User talk:-wuppertaler

Category:Association football coaches of Wuppertaler SV

Erklärung: ich habe gestern die Category:Association football coaches of Wuppertaler SV verschoben weil ich zunächst in Category:Coaches in Germany keine Trainer gesehen habe.

Später erst habe ich erst gesehen, dass alle Category:Association football coaches by team in Germany so abgekürzt sind. Wenn es sein soll, können wir das wieder zurückverschieben (lassen). --Atamari (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hab mich schon gewundert, aber es macht theoretisch Sinn da der Begriff "Coaches" ja zweideutig ist (Trainer oder Reisebusse). Auf der anderen Seite wird jede Unterkategorie "Coaches of FC X" genannt, sehr sehr selten ergänzt um "Football coaches of FC X". Lediglich die übergeordneten Kategorien nach Land etc tragen den längeren Namen. Daher würde ich das auch in unserem Fall wieder dahingehend ändern. --Der-wuppertaler (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, move darf ich aber nicht löschen. Habe ein Baustein gesetzt, vielleicht klappt das. --Atamari (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. was mir noch Kopfweh macht ist: der Zirkelbezug Category:Stadion am Zoo ist im WSV; WSV ist in Stadion am Zoo. Da habe ich noch kein Ausweg gefunden. --Atamari (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, dachte ich mir. Finde es auch nicht perfekt, aber eines davon zu löschen wäre falsch. Das Stadion gehört zum Verein da es die Heimspielstätte ist, und der Verein gehört zum Stadion weil er der Hauptnutzer ist. Eine der beiden Kategorien zu löschen hieße ja, dass eine der Größen fix der anderen untergeordnet ist, so wie bei Verein->Spieler, das ist ja nicht der Fall... --Der-wuppertaler (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte auch Ies um Rat gefragt (User_talk:Ies#Kategorien_und_Zirkel), so richtig klar ist aber keine Meinung heraus gekommen. --Atamari (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wahnsinn

Toll, was du noch alles zum Kategorisieren findest. Klar dabei ist vieles was selbst ich für trivial halte (parkende Autos am Straßenrand im Zooviertel). Bei Category:Green roofs (sustainability) überlegte ich, ob man nicht direkt eine eigene Kategorie für Wuppertal anlegen sollte. Eine Zwischenebene - für Deutschland - kann immer noch erstellt werden. Bei so etas kann leicht mehr dazu kommen, bei den Stromtankstellen habe ich das gemacht (uch habe noch ein Foto, noch nicht hochgeladen). --Atamari (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Powerline towers in Wuppertal

Das was du da in Wieden (an der Düsseldorfer Straße) als "Powerline towers in Wuppertal" siehst ist ein Relikt der Straßenbahn in Wuppertal. Ob für diese Masten für den Fahrdraht auch unter "Powerline towers" fallen? --Atamari (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo, ist ein anderer Ast: Category:Overhead lines in Germany --Atamari (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sah für mich nach einem normalen "kleineren" Strommasten aus, zumal noch Kabel geführt werden. Kann dann aus der Kategorie raus, die Kategorie selber können wir aber behalten da es einige passende Fotos gibt. Muss mich nur der Reihe nach durcharbeiten. --wuppertaler _Post um 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foucaultsches Pendel Uni Wuppertal

Könnte man auch als Skulptur/Installation ansehen, weist du das Aufstellungsdatum? --Atamari (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14. August 2000 :-) --wuppertaler _Post um 09:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trolleybuses in Wuppertal

Anregung: Schaust du bitte bei diesen Kategorien direkt, ob es sich alleine um die Infrastruktur handelt (ähnlich wie bei der Straßenbahn). Weil die Kategorie Category:Trolleybuses in Wuppertal ist in "Buses" eingehangen, und das eine Bild zeigt kein Bild. Ich glaube wir müssen dann eine Oberkategorie Category:Trolleybus transport/Category:Trolleybus transport in Wuppertal schaffen. --Atamari (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte nachgeschaut und einige Bilder gefunden die lediglich die Infrastruktur zeigen, hab ja selber jetzt erstmals eins dahin kategorisiert. Eine eigene Infrastruktur-Kategorie macht aber Sinn. --wuppertaler _Post um 09:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Überraschung

Bronze statues in Wuppertal. p.s. Von öffentlich zugänlichen Wegen/Straßen aufgenommen!

Es handelt sich um das geleiche Objekt/ vom gleichen Abguss/ oder zumindest vom gleichen Künstler. Ist mir überhaupt nicht aufgefallen. --Atamari (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was man doch über die Wikimedia-Kategorien so alles erfährt... ;) --wuppertaler _Post um 09:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anregung

Setze doch gleich die Navi mit hinein. Alle Kategorie, bei dem der kleinste Hauch einer Möglichkeit besteht, das dies auch andere Städte einrichten, halte ich das für "nice to have". Ich habe versucht alle Kategorien, zu erreichen - es kann aber sein, das die eine oder andere mir durch die Lappen gegangen ist.

