Jean11

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} .

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mustafa Erkan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. The other two pictures have a problem with the glasses. It's difficult to avoid reflections, but that can be improved. --Kadellar 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gero Clemens Hocker.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Tuxyso 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karsten Heineking.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 18:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Klaus Krumfuß.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sebastian Lechner.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support very good --A.Savin 16:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gabriele Heinen-Kljajic by Jean11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice. --Mattbuck 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angelika Jahns.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments But be careful with reflections on glasses! --Kadellar 18:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Projekt Heißluftballon - Highflyer -IMG-1418.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Projekt Heißluftballon - Highflyer -IMG-1425.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok.-ArildV 07:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Projekt Heißluftballon - Highflyer -IMG-1427.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg-Herzberg-Festival - Marshall Cooper.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Einwandfrei --Smial 11:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manuel Hilleke aka Cooper by Marshall Cooper.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manuela Schwesig.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good --AngMoKio 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) thank you --Jean11 20:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karsten Heineking 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, though the reflections of the flash is not perfectly controlled. Also a portrait photographer or his assistant should have a look at the arrangement of the tie ;-) --Smial 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manuela Schwesig 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A little bit too much softener for my taste and could be slightly tighter cropped at the top but can still pass as QI. --Cccefalon 06:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)  Done I've uploaded a slightly tighter crop. Better? IMHO photos of females should not be that sharp on skin level as of males (normal to make that difference in post processing). But I also guess that Frau Schwesig has a quite professional make-up. --Tuxyso 06:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC) @Jean11: I've had chosen this one..., a pity she is SPD and not CDU...--Jebulon 16:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Christian Calderone 9a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 01:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 13-4-17- Udo Paschedag by Jean11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norbert Böhlke 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BBK Mobil Oil Hamburg - Hühnerposten 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Auto terminal in hamburg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Bad scope. The scope must refer to a category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment scope corrected. --Jean11 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Göttinger Symphonie Orchester 2013.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Viewing the change of scope, it is good to link to the category. By adding the year you can redo this picture next year (as in team sports).
•  Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support too, because GFH is my favourite composer ! Ha le lu jah ! (Best in scope, anyway)--Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Manuela Schwesig.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Agree, this one is better. Halavar (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Better of the two. Lymantria (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Manuela Schwesig 2.jpg: +2
2. Manuela Schwesig.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <--
=>
File:Manuela Schwesig 2.jpg: Promoted.
File:Manuela Schwesig.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--

--Halavar (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Patroller!

---

Counter Vandalism Unit

Hi Jean11,

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.

We could use your help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by patrolling an Anonymous-edits checklist and checking a day-part.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage or ask for help on IRC in #wikimedia-commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Steinsplitter, danke :) Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Han(n)over

Ich bitte aufzuhören großflächig Kategorien ohne Konsens zu verschieben. --A.Savin 14:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Es wurde hier entschieden. --Jean11 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In der Tat. Ich bitte um Entschuldigung. Auch wenn ich das nicht nachvollziehen kann (müsste nicht dann folgerichtig alles Munich->München, Cologne->Köln etc. geschoben werden); aber fühle mich für den deutschen Kategorienkram nicht zuständig. --A.Savin 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dies war nur eine Diskussion und Entscheidung im Fall Han(n)over. Bei Diskussionsbedarf sollte so eine Kategorie Diskussion gestartet werden. --Jean11 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ja, ne. Das ist kein Freifahrtschein. In Kategorien die in englischer Sprache geführt werden müß natürlich auch der englische Ortsname genommen werden. Entweder die ganze Kategorie in Deutsch oder Englisch - aber kein Denglisch-Mix. Einigt euch auf eine Sache - aber mit der Umbenennung in diesen Kauderwelsch-Unsinn bitte umgehend aufhören! Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Man sollte erstmal alles lesen, bevor man schreibt, nochmal den Link von oben hier. Da wurde es entschieden. Und unterlasse endlich die PA gegen meine Person, als Administrator ist so ein Verhalten untragbar. Und bevor du dich für alle PA´s von dir gegen meine Person nicht entschuldigst, brauchst du auf meiner Diskussionsseite auch nicht mehr schreiben. Es gibt ja noch Administratoren die keine PA´s tätigen. Auch dein Verhalten, in dem von mir gemeldeten harten PA von einem Commons-Benutzer hast du einen PA getätig und die Sache einfach nicht beachtet. --Jean11 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

