User talk:Atamari/Archive/2013

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

SVG

Hallo Atamari,

wäre es Dir möglich, Deine Grafiken auch als SVG einzufügen? Wikimedia ist in der Lage, diese automatisch als .png-Datei darzustellen. Der Vorteil daran ist, dass zukünftige Nutzer die Grafiken ohne Qualitätsverluste weiterbearbeiten können, wenn sie z.B. in Zukunft verändert werden müssen. Außerdem lassen sich Inhalte von Vektorgarfiken teilweise von Suchmaschinen durchsuchen und sie sind verlustfrei vergrößerbar. Dies würde dem Gedanken von Wissensspeicherung und -zugänglichmachung der Wikipedia sicherlich in besonderem Maße Rechnung tragen. Siehe auch: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_SVG

Vielen Dank für Dein Engagement!

Nein, das ist nicht möglich. Die allermeisten Files die ich hochgeladen habe, sind Digitalbilder - da ist das jpg-Format das Beste. Sonst habe ich keine Ahnung worauf sich die Bitte bezieht. --Atamari (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hochhäuser File:Hochhaussiedlung-am-Eckbusch-2013.jpg

Hallo Atamari! Vielen Dank für die unterstütezende Kategorisierung. Ich hatte überlegt, ob ich dein Hochhausfoto File:Wuppertal Am Jagdhaus 0002.jpg auf den entsprechenden Wikiseiten durch das neue von mir austauschen soll. Was meinst du? Deins ist etwas milchig, hat einige CAs und hat nicht so eine hohe Detailauflösung. Wirklich schlecht ist es aber auch nicht, so dass ich vorher nach deiner Meinung fragen wollte. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Danke, dass du Bilder in Wuppertal und Umgebung beigetragen hattest. Bei dem Bild mit der Hochhaussiedlung gefällt mir ehrlich gesagt das neue überhaupt nicht besser als das bisherige. Das bisherige Bild zeigt die Farben wie sie natürlich sind. Bei dem neuen Bild stimmt irgendwas nicht mit dem Kontrast, die Farben sind soo satt... das einem richtig übel wird. Das Getreide im Vordergrund ist so giftgrün, da sieht sogar ein Textmarker blass aus. Sorry, aber vielleicht ist dein Monitor anderes eingestellt aber... bin nur mal ehrlich. Eigentlich schade bei dieser teuren Kamera... p.s. auch bei der Kirche der Diakonie in Wülfrath sind die Farben nicht mehr natürlich... --Atamari (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Schön, dass du ehrlich bist. Ich habe einen SEHR hohen Qualitätsanspruch an meine Fotos (s. Commons-Profil). Praktisch alle Aufnahmen laufen durch den Qualitätssicherungsprozess QIC, einige durch FPC. Übersatte Farben würden dort sofort auffallen. Die von dir genannte Kirche ist dort bereits von Iifar begutachtet. Wenn jemand Ahnung von tollen Kirchengebäudeaufnahmen hat, dann er. Übrigens stand die Sonne direkt auf der Kirchenvorderseite, damit bekommst du auch sehr warme (und gesättigte) Farben. Was übrigens spannend ist, dass das Gras der Wiese auf deiner Aufnahme satter ist als auf meiner :) Ich bearbeite jedes Bild so, dass das Endergebnis meinen Erinnerungen weitgehend entspricht. Vielleicht ist an deinem Monitor tatsächlich etwas nicht in Ordnung - meiner ist jedenfalls hardwarekallibriert und gerade das Foto der Kirche sieht dort toll aus. Die meisten Monitore zeigen zu satte Farben an, weil die Leute eben "schön bunt" mögen. Dass dir beim Betrachten meiner Bilder übel wird halte ich für eine ziemlich unsachliche Einlassung und möchte diese nicht weiter kommentieren.
Erlaube mir noch einen Bemerkung: "Das bisherige Bild zeigt die Farben wie sie natürlich sind." - diese Aussage ist sachlich gesehen recht problematisch. Bei der (Digital-)fotografie hängt die Farbwiedergabe von einer Vielzahl von Faktoren ab (u.a. vom Weißabgleich, von der Jahreszeit, von der Uhrzeit, von der Sensortechnik, vom Entwicklungsprofil (im hiesigen Fall habe ich das für Landschaftsfotografie beliebte VIVID verwendet) usw.). Fotografiere mal ein Gebäude in der Mittagszeit und kurz vor Sonnenuntergang, dann weißt du was ich meine. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ich stimme deinem Kommentar voll zu. Nur hätte ich bei dem Motiv und der Überschrift einen anderen Bildausschnitt mir vorstellen können, der erst bei der Buschzeile unten beginnt und rechts in den zweigeschossigen Häusern endet. Das wäre die Hochhaussiedlung. Die jetzt gewählte Totale zeigt nach meinem Verständnis eine misslungene Mischbauweise mit ausgelagerten, verdichteten Sozialwohnungsbau im ländlichen Raum. Ein Planungsfrevel der 1970er Jahre von erster Güte. Es kommt drauf an, was man mit dem Bild sagen will. --Maxxl2 - talk 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung. Ich habe in der Tat auch über einen anderen Ausschnitt nachgedacht. Erstelle doch einfach ein abgeleitetes Werk oder nutze das Markierungstool von Commons um den aus deiner Sicht besser geeigneten Ausschnitt zu kennzeichnen, dann lade ich ein weiteres Foto hoch. In der Hinsicht stimme ich auch zu, dass die Überschrift nicht 100%ig passt. Da ich nicht aus der Region komme, fiel mir kein besserer Dateiname ein und ich war froh, dass ich via Google überhaupt herausgefunden habe, wie die Hochhäuser heißen. Hast du einen Vorschlag für einen passenderen Dateinamen, dann kann ich das Bild umbenennen. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Crop, der nur die Hochhäuser zeigt
Ich habe gerade mal einen Crop erstellt. Falls sinnvoll verwendbar, könnt ihr diesen ja an entsprechender Stelle verwenden. Die böse Wiese ist dort auch nicht mehr zu sehen. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Genauso hab ich mir das vorgestellt. Man soll den Fotokünstlern nicht ins Handwerk pfuschen, ihnen aber Herausforderungen stellen. Wenn man ein ungeschminktes Bild der Randbezirke zeigen will, ist dieses Foto ein guter Beleg. --Maxxl2 - talk 11:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Einen solchen Ausschnitt wie jetzt hier erstellt hätte ich eigentlich lieber mit einem Tele fotografiert, die Qualität ist nicht ganz optimal. Ich war allerdings rechts weitwinkelig unterwegs. Für dokumentarische Zwecke sollte der Crop ausreichen. Du kannst ruhig "reinpfuschen", dafür sind CC-Lizenzen ja da. Einfach eine Nachricht an den Urheber schicken, meist freut er sich dann ja, wenn das Foto weiterbearbeitet wurde. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Doppeltes Foto

