User talk:Neozoon

Please add comments below:

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, Neozoon!

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 06:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Image:Kirche St Joseph in Tutzing.JPG is uncategorized since 15 June 2009.
done Image:Apple - Carola.jpg was uncategorized on 11 October 2009.
done Image:Artenschutzzentrum Billmuthausen.jpg was uncategorized on 9 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Image:Klaus Angermann.jpg was uncategorized on 15 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC) --Neozoon (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Schwimmenden Strom-Boje.JPG was uncategorized on 30 December 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Strom-Boje auf dem Montageschiff Edith.JPG was uncategorized on 30 December 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinfest Umzug in BB Bildmontage.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Zugang vom Dorf verschlossen.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Zugang vom Dorf Tilos Verboten.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Blick durch den Zaun IV.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ölmühle in Haigerloch.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rosalie King Simpson photo.JPG was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Image:Rosalie King Simpson photo.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Neozoon (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weinmuseum Zufahrt und Weinberge II.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Blick durch den Zaun I.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum in Balatonboglár-Szölöskislak Haupttor.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Blick durch den Zaun II.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Zufahrt und Weinberge I.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Weinmuseum Blick durch den Zaun III.jpg was uncategorized on 1 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Heinz Schilcher.png was uncategorized on 2 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LUMBINI GARDEN (NEPAL).jpg was uncategorized on 2 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jürgen Hoops von Scheeßel Wikipedia.jpg was uncategorized on 4 February 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Friedrich Suchow Ehrenurkunde.jpeg was uncategorized on 9 February 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gong Titelbild Cover 01-1948.jpg was uncategorized on 6 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sebastian Lohse Foto by Michel Hinrichsen.jpg was uncategorized on 30 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Unbekannter Käfer für Auskunft-2.jpg was uncategorized on 4 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Unbekannter Käfer für Auskunft-1.jpg was uncategorized on 4 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Unbekannter Käfer für Auskunft-3.jpg was uncategorized on 4 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done --Neozoon (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:stamp of Laika[edit]

Hi Neozoon, the file that you uploaded is better than mine but it isn't a duplicate. In my opinion we only have to replace mine with yours in all Wikipedia pages where mine is used. Kind Regards, Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr application request[edit]

Hello Neozoon, and thank you for your application to be a flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. Congratulations! Please see Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already, and the backlogs at Category:Flickr images needing human review and Category:Flickr review needed. A helpful script for easy-tagging flickr images is at importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); (which you can add to your monobook.js), and you can add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your work on Commons! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Neozoon. You have new messages at Gikü's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

???[edit]

Hallo!

Was soll denn das bringen und vor allem wem? --High Contrast (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo High Contrast, habs gelöscht. Hatte mit der Namensauflösung für Bilder mit Leerzeichen experimentiert, wenn man diesen Text in eine Email packt. Verschicke Dankemails an die Leute die in Flickr ihre Bilder unter cc-lizens veröffnetlichen wenn ich die Bilder reviewt habe. Wollte das automatisieren, das funktioniert aber nicht wegen der Leerzeichen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Neozoon (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done perfekt. Bedenke aber, dass es für Ausprobiersachen den fabulösen Sandkasten COM:SAND gibt. --High Contrast (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr[edit]

Oh, I'm really sorry for making such a mistake. I remember I tried to look around for this photo but I couldn't find it I don't know why I didn't remove the reviewing tag. Thank you for noticing.--O sama K 07:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OsamaK,

Fine, it was just to inform you. I will follow up with the author of the picture and wi. ll request deletion if he does not approve per OTRS. --Neozoon (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted user[edit]

Thanks for the welcome. Appreciated. Ty 05:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scaned by Neozoon[edit]

Hallo, I think, the correct orthography is scanned. See. Please check it. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. Thank you. I will fix it. --Neozoon (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Neozoon (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dein Kommentar in der Löschdiskussion, scans von "Roland von Bagratuni"[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, ich habe Deinen Kommentar wieder kommentiert - war ein Missverständnis, kommt davon wenn man es nicht gleich verlinkt, es geht um die Userpage in den commons, siehe User:Roland von Bagratuni - die wurde gelöscht, auch wohl eher ungewöhnlich Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sand sculptures Thorn - Knight Tournament.JPG[edit]

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

--Sandstein (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done KEEP --Neozoon (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sand sculptures Thorn - Knight Tournament.JPG[edit]

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

--Sandstein (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done KEEP --Neozoon (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr review notice[edit]

Hello Neozoon. You are receiving this message because you have recently or regularly participate in Flickr review requests. A proposal to move Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers to Commons:License review/requests was made and no objections were raised and thus transferred. Please watchlist this new page for further requests. Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers will continue to display for a period of time but new requests will not be raised on your watchlist. Thank you, ZooFari 17:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. I will do so. --Neozoon (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Wasson-Bilder[edit]

Hi, es gibt wohl Probleme mit der OTRS-Bestätigung des von dir besorgten Bildes. Hast du OTRS-Zugang? Bitte setze dich schnell mit User:Wknight94 in Verbindung und kläre das direkt. Es wäre schade, wenn wir das Bild und die Derivate verlieren würden. Grüße --h-stt !? 11:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis, OTRS Zugriff habe ich leider nicht. Ich werde mich mit Wknight94 in Verbindung setzen. --Neozoon (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 0bf3eb7449d570dccbee5178c46c51e9[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Verwendung der Vorlage „Personality rights“ für das Foto „Dr. Klepsch und Dr. Rowley“[edit]

Vielen Dank für Deine Unterstützung bei der Freigabearchivierung im Wikimedia-OTRS-System. Beim Eintragen der zugehörigen Vorlage zum Foto "Dr. Klepsch und Dr. Rowley" hast Du den Textbaustein "Personality rights" gelöscht.

