User talk:Ulamm

– For older corresponences see User talk:Ulamm/Archive 2007–2017 –

File:Reszel July 2007 02.JPG[edit]

Sorry, I have no clue where that may be if I made an error in description. It was 2013; I barely remember my trips from last summer... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you kept the original numbers the photos have on the chip?

With a larger definition of the localization, it would be possible to give them a name that invites people to identify them, and to place them among Category:Brick Gothic churches in Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, instead of a wrong powiat-category.--Ulamm (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Powiaty-swietokrzyskie-2018-02.png[edit]

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 ∙ 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)} 18:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sortierung von Kirchengebäuden[edit]

Kannst Du mir bitte sagen warum Du die Sortierung der Kirchengebäude änderst. Bislang war es üblich nach Patrozinium und nicht nach Ortsteil zu sortieren. Gib mir bitte einen Link, wo eine Regel, nach der Du handelst beschrieben wird. Ansonsten nimm bitte Abstand von den Änderungen. Danke! --NeverDoING (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Sortierung nach dem Heiligen dominiert nur im Rheinland.
Ansonsten geht es zumeist wild durcheinander.
Die Sortierung nach Ländern, Kreisen und Kommunen ist geografisch. Da ist es logisch, auch innerhalb der Kommunen geografisch zu sortieren.
Evangelische Kirchen heißen manchmal nach Heiligen oder verdienten Personen ohne Heiligenschein oder Begriffen, manchmal aber auch nur nach ihrem Ort. Wo letzteres üblich ist, stehen bei Sortierung nach Heiligen alle evangelischen Kirchen unter "evangelisch", oder in den Niederlanden hätte man eine Sortierung nach "Hervormde kerk", "Gereformeerde kerk" und, wo die neue Kirchenunion schon ins Lemma eingegangen ist, "Protestantse kerk".
Mit der konsequent geografischen Sortierung gibt die Kategorieliste schon einen gewissen Einblick in die Architekturlandschaft.

--Ulamm (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke für Deine ausführliche Antwort. Es gibt nur leider keine allgemeinverbindliche Regel und dann ist es schade, wenn mühevolle Sortierungen durch einen Handstreich zunichte gemacht werden. Ich komme Dir aber nicht in die Quere. Frohe Ostern! --NeverDoING (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Terracottaskulpturen an der Katharinenkirche in Brandenburg[edit]

Guten Abend Ulamm,

Danke für die Information. Da du die Info aus erster Hand hast - könntest du bitte Beschreibung und Kategorisierung selbst richtig stellen? Dann bleibt weniger Raum für neue Irrtümer. lg--Xenophon (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich habe noch einmal im Führer durch die Katharinenkirche (2008) nachgesehen, den ich damals bei der Beschreibung zu Rate gezogen habe. Demzufolge sind von den Skulpturen nur noch eine heilige Katharina und eine heilige Amalberga mittelalterliche Originale, der Rest stammt vom Potsdamer Bildhauer Friedrich Wilhelm Koch (1864). Demzufolge müsste es sich bei den männlichen Heiligen um Werke Kochs handeln. Aber falls du neuere Erkenntnisse hast - ich stehe einer Änderung nicht im Weg. lg --Xenophon (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inzwischen habe ich das gleiche gefunden:

http://ns.gis-bldam-brandenburg.de/HTML-8336/BRBKatharina.pdf.html

Vielleich schaffe ich es, demnächst die beiden beinahe echten (Repliken nach Gipsabgüssen) zu fotografieren.

Dank und Gruß, Ulamm (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prießen_Kirche_2b.jpg[edit]

Hallo, offensichtlich hast du das Bild beschnitten, warum glaubst du dich nun deshalb mit als Urheber bezeichnen zu dürfen? LG LutzBruno

Als Erst-Autor stehst doch du da.

Mit "turned & cut" habe ich eindeutig klargestellt, dass ich dein Foto nur nachbearbeitet habe.

Daher auch die zusätzliche Category:Commons photo adapted by Ulamm

Wer etwas nachbearbeitet, und das ist mehr als die unproblematische Korrektur einer eindeutigen Fehlbelichtung, soll sich dazu bekennen und nicht behaupten, diese Nachbearbeitung habe dem Wunsch des Autors entsprochen.--Ulamm (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Belgien Backsteingotik mit Ortsnamen 2.png[edit]

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 ∙ 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)} 13:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mazowsze w.png[edit]

Wieso "Małwa"? Es heisst doch Mława.--Alan ffm (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Danke für den Hinweis! Das war mein legasthenischer Finger ;) __––Ulamm (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ähnlich mit File:Polen - historische Regionen.png - Siedlec -> Siedlce, Białograd -> Białogard, Myslibórz -> Myślibórz.

Und Drohiczyn an falschen Stelle, am falschen Fluss gesetzt:) --Alan ffm (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vielen Dank für die Hinweise, Alan! Allerdings liegt Drohiczyn zwar am Bug und nicht am Narew, aber dort doch am rechten Ufer: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.397222&mlon=22.659167&zoom=11#map=13/52.3844/22.6230

Was würdest du übrigens von einer nur und ganz (einschließlich der Erklärungen!) in Polnisch beschrifteten Version dieser Karte halten – nicht jetzt sondern irgendwann im November?

Beste Grüße, Ulamm (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unclear name[edit]

Category:Cycletracks against cyclists - is it supposed to group bicycle infrastructure photos without cyclists in photo? Or poorly designed cycling infrastructure? Or something else?

I asked also on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Cycletracks_against_cyclists

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not "without cyclists" – That would be or is a problem of intelligence and patience of the photographers.

"Against cyclists" says, this category is meant for cycling infrastructure that reduces comfort and safety of cycling instead of improving them.--Ulamm (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Concorso Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018 (English version)

Gentile Ulamm, 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 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Schiffdorf St.Martin182Schiff S.JPG[edit]

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 ∙ 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)} 13:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Schiffdorf St.Martin180Chorgiebel.JPG[edit]

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 ∙ 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)} 13:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Schiffdorf St.Martin179Chor S.JPG[edit]

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 ∙ 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)} 13:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Blexen151Turm NW150.jpg[edit]

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 ∙ 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)} 11:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map of the annual average discharge of Rhine and Maas 2000-2011 (FR).png[edit]

Bonjour.

Bravo pour cette carte qui donne le débit du Rhin 100% et de la Meuse 11.3%.

