das in dem Augenblick nicht sofort belegen bzw. hatte nicht sofort die Zeit, nach Belegen zu suchen. Mir ging es erst einmal darum, ein Stück in Richtung der Erhaltung der Unterschriften voranzukommen, was glücklicherweise auch gelungen ist. Der Rest wird sicherlich mit etwas Aufwand auch noch folgen. Vielen Dank jedenfalls für Deine Tipps zur Schweiz und viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alte Bilder

Absurd ist der richtige Ausdruck.
In meinen Augen wäre ein Vermerk ok, dass man den Urheber nicht kennt, weil man ihn nicht gefunden hat, und dass ein Nachtrag von exaktem Name und Datum erwünscht sei.
Ich habe gerade eine Löschdrohung für ein Bild von Otto Weddigen, 1901 Image:Otto Weddigen.jpg. -- Simplicius (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gebrauchtwagen/to buy a used car

Würdest Du diesem "Herrn" einen Gebrauchtwagen abkaufen?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MichaelMaggs&diff=17511054&oldid=17510983#.40MichaelMaggs

Gruss Mutter Erde 84.154.61.108 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

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

Hello, Historiograf!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rechenbuechlein Gasser.jpg is uncategorized since 11 January 2009. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Preishammer.jpg is uncategorized since 16 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Etzdorf reisen 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 6.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 8.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Zieglschmied chronik 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Franz graf erbach.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Epple sendschreiben 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wagner erhard 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 07.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Scherr ringsage 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Haid gmuend 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 09.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 5.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 02.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Kerner rechberger 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 03.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Epple sendschreiben 5.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Haid gmuend 4.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wagner erhard 4.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Griesinger lexicon gmuend 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 6.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 7.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lieder hutterischen 12.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 03.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Griesinger lexicon gmuend 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite fa 4.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 5.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 4.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Epple sendschreiben 4.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Meier geiger1.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 7.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Haid gmuend 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 09.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 6.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Epple sendschreiben 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 06.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Franz 001.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 5.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lieder hutterischen 10.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 8.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Griesinger lexicon gmuend 4.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Feuerhexe.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Scherr ringsage 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Salvatorbruennlein 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Griesinger lexicon gmuend 3.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schoenhuth ringsage 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Epple sendschreiben 3.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 4.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Einstweilige1.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite fa 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 7.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wagner erhard 5.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 08.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Zieglschmied chronik 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 4.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 05.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 7.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Vogt alp 3.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Griesinger lexicon gmuend 5.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 10.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Kerner rechberger 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 04.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Ringsage barbarossa 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wagner erhard 3.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 04.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Scherr ringsage 4.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 4.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Haid gmuend 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite fa 5.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 3.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 05.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wagner erhard 2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Salvatorbruennlein 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 11.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Libellus Wigand 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lieder hutterischen 11.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite fa 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite fa 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Ringsage barbarossa 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wagner erhard 6.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 10.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Einstweilige2.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 06.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 10.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Lexikon schwaben roeder 6.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schoenhuth ringsage 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 5.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Etzdorf reisen 9.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schwab neckarseite fa 6.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 07.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Bebel poeta.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Schoenhuth ringsage 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Meier geiger2.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Wolkenwiegt 08.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Sociabilis 02.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Berlin mgf 696.jpg was uncategorized on 5 December 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jorga 1915.jpg was uncategorized on 16 December 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tauberfranken 2010 011.jpg was uncategorized on 13 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tauberfranken 2010 014.jpg was uncategorized on 13 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bad Mergentheim 2010 083.jpg was uncategorized on 25 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bad Mergentheim 2010 084.jpg was uncategorized on 25 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Paris 2011 004.jpg was uncategorized on 30 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Topplerschloesschen 1.jpg was uncategorized on 15 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Schleswig holstein 2011 037.jpg was uncategorized on 5 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Schleswig holstein 2011 035.jpg was uncategorized on 5 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stromberg 2011 004.jpg was uncategorized on 4 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Suedtirol 2010 034.jpg was uncategorized on 21 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bildrecht beim Museum?

Hallo Historiograf,
möchtest du hier Commons:Deletion requests/File:Senner pferde.jpg mal deine Expertise einbringen (oder den entscheidenden Verweise geben). Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inzwischen hat anscheinend ein Vertreter der Museums selbst in der Löschdiskussion Stellung genommen und beharrt auf der bekannten Position; dasselbe auch bei Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zeiss-Heiligenkirchen.jpg und Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lopshorn01.jpg. Dem Uploader wird seitens des LLM inzwischen "mit dem Anwalt" gedroht. --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Senner pferde.jpg

Sieh dir bitte einmal diese Diskussion an:[4] Gruß --Nikater (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Das Lippische Landesmuseum setzt mich massiv unter Druck. Wenn die Bilder (Senner pferde.jpg, Lopshorn01.jpg, Zeiss-Heiligenkirchen.jpg) nicht bis zum Wochenende gelöscht werden, wollen sie die Angelegenheit einem Anwalt übergeben. Was ist zu tun? --Nikater (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melde dich auf de:WP:UF (korrigiert) und ruf die Geschäftsstelle des Vereins Wikimedia e.V. an. Schreib zusätzlich ein paar Vereinsvorstandsmitglieder auf ihrer Disku an. Du bist nach unserer Rechtsauffassung in D auf der sicheren Seite: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4850312/ --Historiograf (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Michail#Wichtig --Historiograf (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: Image:Lichtenberger Wolfenbuettel.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Image:Lichtenberger Wolfenbuettel.jpg, 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!

