User talk:ZH2010

File:Pelura Pelze, Düsseldorf.jpg - Du hast u. a. die Kategorie "2011 in Düsseldorf" gelöscht - gibt es ein Kriterium, das ich nicht kenne?Kürschner (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Ich war auf dem Bild weil ich die Hbf-Kategorie entfernen wollte und dann bei der Gelegenheit hab ich das Bild auch aus der "Chronik der Stadt Düsseldorf" herausgenommen.... ich hab mal auf hier meine Sichtweise hingeschrieben, aber ich versteh auch wenn das jeder anders auslegt. LG --ZH2010 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, siehe dort.--Kürschner (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gute idee mit dem Template und einem Hinweis. Werds im Kopf behalten wenn sich da mal was entwickelt. --ZH2010 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicht so hastig! Das Elsass war zwischen 1870 und 1918 deutsch, also ist alles, was in diesem Zeitraum dort gebaut wurde, nicht Built in France sondern Built in Germany! Das gilt auch für die Zeit bis 1681 sowie für die Jahre 1940 bis 1944. Sorry! --Edelseider (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab das jetzt schon gemerkt, dass nur Elsass nicht kategorisiert wurde. Ich seh auch, dass manche diese gebaut-in-kategorien auf den zeitpunkt der baufertigstellung sehen. Viele heutige Staaten gibt es erst seit ein paar Jahrzehnten - die Gebäude in ihnen werden ihnen dennoch zugeschrieben... viele Staaten, in welchen ein bauwerk zu einem bestimmten zeitpunkt fertiggestellt wurde, gibt es heute nicht mehr. Es ist allgemein akzeptiert, es bei Gebäuden vor 1800 oder vor 1870 so zu machen - dass quasi "das Gebäude heute in XY steht" und ....ist ein Baudenkmal in XY (aus der Zeit so und so) ? Auch andere Länder in Übersee haben "fremde" Baudenkmäler (auch von ehemaligen Kolonialmächten....) - da kommt niemand auf die Idee zu sagen das Gebäude wurde in Kolonialmacht YZ gebaut: es steht und gehört in Land XY! Guck mal auch wo Jahrhunderhalle Breslau heute steht.... - Ich denke es sollte alles einheitlich sein (auch für Grenzänderungen nach 1918) --ZH2010 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dann solltest du aber wirklich, wirklich konsequent sein und die Kategorie “Built in Alsace” schaffen, nach dem Vorbild der Kategorie “Built in Bavaria”, schliesslich ist Bayern ja auch kein Land (mehr)! Das wâre toll. Danke im Voraus, --Edelseider (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