Le problème, si on fait les totaux, on obtient 99% pour le Rhin et 11,2% pour la Meuse. On ne sait pas dans quel sens coule la Spui (en cherchant on sait que son cours a été inversé), mais à mon avis il faudrait l'indiquer clairement avec une flèche. Que font les valeurs 4,9% / 1,3% de la Spui? Faut-il les ajouter au Rhin ou à la Meuse? Sont-elles déjà comprises? Je n'en ai pas tenu compte pour l'addition du début. Les valeurs du Haringvliet sont-elles avant ou après l'embranchement après la Spui? Il faudrait mettre les deux valeurs (avant et après le Spui), ce ne peut pas être les mêmes.

--Io Herodotus (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Le Spui coule du Haringvliet à l'Oude Maas, voir la graphique plus schematique File:Rijn-Maas-water %.png.

Le Riijkswaterstaat (l'administration natiionale des eaux des Bays-Bas) donne tous valeurs en relation à la quantité de l'eau, qui entre aux Pays-Bas par le Rhin.

--Ulamm (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Saxony-Anhalt location map.png[edit]

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

This media may be deleted.

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

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhône Basin map[edit]

Hi, just wanting to say that I am very appreciative of the work you did in creating your map of the Rhône Basin. Don't have any feedback other than I find it fantastic. I very much like river basin maps and yours is one of the best I have seen. Thank you. Oska (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2019[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

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[reply]

Category:Cycletracks_against_cyclists[edit]

Cycletracks against cyclists 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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September är nästan slut: missa inte Wiki Loves Monuments 2019![edit]

Hej,

Du får det här meddelandet då du tidigare bidragit med bilder till den svenska deltävlingen av Wiki Loves Monuments, och jag hoppas att du vill vara med i år också. Kategorierna är som vanligt byggnadsminnen, fornminnen, K-märkta fartyg och arbetslivsmuseer, och du är välkommen att bidra med bilder hela september. Om du varit ute i världen och rest kan du även se om resorna sammanfaller med övriga internationella deltävlingar, och i så fall vara med och tävla även där.

Välkommen till tävlingen, och lycka till! /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:St martinus qualburg 2.jpg[edit]

Hallo Ulamm, bitte lade neue Versionen vorhandener Bilder als neue Dateien hoch. Danke! --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rabanus Flavus: Ich mache das vom Grad der Bearbeitung abhängig (und hatte in diesem Fall übersehen, dass das von mir vorgefundene Bild schon deine Bearbeitung war).

Wenn sich aus einem schwarzen Schatten mit etwas mehr Helligkeit, etwas mehr Sättigung und etwas mehr Kontrast ein in seinen Details erkennbares Objekt machen lässt, verzichte ich auf die neue Adresse. Die Rohversion wird durch meine Bearbeitung ja nicht gelöscht, sondern ist weiterhin abrufbar.

Wenn ich aber tricksen muss, um eine brauchbare Version zu erzeugen, lade ich diese unter neuem Titel hoch, siehe auch Category:Commons photo adapted by Ulamm.

Aus dem File mit deiner Bearbeitung habe ich meine jetzt wieder herausgenommen.

Bei meiner neuen Version File:St martinus qualburg 2 farbig.jpg bin ich von der dunklen Originaldatei ausgegangen und habe nach der Bearbeitung der gesamten Bildfläche im Bereich der Wände von Chor und Schiff Helligkeit, Sättigung und Kontrast noch ein weiteres Mal hochgedreht. Der graubraune niederrheinische Backstein ist ja schon bei optimalen Lichtverhältnissen nicht immer gut von anderen Materialien zu unterscheiden.

Irgendwann sollte der Chor bei Morgensonne fotografiert werden, oder aber aus dem Gebäudeschatten heraus.

Beste Grüße, Ulamm (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019! Please help with this survey.[edit]

Dear Ulamm,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, 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 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 Participant Survey (Reminder)[edit]

Dear Ulamm,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, 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 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keys at danish churches[edit]

I noticed you're adding keys for a number of danish churches. Fine enough. But could you please copy/paste the actual names of towns etc rather than try to type them? Because if you enter i.e. "Sollinge" rather than "Søllinge", it will be sorted the wrong way. Please note that in danish the letters æ,ø,å are the very last letters in the alphabet. --Hjart (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was no error. Internationally, such as in French, German, Polish etc., derived letters are sorted according to their "mother" letters. This has also an advantage for Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, who traditionally place the derived letters in the end. Aabenraa is placed near Åbenrå, in the international way.--Ulamm (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, not in danish. Please note that i.e. "ø" in the danish alphabet is a proper letter in its own right. It has no "mother" letter, so sorting it with "o" is an error. --Hjart (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Object locations[edit]

I'm not sure how you manage to do it, but a lot of the object locations you give are ~140 meters west of the actual position. How do find you find those? Maybe I can help you find a better method than the one you're using. --Hjart (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have used Google Maps, see orthophoto. --Ulamm (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Practically all danish churches are fairly accurately mapped in OpenStreetMap, so I'll recommend using that instead. On the OSM website decimal coordinates can be copied directly from the adress line.--Hjart (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally, biases between Openstreetmap and Google Maps only occur in mountain areas.

Therefore, in Denmark, I do not doubt in GM co-ordinates.

A lot of the contents of Openstreetmap has not been taken by GPS records during a visit, but has been drawn at home using orthophotos.

If you have found a bias, you should check both, OSM and GM.

--Ulamm (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The national aerial imagery used by the OSM community in Denmark is quite accurate (generally to with 1 m). I've been a OSM mapper for 10 years. I use our data myself and generally find it quite trustable. Do also note that we have easy access to official danish building data and that danish churches are well aligned with those. --Hjart (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only enter object locations,

if there have been none
if in an infobox the mark representing the co-ordinates is not on the mark of the building.

I do not object, if you check and correct the object locations of all Danish churches and all listed secular Danish buildings.

Perhaps we both, and everyboy else should enter a reciord, by what source has has found the co-ordinates, he has entered.

In WP articles and Commons Categories this is possible.

I do not know how to enter such a record, if I enter somethig to wikidata.--Ulamm (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gleisdreieck Sielwallkreuzung.png[edit]

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

P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Torslev Kirke[edit]

Hej! Dzięki za czujność! To faktycznie jest kościół Torslev, ale nie w gminie Frederikshavn, tylko Jammerbugt. Poprawiłem opis. Pozdrawiam, tsca (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unidentified danish church[edit]

You've been looking at a lot of danish churches. Any idea which danish church File:Denmark - Hobro, The Oldest Viking Church - panoramio.jpg might be? Neither place names nor coordinates make any sense to me. --Hjart (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have become aware.

But I also normally start from the church categories in WM Commons, organized according to the actual administrative structures.