Jetzt nerv ich auch hier kurz ;) Das Foto File:BUW Freudbg Institut.JPG (also das ältere/dunklere der beiden Fotos des BKG-/EIIW-Gebäudes) kann gelöscht werden, habe kurz danach eine bessere Version hochgeladen :-) --Der-wuppertaler (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wenn die leicht unterschiedlich sind, ist es nicht so schlimm. Gelöscht werden i.d.R. 100% nur identische Bilder. --Atamari (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Macht es denn Sinn zwei absolut identische Fotos zu haben? Ist ja das gleiche, nur dass ich eben die Helligkeit im Nachhinein etwas verändert hab.. --Der-wuppertaler (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Ach so, das ursprüngliche Bild war das selbe. Als Urheber hättest du das 1. Bild mit dem 2. Bild überschreiben können (gleicher Dateiname). --Atamari (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, wusste ich nicht. Merk ich mir für die Zukunft! --Der-wuppertaler (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Frage

Hi Atamari, geht das o.k. für dich? --Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ja, aber mit einem Grummeln. Dies war eine öffentliche (Groß-)Veranstaltung bei dem ich im Grunde genommen selbst „Aussteller“ war. Als Fotograf würde ich trotzdem jede beteiligte Person, die mir bekannt ist um Erlaubnis Fragen. Ich würde im Grunde nie ein Bild ungefragt von einem anderen Wikipedianer hier veröffentlichen. Was nicht ok ist, was user:Ies bei dem letzten Ruhrgebiets-Stammtisch gemacht hatte (User:Ies/L Herten 2). Bei diesen Stammtisch, der für einen begrenzten Benutzerkreis war - also keine richtige öffentliche Veranstaltung..., hat er so ziemlich jede beteiligte Person vor die Linse genommen (ohne weitere Erlaubnis). Ich bin enttäuscht. --Atamari (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hab deine Antwort erst jetzt gesehen, da deine Disku nicht auf der Beo. Schon aufgrund des hier geltenden deutschen Persönlichkeitsrechts wird das Foto schnellgelöscht, wenn du das willst. Musst du halt nur sagen. LA/SLA ist in solchen Fällen verzichtbar. Ralf/Marcela hält das bei derartigen Fotos auch so: sobald jemand "meckert", bittet er um Löschung. Für die Zukunft: Ies direkt darauf ansprechen, dann kann man ja nett, aber durchaus bestimmt machen. Bei WP:AC ist das ja auch kein Thema. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Zum Trost:

--Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Danke. --Atamari (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Projekt Heißluftballon

Das Projekt wurde von der WMF, nicht von WMDE gefördert. --Martina talk 21:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ach so, dann war das bei der Kölner Aktion anders, steht dort in der Infobox. --Atamari (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ja, und im Intro der Category:Projekt Heißluftballon steht, dass dieses Pilotprojekt von der Foundation gefördert war. :-) --Martina talk 22:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuertal 2013 Eric Fish 003.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Kraft 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuertal 2013 Stahlmann 033.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 04:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Hardt 2013 089 & 091.jpg