Ich habe diesen Baustein gemäß Commons Regeln verwendet. Sollte das falsch sein, bitte ich um kurze Erklärung und erneute Löschung des Bausteins.

nochmals vielen Dank für die tolle Unterstützung, Gruß --J. Lunau (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo J.Luna,

Ich hatte gesehen das die Genehmigung vorlag. Aber ist schon richtig den "Personality rights" zu haben ist bei dieser Art von Bildern nicht verkehrt. Wir vom Supportteam schauen hier halt nur auf Copyright / Urheberrecht. Mit lieben Grüßen --Neozoon (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Aronson image[edit]

Could you add the licence tag for File:Elliot_Aronson_1972.jpg as you have already done for File:Elliot_Aronson_2001.jpg ? Thanks in advance. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, (not sure why it was not there in the first place - thanks for reminding me) --Neozoon (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uruzgan FM - Hanneke Eilander.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have tagged [File:Uruzgan FM - Hanneke Eilander.jpg] with the OTRS received tag. The message states that the information that I have supplied is not sufficient to confirm permission. Can you please inform me what is missing or what the problems are ? Thanks in advance and best regards, Huhbakker (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=Bilder-Uploads[edit]

Hi Neozoon, danke fürs Hochladen der freien Bilder von Flickr. Ich hab grad die Uploads für B.B. King gecheckt. In Zukunft könntest du doch gleich das richtige Datum eintragen. lg Hekerui (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hekerui, danke fürs checken. Ich musste gestern nacht abbrechen. Nacharbeit stand noch auf der To-Do-Liste. Hast Du ja jetzt übernommen :-) Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe die Quelle für's Abdu'l-Bahá'Abbás-Bild gefunden[edit]

Siehe meine Antwort hier: User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Abdul_Baha_Abbas.jpg. Das Bild stammt von 1912 (nicht erst 1921, offensichtlich ein Zahlendreher). Es ist von A.C. Killius und wurde mit 1928 in The Bahá'í World, Volume II, April 1926 bis April 1928, publiziert (ich hab das Buch in meiner privaten Bibliothek gefunden - ein Reprint von 1980). Es ist durchaus möglich, dass es sogar früher schon anderswo erschien. Allerdings ist da nicht UK-Recht sonder US-Recht anwendbar. Ich hab keine Ahnung, wie das Gesetz in den USA lautet. Grundsätzlich wäre es aber sogar besser, wenn der Bahá'í Publishing Trust in Wilmette, Illinois, offiziell die Zustimmung gibt und das Bild gleich selber hochlädt (die besitzen nämlich offensichtlich das Negativ, d.h. die Qualität würde dadurch um Welten besser). Ich kann mich darum allerdings nicht kümmern, da mein Englisch ziemlich holperig ist und es in der Wiki sicher Leute gibt, die näher an Wilmette sitzen als ich. Gruss DidiWeidmann (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nach US copyright scheint, wenn ich das richtig kapiert habe, das Copyright erst 95 Jahre nach der ersten Publikation zu erlöschen. Das wäre somit 2023, wenn es nicht bereits eine frühere Publikation gab. Also bleibt wirklich nur der Weg über eine Anfrage in Wilmette.DidiWeidmann (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo DidiWeidmann,

super deine Suche und Analyse.

Die Situation ist damit jedoch aus meiner Sicht anders: Wenn das Bild 1928 mit Copyright Hinweis publiziert wurde, und das Copyright nicht offiziell registriert und verlängert wurde, ist es nun im public domain. Wenn das Bild 1928 ohne Copyright Hinweis publiziert wurde, dann ist es ohne diese Bedingung im Public domain.

Kannst Du das prüfen und mir mitteilen?

Die Regelung im Einzelnen findest Du hier:

(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#When_does_copyright_expire.3F)

United States:

Published works

In short: Copyright notices are not needed anymore.

Under the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic: no registration is needed, and it is not even necessary to display a copyright notice with the work for it to be copyright protected. Prior to the U.S. adopting the Berne Convention (by amending its copyright law through the Berne Convention Implementation Act, effective 1989-03-01), this was not the case in the United States. A work was only copyrighted if published with a copyright notice, which could be as simple as a line saying "© year copyright holder". For U.S. works there are therefore some special cases that place even works published after 1923 in the public domain. However, the necessary conditions are hard to verify.

   * Published in the U.S., without a copyright notice:
         o From 1923 to 1977: in the public domain
         o From 1978 to March 1, 1989: only in the public domain if not registered since.
   * Published in the U.S., with a copyright notice:
         o From 1923 to 1963: only in the public domain if copyright not renewed. This may be hard to determine, and if renewed, the protection runs until 95 years after the initial publication. See the external links below and Circular 22 of the U.S. Copyright Office for information on how to search the registry of the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright registrations and renewals.