du bist gut.... "danke im vorraus" - ich möchte eine überkategorisierung vermeiden, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_in_France_by_year_of_completion ist sowieso schon reichlich dünn... d.h. ich kann so einen Baum für das Elsass anlagen, aber dann muß jemand ihn auch füllen. --ZH2010 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a chance that an image could be filed into a category in the future, we can leave empty categories for future use. If you reorganized images or renamed the category, please state that as to why the category is empty. Finally, please use the "nominate for deletion" link in the left-hand navigation bar in the toolbox rather than doing it by hand. – Adrignola talk 15:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. i generally do try to fill new categories - sometimes i know one may be worthwhile to have and i create it firsthand and look or images in the second place (will try to not leave them empty). i have seen a lot of categories with bad names being renamed per redirect, while the old name is not neccessarily being deleted (i believe that many old names may still link to wikipedia or the like...) - so i personally tempt to prefer redirects over deletions. --ZH2010 (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your proposal on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Japanese architecture in Belgium from Commons:Deletion requests/2011/07/23 to Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07. NVO (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not correct. The Gate is today in Berlin. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad enough. I still think it should be categorized in Turkeys architectural history. --ZH2010 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Du hattest die Category:Mayors of Prussia‎ mit der Begründung "Mayors should be sorted by city and the respective modern territory only" als redirect ausgelegt. Gibt es da irgendwo eine Policy, die das regelt?. Hintergrund meiner Frage ist die Diskussion auf der de-wikipedia ([1]) (und natürlich meine Arbeit auf Commons).Karsten11 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Ich hab mir das nicht ganz durchgelesen, aber die diskussion dort erinnert mich eher an das Thema Gebäude (siehe weiter oben unter "Elsass"). Für Bürgermeister (auf commons) gibt es bisher so gut wie 0 Kategorien nach historischem Territorium - daher mein genanntes Argument. Bürgermeister sind ja auch immer bezogen auf Städte. Bei Gebäuden sollte es hier auch so sein, weil es sonst nur Chaos gibt. --ZH2010 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bei einem ganz groß angelegtem Schema, wären Lokalpolitiker auch über historische Staaten zu erreichen. Das ist hier aber bisher nicht im Ansatz geplant oder durchführbar. Städte, die Bilder von Bürgermeister bis ins Mittelalter haben (und sich bis heute einer Reihe von historische Staaten übergeben lassen mussten) hätten dann eine völlig zerrupfte Kategorie. Ganz zu schweigen von der Arbeit die das macht, und dass soetwass niemals vollständig werden würde. Es ist besser wenn man es einfach bei modernen Territorien belässt - Bürgermeister sind auch nur Lokalpolitiker und müssen wirklich nur über die jeweilige Stadt aufgefunden werden. --ZH2010 (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Schön hat mit Hessen nichts zu tun, bis auf die Tatsache, dass sein Heimatort hundert Jahre später zufällig in Hessen liegt. Mit der Logik müsste File:Leopold von Winter.jpg polnischer Bürgermeister sein. Daher meine Frage, ob es hier auf Commons eine Policy oder Regel gibt, die ich nicht kenne.Karsten11 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, also die Regel ist, dass Politiker Bürgermeister (Nachtrag - sorry) nach Stadt sortiert werden, und wenn es so eine Kategorie noch nicht gibt (für Großstädte gerne jederzeit anlegen!) dann wird die Person eben in der nächsthöheren, modernen politischen Einheit einsortiert. Wenn dann jemand jemand die Stadt-Kategorie in 2 Jahren anlegt, dann sind die (in der nächsthöheren Verwaltungseinheit) angesammelten Bürgermeister zumindest schnell zu finden. Wenn Karl Schön als Lokalpolitiker auch Einfluss auf Preussische Politik hatte (die Interpretation überlass ich jedem selbst) dann kann er meinetwegen noch zusätzlich in Preussischer Politiker eingeordnet werden, aber er sollte v.a. über Naussau und Hessische Bürgermeister zu finden sein. Keine Ahnung wie sehr die Nassauer an ihrer preussischen Geschichte hängen, aber (ich denk) für NRW-Bürgermeister aus dem 19. Jahrhundert würde niemand unter Preußen suchen? --ZH2010 (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "dass Nassau zufällig in Hessen liegt": Reell betrachtet ist es nicht zufällig und ich hoffe Du willst jetzt nicht das einsortieren von Nassau in Hessen in Frage stellen?! Die politische Realität ist übringes auch eine Regel auf Commons. --ZH2010 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich wusste, Künster werden von einigen nach Jahrhundert sortiert und es gibt auch http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Politicians_by_century, wobei das recht dünn ist. Ich selbst hab da kein Ehrgeiz, aber der Zweig passt in jedem Fall in das Commons-System. --ZH2010 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Rhineland-Palatinate, nor Germany existed in 1740!! Buildings in electorate of Mainz or Buildings in HRR??--Symposiarch (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Siehe Diskussion weiter oben bei "Halt, halt!" - Es besteht eine Struktur, dass man -von-unserer-heutigen-Sicht- die Dinge kategorisiert. Gerade für Mitteleuropa komt man ja über die Jahrhunderte in' Wald. --ZH2010 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

benutz bitte das +⁺-symbol (links), dass es ermöglicht mehrere kategorien gleichzeitig zu ändern, zu löschen oder hinzuzufügen (please use the +⁺-sign (on the left), which allows to change, remove or add multiple categorys.) --Akkakk (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dík za korekci! pokus a omyl tentokrát nevyšel (resp. vyšel ve prospch omylu...). --Gampe (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added a tag to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anhalt1847-63.jpg, which I uploaded.

I have scanned the whole atlas, as you can see at http://www.maproom.org/00/08/index.php, and can upload further maps or parts of maps if this will be useful. Maproom (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are nice maps - but especially if you have access to higher resolutions of those maps. The ones I am most interested in are Early Middle ages. --ZH2010 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hast Du gesehen, dass man sich in die Karten voll reinzoomen kann, eine höhere Auflösung bringt da m. E. nichts mehr? --Kürschner (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish translates "Do you have seen that one knows itself into the maps fully clean zoom, a higher resolution bring there to M.E. nothing more?". What I offer is higher resolution than the highest available on my web site, but is not clean. It is like the Anhalt map. Maproom (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to get the full-zoom as one map would be fine for here. Maps 19 through 28 would be great. Map 28 wd be a nice alternative to map at en:Hanseatic League. Map 26/27 is already here, but with a big shadow. --ZH2010 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try. There may be problems. I have found in the past that images exceeding 4.77MB don't upload here, and even these single-page map images are more than ten times that size.