I am looking for Gothic brick buildings. Therefore I have to read every description. So my progress is quite slow.

If that church has no other photo up to now, it only can be detected by an approach using Trap as a list of all surviving medieval churches in Denmark.

For your question, you only have to find out the category of each church mentioned by Trap.

Where you find none, you have to look for the websits of the sogn and for touristical presentations.

--Ulamm (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another contributor identified it as Råsted Kirke. Thanks --Hjart (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sankt Ansgar Kirke i Bramming[edit]

I don't know if you're interested in being notified like this, but if you are, I uploaded photos from today of a church in Bramming, which wasn't previously represented on Commons: Category:Sankt Ansgar Kirke (Bramming). --Hjart (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for this information.

Up to now I have only collected medieval churches, for this compilation:

--Ulamm (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elbtalkessel[edit]

No domino el alemán (Google Translate). En el archivo SachsenLandschaften.jpg se comete un evidente error, poniendo "Eltalkessel" en lugar de "Elbtalkessel".

Jacinto-Miróbriga (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

¡Muchas gracias! No escribi este mapa, solamente hice el recorte. Pero ahora está corregido.--Ulamm (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Oblast Leningrad relief.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Oblast Leningrad relief.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

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

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice: File: Mazowsze_w.png[edit]

I'm writing to you, as you are active in map drawing on commons and you were the last to touch that map. I found vector source files that I draw in 2005 to produce that map and its derivates. I think that it might be good to make them available. It has been a while since I was very active here. What are the best practices now? Fjl (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not object to SVG, though I like the clearly defined colours only possible in bitmaps.

But in the graphic program I use, vectorization rather induces an inflation of data volume than a reduction.--Ulamm (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ulamm, Did you consider using Kartographer instead of static maps? I think that would be way more appropriate for your project, as it would completely eliminate the need for all those small bitmaps etc, you're creating, as well as make it possible to zoom into details in the map. See very simple example (without colours) in use at i.e. da:Herregårde_i_Ribe_Amt. --Hjart (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.Up to now, I did not. But remember, I already have mad several maps using wikicode, such as de:Backsteinbauwerke der Gotik/Verteilung in der Region Süddänemark. Unfortunately, the lables are not shown by smartphones & notebooks. Therefore, I provide screenshots, in addition, see de:Backsteinbauwerke der Gotik/Verteilung in Dänemark.

.Another problem is, how to place labels with other than horizontal groundlines.--Ulamm (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I've seen your maps before and what annoys me with them is that i.e. cities with more than one church are basically just one large blob. I find them quite hard to understand and use. You could make much more usefull maps with the new Kartographer Maps. --Hjart (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To show that there are more buldings in such a place, it is neccesary that the area of the dot is rather proportional to the number of buildings.

In places with a lot of Gothic brick bulidings, such as Gdańsk, Cracow, Lübeck, Utrecht, Brugge, Milan or Bologna, it is impossible to show each of these buildings, separately, in a map of the whole country or the whole region.--Ulamm (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, in static maps, such as those you have created that's correct. Kartographer maps, however would allow you to zoom in on individual cities and have the buildings shown individually. --Hjart (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To understand the history of architecture, it is necessary to see one region, one country, perhaps all Europe in one vieuw i. e. almost at once on the screen.

To understand what kinds of buildings have been built, even the phases of construction are more important than the question, which church stands west of the market place and which church east of it.

If you want to visit the historical buldings of one town, you can get the geodata of each building from links in the list, you can look at the OSM map of this town, or at Google maps.--Ulamm (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pseudobasilicas in ...[edit]

Hi, I don't think that it is a good idea to categorise something by what it is not. So a church is not a basilica. It's also not an apple pie or a synagogue. But we don't categorise it as "Pseudoappelpies in..." or "Category:Pseudosynagogues in ...". I think that you should nominate those categories for deletion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have thought of en:Basilicas in the Catholic Church, you are wrong.

Pseudo-basilica means that the architectural structure of such a church building is similar to that of a basilica, but not just the same.

Pseudobasilica, fr:pseudo-basilique, de:Pseudobasilika, nl:pseudobasiliek, is a well established architectural term for churches the central nave of is one storey higher than the aisles (like in a basilica), but without en:clerestory windows above the aisles.

Such "pseudo-" terms also are common in other sciences, such as medicine, see en:Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

basilica
pseudobasilica or
pseudo-basilica
stepped hall church
hall church

--Ulamm (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The description has already been available, here.--Ulamm (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still don't think that it's a good categorisation. Using your logic, almost every church building in the world is either a basilica or a pseudobasilica. Every one of hundreds of thousands of such churches would have to have this dichotomous categorisation. This would be unworkable and would only add to clutter. You might just as well categorise every person as male or female - a fatuous exercise. I still think that you should nominate them for deletion. By the way, in reverting my edits, why did you classify them as vandalism? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The categorization of persons just for gender ist practise, see de:Kategorie:Mann and de:Kategorie:Frau.

The categorization of buildings by shape is also practise, see Category:Suspension bridges

Your emptying of categories, only because you did not understand the scientific term, was vandalism.--Ulamm (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...............................................................................................................

A complete almost logical systematic of church buildings could be:

aisleless
aisleless cross-shaped (the following types might also be distinguished in cross-shaped vs. without transept)
hall church
- equal heights
- stepped hall
- hall with open roof (e. g. en:Bergen Cathedral)
pseudo-basilica
basilica
classicist cross section with barrel vault on the central nave, but flat cielings of the aisles
central biulding with one or more domes
perhaps some hybdride shapes

--Ulamm (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...............................................................................................................

You misunderstand the meaning of vandalism which relates to mindless or deliberate destruction. What I did with the churches does not meet the criteria. You also fail to apply WP:GoodFaith, which is what actually happened, whether or not it was technically correct. Your system, while it might meet the criteria for a school of architecture, goes too far for the average reader. It is too technical, goes beyond what a reasonable person could be presumed to know and is a hindrance to navigation. I think that you should delete the pseudo categories. And try to be more polite please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To decide if something is correct or wrong, you must have understood it.
To get the informations required to understand, you can look in the Wikipedia or elsewhere.
The term pseudo-basilica is explained in the Engllish Wikipedia
Pseudo basilica is a scientifific term, describing a special type of church buiildings.
All churches subsumed there fit the criteria for the term pseudo basilica
If somebody does not understand one of the categories, he can use and has to use all others.
Your action was, as if you had deleted Kiswaheli Wikipedia, because you do not understand Kiswaheli.--Ulamm (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ethno maps of Nigeria Benin & Cameroon[edit]