High Contrast (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ist erledigt, indem ich ein {{PD-Art}}-Tag hinzugefügt habe. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Forum#Bausteineritis

Hallo Histo, Du gehörst mit zu denjenigen, die die Rechtssituation für deutsche Wappen analysiert haben und somit die Grundlage für die Vorlage {{PD-Coa-Germany}} legten. Wir haben seit einiger Zeit hier zwei engagierte Heraldiker in Commons, wovon zumindest einer offenbar auch beruflich damit zu tun hat. Die beiden haben zahlreiche originale PNGs von dem Heraldiker Jörg Mantzsch hochgeladen, der nach der Wende zahlreiche Wappen für Ortschaften und Städte Ostdeutschlands neu erstellt oder überarbeitet hat. Die beiden bezweifeln die Gemeinfreiheit (aka amtliches Werk) und argumentieren, dass Weiterverarbeitungen wie etwa die getreue Konvertierung in das SVG-Format nicht zulässig seien. Syrcro und ich bemühten uns, hier etwas aufzuklären, aber meine Möglichkeiten sind da begrenzt, da ich nun wirklich kein Experte auf diesem Feld bin. Daher würde ich mich freuen, wenn Du Zeit und Gelegenheit hast, mit Deinem Fachwissen dort Stellung zu beziehen. Vielen Dank und Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: URAA

Re Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Apr#Pre-1923 US-Copyright of foreign works: siehe [5] und [6]. Lupo 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COM:UDEL#Original contents of Category:One Hundred Famous Views of Edo

Hallo Histo, ich denke, Dich dürfte dieser Fall interessieren. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fehlende Kategorie bei: File:Berliner dirnenlied.JPG

Hallo Historiograf, hier fehlen bei einer Datei von Dir die Kategorien... Fallen Dir welche ein? (Mir auf Anhieb nicht.) Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrecht in Museumssamlungen

Commons_talk:Licensing#Copyright_status_of_collections_in_German_museums ist etwas für dich, zumindest glaube ich, dass deine Expertenmeinung hilfreich sein könnte. Meine Laienmeinung: Scheinbar bringen da einige Museumsmitarbeiter auf der verlinkten en.wp Benutzerseite en:Talk:Diplodocus#image_copyrights mehrere Sachen durcheinander: 1) Public domain art in Museen, 2) zeitgenössische Kunst bzw. nicht pd-art einschließlich (Innen-)Architektur 3) Unsinnige Fotografieverbote die uns ja bekannterweise nicht interessieren da sie aus Sicht des Urheberrechts jeder Grundlage entbehren und 4) Präparationen/Ausstellungsgegenstände oder wie man das nennen mag (z.B. die Höhlenmenschen die man aus Naturkundemuseum kennt) die ich mir als geschützt vorstellen kann wenn sie Werkscharakter haben. Leider wird in der Diskussion auf der en.wp Benutzerdisk zitiert ohne Quellenangabe und Argumentiert ohne Beispiel, es geht aber scheinbar um ein Fossil. Auf ein Fossil kann das Museum nun wirklich kein Urheberrecht beanspruchen, selbst wenn sie sich noch so viel Mühe beim Aufstellen gegeben haben. --Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.: Konkret geht es ihm wohl um solche Bilder die er aus dem en.wp Artikel entfernt hat. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos von Karnevalsumzügen

Hallo Histo,

nach meiner Gegenstimme bei seiner Adminwahl hat Nutzer Docu begonnen, Rache an meinen Bildern zu nehmen. Dabei hat ers zunächst an Bilder eines 1936 verstorbenen Malers versucht, aber auch an einem meiner Bilder von einem Karnevalsumzug in Dortmund: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karneval_2010_DO_10264IMG_0264.JPG. Was hältst Du davon, besteht die Kritik zu Recht, oder sind Karnevalsumzüge vergleichbar mit Demos oder politischen Kundgebungen und somit zum Knippsen freigegeben?

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lueneburg_2010_024.jpg

Bei dem Bild verlassen sie mich in Sachen Zuordnung bzw. Kategoriesierung. --TheK (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wie ich bereits Kail im Chat sagte: In einem Durchgang nahe der von Stern'schen Druckerei am Sande. Und genau für solche Fälle haben andere Wikipedianer die Kontaktdaten der Stadtführer bekommen --Historiograf (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Minden Umgebung 2010 057.jpg

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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Minden Umgebung 2010 057.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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Minden Umgebung 2010 056.jpg

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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Minden Umgebung 2010 056.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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sollte dir entgangen sein, dass hier ein deutsches Werk im Straßenbild betroffen ist? Vielleicht möchtest du dich ein wenig fortbilden, denn das könnte dir wirklich nicht schaden. Ich staune immer wieder über den "Kenntnisstand" von Commons Admins.

Lies

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Gegenst.C3.A4nde

Ich kann nicht erkennen, dass du in irgendeiner Weise qualifiziert bist, diese Bilde3r zu beanstanden. Vielleicht möchtest du mir diese Qualifikation verraten? Solltest du des Deutschen nixcht mächtig sein, komm nicht auf die Idee mir auf Englisch zu antworten. Bitte einen deutschsprachigen Commonsadmin um Übersetzung. Danke --Historiograf (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons talk:Licensing#Suggested revision of "Commons:Licensing#Germany"

Hallo Historiograf, in dem referenzierten Abschnitt wird vorgeschlagen, COM:L#Germany durch diesen Text zu ersetzen. Ich bin mit den Vorschlägen nicht sehr glücklich und würde es begrüßen, wenn Du Dir das ansehen könntest. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pfeifer_hardt.jpg

Hi Historiograf, ich hab grade Dein Bild in den Artikel de:Hardt (Nürtingen) eingebunden, der so ganz unbebildert war. Mir ist aufgefallen, dass das Feld „Quelle“ noch leer ist. Hast Du das Foto selbst gemacht? Dann kleb doch bitte noch ein {{own}} rein. Danke! --Schwäbin (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich finde es eine Unverschämtheit, mich dazu aufzufordern. Meiner Erinnerung nach gab es 2007 noch kein Formular mit Pflichtfeld Quelle, aus dem Hochladen unter freier Lizenz ergab sich damals automatisch, dass es sich um ein eigenes Foto handelte. Ohne Gruß --Historiograf (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beitrag zum Heilig-Kreuz-Münster von 1870