Hatte ich zuletzt eigentlich auch gemacht bei "meinen" Kategorien, bzw nachgetragen als ich gesehen hatte dass du das großflächig in allen Kategorien eigetragen hast. Hab ich hier dann wohl vergessen :P --wuppertaler _Post um 13:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zweites: bei den Höfen habe ich eine Kategorie Schulhöfe angelegt, die sind zwar im bestehenden System nicht als Höfe unterkategorisiert - schien mir aber sinnvoll. International wird ein Schulhof eher als Spielplatz als einen Hof angesehen ... eigentlich auch wahr ... --Atamari (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stair towers in Wuppertal

Ich habe mir das schon gedacht, das wir auch solche Türme haben. [1] --Atamari (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, war mir nicht bewusst. Wobei die Unterscheidung dann im Einzelfall eh von deiner Seite aus erfolgen müsste, ich kenn mich da nicht ausreichend aus und urteile nur rein optisch.. --wuppertaler _Post um 00:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File renamings

Auf deiner Benutzerseite hast du einen Abschnitt "File renamings". Hast du vor die Files umzubenennen? --Atamari (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja. Hab bisher immer individuelle Namen vergeben, da ich aber zeitnah und auch zukünftig deutlich mehr hochladen möchte würde das zeitlich zu aufwändig werden. Möchte das daher gerne rückwirkend vereinheitlichen und dann weiteres hochladen. Spricht da etwas gegen? --wuppertaler _Post um 08:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dagegen nicht.

Ist nur viel Arbeit und erzeut ein wenig Traffic (Anlegen einer Weiterleitung, einzelnes Anpassen der Seiten in dem die Bilder eingebunden sind).

Ich habe mein System so: "Stadt" "Straße" (oder größeres Gelände) "Jahr" "Laufende Nummer 000". Innerhalb einer Straße wird man in Lauf des Jahres nicht mehr als 1000 Bilder machen, selbst wenn sich mehrere Fotografen beteiligen. Damit man nicht immer suchen muss, geht damit der Zähler mit jedem Jahr auf 1 zurück. Für mich ist die Straße, der Aufnahmestandort, schon ein wichtiges Kriterium. Was abgebildet ist, soll soll dann in den Kategorien zeigen. Schön wäre es, wenn die Bildbeschreibung schon das sagt - was auch auf den Bild zu sehen ist. Einige Benutzer möchten aber auch den Filnamen so haben, das dort alles Beschrieben ist was auf den Bild zu sehen ist. Das finde ich schon eine Herausforderung, da erst teils nach Jahren sich heraus stellt was man "tolles" fotografiert hatte. --Atamari (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Den Traffic nehme ich in Kauf, da es künftig viel Arbeit erspart, die Seiten mit eingebundenen Bildern notiere ich gerade. Grundsätzlich sieht mein neues System ja ähnlich aus, wobei ich bisher zumindest in den Entwürfen die Jahreszahlen nicht eingebunden hab. Ich schau mal wie es letztlich wird, aber könnte dann sehr ähnlich aussehen. --wuppertaler _Post um 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

die Seiten mit eingebundenen Bildern - also in der gesamten Wikiwelt werden per Bot/Script geändert, geht also automatisch. --Atamari (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ach ja, als laufende Nummer könnte man auch das Aufnahmedatum (+Zeit?) nehmen. --Atamari (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gut zu wissen, bin jetzt aber eh fertig mir die rauszusuchen :D Die Nummerierung per Aufnahmedatum klingt gut, so ist es zumindest kein zusätzlicher Aufwand sich die letzte verwendete Nummer zu merken. Andererseits wird es eng wenn man von der gleichen Location mehrere Fotos pro Minute macht und hochlädt.. mal schauen. --wuppertaler _Post um 10:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich dacht, da hättest das Recht "move", kannst ja noch beantragen. --Atamari (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I think it's no problem. Uploader's requests are generally accepted.
You can consider requesting for filemover rights, look here. Good luck! Wieralee (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:USA CA LosAngeles StaplesCenter 002 2013.jpg

File:USA CA LosAngeles StaplesCenter 002 2013.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

INeverCry 23:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

It is better if the name is more accurate. No need to change a good name to bad. Farther you can name new files as you wish. But it will be good if you find the time to specify names in the future. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide whether a name is good or bad? It is my right due to #1 to rename my own files. Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored. The new names are neither disruptive nor inappropriate but much more follow a common local structure by being named after their location and year instead of their individual object. So please recant your declines, otherwise I have to contact other authorities. --wuppertaler _Post um 09:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a file mover:). As I understand you asked to let you know, if we use a different approach. That you said: "Please let me know if there is any difficulty or issue on that". I did it. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Der-wuppertaler: without personal attacks, please. There are forbidden.