Also, maps 22/23 and 26/27 have folds down the middle, which will make them unsuitable as they are, but slices of them may be useful. Maybe I should cut out the middle sections, dividing them into two incomplete images, before uploading. Anyway I will start with the single-page map images. Maproom (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am looking forward to those maps. :) Feel free to overwrite the ones in lower quality (at least the ones i uploaded) - little use in keeping them (?). For those folds, maybe someone is interested and able to photoshop them out, sometime? --ZH2010 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done one, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Droysens-plate19.jpg. It took a long time to upload (it would have been more sensible if I had cut it into its separate maps first). Please let me know what you think. Should I do the upload differently? Maproom (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks awesome. but i agree, its too big. i know, opening-and-just-resaving jpg-files in Microsoft-Paint before uploading, often times reduces the size: i did it with your file and it came down from 53MB to 29MB. Thats still big, but wd make a difference. I reduced it by 50% and it went down to 8MB, the result is still nice. i even think, it may be a good thing to limit file-sizes to 10MB, so people with slow internet connecctions can still see them? I have also seen nice maps getting cut-outs but that's somewhat sad to see... --ZH2010 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think? resaving them with 50% would probably take less time than waiting for the large files to be uploaded? --ZH2010 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the image (plate 19) slightly, cut it into the four separate maps, used JPeG compression to get them each below 4.77MB, and uploaded them as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Droysens-plate19a.jpg, ..19b.jpg, ..19c.jpg, ..19d.jpg. Please let me know what you think - this is surprisingly time-consuming, and I don't want to process plates 20-28 until I am sure I am doing it in the most useful way. Maproom (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think they are great. i was mentioning the Paint, cause thats the fastest i know, to reduce file size etc.... i dont think, they need to be cleaned: someone else might do that once they are here and if he is passionate about it. handling such large files is more time-consuming in many respects, so i would reduce them all. 50% seems reasonable. 75% is fine if it suits you. just upload the complete file and i may cut them the coming days. Please dont clean or remove the shaded folds on those three maps. Having the whole (and original) thing is def. better. --ZH2010 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now uploaded one of the double-page plates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Droysens-22-23.jpg. I halved the resolution, trimmed off some margin, and increased the compression, to get the file size below 4.77MB. This wasn't easy - my PaintShopPro kept refusing to save files, complaining it had run out of memory. This is a bit odd, because since 2004 when I created the original image with PaintShopPro, I have bought a bigger computer and a newer version of PaintShopPro.

I may not have time to do any more on this for a few days. But I shall do plates 20, 21, 24, 25, 26/27, 28 sometime. Maproom (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - thank you for adding these images to categories. Maproom (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am happy for the files but cannot help much. --ZH2010 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo ZH2010, I see that you removed the sorting keys in Category:2010 in Lorraine, etc. Yet they are needed and standard (at least used by the templates, like at Category:People by century, Category:People by year). Without these what will happen when there are only three digits like 943 in somewhere (in this case that would rather be Category:943 in present-day Lorraine), or only two or when it's before Christ? Category:Deaths by year is a good example of this kind of mess. - Olybrius (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. i removed them on three of the currently six years-in-Lorraine-categories - the other three had no key before. i think it could be either way: either they all get sorted to the top (which will result in no sorting, other than the name) or by millenium (as for example here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Architecture_of_Italy_by_century). i saw that some templates dont support the latter, as years before 1000 get sorted toward the end (like here). but i also think the sorting is nicer. dont mind which way, as long they are consistent. --ZH2010 (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths by year is a mix of Deaths by year and Deaths by century. shouldnt those get seperated? --ZH2010 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Separating millenia might seem handy and giving a result easier to read, but it doesn't work when the time span is very long (as in Category:Architecture of Egypt by century) since the software can't show more than one character as key.
• Category:Churches by year of completion indeed looks weird. Maybe the template is missing a parameter? One very clean category is for instance Category:Buildings in Italy by year of completion but it actually uses for different templates to obtain that result: {{{ItalArc00}}}, {{{ItalArc1stDecade}}}, {{{ItalArc1stMillenium}}} and {{{ItalArc}}}! Rather complicated!