PA? Sag mal geht es noch? Für dich ist eine kritische Äusserung also ein PA? Wie kommst du nur durch das normale Leben? Im übrigen interessiert mich dein Link nicht. Ich habe etwas klar und deutlich gesagt: Mix-Sprachkats gehen nicht. Punkt. Egal, was im Hinterzimmer abgestimmt wird. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Die PA´s sind fakt, und das weisst du auch ganz genau. Im Übrigen gibt es eine lange Liste von Benutzern, die du persönlich angegriffen hast ect. Und zu schreiben "Wie kommst du nur durch das normale Leben?" zeigt dein Niveau, deine Geisteshaltung und deinen Charakter. Dich interessiert mein Link nicht, und du interessierst mich nicht. Es gab schon seit einer gewissen Zeit Kat´s mit "Hanover" und "Hannover" jetzt gibt es den erwähnten Beschluss und ich setze ihn um. Kannst du nicht lesen?:

Zitat "Und bevor du dich für alle PA´s von dir gegen meine Person nicht entschuldigst, brauchst du auf meiner Diskussionsseite auch nicht mehr schreiben." Dein respektloses Verhalten wird immer schlimmer. Es gibt noch andere Administratoren, du hier nicht kapiesche? Es wird aus vorgenannten Gründen dir nicht mehr geantwortet. --Jean11 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 - Ein Wiki-Beitrag für die Denkmaltopographie

Hallo Jean11,

vor zehn Tagen endete der vierte Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments. Du hast daran aktiv teilgenommen und wir möchten Dir dafür herzlich danken.

Mit mehr als 35 Tausend Fotos hat Deutschland wie in den Vorjahren ein gutes Ergebnis erreicht und einen Anteil von 14 % an diesem internationalen Projekt erbracht, an dem sich 40 Länder beteiligten. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl an 651 Teilnehmern allein in Deutschland. Schon zum Abschluss des Wettbewerbs waren rund 6000 Fotos (=17 %) in Listen und Artikel eingebunden. Einen detaillierten Überblick zu den Fotos, den Bundesländern und Teilnehmern findest du auf unserer WLM-Projektseite.

Die deutsche Jury hat nun die eingereichten Beiträge übernommen und ist gegenwärtig dabei, diesen wertvollen Fotobestand zu den Kulturdenkmalen zu sichten. Am nächsten Wochenende wird in Hamburg die entscheidende Jury-Sitzung stattfinden. Wir wünschen auch Dir mit Deinem Foto-Beitrag dabei viel Glück und Erfolg. Du darfst gespannt sein und all Deine Freunde bitten, Dir die Daumen zu drücken.

Die preisgekrönten 100 Gewinner-Fotos werden in der Woche ab dem 20. Oktober veröffentlicht. Auf dieser Grundlage wird auch in diesem Jahr ein Kalender-Poster für 2015 gedruckt werden.

Auf zwei Möglichkeiten einer weiteren aktiven Mitwirkung an unserem Denkmal-Projekt möchten wir bei dieser Gelegenheit hinweisen bzw. Dich dazu einladen:

• Unsere Freunde in Österreich haben mit einem gerade gestarteten Denkmal-Cup das Editieren von Denkmallisten und Denkmalartikeln in den Focus gerückt. Bis Ende des Jahres kannst Du Punkte sammeln und Preise gewinnen. Dabei geht es mit diesem Wettbewerb nicht nur um Kulturdenkmale in AT oder D, sondern generell um Denkmale in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia, als offen für alle Länder.

• Vom 6.-8. November findet erneut die Europäische Denkmalmesse in Leipzig statt. Mit Unterstützung von Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. werden wir zum zweiten Mal die Ergebnisse von Wiki Loves Monuments im Rahmen eines Standes sowie eines Workshops vorstellen.

WLM-Aktivisten sind herzlich eingeladen, bei der Betreuung des Messestandes sowie in den Gesprächen über Möglichkeiten einer partnerschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit mit den Denkmalbehörden mitzuwirken. Die Reisekosten übernimmt für 8-10 registrierte Standbetreuer WMDE. Es muss nicht der gesamte Messezeitraum sein, auch eine Mitwirkung an 2 Tagen hilft uns, den Beitrag der Wikipedia für die Denkmaltopographie sichtbar zu machen.