We have a naming policy here: Commons:File naming. Commons is an encyclopaedic project -- all the files should have descriptive, factual names. Fancy names and user's shortcuts are not welcome. Wieralee (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. So where is the fancy or user shortcut part? "GER" is the country shortcut (as "BHA" or "USA" from former renamings) and the rest names the city, street/building, an ongoing number plus the year when the picture was created. I don't see any violation of the naming policy and besides that all the other requests were accepted, just user Krassotkin declined all of them and this is a violation of renaming right #1. --wuppertaler _Post um 09:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming File:Stolperstein Else Oswald Wuppertal.jpg into File:GER Wuppertal Neumarktstraße 001 2014.jpg is not a good idea: it is not compatible with other principles. The new name is misleading: does not allow unambiguous identification photos. Such names can used be for images of landscapes, where there is nothing distinctive. There is told "This is a courtesy, not an absolute, however" and -- "should be", not "must be" in Criterion #1, so it is not a hard principle. Wieralee (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please. It is my right to rename my own files as long as it makes sense and there is no negative points on it, and a "possible misleading" is no reason to decline. I have thousands of files from several countries just waiting to be uploaded, I cannot always chose an individual name, that's why I want to generalize the names of my former uploads and until now it was never a problem. So why do you make such a big story now? This is not trolling, not bullshit, it is just simple requests for renaming and bringing structure into my uploads. This is all I ask for. And "GER Wuppertal Straße 001 2013" is much more understandable even in other languages than "Stolpersteine Name Wuppertal" or "BUW Skulptur". There is not at all a reason to make such a big issue now, please just let me do and continue my work which I prepared for a long time. --wuppertaler _Post um 10:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have to accept the name of the original upload, which are incompatible with the rules, because we are not able to change the names of all the files on Commons. But there is no sense to change the good name into a bad name.

What do you thing about such a name: File:GER Wuppertal Neumarktstraße 2014 - Stolperstein Else Oswald Wuppertal.jpg ? Wieralee (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why so complicated? We use categories and file descriptions for detailed information, there is no need to create long and difficult names that include all possible information. For sure thats not wrong but its just unnecessary work in the longterm. I'm not here to upload 10 files, as I said there is a bunch of files waiting and I won't have the time to always chose a name that described everything seen on there picture. Most of the files I saw on Commons have general names completed by an ongoing number. This is all I want to change so that I can upload all my waiting files without such a big amount of time just for finding beautiful individual names. I have files from several countries and due to my works, studies and travels I will have much more files in the longterm, please just let me create this naming system to be able to upload everything else with the same structure. Honestly, there is nothing bad on a "Country city location number year" naming system, and specially for non-German speaking users it will be much easier, and also in general it makes much more sense to give names by locations than by each seen detail. --wuppertaler _Post um 10:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuppertaler: and we will have 1 billion photos: "London 0000001", "London 294840213", etc? We are uploading files for other people: when they would have good, descriptive names, they will be easy searchable -- and they will be widely used. When you upload new files, you can not to specify them: maybe another person will rename it into good names. But there is no sense to rename the good name into a bad name. Wieralee (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see there is no consent in our opinions even if I understand yours. So me as lower authority has to accept those perspectives. I will think about another more detailed naming structure (the one you showed above seems closest to what I planned before) and start my requests from the beginning soon. --wuppertaler _Post um 11:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steinsplitter - As you're an admin could you kindly go through my contribs ([2]) and revert my renames - I hadn't realized there was a problem here so perhaps mine should all be reverted aswell?, I'm so sorry!, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: The renames which you did seems okay, they are not making the existing name worser :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steinsplitter - Oh okay thanks :), I wasn't sure so wanted to ask, Anyway thanks :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuppertaler, als ich in der Nacht einen oder ein paar deiner Umbenennungsanträge sah und bearbeitete, hatte ich schon im Hinterkopf, dass es mit Sicherheit einige Problemfälle geben wird - den diese Diskussion auslösenden Umbenennungsantrag hätte ich auch nicht durchgewinkt. Wenn Du eine eigene Systematik aufbauen möchtest, dann habe ich einen Vorschlag: bei Dateinamen wie File:Stolperstein Else Oswald Wuppertal.jpg bei denen eine Umbenennung zu File:GER Wuppertal Neumarktstraße 001 2014.jpg individuelle Informationen vernichtet (was ist wo abgebildet?), kannst Du gerne statt der Umbenennung eine Weiterleitung anlegen. Damit wäre wohl allen geholfen, oder? Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wie in meiner letzten Nachricht bereits erwähnt, werde ich mich wohl an dem von Wieralee genannten Vorschlag orientieren, Beispiel File:GER Wuppertal Neumarktstraße 001 2014, Stolperstein Else Oswald o.Ä. Damit wären wohl alle Beteiligten am ehesten zufrieden gestellt - ich könnte langfristig eine Struktur in meine aktuellen und künftigen Uploads bringen und aus Sicht der Admins oder Filemover würden keine relevanten Informationen verloren gehen. Dadurch entstehen dann zwar gelegentlich längere Namen, aber das sollte hinnehmbar sein. --wuppertaler _Post um 16:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krassotkin, Wieralee, and Steinsplitter: So if I choose the naming structure like File:GER Wuppertal Neumarktstraße 001 2014 - Stolperstein Else Oswald or File:GER Wuppertal Universität 001 2014, Gebäude B (as recently suggested by Wieralee), is it ok in this way and I can go through all my uploads again for renaming them? So we can follow all our intentions: I can create a long term system for all my current and future uploads while you and other admins/filemovers won't see a loss of information/details anymore. Please let me know so I don't work again to no purpose. --wuppertaler _Post um 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as filemover too, I won't object to this kind of new filenames. Grand-Duc (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It seems to be fine, if the informations would be kept. Wieralee (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 07:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no issue with longer file names, personally I don't believe that the expressed (reverse) order of the name is beneficial Having "country > place > specific description" is not as useful as "specific description > place > country" IMNSHO. Having the actual detail of the name buried to the end of the name is not helpful, and I would prefer to see the naming proceed from the specific to the more general. I believe that it is more in line with the expressed naming policy. Citing Commons:Filename and Commons:File renaming in this case.
To note that there is no right to have the file named as you please, it is a courtesy. You have a right to ask, and those with rename rights should evaluate your request and give it favour where it is within the policy. The courtesy is applied that way as you could have uploaded with that alternate name, and we would have to judge any request for it to be renamed by another. So please do not stamp your foot at us and demand rights that do not exist. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey calm down, the whole discussion developed and progressed yesterday, including the clearing up of various misunderstandings. In general it makes no big difference in which order the new name might be given since most files only appear in sub categories. There is different perspectives and I can't follow each single one. The one I follow right now is the one all above suggested or agreed so I don't see any reason to not be given the courtesy of the renaming request. The naming policy demands descriptive names and this is not violated by the names I choose, moreover the order of words doesn't change whether the name is descriptive or not. --wuppertaler _Post um 10:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I was perfectly calm.