Dear sir, I hope this editing will join you as I try to reduce as much as possible multiple connexions. I am trying to join you for getting the metadata of the Nigeria-Benin-Cameroon linguistic map. I am very much interested with this map for academic purposes (I am a french researcher, Mehdi Saqalli). How can I cite it? Thank you in advance best regards Mehdi Saqalli. my email: msqalli@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:E0A:143:E600:F5FB:BB7B:70AE:5AB5 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Stuhr östliches Schiffsjoch168b.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Stuhr östliches Schiffsjoch168b.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Stuhr östliches Schiffsjoch168b.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) 23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Grote kerk, Emmen (4257533084) toren noordzij.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Grote kerk, Emmen (4257533084) toren noordzij.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Grote kerk, Emmen (4257533084) toren noordzij.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, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cycletracks_against_cyclists[edit]

Cycletracks against cyclists 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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

46.114.6.123 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karte "Rotes Luch", falsche Bennung eines Sees. (Rotes Luch.png)[edit]

Hallo,

bin auf einen kleine Fehler gestoßen bei der Karte die auf der Wiki Seite https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotes_Luch verwendet wird (Bildlink: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotes_Luch.png)

Auf der Karte wird angezeigt das nördlich der Stadt Strausberg ein kleiner See mit dem Namen "Inlandsee" benannt wurde. Das ist falsch, der See heißt "Ihlandsee" (also anstatt "n" ein "h"). Kann man sich im Netz ersuchen wie der heißt, oder vielleicht mir in dem Fall glauben, da ich in der Nähe aufgewachsen bin und ca. 15 Minuten Fussweg zu dem See hatte. Ist eigentlich nicht so wichtig (oder schlimm), ist mir nur aufgefallen als ich mir die Karte angeschaut hatte.

Grüsse

Wiki Loves Monuments 2020[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

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[reply]

Copyright status: File:BY + IT topo.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:BY + IT topo.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

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

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nu är det dags för Wiki Loves Monuments 2020![edit]

Vinnarbilden i Wiki Loves Earth!

Hej!

(For information in English, see Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Sweden or other participating countries.)

Du får det här meddelandet då du tidigare har deltagit i de svenska deltävlingarna av Wiki Loves Monuments eller Wiki Loves Earth! För någon vecka sedan blev det klart vem som tog hem förstapriset i Wiki Loves Earth 2020 – stort grattis till Brydand100 och hans fotografi av Röttlefallet! Alla vinnare kan du se här – tack alla deltagare för fina bidrag!

Den 1 september inleds 2020 års svenska deltävling av Wiki Loves Monuments, där det skulle vara väldigt roligt om du ville vara med och delta! Målet med Wiki Loves Monuments är att fotografera svenska kulturarvsmonument. De kategorier som ingår är byggnadsminnen, fornminnen, K-märkta fartyg och arbetslivsmuseer – och du är välkommen att bidra med bilder hela september.

Välkommen till tävlingen, och lycka till! /Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Map of the Gothic brick buildings in Europe.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Map of the Gothic brick buildings in Europe.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

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

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

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

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

And also:

File:Brick Gothic locations around norhern Baltic Sea.png

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Warfleth Chor n SO 503.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:Warfleth Chor n SO 503.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Warfleth Chor n SO 503.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 21:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:L1050060 Altensalzw.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:L1050060 Altensalzw.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:L1050060 Altensalzw.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) 13:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:50386 ULF Nordturm SW Kapitell.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:50386 ULF Nordturm SW Kapitell.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:50386 ULF Nordturm SW Kapitell.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhein-Kilometrierung[edit]

Darf ich Sie bitten, sich in der Diskussion zur Rhein-Kilometrierung in Basel zu beteiligen? Vielen Dank im voraus! --Kuhni74 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2021[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. Mai bis zum 31. Mai 2021 findet zum neunten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth statt. Deutschland ist zum achten Mal dabei. Dabei können unter anderem Nationalparks, Naturschutzgebiete, Geotope und Naturdenkmäler fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich ein, auch dieses Jahr wieder mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Sieger WLE 2020
Südliche Mosaikjungfer (Aeshna affinis) am Westufer des Gülper Sees
Bienenfresser im FFH-Gebiet Kaiserstuhl
Röhrling mit Fliege im Bruderwald in Bamberg
Strand im Nationalpark Boddenlandschaft
Neuntöter im Geo-Naturpark Bergstraße-Odenwald

Wie du bei den Top 5 des vergangenen Jahres siehst, sind vor allem Tiere unter den Siegerbildern. Aus diesem Grund setzen wir den Fokus dieses Jahr stärker auf Landschaftsaufnahmen. Aber natürlich haben auch Tierbilder eine Chance zu gewinnen.

Es sind wie immer viele spannende Motive überall in Deutschland zu finden. Neben Naturdenkmälern wie alten Bäumen oder Naturparks im Gebirge und am Meer können Geotope wie Findlinge, Quellen und Aufschlüsse oder FFH-Gebiete fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. Auch im vergangenen Jahr sind zahlreiche neue Listen und Artikel in diesen Bereichen entstanden, für die wir uns über Fotos freuen. Als Einstieg für die Suche nach Motiven hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du bei WLE 2021 - Deutschland und unter dieser Anleitung. Falls du im Moment nicht wie sonst in die Natur fahren kannst, findest du vielleicht in den Tiefen deiner Festplatte oder auf dem Smartphone noch interessante Fotos.

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, vom 1. Mai bis 30. Juni 2021 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Damit bewertest du die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelst so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Juli tagen wird, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Earth 2021 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist bald hier 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 Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z ^thomas 11:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:70100 Wasserhorst Kirchturm W li. unten.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:70100 Wasserhorst Kirchturm W li. unten.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:70100 Wasserhorst Kirchturm W li. unten.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Weser Flusssystem topo.png & File:Weser basin topo.png[edit]

Hallo, hier fehlt leider der Schleusenkanal Landesbergen. Gruss <meinehandytastaturkannkeineschlangenaberichbinehnurneip> —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.203.112.26 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke!, Ist jetzt ergänzt, und bei der File:Aller Flusssystem topo.png auch. Gruß, Ulamm (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:60427 Neuenkirchen DH, Dachstuhlbasis im Chor S.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:60427 Neuenkirchen DH, Dachstuhlbasis im Chor S.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:60427 Neuenkirchen DH, Dachstuhlbasis im Chor S.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Unidentified_Brick_Gothic_church[edit]

Category:Unidentified_Brick_Gothic_church 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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Fl.schmitt (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fehler in der Karte Germany Laender 1947 1990[edit]