Habe leider keinen Zugriff mehr auf das Bild, kannst Du prüfen ob es die colorierung von diesem Bild ist? http://en.bahaitext.org/File:SW_v3no14pg2.jpg

Groetjes und Danke Neozoon (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bild wurde 1928 jedoch explizit mit Copyright-Hinweis publiziert, daher wird es erst 2023 ins Public Domain übergehen, es sei denn, dies war nicht die erste Publikation, das weiss ich aber nicht. Von dem Werk erschienen auch immer wieder Reprints (immer erneut mit Copyright-Hinweis), zuletzt 1980, d.h. das Copyright wurde jeweils erneuert: Die Copyrights lagen beim damaligen Nationalen Geistigen Rat der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und Kanada. Rechtsnachfolger dieser Institution sind die beiden Nationalen Geistigen Räte der USA und Kanada, bzw. im vorliegenden der Bahá'í Publishing Trust in Wilmette. Es wäre übrigens nicht nur aus Gründen des Copyrights sinnvoll, sich wegen des Bildes an den Bahá'í Publishing Trust zu wenden, sondern auch deshalb, weil dieser das Negativ des Bildes besitzt (oder sogar noch ein besseres Bild als Alternative - bei dem damals hochgeladenen Expemplar handelt es sich ja um eine Scannkopie aus dem Buch, also keine optimale Qualität). Ich bin fast sicher, dass diese Institution gerne kooperieren wird und das Bild vielleicht sogar selbst hochlädt, wenn man sie darum bittet. Dann erübrigt sich die ganze Copyright-Diskussion. Anbei die Website des Bahá'í Publishing Trust DidiWeidmann (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da das Bild für mich nicht mehr zugänglich ist und ich es auch nicht anderen zeigen kann ist dies für mich hier erledigt. --Neozoon (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator[edit]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Neozoon! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons. Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Es gibt auch einen Channel für Commons-Admins, der für sensiblere Themen sowie zur Koordination unter Admins genutzt werden kann. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gut Geling und viel Spaß bei der Sache! :-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Kuchen und die guten Wünsche :-)

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC 2[edit]

5852f943c97e9293e69ad234facea75c

Robert Labs[edit]

Du hättest dir zuerst mal die Dateidiskussionsseite (wieso eigtl. nicht mitgelöscht??) sowie die Bildbeschreibungsseite mit Kommentaren u.a. von RalfR ansehen sollen, bevor zu löschen. Robert Labs hatte öffentlich aufgetreten und muss somit auch mit seinen Bildern im Internet leben. Bitte wiederherstellen. - A.S. 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo A. Savin,

Ich habe die Diskussionseite gelesen, aber Du hast Recht ich habe sie noch nicht gelöscht.

Ich verweise auf https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Aufnahmen_mit_Personen

Dort steht: Aufnahmen mit Personen Erlaubte Aufnahme einer absoluten Person der Zeitgeschichte.

Stellt eine Aufnahme eine oder mehrere Personen dar, kann die Veröffentlichung durch Persönlichkeitsrechte der Abgebildeten eingeschränkt werden. Jeder Mensch darf grundsätzlich selbst darüber bestimmen, ob überhaupt und in welchem Kontext Bilder von ihm veröffentlicht werden (siehe ausführlich Recht am eigenen Bild). Sofern der Abgebildete keine Erlaubnis für diese Veröffentlichung gewährt hat, ist das Hochladen generell nicht erlaubt.

Eine Einwilligung des Abgebildeten liegt nicht vor, und die weiter unten aufgeführten Ausnahemtatbestände greifen für einen Comiczeichner nicht. Wie in der Diskussion angeregt hat der Abgebildete zugesagt ein anderes Bild für den Artikel zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solange das versprochene andere Bild nicht im Artikel ist (ich gehe übrigens davon aus, dass dieses Versprechen entweder gar nicht eingelöst wird, oder es wird ein Foto eingestellt, auf dem das Gesicht kaum zu erkennen ist - hatten wir im Artikel früher mal schon), kommt eine Löschung schon mal nicht in Frage, denn es gilt immer noch § 23 Abs. 1 S. 3 KunstUrhG). Eine Löschung von gegen das Gesetz nicht verstoßenden Personenbildern auf OTRS-Anfrage hin kann hier wenn überhaupt nur aus Kulanz erfolgen, und ich sehe keinen Grund, dies einer Person einzuräumen, die wohl generell ein Problem mit der Wikipedia zu haben scheint. Und das mit der nicht mitgelöschten Bilddiskussion, das hat eigentlich nichts mit meiner Anfrage zu tun, zeigt allerdings, dass du mit deinen Knöppen äußerst unprofessionell umgehst. A.S. 13:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo A.Savin,

Ich bin da nicht deiner Meinung. Wir müssen nicht ein für die Person ungünstiges Foto im Artikel halten, weil dies besser als keines ist.

Zudem gibt es bei dem von Dir zitierten Gesetzestext auch den Absatz 2 zu beachten:

"(2) Die Befugnis erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten oder, falls dieser verstorben ist, seiner Angehörigen verletzt wird."

Die Verbreitung eines unvorteilhaftes Bild auf einer solch prominenten Seite wie Wikipedia ist ein "berechtigtes Interesse" einer jeden Person.

Ich nehme Deine Anmerkung jedoch seriös und habe einige OTRS Kollegen um ihre Einschätzung gebeten. Diese unterstützen die getroffene Entscheidung.

Da Du ja ein sehr erfahrener und professioneller Wikipedia Kollege bist, weisst Du ja bestimmt was zu tun ist, falls Du möchtest das meine Entscheidung rückgängig gemacht wird.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Neozoon (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Labs ist doch bestenfalls ein C- bis D-Prominenter, er selbst hat keine Bilder bei seinem Verlag veröffentlicht, betreibt also nicht die Darstellung seiner Person. Das ist offensichtlich erkennbar. Bei dieser Kategorie von Promis müssen wir schon respektieren, wenn er nicht abgebildet werden will. Dem Artikelinhalt schadet das auch nicht. cu --ST ○ 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aus meiner Sicht erledigt --Neozoon (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Flickr ElenaJimenez.jpg[edit]

Hello, Neozoon, http://www.flickr.com/photos/elenapjimenez/5543847970/ es common no comercial, no copyright.