You have forgotten that there is a typeahead search function here, and your process is less than useful. That the specific part of a filename is leading is more useful than lagging buried in the name, and anyone typing now is going to have to get through repetitive parts of the same filename prior to difference. The dropdown search fields will not have the length to display a filename, and the display within a category is going to have a long spiel of the same before you dig out the difference. So there are real and practical difficulties that are going to be encountered by your naming structure. That no one else expressed these is not my issue, and this is why we have the opportunity for broad comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Wuppertal BarmerAnlagen 011 2016 - Teich.jpg

Ist das der Teich (Ringelteich) im Ringeltal? --Atamari (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, das ist der Teich westlich der großen Wiese unterhalb des Röhrig-Platzes. Hatte dazu keinen Namen oder sonstwas gefunden.. --wuppertaler _Post um 20:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dann der im Fischertal? hier ein Bild (ich war selber noch nicht dort). --Atamari (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jepp, genau der :-) --wuppertaler _Post um 21:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuther Straße 91 (Wuppertal)

Bayreuther Straße 91 (Wuppertal) als "Triangular houses " also ein Bügeleisenhaus? Ich habe mir das gerade auf Google Maps angeschaut, die Bayreuther Straße und die Funckstraße stehen fast zu einander in einem 90° Winkel. Nur weil das Haus keine richtige Ecke hat sondern abgestumpft mit Eingang isr, macht es nicht zu einem Bügeleisenhaus. Da sollte der Winkel schon deutlich spitzer sein. Alternativ, als ein "Eckhaus" kategorisieren wenn es so etwas gibt. --Atamari (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja da magst du Recht haben, hab den Winkel etwas überhastet falsch eingeschätzt bzw wirkte es auf den ersten Blick wie ein Dreiecks- und nicht bloß ein Eckhaus. --wuppertaler _Post um 23:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retail vehicles in Wuppertal

Wie stellst du dir die Kategorie vor? Aus dem Fahrzeug heraus verkaufen oder alles was mit dem Verkauf von Lebensmittel zu tun hat bzw. Verkauf von Waren? Also auch:

File:Wuppertal Rödiger Str 0010.jpg
File:Wuppertal Friedrich-Ebert-Str 0277.jpg Eingesetzt als Werbung
File:Wuppertal Gaußstraße 2013 153.JPG Catering
File:Wuppertal Scheibenstr 0003.JPG
File:Wuppertal - Vogelsauer Treppe, untere 04 ies.jpg Eingesetzt als Werbung
File:Wuppertal Barmer Anlagen 2013 118.JPG
File:Wuppertal Luisenstr 0065.JPG
File:Wuppertal Schwarzbach 2015 011.jpg

