User talk:Repgow

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Repgow!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

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


Hello, Repgow!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--Repgow (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldiker ?

[edit]

Falls es sich bei Repgow um den Heraldiker höchstselbst handelt, müsste ich diesen edit rückgängig machen. Da es, wie es scheint, viele Neuwappen in Sachsen-Anhalt beträfe, wäre Aufklärung recht hilfreich, weil es (bislang) einzigartig wäre, dass ein Heraldiker die von ihm entworfenen Wappen in der Wikipedia hochlädt. Geograv 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Geograv, das Wappen von Plodda ist nun korrekt ediert worden. Ollemarkeagle und ich haben Zugang zu allen Wappen des Heraldikers und korrigieren bzw. ergänzen diese schrittweise. Viele der Bilddateien vor 1995 sind jedoch nicht mehr abrufbar, weil es keine entsprechende Software mehr gibt bzw. Anfang der 90er Jahre Wappen fürs Genehmigungsverfahren noch als Handzeichnung eingereicht wurden. Diese Zeichnungen verschwanden oft in Archiven, sodass z.T. die Städte und Gemeinden selbst keine grafisch korrekte Datei ihres rechtmäßigen Wappens besitzen. An dieser Stelle noch einen Hinweis: Wappen sind Hoheitszeichen, deren Gebrauch außerhalb der kommunalen Körperschaft rechtlich stark eingeschräkt ist. Die Änderung eines Wappenbildes stellt eine rechtswidrige Handlung im Sinne der Hoheitsrechte (wie auch des Urheberrechts, wenn das Wappen jünger als 70 Jahre ist) dar. Es wird darum empfohlen, Wappen NICHT als svg-Datei einzustellen, sondern als aus der Vektorgrafik heraus konfigurierte png-Datei. Letztere erfüllt alle Anforderungen einer guten Erkennbarkeit, kann im Sinne des Gesetzes zur staatsbürgerlichen Bildung bzw. heraldischen Forschung verwendet werden, beugt aber (eingeschränkt) bestimmten Missbrauch vor. Die Tatsache des Rechtsschutzes und damit der Unveränderlichkeit von Wappen im Sinne eines Insignums sollte man bei WIKIPEDIA mal etablieren.--Repgow (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Du darfst mit Sicherheit davon ausgehen, dass ich keine svg-Grafiken erstelle (dies auch noch nie getan habe). gruss Rauenstein (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (ehemals Geograv)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Wappen_Abbenrode_FFw.png

[edit]
العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Wappen_Abbenrode_FFw.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Wappen_Abbenrode_FFw.png]]).

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

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

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

odder 10:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte

[edit]

hier weiterlesen, ggfs. Senf dazu abgeben. Rauenstein (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for notifying mw of the discussion, but I don't speak German and Google translator's version was impossible to understand. It's something about the coat of arms I vectorized, but I could not grasp anything else. If there is something important in the discussion I should know about please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Odie5533 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wenn Du mir mir Deutsch sprichst, kann ich antworten.--Repgow (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meinung / Rechtslagen / Fakten

[edit]