Hallo Historiograf, da ich weiß, dass Du Dich Schwäbisch Gmünd im besonderen Maße widmest und Du auch bereits Fotos dieses Münsters hochgeladen hast, musste ich an Dich denken, als ich zufällig beim Durchstöbern des führenden englischen Architekturmagazins des 19. Jahrhunderts The Builder auf einen Beitrag über Schwäbisch Gmünd stieß. Der unbekannte Autor äußert sich in der Ausgabe vom 7. Mai 1870 mit Begeisterung: About twenty miles from Stuttgard, (sic!) on the way to Nördligen, (sic!) stands the interesting little town of Schwäbisch-Gmünd. The situation of this place is most charming, surrounded on every side by lofty hills, valleys richly wooded, and watered by clear mountain streams. [..] The great glory of Gmünd is the magnificent church of the Holy Cross. [..] This church has been very satisfactorily restored, and the yellow wash with which every part of the interior was disfigured has been scraped off. The only unsuccessful portions of the restoration are the high altar, which is too large, and rather heavy in detail, and the stained glass, which is amongst the worst we have ever seen, and is in glaring contrast with the little old glass that exists in the church. However, the people of Gmünd, and, in fact, the kingdom of Würtemburg, (sic!) are to be congratulated upon possessing such a noble church, and are to be greatly praised for the condition in which it is kept, and the great care bestowed upon it. Eine Frage hätte ich noch und vielleicht kannst Du mir dabei helfen: Ich hatte leider noch nicht das Vergnügen, mir das Heilig-Kreuz-Münster vor Ort anzusehen. Daher weiß ich auch nicht, welches Portal hier gezeichnet worden ist. Könntest Du mir hierbei helfen, damit ich die Beschreibung entsprechend ergänzen kann? Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super, danke! Das Chorsüdportal sieht heute so aus --Histo (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für die Identifizierung, Histo. Da hat sich dann aber in der Zwischenzeit viel verändert, indem Skulpturen verschwunden sind und/oder ausgetauscht wurden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated License

Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Eutin 2011 11.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 23:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[und viele weitere]

Schloss Eutin

Danke für das Hochladen deiner Bilder vom Schloss Eutin (und auch die aus Mölln)! Hättest du (besonders zu den Gemälden) noch ein paar weitergehende informationen für die Bildbeschreibung und Kategorisierung? Herzlichen Dank und Grüsse --Concord (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider nein --Historiograf (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falls Du Zeit und Lust hast und Englisch lesen magst: Commons:WikiProject Museums und wikiversity/Museum_photography geben hilfreiche Hinweise. Auch wenn man nicht immer alles wie im Idealfall machen kann oder will - ich selbst habe mir angewöhnt, immer die Beschreibungstafel separat mit zu fotografieren - Im Zeitalter der 4GB Speicherchips ist das nur wenig Speicherplatz und Aufwand, aber hinterher sehr hilfreich - z.B. bei deinem Foto einer Inkunabel im Kreismuseum Ratzeburg. Danke auch für die Fotos aus Ratzeburg - dir sind die Bischofsgrabsteine erheblich besser gelungen als mir ;-) --Concord (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auf meine Speicherkarte gehen gerade mal 85 Bilder, ich arbeite mit einer sehr alten Digitalkamera; von daher danke für die Ratschläge, denen ich nähertreten werde, wenn ich eine neue Ausrüstung habe --Historiograf (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Historiograf,

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

Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Springer images 1.jpg

File:Springer images 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 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 Historiograf,
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 08:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Stralsund reiss.jpg

Bezüglich Deines uploads des Buches der Gymnasialbibliothek Stralsund bei reiss-sohn: falls Du die Bilder in groß brauchst, sind sie hier:1., 2., 3., 4.. grüße --Botaurus (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stralsundische Zeitung.pdf

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 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Stadtbibliothek mainz i 422.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 17:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Historiograf, habe ich eben erledigt. Frohes Fest & viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weingarten christi geburt.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 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Schwachsinn

Danke für die freundliche Warnung für den Schwachsinn, aber kannst du bitte konkret werden, ich kann jetzt weder bei Dir noch bei mir einen Wahrheitsgehalt Deiner Aussage finden!? -- Perhelion (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dann solltest du die Arbeit hier ganz einstellen, danke für dein Verständnis. Es geht ganz und gar nicht, bei einem x-beliebigen Scan aus einer Ausgabe von 1566 eine völlig irrelevante Nürnberger Handschriftensignatur einzutragen. Ob du das nun kapierst oder nicht. --Historiograf (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ja werde ich dann wohl machen müssen, vor allem bei einem so netten Tonfall hier. Georg Rüxner ist wohl nicht völlig irrelevant. Du meinst also sonnenklar, die Zeichnungen sind nicht von ihm (kopiert) und ich sollte einfach unbekannt angeben?? -- Perhelion (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also damit auch du es verstehst:

1. Die Kategorie Rüxner ist für Holzschnitte aus dem Druck von 1566 nicht unbedingt falsch, obwohl Rüxner als Textautor nichts zu tun hat. Die Erstausgabe des Turnierbuchs 1530 hatte ANDERE Holzschnitte, wobei es nicht einmal klar ist, ob 1530 Rüxner noch lebte.

2. Die Nürnberger Handschrift hat mit dem Turnierbuch von 1566 nichts zu tun, es ist ganz und gar irreführend sie an dieser Stelle ins Spiel zu bringen, da sie anders als du oder deine Quelle womöglich meinen, keine "Urfassung" oder Erstfassung des Turnierbuchs darstellt. --Historiograf (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dann habe ich lediglich den Fehler der Quelle übernommen oder nicht genau recherchiert, das kann doch wohl passiern. Danke Herr Historiograf. Nichtsdestotrotz hast du keine meine Dateien korrigiert. PS: hier ein Bsp. meiner Korrektur (die hier befindliche Quelle ist allerdings immer noch Fehlerhaft, welche ich schlicht übernommen habe) -- Perhelion (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Jerome-cranach-vienna-infrared.jpg

Hallo Historiograf, das ist ein Fall, bei dem Deine Expertise wohl hilfreich wäre. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latsch