--Atamari (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gute Frage. Wenn ich mir die übergeordneten Kategorien so anschaue, dann geht es wirklich um den Retail und nicht die bloße Distribution. Also quasi keine Liefer- sondern reine Verkaufsfahrzeuge (sonst wäre ja bis auf Handwerks-/Baufahrzeuge nahezu jeder Van ein Retail Vehicle..). So hatte ich mir das vorgestellt, aber wenn es da auch andere Sichtweisen oder Definitionen gibt sollte es nicht an meiner Idee scheitern ;) --wuppertaler _Post um 23:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also eher in Richtung "Aus dem Fahrzeug heraus verkaufen".

Dann nicht das Fahrzeug der Bäckerei, das die einzelnen Filialen beliefert und auch nicht Fahrzeuge mit Werbung. Was ist dann mit dem Cocktail Taxis und wenn evtl. Pizza Taxis dazu kommen. Pizza Taxis würde wieder unter der Gruppe: Auslieferung fallen. Cocktail Taxis: so weit ich weis werden die am Fahrzeug frisch hergestellt. Aber es ist ein Auftrag nötig, also eher die Gruppe der Auslieferung. Ein Eiswagen (noch kein Wuppertaler Bild mir bekannt) würde dann wieder ein Retail vehicles sein. --Atamari (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Das Cocktail-Taxi würde ich schon mit hinein packen, da es zwar zur Distribution aber auch zum direkten Verkauf genutzt wird. Aufträge sind per se ja überall nötig, auch ein Streetfood-Event ist ein Auftrag. Daher würde ich eher so unterscheiden ob Ware nur gebracht oder gebracht und verkauft wird, ergo Cocktail-Taxi ja aber Pizza-Taxi nein, Eiswagen ja. Ob es für die reinen Lieferfahrzeuge auch sinnvolle Kategorien gibt müsste man dann schauen. Soweit meine Ansicht zumindest. --wuppertaler _Post um 10:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich meine aber ein Cocktail Taxi hat in der Regel einen Auftrag (ähnlich wie ein Pizza Taxi). Ein Cocktail Taxi kommt nicht die Straßen wie ein Eiswagen oder steht Mittwochs auf einem Supermarktparkplatz. Ich würde die dann doch eher in Lieferfahrzeuge zuordnen, falls es so etwas gibt. Was es aber gibt (die Kategorie) sind Fahrzeuge mit Werbung. Nur dann haben wir wieder ein Problem ist schon ein Firmenemblem (wie bei WSW) ein Werbefahrzeug? Das RedBull und das McDoof -Fahrzeug fällt auf jeden Fall in diese Kat. --Atamari (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich schaute gerade nach, ob es auch "Retail trailers" gibt... nein aber es gibt Category:Catering trailers. Hmmm. --Atamari (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queues in Wuppertal

Eine Bäckerei mit einer Warteschlage bis auf die Straße ... mußte ich damals fotografieren. --Atamari (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Wuppertal WickülerCity 012 2016.jpg

Ist das diese Überführung? --Atamari (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo, das ist die Brücke ... war noch nicht drinnen. --Atamari (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja und danke :D --wuppertaler _Post um 22:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flügelhügel

Der Flügelhügel als Kategorie und in Category:Scenic overlooks in Wuppertal, evtl. eine Unterkategorie, die in Views from hills in Wuppertal‎ aufgehangen ist? Den Flügelhügel würde ich selber nicht als Hügel kategorisieren wollen - nur als Aussichtspunkt. --Atamari (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ich hatte auch schon den Gedanken den Flügelhügel als Kategorie anzulegen, da wer mittlerweile ja auf nicht wenigen Fotos zu sehen ist. Ich geh erstmal meine gestrigen Uploads durch, entweder mache ich es danach oder du machst es bis dahin :) --wuppertaler _Post um 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hab die Kategorie angelegt. Zur Info, hab die Windräder bewusst in beiden Kategorien - Campus und Flügelhügel - gelassen, da sie als weithin sichtbares (und recht medienwirksames) Merkmal auch direkt über die Campus-Kategorie auffindbar sein sollten (meiner Meinung nach). --wuppertaler _Post um 10:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hab jetzt erst deinen Text gelesen.