Hello Sorayaes, thanks for your message. The new license at flickr "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) " is still not good enough for upload in Wikipedia commons.

See details on the page:

unfree licenses

Pictures that exclude commercial usage can not be used.

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gul Mudin.jpg[edit]

Hi,
I've started a DR for File:Gul Mudin.jpg since a user at enwp, who does a lot of image copyright work, posted some quotes stating that 'the use of Government time, material, or facilities would not, of itself, determine whether something is a "work of the United States Government,"' which considerably strengthens the argument for deletion. Just letting you know since you declined speedy deletion.
Grüße, Amalthea (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Bird pictures[edit]

Hi, I didnt noticed this pictures was made for deletion, so thanks for messaging me. Marek Szczepanek grants all the rights to publish these photos under the license as it is marked on the photos (usually GFDL). I published most of them few years ago. However he recently offered some more photos asking if we could add a note and in case someone wants to get high-resolution pictures for publishing or printing, he can contact him to get the terms - I guess he might want to sell them in that case. I dont think that violates the license, as the media which got uploaded in that resolution are licensed under GFDL - am I right or wrong here? Regards Piotr Kuczyński (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Piotr, thanks for the clarification.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posta romana[edit]

Thanks for the explanation. :) --PequoD76^(talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome --Neozoon (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:YANMAR Ke-3 front view.JPG[edit]

Hallo!

Du hast als Quelle des obigen Bildes "provided by autor" angegeben. Weiß der Fotograf, dass du dieses Bild hier unter einer freien Lizenz hochlädst? Wenn du das Bild gemacht hast, solltest du {{Own}} verwenden, dann ist eindeutig angegeben, dass du der Urheber, der die Lizenz bestimmen kann, unter der das Bild veröffentlicht werden kann. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo High Contrast, danke für den Hinweis (Du bist schnell :-)

Die Bilder habe ich selbst gemacht und ich habe sie hochgeladen für Testzwecke eines neuen OTRS skripts. War noch nicht ganz fertig weil ich einem user geholfen habe. Werde die Bilder noch als Test markieren und die OTRS Testticketnummer dran pappen.

Danke für Dein scharfes Auge Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Das wusste ich nicht. Sorry, fürs Dazwischenfunken und Zeitvergeuden :) Bis demnächst. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aufmerksame Beobachter sind immer willkommen :-)

--Neozoon (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS not validated[edit]

Can you check File:Map Serra del Montsià.gif? As far I understood it seems the permission is not valid. --V.Riullop (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vriullop, thanks for asking. You are right, the permission provided was not enough. So I requested a proper permission for CC-BY-SA. I copied the provided permission text to the discussion page, changed the OTRS label to the official pending and emailed the user a reminder.

I think if after one week there is no reaction, the map can be marked for removal.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UR-Pehlemann-Foto[edit]

Hallo Neozoon,
ich finde es sehr bedauerlich, dass du den thread auf http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2011-May/006148.html, den ich mir nach der Erwähnung in deiner decision herausgesucht habe, nicht wenigstens den Diskutanten auf der UR-Pehlemann-Foto zu Beginn kundgetan hast, so dass Martina, ich und ggf. Clindberg hätten mitdiskutieren können. Schließlich dürfte dieser Fall, von denen, die die ursprüngliche Löschung erwirkt haben, als Pilotentscheidung für die Löschung von weiteren geschätzten 36.000 Bildern auf Commons benutzt werden. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Turelio, danke für Deine Nachricht. Ich verstehe Deinen Einwand aber nicht ganz. Genau dies habe ich doch getan indem ich

auf der Seite der Undeleition discussion [1] bekanntgab:

"I asked for feedback about this special case on info@creativecommons.org and the creative commons mailinglist cc-community@lists.ibiblio.org and will come back with their feedback on this topic. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)"

Somit habe ich doch öffentlich kundgetan, dass ich die Frage dort gestellt habe. Was hätte ich noch mehr tun sollen? Die Löschprüfung basiert zu 99% auf den Argumente der geführten Diskussionen auf den Wikipedia Seiten in de und commons. Die zitierten Meinungen von creativecommons.org und der Mailingliste sind als unabhängige, zusätzliche Standpunkte interessant und zeigen, das ich mich mit der Materie beschäftigt habe.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dann habe ich (und die anderen vermutlich auch) diesen Hinweis wohl einfach übersehen. Dass du dort nachgefragt hast, ist völlig o.k. Ich habe ja auch versucht, den Legal counsel der WMF ins Boot zu holen. Allerdings hat er sich ziemlich zurückgehalten. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

handled undel request[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, besten Dank für deine Auswertung und Wiederherstellung. Kannst du bitte auch File_talk:Coital_Play.png wiederherstellen und evtl. den letzten DR sowie den UDR vermerken? (kann ich dann natürlich auch machen). Danke sehr. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wurde zwischenzeitlich von jemand anderem bemerkt. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hatte ich tatsächlich übersehen, danke für den Hinweis.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:278th_MP_Company's_new_ASVs.jpg[edit]

DoD photos cannot be claimed under copyright. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states that it was taken by "Sgt. 1st Class Roy Henry, Public Affairs Office, Georgia Department of Defense" and it is on Georgia Army National Guard's photostream. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcus,

beeing in the photostream of an public institution does not mean that the picture itself is free. It can be a picture taken by a photographer with regular copyrights terms. But I found http://gadod.net/index.php/component/content/article/42-rokstories/261 and restored the image.