Lieber Benutzer Ulamm, könntest Du hier helfen: File talk:Germany Laender 1947 1990 DDR.png#Berlin? Außer Dir gibt es nur noch einen weiteren Benutzer, der sich mit der Karte befasst hatte, und den ich ansprechen konnte.--Gloser (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2021[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

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[reply]

Copyright status: File:70862 Wanzer Chor v SO.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:70862 Wanzer Chor v SO.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:70862 Wanzer Chor v SO.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:70770 Gremersdorf Neubauernhäuser.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:70770 Gremersdorf Neubauernhäuser.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:70770 Gremersdorf Neubauernhäuser.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

File:70769 Gremersdorf Neubauernhaus.JPG

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 22:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

c:File:Pinhole photo of Bari Cathedral.jpg[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis auf die falsche Bezeichnung der dargestellten Kirche. Der Umbenennungs-Request hat nur den Nachteil, dass die Datei nach Identifizierung erneut umbenannt werden müsste. Ich konnte die Kirche inzwischen identifizieren und werde daher den Request ablehnen, um gleich den korrekten Namen für die Dateibezeichnung einzufügen.

Noch einen schönen Abend! --Fl.schmitt (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nachtrag: Es wäre nicht nötig gewesen, eine neue Kategorie für die Datei zu erstellen - m.E. wäre Category:Unidentified churches in Italy dafür gut geeignet gewesen. --Fl.schmitt (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vielen Dank für die Info und für das Finden! --Ulamm (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Canterbury choir phases 1070–1411.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Canterbury choir phases 1070–1411.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Canterbury choir phases 1070–1411.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 00:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Basel 1957-34 shmpop c854.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Basel 1957-34 shmpop c854.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Basel 1957-34 shmpop c854.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

File:BS Münster 1957-34 shmpop c854.png

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Ribs of St-Martin.des Champs2.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Ribs of St-Martin.des Champs2.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ribs of St-Martin.des Champs2.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 13:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abbatiale Saint-Serge d'Angers[edit]

@ MonsieurMadame GO69,

en WM Commons il-y-a seulement images des clefs et des chapiteaaux des colatérales. Avez vous aussi des vues totales de chaque collatérale de cette abbatiale?
Et qu' est aux façades latérales ? Façade du nord, Google maps

Cordialement,Ulamm (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Bonsoir,

Je n'ai malheureusement pas de photos des collatéraux de la nef de l'abbatiale Saint-Serge d'Angers ou encore de son flanc nord en stock. J'habite à 5 heures de cette ville, n'en suis pas natif, et ne prévois pas de m'y rendre prochainement. Les quelques wikipédiens ayant précisé habiter à Angers ne semblent pas avoir une grande activité sur Commons et encore moins de photographe. Désolé. Bonne continuation. --GO69 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:1080571 Comturei HB, ehem. Krypta nach Osten.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:1080571 Comturei HB, ehem. Krypta nach Osten.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:1080571 Comturei HB, ehem. Krypta nach Osten.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Longstanton Michael-5685510-John-Salmon.png[edit]

File:Longstanton Michael-5685510-John-Salmon.png 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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

bjh21 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you Julian P Guffogg?[edit]

You uploaded File:Cliffe Church-3926458-by-Julian-P-Guffogg-3.jpg and tagged it with {{Self}}, which begins "I, the copyright holder of this work..." I suspect, though, that you are not actually Julian P Guffogg, and are not authorised to relicense his work under GFDL. I have thus updated the licence on that page to be the standard CC BY-SA 2.0 one from Commons. If I'm mistaken and you are in fact Julian P Guffogg or have somehow come to own the copyright in that picture, please revert my changes. --bjh21 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not Julian P Guffogg.

The author of that photo, Julian P Guffogg, provides it under CC-by -SA 2.0 conditions.

I am grateful, if you help me to apply the correct license tag.--Ulamm (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I have already applied the appropriate licence template. If in future you want to upload more pictures from Geograph Britain and Ireland, you may find the "Find out How to reuse this image" link below each picture on Geograph useful. It leads to a page at the bottom of which is a "directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons" link that automatically fills in Special:Upload with most of the essential details (including the correct licence tag). --bjh21 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorting churches[edit]

Note that there is a consensus to sort churches by dedication rather than location, see Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/09# for UK churches and pubs and User talk:Motacilla. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opposite, location rather than dedication, is more common, and more useful for the understanding of the geography of architecture.

The dedication is of little importance. Only in a few cases the dedication tells something about the political background of the foundation.

The understandig of the history of architecture affords to consider, where and when and for what purpose (cathedral, monastery, town, village, castle) what type of structure (Basilica, pseudobasilica, hall church, aisleless, with or without transeptceilings of wood or of vaults of masonry) were applied.--Ulamm (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to answer, "We should not follow somebody, who has been kicked out of the boat." :-) --Ulamm (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bremen protective bicycle lane.jpg[edit]

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

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author is a well known member of the openstreetmap community, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:U715371 In 2014, he organized the meetings of the OSM Group in Bremen.

Until 2017, he was very busy, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/U715371 including: :22:10, 20. Sep. 2017 Unterschied Versionen +6 Bytes‎ Bremen/Community ‎ Nächstes Treffen eingetragen

06:30, 22. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +344 Bytes‎ Talk:Key:clothes ‎ →‎Suggestion for evening dresses: new section

10:59, 13. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +468 Bytes‎ Talk:Key:clothes ‎ →‎clothes=shoes: new section

13:27, 11. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +472 Bytes‎ Talk:Key:payment ‎ →‎Payment:cardlock: tankpool24

12:06, 10. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +557 Bytes‎ N Category:DE:Mobile Editoren ‎ Kategorie erstellt

11:54, 10. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +57 Bytes‎ DE:Vespucci ‎ Kategorien hinzugefügt

11:53, 10. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +32 Bytes‎ DE:Go Map!! ‎ Kategorien hinzugefügt

11:53, 10. Aug. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +57 Bytes‎ DE:GpsMid ‎ Kategorien hinzugefügt

18:35, 25. Jul. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +242 Bytes‎ Template:Calendar ‎ added mappingparty at Bremen

17:53, 25. Jul. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +253 Bytes‎ Bremen/Community/Mappingparty 2016 ‎ Hinzugefügt: Koordinierung der Flyerverteilung

12:53, 10. Jul. 2016 Unterschied Versionen -1 Byte‎ Talk:Tag:leisure=playground ‎ →‎Playground-like houses?

12:52, 10. Jul. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +81 Bytes‎ Talk:Tag:leisure=playground ‎ →‎Playground-like houses?