Habe noch Category:Views from Flügelhügel angelegt. Aber die Überkategorisierung habe ich bei den meisten aufgelöst. In Ober- und Unterkategorie sollten Bilder nur sehr selten gesetzt werden. Windräder gehören durch die Kategorisierung per se jetzt zum Flügelhügel. --Atamari (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red and silver buses in Wuppertal

Gestern hatte ich das als rot/silber gesehen. Heute Morgen glaube ich eher an rot/weiß. Genauer rot/weiß mit einer Werbung, die silbern ist. Was meinst du? --Atamari (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Die Linien der Rheinbahn verkehren seit den 90ern (abzüglich noch nicht ausgemusterter älterer Fahrzeuge) in silber-rot (zuvor weiß-rot), ist also korrekt. Hier File:20120512 dusseldorf01.JPG ist das recht gut zu erkennen, wenn man das weiße Haltestellenschild als Abgleich nutzt. --wuppertaler _Post um 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, dann lassen wir das mal so. Hier sieht man es auch sehr gut. --Atamari (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Die Schwebebahnen-Züge will ich auch auf das System umstellen, ich bin mit noch nicht ganz im Klaren, in wie weit mit/ohne Werbung und nach Baureihen aufgeschlüsselt. Aber ich glaube mit Werbung ist eine zusätzliche Eigenschaft. Vollflächige Werbung kommt als "colorful"-Farbe. Später will ich die nach Betreiber (primär WSW mobil einsortieren, das ist dann mit den Farben einfach). --Atamari (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andere Fahrzeuge will ich vorerst nicht nach Farben sortieren, die gewöhnlichen Autos werden nur fotografiert - wenn die etwas besonderes sind und etwas besonderes haben. --Atamari (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Wuppertal BendahlerStraße 001 2016 - Bibelmuseum.jpg

Hier ganz in der Nähe vor der Brücke ist bei dem Wiküler-Park noch das Wappen/Symbol der Univerität an der Fassade. Hattest du das gesehen? --Atamari (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja das kenn ich. Soweit ich weiß befinden sich noch Mathe-Büros in dem Gebäude, steht so auch im Artikel und auf der Website. --wuppertaler _Post um 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Wuppertal Hardt 006 2016.jpg

Kenne ich nicht, habe mich mal auf die Suche gemacht: Garten und Zwerge – 6. Skulpturenausstellung auf der Hardt (http://www.gartenundzwerge.de/) -> Eckehard Lowisch, Kink. (Dabei war ich am Freitag noch in der Nähe des Botanischen Gartens. --Atamari (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ach ja, temporäres Kunstwerk, nicht dauerhaft. --Atamari (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bild Adolphe-Brücke

Hallo Wuppertaler

Du hast dieses Bild von der Adolphe-Brècke hochgeladen. Bei den Informationen zu dem Bild stimmen meiner Meinug nach ein paar Informationen nicht, und als erstes die Information dass du dieses bild von der Brücke selbst gemacht hast, und wenn dann jedenfalls nicht im Juni 2016. Ich bitte um Feeb-back --Les Meloures (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, möglicherweise habe ich den Namen dieser Brücke mit der benachbarten Brücke verwechselt. Das Bild stammt definitiv von mir; ich bin Mitte Juli für wenige Tage durch Luxemburg gereist, siehe dazu auch meine weiteren Fotos unter Category:Photos by User:-wuppertaler (Diekirch, Dudelange, Esch etc). Schließe aber nicht aus, bei der Namensfindung etwas durcheinander gebracht zu haben. Liebe Grüße --wuppertaler _Post um 00:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für die Info. Ich habe das in der Beschreibung des Bildes dementsprechend geändert. Adolphe-Brücke war einfach nicht möglich weil 2016 kein Verkehr drüber gelaufen ist. M.b.G. --Les Meloures (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Wuppertal Universität 086 2016 - Streetfood-Event.jpg

File:GER Wuppertal Universität 086 2016 - Streetfood-Event.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A.Savin 22:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your custom signature

Your account has an invalid custom signature set in the account preferences.

A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software. You can see your custom signature settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-signature. You can check your signature at https://signatures.toolforge.org

There are multiple possible errors. This message is being sent to people who have the "Mismatch between link and username" error.

The problem: Your signature links to a different user account. This often happens when you set a custom signature and then change your username.

The solutions: There are two ways to fix this problem. You can reset your signature to the default, or you can modify your signature.

Modify your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences. (You need to do this step on the wiki where the error is, which is probably the one where you're reading this message.)
Look in the Signature: text box for your custom signature code. This contains the name of an account, but it's not your account. It's probably the name of another account that you used.
Change the wrong account name to your current account name.
- If you have more than one account, and you are trying to link to the other account, then change at least one of the links to your current account name. For example, change [[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) to:
  - [[User:Username2|Username2]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) (one link to the current account's userpage, and one link to your other account's talk page), or to
  - [[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Username2|contributions]]) (two links to your other account and one link to [[Special:Contributions]] for your current account).
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

After you have done this, the error will be fixed. If the error is not fixed, then clicking the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page will produce an error.