Hallo Historiograf, ich versuche gerade, deine Bilder aus Latsch etwas genauer zu kategorisieren. Zwei Bilder (File:Latsch 2013 003.jpg und File:Latsch 2013 004.jpg) konnte ich problemlos der Kirche St. Peter und Paul zuordnen, beim Rest tappse ich etwas im Dunkeln. Ich wäre dir dankbar, wenn du mir nähere Informationen zum Aufnahmestandort folgender Bilder nennen könntest:

Beste Grüße, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe gerade nachgeschlagen und entdeckt, dass das Portal auf deinen Fotos jenes der Pfarrkirche ist. Daher habe ich die drei übrigen Fotos (002, 010 und 011) ebenfalls dort eingeordnet. Falls das nicht korrekt sein sollte, melde dich einfach. Grüße, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine Mühe. Bei großen Mengen bleibt die einzelne Bildbeschreibung oft auf der Strecke. Nur bei 002 bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob Pfarrkirche oder Spitalkirche (war zu). Grüße --Historiograf (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Es war die Spitalkirche.

Ich habe weitere Fotos, bei denen ich nicht weiter weiß und deine Hilfe bräuchte:

aus Bozen File:Bozen 2013 027.jpg und File:Bozen 2013 028.jpg (026 war noch im Franziskanerkloster),

aus Glurns File:Glurns 2013 018.jpg. Grüße, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bozen 27 und 28 sind nahe zusammen Nähe altes Rathaus Rückseite aufgenommen worden, 28 an dem Bogen, den man auf einem anderen Bozenbild erkennt. In Glurns liegt die Stadtpfarrkirche außerhalb der Mauern, in den Mauern liegt die Kirche, die ich aufnahm, nach http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=46.666667&mlon=10.55&zoom=12#map=18/46.67067/10.55314 müsste es ULF sein. http://www.provinz.bz.it/denkmalpflege/themen/1071.asp?status=detail&id=14899 passt doch oder? Grüße und nochmals DANKE --Historiograf (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, ich konnte die Bilder jetzt zuordnen. Nur als Rückversicherung: Ist dieses Bild dein einziges aus der Frauenkirche? Sonst müsste ich nochmal die anderen durchsehen. Und achja, kannst du noch das hier genauer lokalisieren (ich weiß, wird schwierig...). Dann hätte ich aber wirklich alle. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ich bestätige dir hiermit, dass nur 18 aus ULF Glurns innen ist.

Die Hausnummer ist ja angegeben. Es ist in der [Hauptstraße], in der auch das Rathaus liegt, nahe an diesem Turm. Bin mir nach dem Portalvergleich zu 99 % sicher, dass es https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Sterzing-Neustadt1.JPG ist --Historiograf (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Sepp griesinger.pdf

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:Sepp griesinger.pdf. 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, Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Historiograf, das ist erledigt, der Fall ist schließlich offensichtlich. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early_printed_books

Early printed books has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 24 October 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 Historiograf,
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

Copyright status: File:Fisch chronik kueng.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:Fisch chronik kueng.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.

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) 05:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. This is an obvious case as this was published in the 17th century (as stated in its description). --AFBorchert (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Historiograf,

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

Zur Kenntnis

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Historiograf --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Und? --Historiograf (talk)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

Hallo Historiograf,

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

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

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

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

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

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Moselkrampen tafel.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Moselkrampen tafel.jpg, 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!

Yours sincerely, 1989 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rss feeds 2011.jpg

File:Rss feeds 2011.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Sev ela .p 09:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der WLM-Countdown hat begonnen

Hallo Historiograf,

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

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

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

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

( Bernd Gross, 6. August 2015)

Copyright status: File:Roth FWE RupertvonDeutz KathBewegung 31 1887-1.pdf

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:Roth FWE RupertvonDeutz KathBewegung 31 1887-1.pdf. 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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Du bist vermutlich einer dieser seelen- und gefühllosen Bots, die hier ihr Unwesen treiben, denn als mitdenkenden Mitarbeiter kann ich dich nicht akzeptieren. Jeder, der auch nur eine Minute auf die Prüfung des Falls verschwendet, sieht sofort, dass es vom gleichen Urheber in der Kategorie viele andere als PD markierte Beiträge gibt. Gut, ich habe versehentlich die Lizenz vergessen. Aber bei eindeutigen Fällen erwarte ich, dass man vor einer Löschankündigung eine Minute mal recherchiert. --Historiograf (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Biel brief.pdf

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:Biel brief.pdf. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Weiglein cramer.pdf

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:Weiglein cramer.pdf. 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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Valwigerberg 4.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Valwigerberg 4.jpg, 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Historiograf, ich habe mich darum gekümmert. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dafür ein herzliches Dankeschön & alles Gute für 2016 --Historiograf (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, Dir ebenso! Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Beger rechnungsbuch.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:Beger rechnungsbuch.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarekt, meine Geduld mit solchen Projektschädlingen wie Dir ist begrenzt. Du siehst doch, das das eine originalgetreue Wiedergabe einer jahrhundertealten Vorlage ist und kannst, wenn du kein seelenloser Bot bist, ohne weiteres die Lizenz ergänzen --Historiograf (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Huelchrath 2016-04-09 1.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:Huelchrath 2016-04-09 1.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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Schoen rechberg weissenstein.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:Schoen rechberg weissenstein.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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strigel Maximilian I.jpg

File:Strigel Maximilian I.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） ∙ +/−

Oursana (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

vielleicht magst da da auch noch senf zu geben?

siehe: [7]. Ich überlege den einen oder anderen Admin meines Vertauens (in Commons) auf sein Verhalten anzusprechen um zu überlegen was da getan werden kann. Weitere Argumente anderer User wären da wohl unterstützend. Weiteres gerne per mail. --Jom (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dateinamen