Das Du eine bestimmte Meinung vertrittst, ist ja okay, kritisch wird es, wenn Du in einer Grauzone deine eigene versuchst durchzudrücken! Stichwort: PNG-SVG-Grafik Konversion von "amtlichen" Wappen. Das ist fließend (und Auslegungssache!) wenn man von allgemeinen Wappen (oder noch besser bei Siegeln (oder gar Geldnoten) anfängt) über Flaggen zu anderen "offiziellen" / amtlichen Kennzeichen übergeht. Ich persönlich werde, wenn dies mit wenig Aufwand verbunden ist sicher im Zweifelsfall, stets ein SVG einer PNG/Gif oder anderen nicht strukturierten Grafik vorziehen -- einfach wegen des durchschn. Vorteils der allgemeinen Weiterverwendbarkeit -- wie oft habe ich mich schon über die mangelnde Qualität von Wappen und damit Vergelcihbarkeit geärgert. Und wenn Du willst, kannst Du mir ja 'mal versuchen an den Karren zu fahren. *LOL* Fange doch am besten mit "Datei:Wappen of Bösingfeld.svg" an (da habe ich mir viel Arbeit mit gemacht) -- Bösingfeld ist ein Flecken (ehem. Stadt) der Gemeinde Extertal in NRW! :) Achim1999 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Achim1999, die Meinung, man solle keine svg-Dateien verwenden, vertrat ich mal vor Jahren und bin davon ab. Selbstverständlich kannst Du Wappen als SVG einsetzen - aber dann richtig. D.h. Du solltest korrekte heraldische Tinkturen verwenden (kein Grau, sondern Weiß für Silber), solltest die Schildform in üblichen Proportionen fassen (z.B. Spanischer Schild 100 : 112,5) und dabei Ecken vermeiden und Du solltest lt. Blasonierung zeichnen. Im Falle Bösingfeld hast Du das nicht getan, d.h. ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob der Stern schwebt oder mit einen Strahl in die Mauer ragt. Wobei es fraglich ist, dass eine goldene Mauer im silbernen Schild genehmigt ist... Mit anderen Worten: Ich werde das prüfen und ggf. korrigieren. Oder besser: Ich werde Dich wissen lassen, was zu korrigieren ist. Okay? Dann kannst Du das tun, wenn Du schon so viel Arbeit hineingesteckt hast. Das hat nichts mit "an den Karren fahren" zu tun, sondern mit heraldischen Regeln und Gepflogenheiten. Wenn Du Fragen hast, dann melde Dich auf meiner WIKI-Diskussionsseite; ich helfe Dir gern. Gruß--Repgow (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im Fall Bösingfeld hatte ich eine SW-Vorlage mit gegebener Schildform und Farbkodierung umgesetzt. Silber habe ich in diesem Grauton gesetzt weil das so bei einem Heraldiker im Web kodiert war (dort gab es neben circa 10-12 Farben) auch weiß, und das hatte #fff, also bitte mit jemand anderem ausdiskutieren. Heraldische Gepflogenheiten interessieren mich nicht. Mich interessiert wie das Wappen in der Realität ist/war und die konkrete Aufgabe die ich mir gesetzte hatte war diese SW-Vorlage als Farb-SVG umzusetzen! Hier noch zu deiner Info die URL http://www.rbrinckmann.de/Lippe/Besiedlung_Bilder/image011.jpg meiner Vorlage. Achim1999 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Achim1999, ich habe versucht, Dir zu helfen, aber Deine Antwort zeigt mir, dass Du mit der Bemerkung "heraldische Gepflogenheiten interessieren mich nicht" ebenso unbelehrbar wie in der Sache ungebildet bist. Abgesehen von den vielen Deutschfehlern zeigen vor allem Deine Arbeiten grobe Fehler. Darum werde ich sie der Reihe nach korrigieren bzw. löschen. Wenn Du sachlich diskutieren willst, hast Du dazu die Möglichkeit; Arroganz und Polemik haben indes keine Chance. Gruß--Repgow (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Man sollte von Typos nicht auf andere Sachlagen schliessen.
2) Ich hatte nicht um Hilfe ersucht oder?
3) Ich bin hier auf wikipedia-DE von den Heraldikern, einigen die mir zuerst über den Weg gelaufen sind (siehe insbesondere die Diskussionseite des Artikels Stern_(Heraldik) sehr enttäuscht was deren Objektivität / wissenschaftliche Qualifikation angeht. Diese Stichprobe ist nun meine Grundlage Heraldik(er) allgemein einzuschätzen (ist ja keine geschützte/überprüfte Berufsqualifikation)! Meine Aussage "heraldische Gepflogenheiten interessieren mich nicht" fußt darauf, daß die offenbar von einigen (Psuedo-)Heraldikern über die tasächliche Realität gestellt werden!
4) Gegen Korrektur von groben oder auch kleineren Fehler habe ich sicher nichts. Nur gegen Änderungen von per Definition (von Heraldikern) als Fehler angesehenen Aussagen, die dann noch der Realität widersprechen! Macht Eure eigene Heraldipedia auf, wenn ihr z.B. meint, Heraldische Farbregeln MÜSSEN immer eingehalten werden. Noch tieferliegende Einsichten (über das Selbstverständnis der Heraldiker) gewährend war die Diskussion über die unsymmetrischer Sterndarstellung auf dem Wappen von Waldeck. Das war religiöse aber nicht wissenschaftliche Ansicht. :-(
5) Ebenfalls Einblicke was meine Kontakte zu Heradikern angeht (ich hatte erstmals hier auf Wikipedia-DE welche) und die so erfolgte Einschätzung selbiger "Spezies", gewährt auch der Abschnitt "Wappen von Bösingfeld" auf meiner Benutzer-Diskussionseite.

Achim1999 (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonium paupertatis--Repgow (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wappen Kakerbeck.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) 04:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wappen Friedersdorf-Spree.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.

JuTa 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wappen Kakerbeck.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.

JuTa 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Kircheib.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!

User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Loerrach.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!

User: Perhelion 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hallo - bist Du immer noch in Kontakt zu Jörg Mantzsch? Könnten wir über diese Verbindung zu allen gespeicherten Wappen die Daten der Genehmigung, die Beschreibungen und Begründungen sowie die abgeleiteten Siegel und Flaggen erhalten? LG + PX - MaxxL MaxxL - talk 15:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Dobritz.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!

Ollemarkeagle (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Schierau.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!

Ollemarkeagle (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:DE-ST 15-0-83-565 Wolmirstedt COA.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!

Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Holzweissig.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!

Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Stadt Jerichow.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!

Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Altmarkkreis Salzwedel.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!

Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]