User talk:Verum

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Verum!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, which produces: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|correct name}}` For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

TUSC token 06cd7b8c61a2a57da4aedac7721b062e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Danke für deine Beiträge auf QI

wenn du aber - wie gestern - einen Kommentar zu einem Bild hinterlässt, dann muss du nicht auf Discuss stellen, lass es einfach wie es ist. Die Änderung auf Discuss führt in Folge dazu, dass das Bild in den Consensual Review verschoben wird - nicht nötig, weil es ja nur darum geht, das Bild nachzuarbeiten. Wer kommentiert, übernimmt, das ist die Regel. Der Nominator wird sich dann direkt beim Bild melden und eine neue Version präsentieren, in den meisten Fällen wirst du dann sogar angepingt.

Aber es ist nix passiert, sollte nur ein Hinweis sein! Schön, dass du mitmachst! --Hubertl 07:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hubertl; ich habe es noch einmal mit ein paar Bildern probiert. Imho qualitativ besser wie die letzten. Über Feedback Deinerseits hier wäre ich dankbar. Wenn Du hier mal drüberschauen magst hätte ich nichts dagegen. MfG --Verum (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe und habe zu meckern. Ich bin mir nicht im Klaren darüber, welches Bildverarbeitungsprogramm du verwendest, denn gerade in der Balance zwischen dunkel und hell sehe ich Nachholbedarf. Auf meinem Monitor sind vielfach die dunklen Bereiche zu stark. Ich nehme an, dass du mit einem Notebook arbeitest, was auch ein Problem in der Bilddarstellung mit sich bringt.

Was mir noch auffällt ist, dass vielen Bildern es schlichtweg an Schärfe mangelt. Bei deiner Kameraeinstellung solltest du nicht die Mehrfeldmessung verwenden, sondern die Spotmessung. Versuche mit der AV-Einstellung der Kamera den ISO-Wert auf maximal 200 zu geben, die Blende auf 8 - dann siehst du eh, was die Zeit hergibt. Und wenn du rüstig bist, dann ist ein Stativ niemals verkehrt. Im Gegenteil! Man verdoppelt seine Möglichkeiten! Und man muss ja nicht wie ein Irrer herumsausen und alles versuchen zu erwischen. Ich gehe manchesmal zu einem Objekt fünf bis sechsmal hin. Je nach Wetter, je nach Sonnenstand.

Ebenso sah ich, das du etwas nachlässig mit der Blendenwahl umgehst. Versuche mit deinem 18-55mm-Kit-Objektiv nicht eine kleinere Blende als eben f/8 zu verwenden. Es ist - soferne du nicht experimentierst, völlig sinnlos. Es zwingt dich nur, einen höheren ISO-Wert zu verwenden - mit den bekannten, sich daraus ergebenden Fehlern. Also, welches Bildverarbeitungsprogramm verwendest du? Wenn keines, Darktable als Open Source-Alternative würde sich da anbieten, Lightroom und Photoshop natürlich die optimale Sache, kostet halt 12 Euro/Monat. Für die Perspektivenkorrektur - welche ich immer händisch mache - eventuell GIMP. Da gibts mit Strg-P eine wunderbare Funktion. Welche Einstellung hast du bzgl. des Outputs aus der Kamera? JPG oder RAW? Letzteres wäre dringlich empfehlenswert, man sieht, dass manche Bilder mit hellem Hintergrund an ihre Grenzen geraten (bei den Übergängen) --Hubertl 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erwischt:-) Die Kamera hatte ich damals gekauft weil vor ein paar jahren mit den üblichen knipsdingern keine vernünftigen Bilder von den Kindern bei ihren Kindergarten-/Schulauftritten mit Zoom. Von den Bildern war ich lange sehr snttäuscht solange ich im Automatikmodus geknipst hatte. Vor zwei Wochen hatte ich einen Fotokurs besucht und hoffte die Basics verstanden zu haben - zumindest halte ich einige Bilder jetzt für optisch gefällig :-)