Hallo Historiograf, stört es dich, wenn ich Dateien umbenenne, die du nach der Nachbarstadt benannt hast? Z. B. steht das Alte Rathaus Gernsbach nicht in Baden-Baden, wie der Dateiname suggeriert, und ich würde von mir aus das Bild in "Altes Rathaus Gernsbach 2016 0088.jpg" umbenennen, wenn du nichts dagegen hast. Gruß, --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jede Umbenennung birgt ein Risiko, wenn das Bild irgendwo eingebunden wird. Primär dient nicht der Dateiname, sondern die Kategorisierung bzw. Volltextsuche der Auffindbarkeit der Inhalte. --Historiograf (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bei der Verschiebung werden Einbindungen in Wiki-Projekten automatisch angepasst. Für externe Einbindungen bleibt die alte Dateiseite als Weiterleitung erhalten. Vor allem sind die fraglichen Bilder noch ganz frisch und das von dir genannte Risiko gering. Der falsche Dateiname bringt dafür das Risiko der Fehlinformation und falschen Bildeinbindung. Der Name wird schließlich am allergrößten geschrieben und über die Volltextsuche ausgewertet, die damit auch irreführende Ergebnisse hervorbringt. Dateinamen sollen beschreiben, was auf dem Bild dargestellt wird. Falsch identifizierte Bildinhalte sind gemäß Richtlinien ein Grund zur Verschiebung. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn du alles besserweißt, wieso fragst du mich dann? Scher dich weg --Historiograf (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ui, da haben wir ja einen ganz netten Freund gefunden. Gefragt habe ich, damit du deine Präferenzen für die Umbenennung äußern kannst, und nicht damit du dein inneres Stinktier herauskehrst. Es hätte ja sein können, dass die Dateinamen einem bestimmten System entsprechen und eine Umbenennung ebenfalls einem System folgen sollte. Aber wenn du meinst, dass du mir nicht helfen kannst, dann schaffe ich das auch alleine. Deine schludrigen Kategorisierungen darfst du aber gerne auch selbst verbessern, wenn du meinst anhand ihrer die Objekte zu identifizieren. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kann es sein, dass du hier etwas missverstanden hast? Wenn "meine" Kategorisierungen nicht optimal sind, dann können sie verbessert werden. Ich selbst brauche sie nicht, ich kenne meine Bilder. Wenn du nicht arbeitsteilig arbeiten möchtest, sondern dich darauf verlegst, Leute, die viele Bilder hochladen, ohne jeweils auch das zeitaufwändige Geschäft perfekter (?) Bearbeitung zeitlich leisten zu können, mit besserwisserischen Kommentaren und unfreundlichen Bemerkungen zu vergraulen, würde ich dir höflich ein anderes Betätigungsfeld vorschlagen. --Historiograf (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Hans von westernach lieder.pdf

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:Hans von westernach lieder.pdf. 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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Heilbrunisch zeitregister bis 1600.pdf

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:Heilbrunisch zeitregister bis 1600.pdf. 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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland!

Hallo Historiograf!

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments 2016! Das Organisationsteam freut sich über 38.988 Bilder von deutschen Bau- und Kulturdenkmalen, die in diesem Jahr hochgeladen wurden, und möchte sich ganz herzlich bei Dir für deinen Beitrag zum weltweit größten, von Ehrenamtlichen organisierten, Fotowettbewerb bedanken!

Du hast noch bis zum 18. Oktober die Gelegenheit Wettbewerbsbeiträge anderer Fotografen im Rahmen der Vorjury zu bewerten. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du dich daran beteiligst und mithilfst die besten Bilder des diesjährigen Wettbewerbs auszuwählen. Alle Informationen zur Vorjury findest Du hier.

An dieser Stelle sei noch auf die Preisverleihung von Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland hingewiesen: Diese findet am 25. November 2016 ab 20 Uhr in den Räumen von Wikimedia Deutschland in Berlin statt. Alle Interessierten laden wir ganz herzlich zur Teilnahme ein. Für die Fotografen der Top-10-Bilder und die Sonderpreisträger werden Reisekosten sowie eine Übernachtung durch Wikimedia Deutschland übernommen.

Nochmals vielen Dank für deine Beiträge. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch in Zukunft die Wikipedia bebilderst! Solltest du Fragen haben, so kannst du dich gerne an infowikilovesmonuments.de wenden.

(DCB im Namen des Organisationsteams von Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland, 01.10.2016)

Copyright status: File:Chlefsching oberaltaich.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:Chlefsching oberaltaich.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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Hasenpflug Carl Georg Adolph 1802 1858 Klosterhalle im Schnee.jpeg

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:Hasenpflug Carl Georg Adolph 1802 1858 Klosterhalle im Schnee.jpeg. 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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to [email protected].

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File tagging File:Kapff schloessle kapf 1939.pdf

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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kapff schloessle kapf 1939.pdf. 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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Rosenzweig τ 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or [email protected]. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

File:Hanssen cv.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neckar untertuerkheim.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schlössl Oberotterbach

Category:Schlössl Oberotterbach is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

Empty Category

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

File:Runk schloss tirol.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Historiograf, das sollte hiermit erledigt sein. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke --Historiograf (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Deutschland!

Hallo Historiograf!

Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments 2017! Das Organisationsteam freut sich über mehr als 20.000 Bilder von deutschen Bau- und Kulturdenkmalen, die in diesem Jahr hochgeladen wurden, und möchte sich ganz herzlich bei Dir für deinen Beitrag zum weltweit größten, von Ehrenamtlichen organisierten, Fotowettbewerb bedanken!

Du hast noch bis zum 15. Oktober die Gelegenheit, Wettbewerbsbeiträge anderer Fotografen im Rahmen der Vorjury zu sichten und zu bewerten. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du dich daran beteiligst und mithilfst, die besten Bilder des diesjährigen Wettbewerbs auszuwählen. Gern kannst Du auch deine und andere Bilder in Wikipedia einbinden.

Fotos bewerten »

Bilder in die Wikipedia einbinden »

Nochmals vielen Dank für deine Beiträge. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch in Zukunft die Wikipedia bebilderst! Solltest du Fragen haben, so kannst du dich gerne an infowikilovesmonuments.de wenden.