Und schließlich gilt: Nach dem Wettbewerb ist vor dem Wettbewerb. Bereits jetzt kann jeder mit der Planung von Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 beginnen. Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross), 11.10.2014

File:Wappen Kreis Gross-Gerau.png

Hallo Jean11,

zunächst einmal vielen Dank für deine aktive Mitarbeit im Projekt. Gleichwohl bin ich mit der Begründung deines Edits (No valid reason stated, see the rename guidelines see http://www.kreisgg.de) nicht einverstanden. Du behauptest allen Ernstes “No valid reason stated”, obwohl ich gemäß Commons:Dateien verschieben Grund 6 (Angleichung der Dateinamen einer Bilderserie) ausgewählt habe. Ergänzend hatte ich hinzugefügt: „cf. Wappen des Landkreises Kassel.png, Wappen des Landkreises Offenbach.png, Wappen des Landkreises Waldshut.png …“. Entsprechend hatte ich „Wappen des Kreises Lippe.png, Wappen des Landkreises Kassel.png, Wappen des Landkreises Limburg-Weilburg.png“ bei meinem Umbenennungsvorschlag für File:Wappen des Kreises Bergstraße.png argumentiert. Siehe auch: Wappen des Kreises Düren.svg, Wappen des Kreises Warendorf.svg,

Deine Begründung bezieht sich nicht im geringsten auf den von mir berechtigterweise vorgebrachten Grund, sondern auf das Lemma der Grundkategorie: “see http://www.kreisgg.de”. Wie man unschwer unter Category:Landkreis Groß-Gerau sehen kann, hatte es bis 2010-10-20T09:20:14 hier auf den Commons die Kategorie „Landkreis Groß-Gerau“ gegeben. Unter de ist de:Landkreis Groß-Gerau ein Redirect auf de:Kreis Groß-Gerau. Seit einiger Zeit bin ich dabei, de:Liste der Flaggen in Hessen zu erweitern. Erst durch deinen Einwand fiel mir auf dieser Seite auf, dass der funktionierende Link auf de:Landkreis Groß-Gerau auf de:Kreis Groß-Gerau zu korrigieren ist, was ich dann auch getan habe.

Du hättest also durchaus die Möglichkeit gehabt, entsprechend auf den Namen File:Wappen des Kreises Groß-Gerau.png umzubenennen.

Mit kollegialem Gruß, --ludger1961 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Ludger1961,

danke für deine korrekten Bearbeitungen für uns alle. Der Name ist de:Kreis Groß-Gerau, und nicht Landkreis Groß-Gerau, und der Eigenname geht vor dem angleichen einer Bildserie, darum liegt für eine Umbenennung in Landkreis Groß-Gerau kein trifftiger Grund vor. Bitte dies zukünftig bei deinen Umbenennungsanträgen beachten. Danke, Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

LACMA

Thanks for adding meaningful names. Could you please ensure you keep the original LACMA id in the filename to ensure harmony with the rest of the upload? --Fæ (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have worked only the rename request. I'll save the ID in the file name. Thank you. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis

Hallo, was soll das denn? Kreise im Kreis? Bestimmt ein Versehen. Kannst du das bitte selbst rückgängig machen? Holger1959 (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

District bedeutet nicht nur Kreis, sonst wäre folgendes ja falsch Category:Districts of Breckerfeld. Von mir aus können wir es auch Subdivision nennen, wenn dir das lieber ist. Doch als ich mir Category:Districts of North Rhine-Westphalia ansah, hab ich halt Districts genommen, weil die kreis(regions)freien Städte es auch haben. Es steht dann natürlich auch an gleicher Position in der Kategorie, dies ist benutzerfreundlich. --Jean11 (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