Best regards & Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, all pictures crediting a U.S. Military servicemember are Public Domain. It is impossible for a servicemember to claim copyright of an image taken during the course of the person's official duties. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-2 Spirit supporting operation Odyssey Dawn.jpg. Ask User:High Contrast if you are doubtful. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torso of Pedubast I by Michael Martin.jpg[edit]

You don't understand. I just uploaded the image today in Canada....which would be yesterday if you live in Europe. I sent in the permission message to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' later but so far no one at OTRS has checked for it. I believe I sent the message at 20:10 or 20:11 on May 21, 2011 for the Pedubast I image but no one has checked for it yet or archived the permission in an OTRS ticket. So there is currently no OTRS ticket in existence. I asked Admin MGA73 if he can help here but he is probably sleeping right now in Denmark.

You could check for the message as an OTRS volunteer? Just a suggestion. The flickrowner has told me in another flickrmail he is willing to allow more images to be used on wikipedia if I want but all I need is this one. I have asked Admin MGA73 to search for the permission tomorrow as he is also an OTRS volunteer and a good contact of mine. But if he cannot locate it at 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org', can I E-mail the permission to the E-mail address you list on your userpage.? Its in the form of a flickrmail correspondence by the flickr owner to me and a previous one by me to him. The permission says he licenses the picture on the flickrlink on a 'cc by generic' license and that it is copyright free. Do you have a reply to my idea here?

PS: I did not upload this image without Mr. Martin's (the flickr owner) permission. It is in the permission statement. And he expects it to be used within 1 day for Pedubast I's wiki article as I promised him. But I never use unapproved images. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Loeboudv, thanks for the explanation. Dont' worry, if the permission arrives the picture will be tagged accordingly. If you have a ticketnumber I can check it myself as OTRS member.

Best regards --Neozoon (talk)

Comment: Thank You. Admin MGA73 has found the permission message and now archived it in a OTRS ticket for this image. I then received an E-mail saying that this had been done for this picture and that the permission was valid and clear. MGA73 also had some suggestions--to make a refernce to the license type--which was very nice of him. Best wishes from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leoboudv Thank you for the feedback. Groetjes -- Neozoon (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting[edit]

The user "Hold and wave", continues to remove unjustifiably other users' messages from its user talk. 79.36.143.69 17:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous, I will keep an eye on it. --Neozoon (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing / What to do?[edit]

Hallo,

eventuell ist es dir ja auch schon aufgefallen, wenn nicht: Special:Search/www.maps-for-free.com. Da sind die interessantesten Lizenzkreationen zu sehen und niemand hat's jemals reviewed. Frage: Was machen wir da? (zumal ich keine Ahnung habe, ob nun CC-By-SA (denn die anderen fordern ja kein Copyleft) zu GFDL kompatibel sind. Reicht ein Link zur Website als Autorennennung? Hast Du einen konstruktiven Vorschlag? Schönes Wochenende. -- RE rillke questions? 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe gerade ein Ticket gefunden: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010112710015528

Was sagt das aus? Kann man das an alle maps-for-free Dateien rankleben? -- RE rillke questions? 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Und noch etwas: Category:Maps-for-free images -- RE rillke questions? 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation?[edit]

Hi, I was looking for someone to do a quick translation (to English) for me, I think I get the gist of this paragraph, but then it is often easy to mis-interrpret things when reading automatic translations (eg google). Please tell me if you are too busy or would prefer not to. But if you are willing, here is the paragraph.

zu Frage 3: Ändert sich etwas, wenn er sich zu der Aufnahme des Fotos in das Büro eines Kollegen in dem gegenüberliegenden Gebäude begibt?

Ja! Es stellt sich nämlich die Frage, ob sich der zu fotografierende Bereich des Gebäudes dann noch "an" den in der Vorschriften genannten Orten (Wege, Straßen, Plätze) befindet. "An" diesen Orten gelegen ist alles, was von einem der Allgemeinheit frei zugänglichen Ort ohne besondere Hilfsmittel wie etwa ein Fernglas wahrgenommen werden kann. Unerheblich ist dabei, ob sich das zu fotografierende Gebäude auf einem der Öffentlichkeit nicht zugänglichen Grundstück befindet.

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neozoon Online Translation services offers the following possible translation :-)

about question 3: Does anything change, if he moves into the office of a colleague for taking the pictures whioh is in the building at the opposite side?

Yes! because it raises the question, if the area of the picture of the building is in this case still "next to" the places that are mentioned (lanes, roads, (public)places) in the rules. "Next to" this places is everything, that can be reached by the public without restrictions and can be seen without special equipment (like binoculars /lelescope). Therefor it is not important if the building on the picture itself is on public reachable or restricted area.

I hope this translation is useful for you, if you have questions just shout

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that :-) I'm not sure if it clarifies it though, I think I will have to go back to the source and look at the context again. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weinmuseum Zugang vom Dorf verschlossen.jpg[edit]

Du hast diverse Bilder von einem ungarischen (?) Weinmuseum hochgeladen, darunter auch "Blick durch den Zaun" etc. Kannst Du bitte Kategorien hinzufügen? Ehrlich gesagt bezweifle ich auch ein wenig, ob der Wald neben dem Weinmuseum wirklich so relevant und nützlich ist - das ist ein Beispiel. Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Cholo, die Bilder habe ich im Rahmen meiner Tätigkeit für das Supportteam als Photosubmission für einen anderen User hochgeladen. Die Relevanz und die Kategorien der Bilder habe ich dabei nicht überprüft.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:LoliWikipetan.jpg[edit]

I find the conclusion of the undeletion request disturbing at best. It was closed far too quickly without giving people like me adequate time to argue. Commons is an image repository and votes seem to be focusing on worth of the images for wikipedia only. I'd like to request reopening of the discussion. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please contact the closing editor, Neozoon.