(Martin Rulsch (WMDE) im Namen des Organisationsteams von Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland, 9. Oktober 2017)

File:Paradise papers nov 2017.jpg

File:Paradise papers nov 2017.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） ∙ +/−

Sun Choke (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

File:Seeger auf pahls tod.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johannesberg hersfeld schatzgraeber.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Social media count.jpg

File:Social media count.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） ∙ +/−

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

File:Ulm stammbuch muendler.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Niesewand gotha 1.jpg

Copyright status: File:Niesewand gotha 1.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:Niesewand gotha 1.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.

Jcb (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Spruch roem Reich 1422.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Spruch roem Reich 1422.jpg, 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!

Yours sincerely, — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hast du nichts besseres zu tun? Trolle überall --Historiograf (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments ti aspetta, con centinaia di nuovi comuni fotografabili

Concorso Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018 (English version)

Gentile Historiograf, ti ringraziamo ancora una volta per la tua passata partecipazione a Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM). Il più grande concorso fotografico del mondo si svolge anche questo settembre per documentare e promuovere il patrimonio culturale italiano, con una licenza copyright libera.

Quest'anno è doppiamente facile partecipare: gli oggetti fotografabili coprono quasi 1000 comuni in più, grazie all'adesione di centinaia di nuovi enti fra cui Roma, e alla possibilità di fotografare circa 2000 alberi monumentali. Controlla le liste di monumenti fotografabili! Carica tutte le foto che hai e magari organizza una visita presso i monumenti che ancora non hanno una foto.

Quest'oggi il Parlamento europeo ha respinto la proposta di estendere la libertà di panorama. E allora scattiamo e pubblichiamo tutte le foto che possiamo, almeno per questi monumenti per cui ci è legalmente consentito!

Grazie, Nemo 16:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

File:Naue krötenring.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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabensage Merseburgische Chronika 1668.pdf

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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrationen der Rauchbeinchronik

Hallo Historiograf, inzwischen fand ich Zeit, die Illustrationen aus dem Digitalisat der Rauchbeinchronik zu extrahieren, alle in der Auflösung des originalen Digitalisats:

Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super, dafür bin nicht nur ich sehr dankbar! --Historiograf (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2019

Hallo Historiograf,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2019 findet zum neunten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Dabei können Bau- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich ein, dieses Jahr wieder mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Es sind viele spannende Motive überall in Deutschland zu fotografieren. Neben beeindruckenden märchenhaften Schlössern, Burgen und Kirchen können auch andere Kulturdenkmale wie Brücken, Industrieruinen, Bauernhöfe oder Parks fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden, die sich über Fotos freuen. Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Du bist interessiert, am Wettbewerb mitzuwirken, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art. Sollte noch Technik fehlen, die aber in Zukunft unbedingt benötigt wird, dann freut sich Wikimedia Deutschland über dein Feedback zum Technikpool.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Mitte September 2019 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg bei größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z thomas 14:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2019, è iniziato! Il tuo contributo è prezioso!

English | Italiano | +/−

Hi,

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in Italy. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and upload your photos to share the italian cultural hertage with the world!!

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments Italia website and here. If you have images taken in other countries you can check the international participants.

This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

If you need help please contact me! --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Karlsruhe neuweiler hemmel lichtenberg ganz.jpg

Copyright status: File:Karlsruhe neuweiler hemmel lichtenberg ganz.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:Karlsruhe neuweiler hemmel lichtenberg ganz.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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for uploading the Emma Hauck letter. You can see it used in the EN wiki article on her.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. The upload was in 2006. --Historiograf (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Elias prozess google scholar.jpg

Copyright status: File:Elias prozess google scholar.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:Elias prozess google scholar.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) 14:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Historiograf, das sollte hiermit erledigt sein. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry für die Mühe und Danke --Historiograf (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2020

Hallo Historiograf,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2020 findet zum zehnten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Dabei können Bau-, Boden- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich gern wieder ein, dieses Jahr mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Obwohl es den Wettbewerb seit zehn Jahren gibt, sind immer noch viele Motive überall in Deutschland zu fotografieren. Neben beeindruckenden märchenhaften Schlössern, Burgen und Kirchen können auch andere Kulturdenkmale wie Brücken, Industrieruinen, Bauernhöfe oder Parks fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden, die sich über Fotos freuen. Es haben sich auch Kulturdenkmale verändert, sie wurden saniert oder umgestaltet. Diese Entwicklung kann auch gezeigt werden. Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Du bist interessiert, am Wettbewerb mitzuwirken, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab 5. September 2020 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg beim größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams Z thomas 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ringsage

Hallo Historiograf, vorgestern war ich in Schwäbisch Gmünd zu Besuch bei Freunden und fand in der Johanniskirche das Gemälde von Heberlen zur Ringsage, über das Du bereits ausführlich geschrieben hast. Zu meiner Überraschung hatten wir davon noch keine Kopie auf Commons, so dass ich es fotografiert und hochgeladen habe. Wie bei vielen Fotos von Ölgemälden sind Lichtreflektionen ein Problem und leider fand ich keine Position ganz ohne solche. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besten Dank --Historiograf (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:BND-Medaille.jpg

File:BND-Medaille.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） ∙ +/−

Asperatus (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panama papers sz chat.jpg

File:Panama papers sz chat.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） ∙ +/−

Ovinus (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christ und Maria Klarenthal.jpg

Hello Historiograf, since you uploaded this one, the file name is not what the description says. imo a rename would be advisable. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