dass districts auf Commons mehrfach verwendet wird weiß ich, gibt noch andere Beispiele als für Ortsteile. Aber ich kenn jetzt grade keinen vergleichbaren Fall in NRW, wo die kreisangehörigen Städte und Gemeinden (konkret beim Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis nur Städte) in eine Sammelkategorie "Districts of" oder so gepackt werden statt direkt in der Kreiskategorie zu stehen. Wenn du sowas einführen willst, dann fänd ich "Municipalities in [Kreis]" korrekt, was der Verwaltungsgliederung entsprechen würde, aber jedenfalls nicht "districts of". Vielleicht können @Leit, Ies, and Atamari: auch was dazu sagen, die kennen sich mit solchen Kategorien vielleicht noch besser aus. Holger1959 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Vor langer Zeit wurde Category:Districts_and_Quarters_of_Wuppertal angelegt, mit Districts werden hier Stadtbezike gemeint. (Ich werden gleich die Kategorie trennen) --Atamari (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Da in der Kategorie ja Gemeinden erfasst sind, halte ich Category:Municipalities in Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis für die bessere Alternative. Analog etwa zu Category:Municipalities in Bergisches Land und Category:Municipalities in the Ruhr Area. Dort geht es zwar um Gemeinden in Regionen, doch Gemeinden in Kreisen lassen sich natürlich ebenfalls so kategorisieren. Grundsätzlich ist es keine schlechte Idee, die Gemeinden aus dem schon mal recht üppigen Gewurbel in Kreis- und Regionskategorien herauszukategorisieren. Das müsste dann aber nicht nur im Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis, sondern konsequent auch in anderen Kreisen durchgeführt werden. -- Ies (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Vote au plébiscite du 8 mai 1870

Thank you for your contribution. The map I have created is in fact an update of Vote non au plébiscite du 8 mai 1870.svg, those two files should be merged but I don't know how to do it. --Io Herodotus (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Io Herodotus, your map has a white background and is a little bigger, the other map has a transparent background and is a bit sharper, I don´t know if an update of the other map with yours is a good idea. Maybee you can under "Summary" |other_versions =[[File:Vote au plébiscite du 8 mai 1870.png|frameless]]. For updates you have to click "Upload a new version of this file" under "File history" and upload the new version. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yoshiiku

Thanks for having File:Kunisada (1830) key block face b.jpg renamed to File:Yoshiiku (1862) key block face b.jpg—but can you tell me where you got the date 1862? Ukiyo-e.org says the print was from 1871. Curly Turkey (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Curly Turkey, see here. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
middle young Pygoscelis papua (Gentoo penguin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the English vernacular name in parenthesis. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)  Done+rename --Jean11 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Vielen Dank, war nicht beabsichtigt, Dir zusätzliche Arbeit zu machen, Entschuldigung. Schönen Abend noch. Pauli-Pirat (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Pauli-Pirat, ich hatte dir nur ein Hinweis geschrieben, und es war nur ein Bild. "Entschuldigung" versteh ich jetzt nicht. Wär schön, wenn du in Zukunft com:overcat beachtest, danke. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kleine Frage

Hallo. Vllt. kannst du mir ein paar generelle Hinweise geben. Ich sehe auch per Augenmaß, dass in manchen Zoomstufen die SVG verzerrt sind. Ich hab sie mir Inkscape "gemalt". Der SVG-Code ist recht aufwendig. Kann ich nicht einfach über Inkscape auf gewisse Elemente oder Funktionen verzichten, die Probleme mit Wiki verursachen? Gibt es vllt. eine kleine Liste von Do/Donts um einfach weiter mit Inkscape zu malen, aber diese Fehler zu vermeiden? PS: Nutze bitte die Ruf-Funktion, wenn du antwortest, damit ich meinen Post nicht vergesse. vielen Dank, --WissensDürster (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo WissensDürster, ich habe noch nicht wirklich mit Vektorprogrammen gearbeitet, ein Link hab ich für dich gefunden Probleme mit SVGs, wenn die Seite nicht ausreicht, steht da u.a. was ich dir ungefähr schon geschrieben hatte: Hast du eine Frage zu SVG-Grafiken, die hier noch nicht aufgeführt ist, wende dich an das Wikiprojekt SVG. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the German grammar on File:Die Kresse-Völkner Sammlung 48 (Urkunde).JPG

Jean11,

Thanks for fixing the German grammar on File:Die Kresse-Völkner Sammlung 48 (Urkunde).JPG. If you wouldn't mind, could you perhaps check the simple German descriptions for the other 36 files in Category:Images from the Kresse-Völkner Collection and make any necessary corrections? I tried to create German descriptions a few years ago with my very, very poor abilities in the language; I'm definitely de-0. I would certainly appreciate a native speaker such as yourself checking the grammar on the whole set. Vielen dank!