I suppose templates will eventually replace all our manual sortings and we shouldn't bother too much with that issue actually. Although I'd prefer to have visible keys and blank lines to separate millenia, as we are limited by the software, I eventually chose to mimick the templates by showing no key at all.

• Category:Deaths by year is indeed a horrible mess (there are even files in it, while it should be empty!). Don't know why Category:Deaths by century wasn't created. That should definitely be fixed.

Chaos rules! - Olybrius (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

everyone is contributing from a different corner.... field of interest, knowledge, focus, etc. - chaos is a also a good thing cause it inspires creativity... :-)) i've worked mostly on history and art/architecture and i have tried to elaborate the 3-tier-structure to sort images by date, by location and (for art) by style. i think in the past, people just wanted to have one branch for date (and therefore mixed centuries, decades and years). location is tricky for images that are centuries old: There is some critic for using modern-state borders to sort by location and i have read about suggestions for a multiple search tool functions (e.g. "built in 1234" and "builings in Switzerland" - and eliminating the need to create all those categories). i have seen French regions with categories named "...in presend-day..." which is more neutral, but such a naming sounds funny for territories that had little border-changes over the centuries? (I guess the Bretagne would be such a place?) Maybe, with new user coming in, it will create more alternative category-names? The "churches by year" template needs to be updated in any case, but i dont know how to fix the syntax? i believe it would need a functions thats puts a "0" infront of the cat-sorting, in case the year has only 3 digits. --ZH2010 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe these endless hierarchy of categories is slightly crazy... ;)

As for the present-day thing I find it very convenient for avoiding anachronisms and confusions. Few places have had very stable frontiers; by using it one at least knows what one is talking about. Historical Brittany was bigger than present-day Bretagne. Same thing with Languedoc or Aquitaine which has existed since antiquity but has little in common with the modern administrative region. I'm also often embarassed when dealing with my place at olders dates (maybe I should learn History some day). Hmm was Toulouse French in 1096? Or what was it? English? Aragonese? Languedocian? I suppose it was in the county of Toulouse, but was this county independent? Oh my! So with the present-day things everything is clear, and the historians can add Category:1096 in County of Toulouse or Category:1096 in Languedoc, etc. for more precision or for people interested in the history of these entities. The only problem with present-day is that if a present-day political entity happens to change its borders or its name or ceases to exist, everything might become obsolete...