The Wikipetan is strongly tied to Wikimedia projects, and especially Wikipedia as an unofficial mascotte some users have adopted. If you read the debate, you'll see arguments isn't than such image isn't worth for Wikipedia, but than the association between Wikipedia and what they consider to be pedophilia: some users doesn't see any sexual content in the picture (there is no nudity, this is a young woman from unknown age, or of 18-20yo), but other users see the character as minor (which one,: the original wikipetan? the picture? both?), and in a fear position, as if raped. --Dereckson (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy this tread to that persons talk page as well to keep it intact. I think PR of wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. Certainly rape is a terrible thing, but said image could be a free example of "rape art" (people have weird fetishes I know) and shouldn't be deleted. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello White Cat,

I can not see that the conclusion is disturbing. The time for discussion was adequate, there were many participants at the debate and the arguments pro and con where clearly presented. The project scope of commons is described as follows:

"Aim of Wikimedia Commons

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content..."

In the case of this picture (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:LoliWikipetan.jpg) most authors could not see the educational content since it is a mixture of some kind of sexuality and wikipedia. As you wrote in your statement above, you suggest to use the picture as example of rape, stating that the picture is an example for violence and sexuality. Most user did not see the nessecity to have this picture on commons, and it is available at encyclopediadramatica.ch for uses outside of wikimedia projects. From this perspective, I do not see the need to reopen the discussion.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abi[edit]

Hello Neozoon, I removed your vote here because the request was already closed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Darwin, thanks for the info, but I am a bit confused, when I started editing the page, the vote was not closed, and it (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29) states :"Scheduled to end: 21:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)" Was it closed ahead of time?

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Abigor resigned on meta, that's why it was closed so quickly (and thankfully so).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonshark[edit]

Hi, I had a look at File:Lemonshark.jpg and File:Lemonshark no watermark.jpg before deleting. The watermark free version was uploaded to .. no watermark.jpg, then uploaded over the original. This means that File:Lemonshark.jpg displays the watermark-free image, making the other file redundant. I can restore it if it makes any easier - but it seems silly to keep the longer file name.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry but if I look at File:Lemonshark.jpg it gives me the watermark version, so I do not understand this action.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a system problem with thumbnail generation at the moment - the watermark-free version has been uploaded over the other version, but it may not display correctly. If you are set up to see 800x600 images, you get http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Lemonshark.jpg/800px-Lemonshark.jpg - this hasn't refreshed. However if you check a slightly different version, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Lemonshark.jpg/798px-Lemonshark.jpg you can see the watermark is gone.

Best thing to do is to wait for the current technical problem to resolve itself..--Nilfanion (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am completely lost. I found the file File:Lemonshark_(2).jpg and do not understand the technical issue. I ignore this images. --Neozoon (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centerplex Logo Box.jpg[edit]

File:Centerplex Logo Box.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.)

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

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

83.132.92.200 17:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anonymous, I do not think that the file is protected by copyright, since it is a simple textlogo. Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC 3[edit]

802c9a577a2962d4df4f3df97deeada5

TUSC token 802c9a577a2962d4df4f3df97deeada5[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! TUSC 4 --Neozoon (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cogdog-1635297552.jpg‎[edit]

Hi there. I see the Flickr user changed the license on the image from "All Rights Reserved" to CC-BY-NC-SA. Was that a result of your discussion? If so, he seems not to understand that we want free works. If you have e-mail evidence from him that it was under CC-BY, can you send it to OTRS just to be sure? Dominic (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dominic, the file is fine. I did not ask for a change of license, just if the license has been changed from cc-by to all rights reserved. The user confirmed that. The File has the positive Flickr-review status, which is set if the picture is a the time of review under a free license. We do this Flickr review exactly for this kind of situations, where a Flickr user changes his license at a later stage, so that we do not have to check license status of Fliokr images after upload. This was a special case, because the commons image is a derivative work of another Flickr image. I just double checked to be sure.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lacrimosa-Anne Nurmi.jpg[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, was genau meinst du mit diesem Kommentar "author contacted by email via OTRS ticket 2011100610021711 to check status"? Hat der wirkliche Urheber bei OTRS um Löschung gebeten oder hast du/jemand den wirklichen Urheber oder den Uploader um Klärung gebeten? --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Turelio,

ich habe gesehen wo das Bild herkommt (http://www.angst-im-wald.com/media/lacrimosa/sehnsucht) und habe den Besitzer der Webseite (Author) gefragt ob, das Bild zurecht unter CC veröffentlicht werden durfte.

Habe gerade die Antwort erhalten (Nein) und werde die entsprechenden Bilder des Uploaders entfernen. (Danke für die Nachfrage, immer gut zu sehen, dass es viele Augen gibt die aufpassen was hier so geschieht :-)

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding CC-BY-SA 3.0[edit]

I have some questions about the use of CC-BY-SA 3.0 license in a website (a public forum) in order to publish some of it's content into Wikipedia:

Is it possible to apply this license to content from a specific date so that all content published before this won't be included with it? (ex: I only want content from 2011 to be included in this license and the rest to stay reserved) How to do so?
Is it possible to change the license later after applying it? (either to restrict copyrights or to increase them) and if copyrights are restricted, does this mean that the work published would be considered as copyright violation?
Is it possible to only include some parts of the website under this license and keep the rest of it as it is? How to so do?
What if someone changed some of the content which he/she copied from the website, is that considered to be a copyright violation?
If the forum (website) is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, does this mean that all pictures which their owners (the original photographer) decide to publish them are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well?