Michael Barera (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Michael Barera, I've done it, so I think it's better. You've already seen it and send me thank you, thank you. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Vielen dank! Michael Barera (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Der WLM-Countdown hat begonnen

Hallo Jean11,

nun ist es wieder soweit. Vom 1. bis zum 30. September findet zum fünften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Im Mittelpunkt steht bekanntlich das Fotografieren von Kulturdenkmalen. Du hast an einem der letzten Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen und wir freuen uns auf weitere Bildbeiträge von Dir.

Viele interessante Motive, nicht nur Burgen und Schlösser, sondern auch Fachwerkhäuser, Brücken und Brunnen, technische und Industriedenkmale und vieles mehr gibt es noch zu fotografieren, damit sie in der Wikipedia dokumentiert werden können. Nützliche Tipps findest du auf unserer WLM-Projektseite. Du kannst gerne individuell Fototouren durchführen oder aber Dich auch Gruppentouren anschließen. Besonders freuen wir uns auf Fotos, die Lücken in den Denkmallisten der Wikipedia ausfüllen.

Darüber hinaus kannst Du auch an der Arbeit der Jury teilnehmen, die Mitte Oktober die Fotos bewerten und die Gewinner ermitteln wird. Bis zum 15. August kannst du hier Deine Bewerbung einreichen.

Viel Erfolg und Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia in den bevorstehenden Wettbewerbswochen wünscht Dir das Orga-Team. Wir freuen uns auf Deine Fotos.

( Bernd Gross, 6. August 2015)

Category:Sports of the deaf

Your last edit summary didn't make sense, so I thought I'd post here. "Sports of the deaf" is not a type of sport. It indicates who the competitors are. The types under Category:Sports by type are for things like how the sports are played (individually or in a team, for example), what equipment they use (racquets, animals, etc.), and so forth. Several of the entries under Sports of the deaf are the same sports played by other people: the fact that they're played by deaf people doesn't affect what type they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The deaf are impaired by the deafness. For example, the sense of balance is disrupted and they are limited by the non-existent voice and thereby flattened breathing in their condition. Deaf live by their deafness in their own world, which is why the Deaf Sports is not organized under the disability sport and they do not participate in the Paralympics in part. Deaf Sports is organized in own sports associations and they have their own olympics, Deaflympics. That is why, for example, football of the deaf is not equal to the football of the hearing people. It follows the deaf sports is a type of sport. You see my last edit makes sense. --Jean11 (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica Ia, 1927 from mid-left front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in rich category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIa, 1936 from mid-right front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica II, 1931 front view from mid-right.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIa 1936 front view mid-right with additional finder.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIc 1941 front view from mid-left with instructions.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Category:Leica AF-C1 front view from mid-right.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica II 1931 black front view with collapsed lens and lens Cap.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
scope.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica II black 1931 top view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIf chrome 1954 front view from mid-right.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica III (conversion 1930) black front view from mid-right.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIa 1936 top view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIf - 1951 chrome front view from mid-right.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIc chrome front view with collapsed lens and lens cap.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIa back view from mid-right with additional finder VIOOH Lyre Skape.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica II black right side view of a sharp left.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIc chrome top view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Goerz Minicord III 1958, front view from left.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User categories

Hallo Jean11, danke fürs Aufräumen meiner User categories. Grüße --Code (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Code, danke fürs danke, gern geschehn. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIf 1954 chrome, top view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support best in (sub-)scope (which I believe is a useful one) --El Grafo (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2016

Hallo Jean11, Du hast Dich 2015 beim Prüfen und Kategorisieren der für WLE hochgeladenen Bilder beteiligt. Vielen Dank dafür, das ist eine wichtige Tätigkeit, für die es viel zu wenige Helfer gibt. Daher wollte ich fragen, ob Du nächstes Jahr wieder mitmachen möchtest. Es gibt schon eine Seite für die Koordination, natürlich noch relativ leer. Falls Du Ideen und Verbesserungsvorschläge hast, jetzt wäre eine gute Zeit sie anzubringen. Viele Grüße, --Blech (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Blech, danke für deine Nachricht. Prüfen (Kategorisieren usw.) hab ich vor, kann es nicht versprechen. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ist ok, wer weiß schon was die Zeit bringt. Viele Grüße, --Blech (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sida Standard 1938 front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica Standard (1937-1938) chrome top view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leica IIIf 1951 with Leica flash front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Goerz Minicord 1951 front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Photos by 19Tarrestnom65

Hi Jean11,

I'm 19Tarrestmnom65. I like taking pictures and uploading them, but I get easily lost with categories. That's why I have an Uploaded by 19Tarresmont65 category. I put everything there and my husband categorizes the pictures later. I didn't know that it was restricted my use only.