?? --Historiograf (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??? Don't understand what you mean. Are you familiair with the German language? Lotje (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo zusammen, das Bild hatte beim Hochladen mit File:Adolf imagina klarenthal.JPG einen korrekten Namen und wurde beim Hochladen korrekt beschrieben: King Adolf von Nassau and his wife Imagina. Das Problem ist, dass User:Mhmrodrigues zunächst die Beschreibung veränderte und anschließend eine Umbenennung beantragte, der von Samuele2002 stattgegeben wurde. Das Chaos wurde selbst in Bezug auf die Kategorien jüngst fortgesetzt. Ich habe jetzt den originalen Dateinamen wiederhergestellt und die ursprüngliche Beschreibung restauriert. Damit sollte das geklärt sein. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wie ich gerade sehe, gibt es unterschiedliche Interpretationen des Bilds. Während bei dem genannten Aufsatz hier die beiden Stifter gesehen werden, wird bei dieser Darstellung auf eine andere Interpretation hingewiesen: „ein vergrößert dargestelltes thronendes, gekröntes und nimbiertes Heiligenpaar, das als Christus und Maria gedeutet wurde“. In der zugehörigen Anmerkung findet sich folgender Hinweis: „Zu Zweifeln an dieser Zuschreibung vgl. Schrohe, Geschichte 41. Aufgrund der ungewöhnlichen Weisungsgesten des Heiligenpaares ergaben sich für Schrohe Zweifel an der Zuschreibung an Christus und Maria, zumal weder die Krönung noch die Segnung Mariens ikonographisch der hier abgebildeten Szene zuzuordnen sind. So nimmt es nicht wunder, wenn er mutmaßte, ob es sich nicht eher um das heilige Kaiserpaar Heinrich II. und Kunigunde handeln könnte.“ Das wäre noch eine weitere Variante. Offenbar gibt es da nicht viel Konsens bei der Interpretation. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe die Beschreibung jetzt entsprechend ergänzt. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ich darf vielleicht noch anmerken, dass es mir plausibel erscheint, dass die Stifter im unteren Teil des Gesamtbilds dargestellt sind, weil dort die beiden größten Figuren in der Mitte die Kirche halten – damit werden doch die Stifter gekennzeichnet. Aus meiner Sicht bleibt dann aber immer noch vollkommen offen, welches Paar ganz oben dargestellt ist – der Einwand von Schrohe erscheint mir ebenfalls plausibel. Dessen ungeachtet müssen wir dies aber nicht hier entscheiden. Wichtig ist aus meiner Sicht nur, dass aus der Bildbeschreibung hervorgeht, dass es unterschiedliche Interpretationen dazu gibt. Immerhin ist die ursprüngliche Interpretation klar belegt. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie findet im 6. Band zu Heinrich und Kunigunde folgender interessanter Hinweis auf S. 484: „Patrozinienwahl u. gemeinsame Darst. sind häufige Antwort auf ksrl. Gnadenakte, wie Gründungen, Stiftungen, Königs- u. Kaiserschutz, [..]“. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hier ist noch ein größerer Scan des gesamten Bilds, bei dem ein Hereinzoomen möglich ist. Bei genügend Vergrößerung findet sich eine Beschriftung all der Familienmitglieder einschließlich der beiden Stifter im unteren Teil des Bilds: „Imagina Regina“. Pierre Even scheint sich da wirklich verguckt zu haben. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Und auf S. 87 werden die Beschriftungen aufgeführt und die Autoren dieser Edition interpretieren das Paar ganz oben als Christus und Maria, wobei auf die Meinung von Schrohe ausdrücklich verwiesen wird. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe jetzt die gesamte Tuschezeichnung in der besten mir zugänglichen Auflösung hochgeladen (File:Klarissenkloster Klarenthal Stifterbild mit König Adolf, seiner Gemahlin Imagina – gezeichnet von Henrich Dors 1632.png) und die Beschriftungen annotiert. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entsprechend [8] ist der Aufsatz von Schrohe in den Nassauischen Heimatblättern 26, 1925, S. 41 ff. erschienen – ebenfalls mit einer Abbildung des Stifterbilds. Ein öffentliches Digitalisat habe ich dazu noch nicht gefunden. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank AFBorchert, nun aber zu File:Imagina empress.JPG und @Royalty & Nassau Expert: das andere (Gegenbild), wohin damit? Lotje (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wie ich schon an anderer Stelle sagte, ist die ganze Idee, dass es Adolf und Imagina sind, lächerlich. Sehen Sie sich das komplette Bild an. Niemand kann ernsthaft glauben, dass Adolf und Imagina, die unten auf dem Wandgemälde abgebildet sind, ein Wandgemälde in Auftrag gegeben haben, das sie zeigt, wie sie das Kloster Klarenthal sich selbst widmen. Das wäre Blasphemie gewesen. Royalty & Nassau Expert (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalty & Nassau Expert: de vraag is maar of zij de opdrachtgevers waren (cfr. de modus operandi van de opdrachtgevers in de Eeuw der Vlaamse Primitieven bv...) . Anderzijds, als deze afbeelding iets van doen heeft met een werk van Pierre Even of een andere auteur, moet die dan toch ook worden aangesproken. Allemaal heel verwarrend. Toch fijn dat je de moeite neemt om tekst en uitleg te verschaffen bij je reverts. Gebruikers met kennis van zaken mogen niet zomaar van het toneel verdwijnen. Al was het maar om mij (die er steeds weer in slaagt de kat de bel aan te binden) te helpen "opsporen" wat er nu eigenlijk van aan is. Hiervan wordt Wikipedia uiteindelijk enkel beter van.

Lotje (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Lotje. Het is mogelijk dat Adolf en Imagina niet de opdrachtgevers waren. Er zijn een behoorlijk aantal Nassaus abdis van of non in Klooster Klarenthal geweest. De kans is groot dat een van hen dan de opdrachtgever geweest is. Hoe dan ook zouden ook die nooit Adolf en Imagina het klooster aan zichzelf hebben laten opdragen in een muurschildering. Ik waardeer je pogingen om door het stellen van gerichte vragen antwoorden op probleemgevallen te krijgen. Als ik antwoorden heb, zal ik niet aarzelen om je bij te staan in je pogingen. Mvg, Royalty & Nassau Expert (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalty & Nassau Expert: bedankt voor je steun. Anderzijds, wanneer ik je enigszins kan helpen bij het interpreteren van een bepaald woord/zinsnede wil ik dat graag doen.