For Template:ChurchArc you could just drop a note on the talk page, or contact directly its creator AnRo0002 (talk · contribs). There is also Template:ItalArc1stMillenium which could be copied or taken inspiration from, since it deals specifically wiht the 100s, if you really want to spend hours debugging ;P (aww, not for me...) I'll rest happy with creating Category:Deaths by century I think. - Olybrius (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking to a user from Alsace the other day, to maybe concentrate more on regions (and cities) as on departments, as that would not create quite so many categories.... - if that works on how people would search? Thats what it is like for Germany and for me it's easier to get a glance at the history of a region(state) or city. Maybe, that way other user would use the same categories for their files too, and categories are more likely to be filled. --ZH2010 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think bypassing French departments would be really workable because French regions are not so popular in France. Most of them were created only in 1968 and people don't really identify with them. Departments on the other hand were created after the Revolution in 1790. French regions are not really powerful either, France is not a federal country like Germany or Spain. Few people consider themselves from Midi-Pyrénées; they are from Haute-Garonne, Gers, etc. So, each country has its idiosyncrasies. The only solution in France imo is to create everything, starting with the region - I agree entirely - and where material gets important, little by little creating the departments and their capitals. That's huge, but we have all eternity our lifespans to do that and absolutely no deadline ;P (I'll try to remember to create more by region/by city categories for France, they seem indeed to be outnumbered by the by department ones) - Olybrius (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking from the outside, the regions are easier to locate. For Midi-Pyrénées, I agree (it should be one with Languedoc-Roussillon...? :-)) - and Normandy should be one) To me its also interested to find parallels in a regional architecture... (buildings from a region and a certain time - all together in one cat) Local counts, dukes,... - Then there is the whole geography-tree that would open up the landscape and agriculture of a region (as opposed to chopping it all up). For the people-cat i guess it doent make a difference. --ZH2010 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a little unclear on what this actually is... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i guess i moved that category too fast. Maybe it is better just to remove that category. My intention is to avoid having 2 cats in parallel for people "by gender" and "by sexuality".... A category named sexuality with some flags and one person in it, also doesnt fit well into the people-cat-tree. --ZH2010 (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those categories from :by sexuality, as that category is a redirect to :by gender, and the two wouldnt fit there at all. --ZH2010 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to remove a category of this theme which have its article in ca 35 languages of Wikipedia? Asexuality (in all meanings of this word) is an attribute of people's sexuality. Why to make a problem when no one exists here? --ŠJů (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noone wants to remove the category per se, just remove one of its parent-categories. Category:Asexual people might fit - if you want to create such a category? --ZH2010 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like starting up a separate nomination for that category, but if I was aware of a discussion on it, I would have something to say. AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Any reasons to remove Kunsthistorisches Museum from the list of museums about Dacia? It has some of the most important Dacian artefacts. Thanks and regards --Codrin.B (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statistics of land use in North Rhine-Westphalia 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 category, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JuTa 20:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities and colleges in Brühl (Rheinland) 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 category, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JuTa 19:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merkwürdig, die Datei ist schon hinfort. Dabei bin ich erst vor ein paar Tagen auf Deinen Löschantrag und die zugehörige Löschdiskussion aufmerksam gemacht worden. Ich hatte mir bei der Kategorienanlage nämlich durchaus etwas gedacht gehabt. Darin sollten Bilder der drei nicht unwesentlichen Institutionen Fachhochschule des Bundes für öffentliche Verwaltung (FH Bund), Bundesakademie für öffentliche Verwaltung‎ und Bundesfinanzakademie ihren Platz finden. Das müsste vom Umfang her doch eigentlich für eine eigenständige Kategorie reichen, oder etwa nicht? Mit einiger Verwunderung grüßt -- J.-H. Janßen (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Du hattest zig Files in die Category:Medieval art in the Museum für Angewandte Kunst Frankfurt gesteckt. Das Mittelalter wird aber gemeinhin bis 1500 definiert (über ein paar Überlappungen ins 16. Jh. kann man streiten). Da waren munter Renaissance, Barock bis ins 18. Jh. drin. Ich hab das alles zurückgesetzt. Bitte ein bisschen genauer arbeiten bei solchen Massenverschiebungen. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Sogar ein Grammophon war dabei! --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cologne Pride Logo.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europride 2010.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have made a map of airports in Italy. Could you do the same about the airports in Finland?--213.216.208.243 11:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tapestry_by_century 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Bohème (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Fa la cosa giusta!.jpg

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo ZH2010!

Wir haben die sehr gelungenen Fotos der Börse Düsseldorf gesehen und sind an einer Nutzung für unsere Broschüre/Präsentation/Website interessiert. Statt Hinweis auf die CC-Lizenz würden wir lieber den Klarnamen des Fotografen als Quelle abdrucken. Wenn Interesse besteht, würden wir uns über Kontaktaufnahme unter "kontakt@boerse-duesseldorf.de" freuen.

Herzliche Grüße, Kommunikation Börse Düsseldorf

File:Hochtaunuskreis flag.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main-Taunus-Kreis flag.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landkreis Offenbach flag.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Offenbach am Main flag.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 10:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Germany by ancient territory 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Zoupan (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:U-Bahnhof Losestraße 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

80.143.66.11 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slave memorial Zanzibar.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

95.130.162.196 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:House of Wonders Zanzibar Coast.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

95.130.162.196 14:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZH2010 - I'd love to get in touch, if you're still around. I love all of the svg's of old countries you created & am interested if any of them are based on gis shapefiles. If so, I was wondering if you could post them here, too. They're fantastic. Thanks for what you have contributed!! --Jeffme (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Gay Pride New York, June 24, 2007.jpg

And also:

• File:Gay Pride New York 2007.jpg
• File:Gay Pride New York 2007 SML1.jpg
• File:Gay Pride New York 2007 SML2.jpg
• File:Kiss - Hiro at the Maritime Hotel.jpg

Yours sincerely, - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:RDA Workshop.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Marketing RDA (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:CTB-CTW Port of Hamburg-Waltershof.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Sebwar2004 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collections of the Museum für Asiatische Kunst 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

E4024 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collections of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Vesta (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Slave memorial Zanzibar.jpg

Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin William Mkapa Pension Tower in Dar-es-Salaam.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ��� 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Africa by century 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

You created Category:History of Europe by century which is included in the discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works by artist name 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Sinigh (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Atrium - Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln1.jpg

And also:

• File:Atrium - Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln2.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]