User talk:Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR/Archive/2021

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

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 01.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 01.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 01.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 01.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 23:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 02.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 02.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 23:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 03.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 03.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 03.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Westansicht 03.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 23:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Großkoschen, Dorfplatz 36, Wandbild Haus Hammermühle 1916, 03.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Großkoschen, Dorfplatz 36, Wandbild Haus Hammermühle 1916, 03.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 02.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 02.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 22:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 01.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 01.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 03.jpg

File:Ruhland, Nebengebäude Mauerreste, ehemalige Hammermühle Südansicht 03.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） ∙ +/−

2003:C4:7F2A:86EC:386C:9F42:2211:D85F 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hammermühle

Hallo Wilhelm, ich denke auch, dass "Hammermühle" richtig ist. In der Flurnamenkarte von 1931 ist sie als Papiermühle gekennzeichnet, aber unweit östlich davon lag die Flur des Hammermüllers. - Ich denke, die Ansichten von Süden können wir ohne Frage behalten, aber die 3 anderen Ansichten werden leider wohl zu löschen sein. Gruß, Achim (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, letztlich ist das in meinem Sinne. Die Ansicht von Westen bekomme ich mit Teleobjektiv von einer anderen Stelle, aber das ist (so wie es dort aussieht) sinnlos.
In einer Quelle stand "Papier- und Hammermühle", danke für die Bestätigung. Je nach Marktlage hat sicher ein bestimmter Zweck dominiert.
Aber eine Frage: gehört die IP zu Bernd ? Dann wäre ich an meine damalige Zusage nicht mehr gebunden. Abgesehen davon, läuft die 3-Jahresfrist (für Unterdrückung der Ortsangabe wegen einer vorgeblichen Bewerbung) sowieso ab. Schade um die Mühe, und Dank Dir für die Arbeit. Viele Grüße --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Bernd habe ich nur geraten. ;) Gruß, Achim (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Wird wohl richtig sein, Danke für die Antwort. Ich hatte auch keine Rache im Sinn. Aber es ist schon anstrengend, die unterdrückte Ortsangabe immer im Blick zu behalten. Ob es nun Bernd selbst war, ist egal - ohne seinen Auftrag wäre das nicht passiert. Viele Grüße --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Conifers 1

Hi Wilhelm - thanks for the email! Your conifers are:

Hope all is well! Alas, not so well here, having to suffer under the demented fascist idiots running our government in UK :-( :-( - MPF (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hallo @MPF: , so fast - thank you very much. And hope for you and all people, all will be better next time. We had some confusion last year and have worse and ill people here, too. Greetings from Germany --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Danke schön! MPF (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hallo @MPF: , once more I have some pictures (think, this are two species, one in each folder) under the same link :-). Best regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - Danke! This time they are:
The identity for #2 is not 100% without any close-up photos, but it is very probable. If close-up photos later show it to be something else, it can always be changed ;-) MPF (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It's great. To Cat. 2 I will ask once more when there are close ups. There must be the right light, in winter it's not so good. Thank you once more for this! And have a good start in the new week. Greetings from Ruhland / Germany --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Some close-ups would help; best of all some cone (Zapfen) photos in the late summer (these will be near the top of the tree, so you will need a good zoom lens!) - MPF (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you fo the hint - so I will need the help of a friend here. Regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hallo @MPF: , once more I have three folders with some pictures. The third seems to be Picea abies, as a hedge (may be, 15 or 20 years old). But under chapter Use in de:WP I couldn't find hedges or cultivars. The second contains a Larix and three others, without close-up photos. If there will be only risky outcome, than forgot this. Best Regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - Thanks again! I make them:
  • Conif.1 = Cedrus libani subsp. atlantica 'Glauca'
  • Conif.2 - left to right (in photo #4 where they are best spaced out): Larix decidua, Picea omorika, Cupressus nootkatensis, and another Picea omorika
  • P.abies - yes, a Picea abies hedge, which is unusual, but not unknown.
Best wishes - MPF (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi MPF, many thanks to you for your help. As a child I found a runout hedge of P. abies at an older market garden. But I was not sure. And here I find two of them.
Later I will ask to thuja, but I've seen, that my photos are not so good, and will go to make others.
Best wishes back to you --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC

Hallo @MPF: , once more I have folders with some pictures. The first shows once more the later shown Eukalyptus, perhaps E. gunnii. Do you now, what a species it's really? its not a conifer :-)
The middle of Conif.3 and the right of Conif.8 are known :-) thanks
The Ilex is very similiar to I. aquifolium, but a shrub - perhaps a cv.; the other folders are my opinions to ask, if I'm right thereof.
Greetings and thanks for help --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - thanks again! Adding the dropbox link here so I don't have to dig deeper and deeper into my email inbox :-)
  • Conif.1 - left to right: Picea abies, Eucalyptus sp., Picea glauca, Pseudotsuga menziesii
  • Conif.2 - Abies pinsapo
  • Conif.3 - left to right: a Juniperus cultivar, Cedrus libani subsp. atlantica 'Glauca', and a Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivar
  • Conif.4 - Abies nordmanniana (probably bought as a christmas tree!)
  • Conif.5 - Abies koreana or Abies × arnoldiana (hybrid between A. koreana and A. veitchii)
  • Conif.6 - another Abies nordmanniana (also probably bought as a christmas tree!), with some late spring frost damage on some of the shoots
  • Conif.7 - a Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivar (but a different cultivat to the one in #3), possibly 'Wisselii'
  • Conif.8 - pic 1 lower left and pic 2, Chamaecyparis pisifera 'Filifera Aurea', pic 1 top Tsuga heterophylla, pic 1 lower right Juniperus squamata 'Meyeri'
  • Eucalyptus - difficult; the very round juvenile leaves make me think Eucalyptus perriniana, but not certain on that. Can you get closer photos?
  • Ilex+Pinus mugo - as you suggest, probably a cultivar, but not sure which. And yes, Pinus mugo, again probably a garden cultivar.
  • J.c.+Picea pungens - "bad light stopped play" - can you get more (and closer, iChamaecyparis pisifera 'Filifera Aurea'f possible!) photos on a sunnier day?
  • Picea pungens - yes; clipped as a hedge
  • Pinus mugo - yes to both :-) - MPF (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hallo @MPF: , thanks for your last answer. And once more I have folders with some pictures. (I left the xxEucalyptus till there will be close-up's.) Best Regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again!!
  • Conif.1 - Chamaecyparis pisifera 'Filifera Aurea'
  • Conif.2 - Three plants here! At the centre, two trees very close together and intermingled, a Cupressus nootkatensis (drooping foliage, furthest left), and some other cypress (needs closer photos!); at the lower right, a clipped Thuja occidentalis hedge
  • Conif.3 - Abies nordmanniana
  • Picea abies - yes; a nice one (pic 1) and (pic 2) two brutally mistreated trees, on the left, Picea abies 'Anne Boleyn', and on the right, Picea abies 'Maximilien Robespierre' (names selected randomly from here) :-(
  • Eucalyptus - as above! - MPF (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MPF - famous names ;-), good choosed for the same sad fate :-(( And thanks again to you. Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 3

Hi Wilhelm - thanks for the email! Yes, Abies koreana for the new set of pics; the things you think might be galls are actually the bud scales left behind where male (pollen) cones had been produced (spring 2020 crop) and fallen, leaving just the 'empty' bud scales behind. - MPF (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 5

Hi Wilhelm - thanks for the email! Best to give me a ping here, that way the discussions all stay together :-) From set 5:

  • Conif.z1 - Abies koreana
  • Conif.z2 - Abies lasiocarpa, probably a selected cultivar from the very glaucous foliage
  • IMG_9355_what is right one.jpg - sorry, needs a close-up of the foliage!
  • Picea pungens (both) - yes, can confirm now both are indeed Picea pungens, despite the very wide branches of the left tree
  • Thuja occidentalis - yes, correct
  • Thuja x - a Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivar (note the globose cones, quite different to the cones in the Thuja above!)
  • Thuja y - I think another Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivar, but needs some close-up pics to be sure

Best wishes! - MPF (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 6

Hi @MPF: , hope all is well. Once more I have folders with some pictures, one subfolder with details to a photo of last set 5. Thank for your work and help. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - apologies, I've been forgetting to reply!
  • "Juniperus w" - a Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivar; most likely 'Ellwoodii'
  • "Juniperus x" - Juniperus × pfitzeriana
  • "Juniperus y" - Juniperus × pfitzeriana
  • "Juniperus z" - Juniperus communis
  • "Pinus mugo" - pic l, left, Pinus parviflora, right, Pinus mugo; pic 2, Pinus mugo

Again, sorry for the delay! - MPF (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing between us. Thanks, I've uploaded the pic.s with right descriptions and categorys. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Another theme

Hi @MPF: , please look at the pic.s 2 - 5 in this article - the pic.s 2 - 5 only. The article links to Category:Ingrown things in trees. I feel the need of another category beside that, covering the pic.s 2 - 5 of the cited article and all "growing to heal violatons" or "ingrowing own violated surface" of a tree. But my English is not good enough to find out a good name. I think, you can help me here, too. And if you know a correct upper category other than Category:Diseases and disorders of trunks and branches and Category:Machining defects in wood (or better: Category:Wood defects ?), please let it me know. Thanks for help, best regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm! Interesting query :-) I think the best would be to create Category:Wound occlusion in trees. But it can always be renamed if anyone thinks of anything better! - MPF (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I've done so. Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 7