12:52, 10. Jul. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +526 Bytes‎ Talk:Tag:leisure=playground ‎ →‎Playground-like houses?: Tagging for indoor playground proposed

11:37, 9. Jul. 2016 Unterschied Versionen +69 Bytes‎ Bremen ‎ →‎OSM-Anwender in Bremen Markierung: Visuelle Bearbeitung

02:57, 13. Feb. 2016 Unterschied Versionen 0 Bytes‎ Bremen/Gewässernamen ‎ →‎Seen: Baggersee Neustädter Hafen aktualisiert aktuell

13:36, 12. Feb. 2016 Unterschied Versionen 0 Bytes‎ Bremen/Gewässernamen ‎ →‎Gräben und Bäche: Rablinghauser Vorfluter hinzugefügt

00:33, 5. Dez. 2015 Unterschied Versionen +605 Bytes‎ Talk:Attributierung von Straßen in Deutschland ‎ →‎Kein Straßenname außerorts?: Kommentar

23:55, 4. Dez. 2015 Unterschied Versionen +363 Bytes‎ DE talk:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren ‎ →‎Sonderfälle Z240 Gemeinsamer Geh-und Radweg. Ergänzung. Meinungseinholung.: Meinung

23:46, 24. Nov. 2015 Unterschied Versionen +936 Bytes‎ Template:Calendar ‎ Stammtische für Bremen hinzugefügt

22:26, 24. Nov. 2015 Unterschied Versionen +346 Bytes‎ Bremen/Mappertreffen/Archiv ‎ →‎Mappertreffen vom 23. November 2015:

There is no rule to abolish flles, if the uploader has ceased his activities. --Ulamm (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ulamm: If you want your comments to be considered as part of the deletion request, you should post them on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bremen protective bicycle lane.jpg, not here. --bjh21 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Europäische Wasserscheiden[edit]

Your changes on File:Europäische Wasserscheiden.png made the file smaller and with artifacts. Can you get the intended color effects and other adjustments while keeping the crisp high quality of the earlier version? Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map has the same extent as before, 1200 x 1184 pixels. By my modification of the colours, the veils of the (original !) labelling have become more visible. If I have some time, I shall write new labels.--Ulamm (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Ems river area map[edit]

This is regarding the map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Nedereems.png/800px-Nedereems.png) you made and is visible on the https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunze_(rivier) page. How did you find the flow directions? They could be very useful for a project of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.222.204.200 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In several cases I had to ask the waterschappen in the Netherlands and the Deichverbände in Germany.--Ulamm (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I find the Dutch waterway system so confusing because it's so hard to tell what is a river and what is a canal. 51.14.3.139 11:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like I would need to be making a few freedom of information requests. Can I do that if I'm not a Dutch citizen? 51.14.3.139 12:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm no Dutch citizen, too. I'm german and I'm living in Bremen.

Simply ask the concerned waterschappen, "Hunze en Aa's" and "Noorderzijlvest" https://www.noorderzijlvest.nl

Their water management is not secret. And most of their staff knows sufficiently English to talk to them.--Ulamm (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to access supposedly open data that doesn't even need a freedom of information request but not every water board seems to have an open data portal. I've downloaded a few waterways datasets and by far the best was from Hunze and Aa water board. The one for Drents Overijeelse Delta was half-broken and the one for Rijnland came as a raster instead of a vector format (and WFS got stuck at 99%). Data for Stichtse Rijnlanden was ok but wasn't categorised very well. I've been trying to make freedom of information requests with other boards (e.g. Noorderzijlvest) but they keep asked for a Dutch ZIP code which I don't have. 51.14.3.139 15:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk to them by phone! Perhaps they help you to get the code, or they send you screenshots.

And look, what is available under www.pdoc.nl

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helensburgh Parish Church[edit]

Hello. It doesn't appear to be very useful for readers looking for photos (or to add photoes they have just taken) for the category to be Category:Helensburgh West Kirk rather than Category:Helensburgh Parish Church. The sign on the building hasn't said West Kirk since 2011. I realise that the listed building particulars use the old name, but the church's website uses Helensburgh Parish Church. Thank you for the other work you have done on the category - it was interesting to see other 1850s churches. AlasdairW (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screening all listed (and some unlisted) churches of the United Kingdom for their architectural properties, I have met some confusions and "mergings" of churches. And I had difficulties to find the list entry for “Helensburgh Parish Church“. When I had found it, I moved the category's lemma nearer to the name used by the portal of Historic Environment". As a stranger, I do not know, if the name used by the official source is unknown among the inhabitants.

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Brick_&_stone_churches[edit]

Category:Brick_&_stone_churches 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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Romanesque_&_Gothic_transitional_granite_ashley_churches_in_Denmark[edit]

Romanesque & Gothic transitional granite ashley churches in Denmark 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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:St_Faith_Church,_Gaywood[edit]

St Faith Church, Gaywood 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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ulamm 2014-11-30 um 00.28.19.jpg[edit]

File:Ulamm 2014-11-30 um 00.28.19.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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

GeorgHH • talk 22:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ulamm 2014-11-30 um 00.28.54.jpg[edit]

File:Ulamm 2014-11-30 um 00.28.54.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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

GeorgHH • talk 22:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Beelitz asv2021-06 06.jpg[edit]

Ich habe es jetzt gelöscht, weil ich überhaupt keinen Vorteil im Vergleich zum Original sehe. Zudem hastr du da aus irgendeinem Grund die Perspektivverzerrung "eingefügt", was nun gar nicht geht. MfG --A.Savin 11:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Wiederherstellung einer naturnahen Perspektive ist erforderlich, weil deine "Entzerrung" de Arkadenbögen verfälscht(e) und das Verhältnis der Breiten von Mittelschiff und Seitenschiffen.

Außerdem lässt die freie Verwendung auch Bearbeitungen zu, sofern sie unter geändertem Dateinamen hochgeladen werden.--Ulamm (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Datei ist auch schon in einen Artikel eingebaut.--Ulamm (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Das tut sie, aber für Commons muss schon im Projektrahmen liegen. Für künstliche Verzerrung gilt das nicht, denke ich. Ich hatte die Perspektive übrigens nicht entzerrt, sondern ein Weitwinkelobjektiv benutzt, das ist für Interieur-Aufnahmen völlig normal. MfG --A.Savin 11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Es gibt verfälschende "Entzerriung", ein Euphemismus für Verzerrung.

Diesen Raum mit einem Weitwinkelobjektiv aufzunehmen, ist o.k.

Man muss sich aber zu dieser Weitwinkligkeit bekennen und zu der schräg nach oben gerichteten Sichtachse.