Thanks for your help. Bahraini Activist (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lsecaold.JPG is PD-ineligible[edit]

Hai, ich glaube, ich habe nicht was nicht verstanden. Die Datei ist exakt identisch (Breite, Höhe, Inhalt), und das Original ein paar Jahre alt, also definitiv geklaut. Wieso ist nun PD-ineligible, und ein einfach Logo nicht? Danke im Voraus für die Nachhilfe... Gruß --Pitlane02 _talk 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aus meiner Sicht hat ein einfacher Kreis mit einem Wort nicht genügend "Schöpfungshöhe" um ein Copyright geschütztes Werk zu sein.

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für dein Feedback, Gruß --Pitlane02 _talk 22:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aber immer gerne Neozoon (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor - Hilfe[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, kannst Du mir als Mentor helfen? Ich bin ganz neu hier und verstehe nicht, wie ich meine Bilder in Kategorien einbetten kann. Ich dachte, das würde automatisch sein :) Naja...ich würde mich freuen, wenn Du mir helfen würdest.

Vielen Dank, Adger

Ich ziehe meine Frage zurück. Habe es doch schon verstanden. Danke!

Adger

Hallo Adger, Du kannst Dich gerne mit Fragen an mich wenden, werde versuchen die zu beantworten (auch Review von Aktionen à la "ist das richtig so" ist möglich)

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Production drawing.png[edit]

Have you read through w:Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#Images_of_copyvio_concern.3F and w:Wikipedia_talk:India_Education_Program#Multiple_copyright_violations and related posts on those pages. Or w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-07/Interview? Many claims of "own work" have proven to be fraudulent. Given this context and without further comment from the uploader, assuming this image is indeed own work as opposed to a copyright violation seems highly irresponsible to me. —Ruud 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ruud,

thanks for your message. After reading a bit more about the background of this upload I agree with you that the ownership should be proven before we use this image. I changed the decision and deleted the image and left a message about this on the talk page of the uploader.

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hannah Montana Logo DC.PNG[edit]

Hello Neozoon

I think that the logo of Hannah Montana TV show is copyrighted. It's a fair use image on wikipedia (see here). And I don't see any other version of this logo available here except this one. I have also filed a DR if a discussion is need. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Morning Sunshine,

I see that you nominated the file for [ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hannah_Montana_Logo_DC.PNG ] deletion. I think that is a good way to solve this question.

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hi Neozoon, Could you please answer my request on adminstrators' noticeboard? I have already asked two Iranian administrators on their talk page but unfortunately it didn't work (one of them refused and the other one didn't respond). Thanks AMERICOPHILE 06:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention, it was fixed before I could start the action :-)

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I was not talking about that spelling error. I was talking about the above one (about making me exempted of IP block). AMERICOPHILE 07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not see that. I am not good at IP stuff and do not touch this topic, so I can not help you with that. Neozoon (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Do know who can help me? I'm not very familiar to Commons user. I just had a look at recent changes and I came across you. AMERICOPHILE 07:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the people that can help you will see your request, some patience needed :-) Neozoon (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for the note on my work here. May I also wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year for 2012 too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think the 6 picasa 'Marmota' images here which are licensed as 'cc by sa 3.0 generic' on picasa can be passed but since the OTRS permission has not been verified, I don't know if an Admin/trusted user is supposed to still wait? If you think they should be passed, please pass them now...if you wish. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leoboudv,

I waited long enough, the Picasa review folders above are empty now, I think someone else took care of the files already.

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its OK. I guess since they are licensed correctly that they can be passed no matter if they have been OTRS'ed or not. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks for your kind greetings, Neozoon, also my best wishes to you for a peaceful and “productive” new year! --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrong otrs tag at File:Bücherturm.jpg[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, just for info: File:Bücherturm.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saibo, if I see this correct, I did put the OTRS label on the wrong picture. Thanks for the remark.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined copyright violation[edit]

Hi, Neozoon. I am unclear here. You declined to delete File:Muhammed Rafy K S.jpg with the comment "link to image on the internet was put there after upload to commons." However, the file was uploaded to Commons on January 26, 2012 while the internet link shows a posting date of December 28, 2011. What am I missing here? CactusWriter (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter, you are right, I confused the upload date with the creation date

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- an understandable mistake. But... the file remains a copyright violation. CactusWriter (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow up, i emailed the uploader --Neozoon (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfCU[edit]

Thank you for your support and kind words. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tutzing[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, Dein Bild File:Kirche St Joseph in Tutzing.JPG zeigt nicht die Pfarrkirche St. Joseph mit zwei Türmen, sondern die Kirche St. Peter und Paul im Alten Friedhof an der Graf-Vieregg-Str. (hinter dem Schlosspark) in Tutzing (NS=47.90782|EW=11.281672). St. Joseph ist auf dem Bild File:Tutzing01.jpg zu sehen. Deine Koordinaten sind aus dem Kustermannpark ein ganzes Stück weiter den See entlang. Weil ich schon dabei bin: Die Gemeinde Tutzing mit nicht einmal 10.000 Einwohnern ist keine Stadt und auf Englisch ist das the German (mit G) municipality (mit m) Tutzing (ohne en). Grüße --AHert (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo AHert,

danke für den Hinweis, ich habe es nachgeschaut, Du hast recht. Kannst Du die Infos im Bild entsprechend korrigieren?