Hi @MPF: , once more I have folders with some pictures. Thanks for your work and help. Best regards from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm! Here are my IDs:
  • Conif.y - Picea sp., most likely Picea abies, but too distant to see enough detail. Can you get a close-up of the cones please? Like this close, please :-)
  • Juniperus × pfitzeriana - yes, correct!
  • Juniperus z - A cultivar of Juniperus squamata, possibly 'Blue Carpet' (there are several other similar cultivars, but 'Blue Carpet' is probably the commonest).
  • Pinus mugo or parviflora - Pinus mugo
  • Pinus x - Pinus nigra
All the best! - MPF (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I've uploaded the pic.s with right descriptions and categorys. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 8

Hi @MPF: , once more I have folders with some pictures. May be, there is bad light in some cases, and I hope, that won't hurt. Thanks for your help. Best wishes and regards from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm! Here's my IDs:
  • Abies lasiocarpa - this is Abies concolor, likely a cultivar selected for strongly glaucous leaves. Abies lasiocarpa has shorter, much denser leaves and pubescent shoots (and is rare in cultivation)
  • Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - this is Sequoiadendron giganteum - note branchlets not in flat sprays
  • Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 2x + Thuja occ - left to right: Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Thuja occidentalis, another Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (this one a cultivar with erect branchlets and yellowish leaves), and a Taxus baccata 'Fastigiata'.
  • Juniperus communis - photos 1-3 yes (various cultivars with different shapes!); photos 4-5 (IMG_0449.JPG and IMG_0450.JPG) not sure, not enough detail visible.
  • Juniperus x - this is Juniperus horizontalis
  • Juniperus y - ditto
  • Picea pungens - yes; very unhealthy specimens!
  • Picea y - all Picea abies
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii - yes; the interior subspecies Pseudotsuga menziesii subsp. glauca
  • Thuja occidentalis - photos 1-4 are Platycladus orientalis (note more open shoot structure and stouter, more woody cone); photo 5 (IMG_0421) is two Thuja occidentalis either side of a Picea glauca 'Conica' (with some reversion to normal Picea glauca on the top!).

Best wishes - MPF (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! And, by the way, the last pic. (IMG_0421) had a little sensation for me: Picea glauca 'Conica' with cones on the top (at reversed twigs). Best regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 9

Hi @MPF: , hope all is well. Once more I have folders with some pictures, one with details of last open case Juniperus, may be a tall form of J. communis. There is another folder without further chance for close ups, I think. Thanks for your work and help. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - here you are!
  • Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - yes, except IMG_0659.jpg where I am not certain (it is a different tree to the others, and not enough detail visible even at full size!)
  • Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 2x + Thuja occ - same as before last week :-)
  • Juniperus communis - yes; a fastigiate cultivar
  • Juniperus x - also Juniperus communis, natural type (not fastigiate!)
  • Pinus strobus - this one is the related Pinus peuce (denser foliage, stouter cones)
  • to guess whats in the mid of pic.s:
    • IMG_0565.JPG - Pseudotsuga menziesii subsp. glauca left centre; Pinus ponderosa right centre
    • IMG_0566.JPG - Pseudotsuga menziesii (can't tell at this range whether subsp. menziesii or subsp. glauca)
    • IMG_0567_Picea abies.JPG - yes, Picea abies
Best wishes! - MPF (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I've uploaded the pic.s with right descriptions and categorys. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Conifers 10

Hi @MPF: , once more I have folders with some pictures. Best wishes and regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - here you are!
  • Abies koreana - yes
  • Pinus nigra - yes
  • Thuja occidentalis cv or what - Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; looks OK for natural form rather tan a named cultivar
  • to guess what is in the mid of pic.s -
    • IMG_0539.jpg - Abies koreana
    • IMG_0545.jpg - [Details pic.2]:
      • IMG_0886.JPG - Picea pungens
      • IMG_0887.JPG & IMG_0888.JPG - a Thuja occidentalis cultivar
      • IMG_0889.JPG - probably Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; hard to tell as foliage shape damaged by clipping
      • IMG_0890.JPG - Picea pungens
      • IMG_0891.JPG - Picea pungens
  • what's right and in the mid - Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; mid, natural; right, cultivar 'Ellwoodii'
  • whats that_1 - Cedrus deodara
  • whats that_2 - Cupressus × leylandii
  • whats that_3 - Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; a cultivar, probably either 'Ellwoodii' or 'Fletcheri'

Hope all's well! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

One week I was without Internet and phone, but all is well, now. Thanks for your answer, I could upload all pic.s with right descriptions an cat.s. Best wishes and regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Ch. lawsoniana ?

Hi @MPF: , hope all's well! Please look at

Its a natural monument and I felt a need to be sure. Best wishes and regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm - yes, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; a slightly odd cultivar, not sure which one (there's hundreds!), possibly 'Intertexta', but doesn't look quite right for that, so perhaps best added to Category:Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivars, but not a specific named cultivar. Hope all's well! - MPF (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, here all is well, too. And many thanks, I've just changed the categories of all files. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelm_Zimmerling_PAR/Archive/2021&oldid=825436778"