Lotje (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Hallo Royalty & Nassau Expert, wie oben meinen Ausführungen zu entnehmen ist, denke ich, dass sich Pierre Even irrt. Ich habe das auch mit den Beschriftungen in der von mir neu hochgeladenen Datei File:Klarissenkloster Klarenthal Stifterbild mit König Adolf, seiner Gemahlin Imagina – gezeichnet von Henrich Dors 1632.png verdeutlicht. Das bedeutet aber noch lange nicht, dass wir sicher sein können, wie die beiden Figuren zu interpretieren sind. Entsprechend dem Artikel von Schrohe könnte es sich eben auch um das heilige Kaiserpaar Heinrich II. und Kunigunde handeln. Wie ausgeführt, ist die deren Verwendung bei Stifterbildern durchaus belegt. Wenn es sich dabei vom Christus und Maria handeln sollte, dann ist die Ikonografie völlig abseits des Üblichen – das wird auch von denjenigen eingeräumt, die das für die wahrscheinlichere Variante handeln. In der Saarbrücker Textausgabe steht dazu: „Ihre Darstellung entspricht ikonographisch weder der Krönung Mariä noch der Segnung Mariä; in beiden Fällen müßte Maria gefaltete Hände haben. So nimmt es nicht wunder, wenn der Gedanke aufkam, es handele sich um das heilige Kaiserpaar Heinrich II. und Kunigunde.“ Im übrigen bin ich der Ansicht, dass so etwas in Ruhe mit dem hochladenden Benutzer besprochen werden sollte, zumal Historiograf vom Fach ist. Bevor wir die Datei erneut umbenennen, sollten wir seine Meinung dazu hören. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo AFBorchert. Obwohl ich die deutsche Sprache einigermaßen beherrsche, stoße ich hin und wieder auf ein Wort, das ich nicht kenne. In diesem Fall war es ein Wort im Text, in dem Sie festgestellt haben, dass Pierre Even einen Fehler gemacht haben muss. Dieses Wort wurde vom Übersetzungstool in das Gegenteil übersetzt, d. h. es wurde mit "er hatte Recht" übersetzt. Daher auch meine Reaktion. Wir sind uns einig, dass das oben abgebildete Paar nicht Adolf und Imagina sein kann. Wer sind sie dann? Beide Alternativen sind nach Ansicht der Experten möglich. Ich wage nicht zu sagen, welcher Experte Recht hat. Ich denke, es wäre am klügsten, dieses Bild wegen der falschen Beschriftung nicht zu verwenden. Es gibt mehrere Uploads mit dem gesamten Wandbild. Dort kann erklärt werden, dass es ungewiss ist, wer das oben abgebildete Paar ist, und welche Alternativen von Experten angegeben werden. Ich habe nichts dagegen, auch die Meinung von Historiograf zu hören. Viele Grüße, Royalty & Nassau Expert (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Royalty & Nassau Expert, es freut mich sehr, dass sich das Missverständnis nun aufgeklärt hat. Ich bin der gleichen Meinung, dass es besser wäre das Bild auszutauschen durch eines die das gesamte Bild verwenden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann dazu leider nix sagen und schließe mich den Entscheidungen von AFBorchert, dem ich für seine Recherchen danke, an Historiograf (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Lirer Schwaebische Chronik Register.pdf

Copyright status: File:Lirer Schwaebische Chronik Register.pdf

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:Lirer Schwaebische Chronik Register.pdf. 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) 00:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Historiograf, ich habe das repariert. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! --Historiograf (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chihuahua franz.jpg

File:Chihuahua franz.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） ∙ +/−

Ies (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2021

Hallo Historiograf,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2021 findet zum elften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Dabei können Bau-, Boden- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich gern wieder ein, dieses Jahr mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Obwohl es den Wettbewerb seit über zehn Jahren gibt, sind immer noch viele Motive überall in Deutschland zu fotografieren. Im Herzen Deutschlands in Thüringen und in Niedersachsen sind neue Denkmallisten entstanden, die auf Fotos warten. Übrigens in der Hauptstadt Thüringens in Erfurt findet dieses Jahr die WikiCon vom 1. bis 3. Oktober statt. Dies könnte man mit einem Foto-Kurzurlaub vor der WikiCon in Thüringen verbinden …

Vor dem Hintergrund der Flutkatastrophe 2021 haben wir auch drei Sonderpreise ausgelobt. Damit sollen Fotos prämiert werden, die Kulturdenkmale zeigen, die zerstört wurden. Das Foto kann das Objekt vor oder nach der Zerstörung zeigen.

Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Du bist interessiert, am Wettbewerb mitzuwirken, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Anfang September 2021 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg beim größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z ^thomas 18:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Baumeister gmuender leute.jpg

Copyright status: File:Baumeister gmuender leute.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:Baumeister gmuender leute.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) 01:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grossherzog friedrich i baden.JPG

hi Historiograf

I am writing to ask you if you have sources where there are other images (portraits or unpublished photographs) that show other knights with the insignia of the order of the black eagle, because I must tell you that the photographic portrait of the Grand Duke Frederick I of Baden with the following insignia, it is really an incredible rarity, so I hope you have other unpublished material inherent to the robes of the knightly orders, not just the order of the black eagle.--Miss Mattërn (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, cannot help. --Historiograf (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Champion_des_dames_Vaudoises.JPG

Hello,

I would like to use the picture you uploaded (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champion_des_dames_Vaudoises.JPG) in the context of a scientific publication made for an University, that will therefore be printed, distributed, and sold by a third party.

I understand that the book itself the image is coming is well into public domain, but what about your image ? Did you took it yourself for everyone, or was it taken from somewhere ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacquaghjolu (talk • contribs) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source: W. Schild. Die Maleficia der Hexenleut', 1997, S. 97. See metadata. --Historiograf (talk)

Deleted content

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

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

File:Hathitrust laden.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution

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

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

And also:

File:Hathitrust relaunch.jpg

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Buergeln urkunde ulrich konstanz 1130.jpg

Copyright status: File:Buergeln urkunde ulrich konstanz 1130.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:Buergeln urkunde ulrich konstanz 1130.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) 19:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[survey 1]

[survey 2]