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAS museum[edit]

Hello Neozoon, I have a question about two pictures that I uploaded in 2010 (File:MAS-juni2010-2.jpg and File:MAS-juni2010.jpg). At the time I was unaware about the existence of Commons:Freedom of panorama and only now I figured out that in 2011 there where some articles in the Belgian press claiming that the architect claims the rights on all commercially released pictures. Because Belgium has no Freedom of panorama, I guess the pictures have to be deleted. But in the history you say that you made a OTRS Ticket. What came out of that ? Did they gave permission for the pictures on Wikimedia ? If not, both pictures should be deleted. Thanks in advance, Ziyalistix (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ziyalistix, thanks for asking. In ticket 2011120810022356 I requested the permission to use the pictures under free license from the architects. They declined this for both pictures and offered pictures for use in Wikipedia. Since the pictures that were offered under CC BY-NC-ND License (which is good but not usable within commons) I had to decline the use of their images. In the meantime a user removed the deletion mark on both pictures with the (wrong) remark that they OK because of Freedom of Panorama in the netherlands. Since the pictures are from Belgium I will delete them now.

Best regards and groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bedankt en groeten, Ziyalistix (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with licensing[edit]

Hi, [this] has been nominated for deletion. Tell me how and why LAMBORGHINI will give you OTRS permission for using. Despite being the uploader(one who have captured it )Majorcaptain (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Majorcaptain, I am sorry but I do not understand your question. "Tell me how and why LAMBORGHINI will give you OTRS permission for using "

I did not deal with that image. So what do you want me to do?

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block MrsMyer / MrsMyerDE[edit]

Could you please explain where you see abuse on the Commons? I don't get it. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matthiasb, after the block of MrsMyer by Dennis, the account of MrsMyerDE has been blocked.

The talkpage of user:MrsMyerDE has a direct link to the german page [[2]], where the account has been blocked for massive damage with (mis-)use of socketpupets. (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer:MrsMyer)

According to the massive misuse of an zoo of socketpuppets (checkuser found 16 active socketpuppets of the user). The user used several of this accounts also at commons, these accounts have been blocked (by different commons admins) also (not complete list of blocked socks on commons):

I hope this answers your question.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. None of those edits was abusive. There's no Commons policy prohibiting to maintain more than one account. See also related discussion at w:de:WP:CU/A#Hauptkonto auf Commons. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS-ticket 201111291003102[edit]

Hallo Neozoon, nachdem ich in den EXIF-Daten u.a. zu File:Jonathan Meese and Oda Jaune.jpeg "2008 Oliver Mark / Agentur Focus. Mindesthonorar Euro 500,00" gelesen habe, konnte ich nicht umhin nachzufragen, ist das oben verlinkte OTRS-Ticket zu den Uploads von User:Chalonerwoods absolut niet- und nagelfest? Was mich zusätzlich stutzig macht, ist dass ein professioneller Fotograf, Oliver Mark, nicht darauf besteht dass sein Name als Urheber erscheint, sondern statt dessen "Chalonerwoods". --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Turelio, thanks for asking, the permission for the pictures is clear and ok. --Neozoon (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2012081910002158[edit]

Bow sticker!

Thanks--VYGOcommons (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing tickets[edit]

Please remember to close tickets in the queue after handling them, such as #2012081910002158. Otherwise, other agents have to use use their time to figure out that the case has already been handled. Thank you! Asav (OTRS) | Talk 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asav, thanks for the message, something went wrong with this. I am sure I typed the answer, perhabs it was not send out. I would have found out since I check all open tickets that are assigned to me regularly.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI BREAK[edit]

I am taking a WIKI - BREAK and will not respond to requests Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Manfred Schnelldorfer.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Manfred Schnelldorfer.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

—An gr 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Tag added, had not been attached to the picture by mistake

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

File:Hugenottenkolonie Daubhausen.JPG[edit]

You added an OTRS tag but there's no license for the image, please check. --Denniss (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Denniss, danke für den Hinweis, fixed --Neozoon (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Ticket 2013011810013275[edit]

I emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 18th January, sending a permission for the publication of some pictures of cars, and I replied to a remark on 2nd February. After 15 days I still didn't get any answer. I see you're an OTRS volunteer, can you check if it's all right? Thanks in advance! --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your anser did not contain the ticketnumber, so a new ticketnumber (T:2013020310001732) had been created. I linked both tickets together and reopened the original one (2013011810013275). I think it will be processed with that information in place.

Thanks for your message Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:"The Promised Land".jpg etc.[edit]

Hallo, gut dass du gerade bei mir vorbeigeschaut hast. Habt ihr von EHammid kürzlich eine OTRS-Nachricht bekommen? Es sind nämlich einige Bilder in Category:Lette Valeska aufgetaucht, deren Lizensierung etwas zweifelhaft ist. Ich hatte sie erst zur Schnellöschung angemeldet, aber Kevin Gorman hat die Tags entfernt, mit dem Verweis dass EHammid die intellektuellen Rechte an den Gemälden hätte. Dafür gibts aber, soweit ich sehen kann, noch keinen Beweis. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hat sich wohl jetzt erledigt, da die Dateien mit "OTRS pending" markiert worden sind. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a heads-up[edit]

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avocato Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ein fröhliches Weihnachtsfest[edit]

und das Beste für das neue Jahr 2014. Ich hoffe, Du erreichst Deine Ziele auf sicherem Wege. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Lies Olaf (2012).jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Lies Olaf (2012).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

M. Krafft (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the OTRS ticketnumber when I uploaded the picture. fixed that, thanks for contacting me on my user page. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (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!

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

File:Dr Gabriele Pauli.jpg[edit]

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

ireas (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Missing U Invisible Barnstar[edit]

		Boooo !!!! We miss you!! We wish you were more active, please log in soon and help us with the backlog!!

--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December[edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 06:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Help center[reply]

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December[edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.