If you need help, please read mw:Special:MyLanguage/New requirements for user signatures/Help. Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

19:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

File:USA CA LosAngeles Venice 001 2013.jpg

File:USA CA LosAngeles Venice 001 2013.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

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

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Mural by famous artist Rick Cronk. Painted in the 1990s. Per COM:FOP US we must delete.

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

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

Missvain (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rotate

Den Baustein, den du suchst nennt sich "rotate". Siehe hier im Beispiel; gedreht hochgeladen und dann mittels den Baustein den Bot neauftragt. Atamari (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfekt, danke dir! --wuppertaler _Post um 20:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Änderungen

Hallo!

Vielen Dank für deine Änderungen: Revision of 660787352. Zur Info: Reliefs sind (auch im Kategoriebaum) Skulpturen und demnach waren die meisten der entfernten Kategorien durchaus richtig gesetzt. --XRay 💬 11:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, danke für den Hinweis, war mir nicht bewusst :-) --wuppertaler _Post um 14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Änderungen 2

Hallo (mal wieder)!

Deine Änderungen bezogen auf die lateinischen Inschriften habe ich gesehen. Allerdings hilft das Entfernen wie bei Revision of 662529376 nicht. Die Inschrift ist vorhanden, auch wenn sie nicht offensichtlich ist und eher ein Detail. Im Beschreibungstext ist sogar der lateinische Text aufgeführt. Ich habe es mal korrigiert. Ebenso bei anderen, ähnlich gelagerten Korrekturen. --XRay 💬 07:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, auch hier danke für den Hinweis. Ich empfand es bloß als wenig sinnvoll, Dateien abzubilden, auf denen man entsprechende Inschriften mit der Lupe suchen muss. Und es wird ja auch nicht jedes Gebäude mit Fenstern unter "Windows in..." kategorisiert. Aber da gehen die Meinungen sicherlich auseinander. LG --wuppertaler _Post um 14:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Es stimmt, die Meinungen gehen auseinander. Das ist auch gut so. Eine konstruktive Ergänzung, die ich manchmal nutze, sind die Notizen. Dann sieht man besser, wo was zu sehen ist. Außerdem werden die Positionen dann auch in den strukturierten Daten ergänzt. (Macht für meine Bilder ein kleines Programm.) Bei den Inschriften bemühe ich mich, diese auch im Text aufzuführen, damit man sie leichter lesen und finden kann. Und ich setze Kategorien für alles, was meiner Meinung (da sind die Meinungen wieder ;-) ) nach wichtig ist, auch wenn es nicht das Hauptmotiv ist. So sieht man oft auch den Kontext oder eine andere Perspektive. Eher allgemeine Dinge sind damit nicht gemeint. Kategorien bei Bildern lösche ich allerdings nur sehr selten und auch nur, wenn sie falsch gesetzt sind und sich keine passende, alternative Kategorie findet. --XRay 💬 12:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ChocolART

[[:Category:ChocolART]] ist noch Wuppertal und Tübingen vermischt. Atamari (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, hab es korrigiert und neu kategorisiert. --wuppertaler _Post um 14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nee, ist immer noch Tübingen zugeordnet. --Atamari (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Das Hauptevent ist auch ein Tübinger Event, nur der Ableger Category:ChocolART on tour findet in anderen Städten statt. --wuppertaler _Post um 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC) wuppertaler _Post um 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Oberhausen Centro PokemonGo 09.jpg

File:GER Oberhausen Centro PokemonGo 09.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 006 2016 - Convention Center.jpg

File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 006 2016 - Convention Center.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:LUX Luxembourg Gare 009 2016.jpg

File:LUX Luxembourg Gare 009 2016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:LUX Luxembourg Gare 010 2016.jpg

File:LUX Luxembourg Gare 010 2016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 001 2016.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:LUX Luxembourg Clausen 003 2016.jpg

File:LUX Luxembourg Clausen 003 2016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:LUX Luxembourg Clausen 006 2016.jpg

File:LUX Luxembourg Clausen 006 2016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:LUX Luxembourg Clausen 005 2016.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Wuppertal Unbekannt 04.jpg

Hallo Wuppertaler,

da ich auch einer bin, interessiert es mich sehr, wo Du obiges Foto aufgenommen hast. Mit seiner prächtigen Tür ist das Gebäude recht fotogen, dennoch scheint niemand außer Dir ein Foto davon hochgeladen zu haben, denn bei Googles Bildersuche blieb ich (im Gegensatz zu diesem Foto) leider erfolglos, ebenso beim Durchsehen der Wuppertal-Kategorien Brick chimneys, Slate facades, green doors und Buildings numbered 12 (die allerdings noch nicht vollständig ist). Deshalb meine Frage: kannst Du eruieren, ob Du am 24. Oktober 2018 zwischen 15:15 und 15:30 weitere Fotos gemacht hast (von denen Du weißt, wo es war), denn dann könnte man die Suche (z.B. per Google Satellit Globusansicht, mit der ich in einem vergleichbaren Fall mal erfolgreich war) eingrenzen. Ansonsten bliebe nur noch, weitere Wuppertaler User zu befragen, vielleicht hat einer eine Intuition, so wie ich bei diesem Foto.