Perspektivkorrektur nehme ich Shift-N - zum Teil mit händischer nachbearbeitung. Bildbearbeitung zugegebnermassen nur Schärfe/Helligkeit mit Bordmitteln. Allerdings nicht auf dem Laptop - der hat zwar den besseren Prozessor aber der Bildschirm ist eine Katastrophe. Momentan habe ich den alten Windows-Vista Desktop wieder reaktiviert. Womit ich beim Problem wäre - Gimp ist nicht nur umständlich zu bedienen sondern darauf auch quälend langsam. Zu Anfang probier ich es mal mit geringerer ISO - mal schauen mit welchem Ergebnis. Wobei ich mit meinem laienhaften Verständnis weiter denke idR mit relativ hohen Blendenwerten >12-16 zumindest enzyklopädisch wertvollere Fotos zu machen.

Und ich bekenne bei dem eher kleine Arbeitsspeicher des Desktop momantan lieber mit jpg zu arbeiten. Noch fehlt mir auch das Wissen und der entsprechend geübte Blick als das RAW mir Vorteile bringen würde. --Verum (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dicker Turm in Künzell (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 Support QI. --C messier 10:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rapsfeld bei Fulda-Johannesberg.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. --Archi38 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tümpel an der Fliede (26).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 --Halavar 20:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Shaft end of Wind turbine blades.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 bit soft at the bolts but still OK for me. --Basotxerri 08:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Buchenwald am Ebersberg (04).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 Much better now. Try to check your monitor! --Hubertl 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

[1], Do you promote your own photos? Be careful please --Ezarateesteban 22:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry:-) --Verum (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fliede bei Kerzell (24).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 --Llez 19:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! LSG Hessische Rhön (17).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 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fliede bei Kerzell (21).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 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Baudenkmal Horaser Weg 71 (07).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 22:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eiche beim Wasserhochbehälter (11).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 Came out well for the issues it could have had --Daniel Case 05:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katharina Nocun 01.jpg

File:Katharina Nocun 01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

INeverCry 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapsfeld bei Fulda.jpg

File:Rapsfeld bei Fulda.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

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

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

w.carter-Talk 10:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading another version of the field! :) You take very good photos, no need to complicate them with things that can be questioned. I'm very glad the new version got promoted so quickly, if anyone contest that I will vote for it. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lyacena virgaureae.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 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rapsfeld bei Fulda (04).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 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ein Herzliches Dankeschön für Deinen WLE-Beitrag 2016

Hallo Verum,

der diesjährige Fotowettbewerb „Wiki Loves Earth“ liegt hinter uns. Für Deutschland haben mehr als 1100 Teilnehmer über 18.000 Fotos hochgeladen. Damit sind wir ein gutes Stück vorangekommen bei der Dokumentation der Schutzgebiete und zu schützenden Objekte unserer Natur.

Vorjury und Hauptjury haben eine Auslese nach qualitativen Kriterien vorgenommen und im Ergebnis wurden 100 Preisträger ermittelt. Die TOP-100-Fotos von 64 Fotografen findet Ihr auf unserer WLE-Projektseite.

Doch der gesamte Fotoschatz lässt sich mit nur 100 Fotos kaum erfassen. Daher habe ich nach Themenfeldern eine persönliche Auswahl vorgenommen und diese in Form von Kalenderpostern zusammengestellt. Über ein offizielles Poster mit den TOP-100 hinaus gibt es auch Poster zu Flora, Fauna, Landschaften und zur Geologie. Für jeden Geschmack dürfte bei dieser Kollektion etwas dabei sind. Wer Lust hat kann sich eine preisgünstige Druckerei suchen und ein solches Poster für ca. 15 € im Format A1 ausdrucken lassen. Alle fünf Poster zusammen zeigen mehr als 400 Fotos von über 160 Teilnehmern.

TOP-100
Landschaften
Fauna
Flora
Geologie

Wenn alles klappt, dann wird das TOP-100-Poster in Kürze auch in höherer Auflage gedruckt und auf der bevorstehenden WikiCon in der Region Stuttgart (Kornwestheim) für die Teilnehmer zum Mitnehmen und Weiterverteilen vorliegen. Auf dieser vom 16.-18. September stattfindenden Konferenz wollen wir auch nächste Schritte und mögliche Projekte mit Blick auf WLE-2017 diskutieren. Vorschläge für eine WLE-Preisverleihung und einen WLE-Workshop im Rahmen der WikiCon liegen auf dem Tisch. Es wäre schön, wenn auch Du dabei wärst.