Die Verfälschung entsteht erst durch das retuschieren des Sturrzes.

Den habe ich durch entgegengesetzte TRapezkorrektur wiederhergestellt.--Ulamm (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Übrigens nehme ich Bearbeitungswünsche entgegen, und kann Bearbeitungen, ob des Vorhandenseins des Rohmaterials, verlustfrei durchführen. MfG --A.Savin 11:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich habe nichts dagegen, wenn du alternativ zur "ent"zerrten Version auch die un-"ent"-zerrte Version des Fotos hochlädst.

Bei der hohen Auflösung des Materials glaube ich allerdings, dass trotz zweier Schritte, nämlich deiner "Ent"-zerrung und meiner Ent-"ent"-zerrung keine nennenswerten Unschärfen entstanden sind.

Es ist für uns beide einfacher, wenn du mich nicht daran hinderst, meine Bearbeitung noch einmal hochzuladen.

Beim Hochladen neuer Fotos solltest du im Falle einer "Ent"-zerrung am besten grundsätzlich außerdem die Nativversion hochladen.--Ulamm (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wenn du glaubhaft machst, inwiefern eine "nicht entzerrte" Version besser für de:Liste der Hallenkirchen in Deutschland ist als die jetzige, OK. Aber habe den Eindruck, für diese Liste mit winzigen Vorschauthumbs ist es ohnehin egal. MfG --A.Savin 11:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Bilder laden noch mehr als beim thumb/mini-Format dazu ein, sie anzuklicken, um sie näher zu betrachten.

Die Gewölbe der Seitenschiffe werden durch die sogenannte "Ent"-zerrung geradezu verbogen.--Ulamm (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Das Problem ist halt -- ich sehe überhaupt nicht, was bei deiner Version besser war in Bezug auf die Verzerrung der Randbereiche, des Gewölbes etc. Man sieht halt nur, dass die Senkrechten nicht mehr senkrecht sind, das war's. MfG --A.Savin 12:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Einen "Sturz" haben die Senkrechten auch auf unserer Netzhaut. Die räumliche Vorstellung entsteht durch unterbewusste Analyse des Zusammenspiels sämtlicher Winkel, die wir sehen. Die sind beipielsweise in einem Kreuzrippengewölbe völlig unterschiedlich, ob ich an einer Säule hochschaue, oder aus einer besonders hoch gelegenen Empore nahezu waagerecht in das Gewölbe schaue. Die dreidemsionale Vorstellung, die das Gehirn von so einem Gewölbe (oder irgeneinem anderen Bauteil) gewinnt, braucht zu jedem zweidiensionalen Bild (auf der Netzhaut wie in einer fotografischen Darstellung) Informationen zu Blickrichtung. Die werden durch das sogenannte "Ent"zerren verfälscht.--Ulamm (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Und dennoch machen viele das Entstürzen und kein Mensch bis auf einen das "Ententstürzen". So sind halt die Sitten hier. MfG --A.Savin 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dass viele Leute Foto durch Entstürzen denaturieren, ist kein Grund, die Wiederherstelliung naturnaher Perspektiven zu verbieten und schafft keine Legitimation, naturnahe Versionen von Fotos zu löschen.--Ulamm (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Spanish cities on the African coast[edit]

Hi Ulamm. Thank you for your work on Spanish churches. However, I must say I do not think this is an appropriate way to categorise Spanish territories. There isn't any territorial entity in Spain called "Spanish cities on the African Coast". These places have a name. As you probably know, one is called Ceuta and the other one is called Melilla. Each are a self-governed territory on their own right, so this grouping and the name you have chosen seem a bit random. Spain has 19 autonomous territories and each has its own category in Commons. Categorising them in random groups is totally inaproppriate. I would suggest this category and all its subcategories are deleted and the new categories you are creating for Ceuta and for Melilla follow the same system as the rest of the country's self-governed territories. Please, let me know if you need help with it. Kind regards, tyk (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that each of these cities is a separate entity with a status similar to a province but also similar to an autonomous community.

Nevertheless, for some purposes, it is useful to look at them together, to avoid miscelous subdivisions.

Looking on Africa, it is useful to say "these two Spanish cities".

Looking on Spain, it is useful to say "these two cities across the Mediterranean Sea".

I have been surveying churches since some months. In some countries (or subdivisions of countries), there is a category "island churches", though the churches in these categories stand in/on various islands forming various municipalities or part of various municipalities.--Ulamm (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand for you it is easier to look at it in that particular way but unfortunately it doesn't follow the administrative reality of the country and we have to follow a system that everyone can recognise. We can't just take a few German cities and group them under the name of "Churches in German cities in the Rhine Valley" or "Churches in German states on the Baltic coast" even if for some it may be easier to look at Germany that way. Regards, tyk (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean something like de:Kategorie:Ort am Rhein ? That is, in German wikipedia, the category for (all) populated places on (the banks of) the Rhine :-) Ulamm (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Nave central y cabecera igl. S. Gil Sevilla.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Nave central y cabecera igl. S. Gil Sevilla.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Nave central y cabecera igl. S. Gil Sevilla.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) 15:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pseudobasilicas in the province of Cadiz[edit]

Category:Pseudobasilicas in the province of Cadiz 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

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

In addition, I noticed that you've made a malformed deletion request and failed to list it. Here, {{Delete}} is not for speedy deletion, please see COM:DP. When you want to delete a page by manually using the {{Delete}} template (rather than the automatic Nominate for deletion or Nominate category for discussion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests and COM:CFD#Starting requests), you must follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy or the "By hand" portion of COM:CFD#Starting requests, normally collapsed), otherwise you will create a lot of work for other people. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did it again in this edit. One more time, and I will be forced to report your actions. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:San Juan Bautista, Peral de ArlanzaPeral de Arlanza[edit]

Category:San Juan Bautista, Peral de ArlanzaPeral de Arlanza 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

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

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2022[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2022 findet zum zwölften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) 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!

Sieger 2021 – Schloss Langenburg

Vergangenes Jahr hat Matthias Süßen mit einer Drohnenaufnahme von Schloss Langenburg im Morgennebel gewonnen. Welcher Fotograf wird dieses Jahr sein Nachfolger?

Nach WLM 2022 sind wieder zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden – zum Beispiel die Denkmallisten in Cloppenburg oder in Oldenburg.