Hallo, beim Betrachten der Bilder gepostet, sah ich zwei von euch, die zusammengebaut werden konnte. Hier ist das Ergebnis. Ich hoffe, dies ist zufriedenstellend Herzlich.François de Dijon (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (Maschinelle Übersetzung)

Bonjour,en regardant les photographies mises en ligne, j'ai vu deux des vôtres qui pouvaient être assemblées. Voici le résultat. J'espère que cela vous conviendra. Cordialement.François de Dijon (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Hardt 2013 089 & 091.jpg

Thank you!
This is the church Category:Sankt Marien (Elberfeld) in Wuppertal-Elberfeld. I had no time to set the correct categories. --Atamari (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That done, I just added the category. François de Dijon (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Trinitatiskirche Wuppertal

Hallo Atamari,
sind all profanierten Kirchen in W zugleich einer Konfession zugeordnet? Ist das nicht widersprüchlich?
beste Wünsche --Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)--

Schande über mein Haupt - Betreff: Osterhofen Stadtplatz 36/38

Hallo Atamari!

Sorry, dass ich diese beiden Bilder (File:Stadtplatz 36 - Osterhofen.jpg & File:Stadtplatz 38 - Osterhofen.jpg) versehentlich WLM zugeordnet habe. Ich weiß genau, wann es passierte und wie es passierte. Es kommt nicht mehr vor. Gruß und größten Respekt für die WLM-Leistungen! --High Contrast (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ein nachträgliches "markieren" als WLM-Element ist ausdrücklich erlaubt aber wir wollen uns auf den einen Upload-Monat beschränken. --Atamari (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Das weiß ich und ich ärgere mich nach wie vor über diesen, von mir verursachten, Fehler. Verursachte dieser doch Arbeit anderer. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Mach einfach weiter gute Aufnahmen... Fehler machen ist menschlich... dazu gubt es das Vier-Augen-Prinzip. --Atamari (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Ich weiß, dass das Gros meiner WLM-uploads wohl kaum Hitverdächtig ist, aber es geht mir primär um die Unterstützung von WLM. --High Contrast (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Mache ich doch auch... ;-) --Atamari (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 2013 107.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Rathaus Barmen 2013 206.JPG

File:Wuppertal Rathaus Barmen 2013 206.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Fischertal 2013 005.JPG

File:Wuppertal Fischertal 2013 005.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Rathaus Barmen 2013 195.JPG

File:Wuppertal Rathaus Barmen 2013 195.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Verschönerung

Hallo Atamari, das finde ich ja schön, dass du dich einiger meiner schäbigeren Dateien angenommen hast. Kann man mit wiki-mail Fotos beamen? Wenn ja, könnte ich eins von dir mit Graphikus und Pingsjong schicken. Grüße--MoSchle (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin stichprobenartig einige Bilder durchgegangen, einige kann man recht schnell auffrischen. Mit dem WikiMail-System können keine Dateien verschickt warden. --Atamari (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Niederländisch-reformierter Friedhof 053.JPG

File:Wuppertal Niederländisch-reformierter Friedhof 053.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Niederländisch-reformierter Friedhof 049.JPG

File:Wuppertal Niederländisch-reformierter Friedhof 049.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Hardt 2013 360.JPG

File:Wuppertal Hardt 2013 360.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Katernberger Straße 2013 037.JPG

File:Wuppertal Katernberger Straße 2013 037.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Katernberger Straße 2013 023.JPG

File:Wuppertal Katernberger Straße 2013 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 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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Islandufer 2013 005.JPG

File:Wuppertal Islandufer 2013 005.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ulrich Schürer 2013 002.JPG

File:Ulrich Schürer 2013 002.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Fischertal 2013 001.JPG

File:Wuppertal Fischertal 2013 001.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） ∙ +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lübeck, HolstenTor Baudenkmal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dom von St.Blasien.png, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Info One of the winners of the WLM2013 in Germany.--Jebulon 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Laienrefektorium Kloster Maulbronn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Info one of the winners of the WLM2013 in Germany.--Jebulon 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:ArthurEdwardKennedy.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‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:ArthurEdwardKennedy.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!

Wylve (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

from en:File:ArthurEdwardKennedy.jpg by en:User:Snottygobble marked with pd. --Atamari (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
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 Atamari/Archive,
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
 Wiki Loves Monuments logo

File move request

Hi Atamari, I picked your name at random from a list of file movers. I just uploaded File:Civil War Centenial issues.jpg minutes ago and just realized that I have misspelled 'centenial' in the file name, which should be spelled centennial. If possible could you please rename the file to this effect? It would be much appreciated. Also, I have uploaded more than a 1000 images to Wikipedia over the years. Is it possible for me to obtain 'file mover' rights, as there are several other image files I've uploaded that could be better named. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for rights Atamari (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow -- that was quick. Thanks!! -- And thanks for the link to Requests for rights. See you around! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


العربية | català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | magyar | Nederlands | polski | svenska | ไทย | +/−

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

Dear Atamari/Archive,

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
 Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atamari/Archive/2013&oldid=113544035"