Übrigens: nachdem ich die auch Dich betreffende Diskussion um die Löschung von Fotos der EU-Gebäude mit Interesse, aber völligem Unverständnis gelesen habe, schätze ich mich glücklich, nicht in Luxemburg zu leben. Absurde Idee, die Panoramafreiheit so massiv einzuschränken, da kann die Wikipedia in Luxemburg ja nur noch Altstadt-Architektur zeigen. Ich würde allerdings bei den meisten Gebäuden auf dem Kirchberg-Plateau argumentieren, dass die schöpferische Höhe für die Qualifikation als Kunstwerk fehlt :)

Gruß Im Fokus (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, danke für die Anfrage. Da ich leider einige Jahre untätig war und nun viele Uploads nachhole, ist es manchmal eine ziemliche Herausforderung, den genauen Ort nachzuvollziehen, gerade bei Orten die bereist wurden oder deren Aufenthalt schon etwas zurückliegt. Ich antworte mal bei Atamari auf die Frage, dann sieht er es auch gleich.

Ja, die Luxemburg-Diskussion ist eiin leidiges Thema. Dass ausgerechnet eine für die EU so wichtige Stadt/Land keine Panoramafreiheit hat.. das hat schon so einige meiner Fotos betroffen und wird sicherlich noch einige (obwohl die schon ein paar Jahre online sind).

Liebe Grüße, wuppertaler _Post um 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:LUX Luxembourg VilleHaut 005 2016.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Heidelberg, Dossenheimer Landstraße 001.jpg

Hallo Wuppertaler, weißt Du noch wie das Restaurant in der Dossenheimer Landstr. Heidelberg heißt? Nemracc (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ich hab es bei der ersten kurzen Suche zum Upload nicht gefunden, schaue aber zeitnah gern nochmal genauer. LG wuppertaler _Post um 07:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:LUX Esch-Alzette 006 2016 - Hôtel de Ville.jpg

And also:

File:LUX Esch-Alzette 007 2016 - Hôtel de Ville.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:LUX Luxembourg VilleHaut 009 2016.jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:ROM Timisoara Biserica Ortodoxa 01.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Danke für Deine Beiträge in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. Gute Bilder und sauber kategorisiert! Rosty (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr gerne, und herzlichen Dank! wuppertaler _Post um 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GER Grainau, Eibsee 028.jpg

File:GER Grainau, Eibsee 028.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: None)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Johnj1995.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZZ user -wuppertaler 001.png

File:ZZ user -wuppertaler 001.png has been marked for speedy deletion. Wikimedia Commons doesn't permit uploading personal files unless you are using them for personal use or an educational purpose.

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now ! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images and best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Periegetes.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich

Hello. Regarding [3] - How old do photos have to be to be "historical"? I know "old maps" must be at least 70 years, I guess photos can be much newer. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very confusing

Your location is very confusing, In your user page on english wikipedia you do not mention Perth or Australia, yet here in commons, you have even a Perth named account... it would be great if you could explain, thanks... JarrahTree (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is confusing about that? I visited Australia last year. I have user categories for all the places I've been to (and uploaded images).. wuppertaler _Post um 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, thanks fair enough - I took your travel record on your user page on english wikipedia very literally, my problem - thanks very much for your very thorough and good set of photos - JarrahTree (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I updated the record now. My German travel record is pretty detailed but I forgot about the English one, thanks! wuppertaler _Post um 12:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 053.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 051.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 051.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 044.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 044.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 045.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 045.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 022.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 022.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 020.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 020.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 015.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 015.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 016.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 013.jpg

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 013.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:QAT Doha, Hamad International Airport 003.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:-wuppertaler

Category:Association football coaches of Wuppertaler SV

Wahnsinn

Powerline towers in Wuppertal

Foucaultsches Pendel Uni Wuppertal

Category:Trolleybuses in Wuppertal

Überraschung

Anregung

Stair towers in Wuppertal

File renamings

Renaming

Renaming

File:GER Wuppertal BarmerAnlagen 011 2016 - Teich.jpg

Bayreuther Straße 91 (Wuppertal)

Retail vehicles in Wuppertal

Queues in Wuppertal

File:GER Wuppertal WickülerCity 012 2016.jpg

Flügelhügel

Category:Red and silver buses in Wuppertal

Bild Adolphe-Brücke

Problem with your custom signature

Rotate

Änderungen

Änderungen 2

Category:ChocolART

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

A barnstar for you!

Zurich

very confusing

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Navigation menu

Search