Wir haben dieses Jahr unter dem Motto „Klein aber Oho“ drei Sonderpreise für Kleindenkmale ausgelobt. Damit sollen Fotos prämiert werden, die die unterschätzten Kleindenkmale wie Grenzsteine oder Bildstöcke 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.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Anfang September 2022 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 2022 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 06:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:MD Liebrauen 90018 nördl. Obergaden u. Laufgang.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:MD Liebrauen 90018 nördl. Obergaden u. Laufgang.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:MD Liebrauen 90018 nördl. Obergaden u. Laufgang.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Concordia tags.jpg[edit]

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

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:BRB Dom Mittelschiff n O 80928.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:BRB Dom Mittelschiff n O 80928.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:BRB Dom Mittelschiff n O 80928.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Kaiserslautern Stiftskirche zum Chor-gje10.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Kaiserslautern Stiftskirche zum Chor-gje10.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kaiserslautern Stiftskirche zum Chor-gje10.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) 11:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Hannover Marktkirche Innen. n ONO.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:Hannover Marktkirche Innen. n ONO.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hannover Marktkirche Innen. n ONO.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) 23:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Architecture[edit]

Please don't mix buildings & architecture, the latter is a wider term which also includes architectural elements, bridges, etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no huge difference:

Architecture is the science concerning buildings.
Each buildig and each part of a building is an example of architecture..

As the categories of Wikimedia Commons have been developed by several people with different ideas, there are some biases.

I am trying to overcome this or that of them.

One bias is that buildings of the same kinds have been categorized as "buildings" in some regions and as "architecture" in other regions.
In some regions, "architecture" is the mother category of "buildings", whereas in other regions, "buildings" is the mother category of "architecture".

Such biases are contraproductive. Categories have to help us to find objects and images of them. Such biases hide the items we want to present and to find.

By this reason, we have to merge "architecture"- and "buildings"-categories.

And we have to tolerate, if local "buildings"-categories are subcategories of national or worldwide "architecture"-categories.

My action on the brick categories was pragmatical. I have looked, in how many countries the buildings had been categorized as "buildings", and in how many countries they had been categorized as "architecture".--Ulamm (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your point of view on architectural elements' is honerable in theory, but does not work in practice: Almost everywhere, the "Churches in (Thistown)"-category has a subcategory called "Church elements in (Thistown)".-Ulamm (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging architecture & buildings is a very radical idea, which would need a discussion and trust me, it won't pass. A year ago I was personally arranging thousands of categories related to architecture and buildings by country, city, century, material and so on, and it took me around two-three months to properly solve only 6-7 major countries. Today, I open Brick buildings by country and there's a chaos of mixing. Surely not an improvement.

As I said, architecture is a wider term, take a look for example Architecture of Iran by city and Buildings in Iran by city: the former includes buildings, architectural elements, fortifications, history, landscape architecture, and there can also be architects. We can not fit all that into buildings, it's simply wrong.

Don't bother if countries have only brick buildings, and not brick architecture. That's not reason for deletion, and there are tons of such cases when parent category is missing. For example, Architecture of Italy by city has ~2220 cities, while Buildings in Italy by city has ~2660 cities, means 440 categories of architecture are missing. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I, and I suppose that's not only me, am looking for a kind of buildings (for example churches) or a kind of architectural elements (for example stepped gables), I hate it, if I have to pass a cascade of mother categories (and those variations of cascades) to arrive at the objects I am searching for.

You should merge the "architecture" and "buildings"-mother categories. That would be very helpful for all users of WM Commons.

And very important a principle: As long as data were recorded in material, there was only one way to each record. Now the records being virtual, it is possible to open various pathways to each record. That makes it easier to find and to use them.

It is a lot of work to make it easier for our fellow users.--Ulamm (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a valid argument, easy search is irrelevant. Speaking about "complicated" trees, you can check Bridges in Germany which has MetaCats with three or four "bys" (e.g. by function by type by material). :) You can propose a discussion of merging architecture and buildings, but I'll say it again: it will fail because it's truly a terrible idea which destroys the whole categorization tree. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy search is the reason for the system of categories. If the categories provide easy search, they are useful. if they don't provide easy search, they are disfunct.

I have not worked on the categories of bridges in Germany. But "by"-categories are useful. Nevertheless, as most contributors categorize their objects incompletely, simple categories like "by state" should contain all objects. And categories intended to be mother categories should be organized in a way that either their name shows their purpose, or that single items automatically form a visible group. --Ulamm (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead that we lose time explaining here, in past several days I improved related categories a little bit, so I hope it's more clear now. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Single nave churches in France[edit]

Category:Single nave churches in France 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

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

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Ulamm. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moin Uli, ich seh jetzt erst, dass es Ärger auf ANU gibt. Hast du in deinen Einstellungen Special:Preferences unter "Helferlein" die Häkchen "AjaxQuickDelete" und "QuickDelete" drin? Wenn nein, aktivieren. Die Löschung von Kategorien kann auch unter CfD (Kategorie diskutieren) beantragt werden. Auf der de:wp werden ja Verschiebungsreste üblicherweise gnadenlos gelöscht, hier i. d. R. nur, wenn die verschobene Seite nicht älter als 7 Tage ist. Gruß, Achim55 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Interior_of_an_unknown_small_Romanesque_basilica,_probably_in_Vosges&diff=712851295&oldid=712851155[edit]

Hallo @Ulamm, bist Du Dir hinsichtlich Deiner Änderung der Innenraumbilder der Église Notre-Dame de Champ-le-Duc wirklich sicher? Ich kann das offen gesagt nicht so ganz nachvollziehen. Bitte denke darüber nach, sie rückgängig zu machen. Auf den ersten Blick könnte man zwar tatsächlich annehmen, dass die Bilder des Innenraums eine Kirche mit Außenfenstern im Obergaden zeigen. Das würde in der Tat auf eine falsche Zuordnung hindeuten. Wenn man aber genauer hinsieht und recherchiert (siehe z.B. http://www.bruyeres-vosges.fr/album-2185003.html, insbesondere http://idata.over-blog.com/0/20/25/27/Eglise-de-CHAMP-le-DUC/Champ-le-Duc015.jpg), dann sieht man, dass die "Fenster" nicht in der Außenwand angebracht sind bzw. nicht nach außen "zeigen". Auf dem Bild File:Intérieur_de_l'église_Notre-Dame_de_Champ-le-Duc_05.jpg sieht man außerdem, dass der helle Schein durch im Inneren unter den "Fenstern" angebrachte Strahler erzeugt wird. Der Obergaden liegt also innerhalb des Gebäudes und wird vom Dach bedeckt. Aufgrund dessen kann man m.E. keine Zweifel haben, dass die Fotos den Innenraum der Kirche Notre-Dame de Champ-le-Duc darstellen. Viele Grüße, Fl.schmitt (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Akzeptiert!

Danke!

--Ulamm (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]