The category is only a tool we use because it is easier to work in this way. It also allows me to upload pictures when my husband is at work.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello 19Tarrestnom65, please answere there, where the discussion started.

It's your category, so you may eg. Remove images that are by you, but another may not, because no one knows that he has your approval. Now that you're writing, it is ok, it's ok in this case. Maybe you take a look at my suggestion. If you do not want the proposal, it might be useful to write in the category "User:B25es has the permission to remove the images from this category". Regards --Jean11 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you, dear Jean11, the Original Barnstar, for your for your long and generous work, many thanks.--Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Cher Christian Ferrer, merci pour votre merci beaucoup. --Jean11 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a lot for your work on my personal categories. --Benoît Prieur (d) 00:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Benoît Prieur, fini maintenant, merci pour votre des mots aimables et des milliers de photos intéressantes. Salut --Jean11 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wäre das was für Dich ...?

Hallo Jean, da Du ja einige Meriten in Sachen Kategorisierung hast, wollte ich Deinen Blick hierauf lenken. Vielleicht kannst Du Dir vorstellen, die Patenschaft über ein kleines Kontigent Kategorisierung zu übernehmen? Gruss, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Uwe, danke für deine Nachricht, ich schau gleich mal. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Categoy:Anja Schulz

Hallo, Du hast zwei unterschiedliche Personen derselben Category zugeordnet! Es gibt zwei unterschiedliche Anja Schulz, die beide Mitglieder im DSB sind! --GFHund (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallo GFHund, danke für deinen Hinweis. Sind beide 1994 geboren? Frage weil du die Kategorie hinzugefügt hast. Denke ich werd sie wieder der Oberkategorie hinzufügen, da ein Bild für eine Kategorie zuwenig sind. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Die Category für das Alter fügte ich nicht hinzu. Die stärkere der beiden hat eine Elozahl von 2040 und ist 1994 geboren. Das Geburtssjahr der schwächeren Spielerin ist 1981 (laut FIDE-Karteikarte). --GFHund (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Danke für die Infos, GFHund. Ersteres hat ich dann auch gesehn. --Jean11 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong cat

OH, thank you very much!--Juandev (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Děkuji vám, že jste vítáni. --Jean11 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hallo Jean, vielen Dank für deine Arbeit auf Commons, und auch für deine Hilfsbereitschaft. Ich wünsche dir ein frohes Weihnachtsfest und ein gesundes neues Jahr 2016. Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ernst Walther (Verlag)

Lieber Jean11. Leider habe ich soeben einen schröcklichen Fehler gemacht und bei den Dateinamen der Category:Ernst Walther (Verlag) versehentlich Ernst Walter geschrieben. Darf ich Dich höflich um Hilfe bitten bei der Korrektur? Herzlichen Dank vorab von --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erwin Knäpper.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. As photographers courtesy, I had retouched the brown particle from his front tooth. --Cccefalon 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The traditional greeting

	Dear friend
	Happy New Year and best wishes!! Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-10-03 Fussball-Länder-Cup der Gehörlosen 2014 in Hannover (27).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 13:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-10-03 Fussball-Länder-Cup der Gehörlosen 2014 in Hannover (48).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Gereon Kalkuhl-6895.jpg

Hallo Jean11. Das Foto von mir wurde während der Wikimania 2012 in Washington für Victor Grigas' Kampagne "The Impact of Wikipedia" gemacht. Du hattest es zur Löschung vorgeschlagen. Im Auftrag der WMF fotografiert, von der WMF bezahlt ... und in Bannerkampagnen zur Spendengenerierung in allen Wikipedias gezeigt. Insofern kann ich Deinen Löschantrag nicht wirklich nachvollziehen. Gruß, --Gereon K. (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Gereon K. wenn du etwas nicht nachvollziehen kannst bin ich dafür nicht verantwortlich. Ich hatte keinen Löschantrag für das Bild gestellt, sondern es mit no permission gekennzeichnet. Wenn der Urheber nicht der uploader ist, ist eine Genehmigung erforderlich! Bei dem o.g. Bild fehlte eine Genehmigung, dies schrieb dir schon User:JuTa: User_talk:JuTa#File:Gereon_Kalkuhl-6895.jpg. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(Apologies for my English).

I went ahead and restored the file. I don’t see anything wrong with it − the uploader was the creator so there is no permission needed. And as a contractor for WMF, as stated in the template, his work is automatically under CC-BY-SA. Feel free to open a deletion request to voice your concerns about the file. Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jean-Fred, it ist not to see, that the uploader is the creator! I think ur opinion is false, see too this. --Jean11 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jean11, thanks for the ping.

I was indeed mistaken concerning « creator = uploader » (I think I noticed it too after posting here).

I still stand by my main points though. I do not think this file necessitated further proof of permission (was it published somewhere else before?). I had a look at the OTRS ticket − basically, Victor was notified of the deletion by e-mail and contacted OTRS re-stating that Mrs Karen Sayre was a contractor for WMF and as suck her work is under CC-By-SA. The OTRS agent roughly said « I’m not sure why this file was enquired (probably a mistake), I see it has been restored, I’m going to slap an OTRS ticket just in case. ».

To be clear : I don’t think it was necessary, and although it was not the case here, asking for permission can be harmful − we are lucky in this case that the uploader noticed the deletion via his e-mails ; in other cases, we would have lost a perfectly good file. I understand we want to be careful but I really don’t see the need here. What are your thoughts about this?

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Jean-Fred, it is not to see, that author Karen Sayre is the uploader VGrigas! Today too. This is fact. Now there is a permission -->ok. --Jean11 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Erwin Knäpper.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Rafaell Russell (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nochmal Fahrräder und Kategorien

Hallo Jean11, kannst du bitte einmal einen Blick hierauf werfen? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_vs_Harry

Und zwar habe ich unten die Kategorie "Dänischer Fahrradhersteller angelegt. Wenn du darauf klickst, steht dann in der Kategorie dahinter "Diese Kategorie ist leer."

Ich möchte im Endeffekt wie hier (nochmal eine Kategorie höher) dass die Dänen auch eine Unterkategorie haben und Larry vs Harry aus den Seiten dort verschoben werden. Wo ist da jetzt der Trick, den ich nicht sehe?

Danke! --Ziltoidium (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Ziltoidium, zuerst, bei mir ist der Artikel in der Kategorie. Normal ist es bei Wikipedia nur erwünscht für mindestens zehn Artikel eine neue Kategorie zu erstellen. Wenn du auf einer Internetseite warst wird die Seite geladen und dann auf deiner Festplatte gespeichert. Wenn du nun die Internetseite später nochmal besuchst, wird sie von deiner Festplatte geladen. Wenn die Internetseite geändert wurde, siehst du die Änderung nicht, weil dein Browser die alte Version von deiner Festplatte geladen hat. Es sei denn du hast sie gelöscht, z. B. im Menue des Browser, dann wird sie neugeladen (aus dem Internet). Wenn du den Browser gestartet hast und die Strg-Taste + die F5-Taste drückst, wird der de:Cache des Browser gelöscht und die angezeigte Internetseite wird aus dem Internet geladen (aktuelle Version). Es kann auch am Cache von Wikipedia liegen, sie hierzu de:Hilfe:Cache#Purge. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jetzt wird hier auch alles richtig angezeigt. Ich hatte den Cache bei mir gelöscht, aber wahrscheinlich hat commons einfach seine Zeit gebraucht, wie du sagst. Das die Kategorie erst ab 10 Artikeln angelegt werden sollte, wusste ich nicht. Entschuldigung dafür :-/ Aber ich klappere weitere Hersteller aus Dänemark ab, da folgt in Zukunft hoffentlich noch etwas. --Ziltoidium (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Jean11, Holger1959 hatte mich darum gebeten, eure Diskussion auf der von mir auf deine Bitte gelöschten Unterseite User:Jean11/Nature of auf seine /Spielwiese zu kopieren. Ich hoffe, das geht für dich o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Streets_in_Schönheide

Streets in Schönheide has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)