Der Kalender reicht übrigens bis Juni 2017 und soll dazu einladen, schon in den kommenden Wochen und Monaten erneut auf Fototour rund um den Naturschutz zu gehen. Möge Euch ein Poster bis zum 4. WLE-Fotowettbewerb im Mai 2017 begleiten. Von mir allen Teilnehmern ein ganz persönliches Dankeschön und den Preisträgern einen herzlichen Glückwunsch. ( Bernd Gross, 20:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasserkuppe im Sommer.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 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please remove the dust spots in the sky. --Carschten 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rapsfeld bei Fulda.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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brown Butterfly (05).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 Comment Same goes for this butterfly, try to identify it, please. W.carter 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC) done --Verum 15:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. It is also a little bit dark, hard to see the details of the butterfly, do you think you can brighten it a notch? W.carter 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Done - and better crop. --Verum 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better crop. Good quality. You should also think about renaming both pics once they are off this list so that they will be more identifiable for people searching for these butterflies. W.carter 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brown Butterfly (02).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 Comment A genus level identification is appreciated; at least. You may get help at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung. Jkadavoor 10:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Done, Please wait with Promotion. --Verum 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Done --Verum 15:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. W.carter 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schlosspark Fulda (02).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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Female Fleckvieh.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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! HF in der Rhön auf der Weide.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 19:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sankt Anna in Friesenhausen (02).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 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche Oberweißenbrunn.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.--Famberhorst 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzungsrind auf der Weide.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. --Ermell 18:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QI

CCW -

. Thanks --Harpagornis (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oberweißenbrunn (04).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, QI --Hubertl 05:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Antennen auf einem Wohnhaus in Fulda.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 Needs perspective correction, WB, a bit more light and it is also full of CAs. All fixable. W.carter 19:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC) <new version --Verum 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit of purple CA on the left antennae, windows and corner there is a very small version of the pic in the top left corner (?) W.carter 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)next btry:-) --Verum 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. W.carter 07:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! HF in der Rhön auf der Weide (02).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. W.carter 09:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ferdinand Braun Denkmal in Fulda.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 Just ok now --Poco a poco 19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bildstock am oberen Viehgraben 02.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 Perhaps f 7.1 or higher have been better, but good quality.--Famberhorst 15:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mutterkuhherde in der Rhön.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 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Solarbetriebenes Weidezaungerät (02).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 20:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deine Bilder

Hallo! Ich sehe auf deiner Diskussionsseite, dass ich nicht der erste bin, der dies bemerkt: Viele deiner Bilder haben eine gewisse Unschärfe. Mir ist das zum Beispiel bei File:Epitaph_Johann_Konrad_Truchseß_von_Gersfeld_und_Hettenhausen.jpg bemerkt. Ich lehne Bilder nicht so gerne ab, denn das ist nicht motivierend. Wenn's aber meiner Meinung nach nicht reicht, ist es halt manchmal so. Das Bild ist eigentlich gut, nur warum ist es nicht scharf genug? Deine Kamera ist gut, das Objektiv wohl auch. Ist vielleicht das Objektiv dejustiert? Fokus zu weit vorn oder hinten? Oder passiert das erst mit der Software? Aber auch die Landschaftsaufnahmen sind ein wenig unscharf, das spricht gegen Front- oder Backfokus. --XRay ^talk 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: erst einmal ein nicht nur darhergesagtes Danke für die ausführliche Begründung.

Oben die Anmerkung von Hubertl bezog sich noch auf Camera-jpgs aus einer Canon 1000. Von daher sollten die jetzigen Bilder eigentlich besser sein. Am Objektiv kann es nicht liegen - da hätte ich mehrere im Einsatz - wenn auch nichts wirklich teures - das 18-55 Kitobjektiv und ein 18-270 sowie ein 11-18 Tamron. Lässt sich eine Kamera kallibrieren? Oder liegt es vielleicht doch daran, dass ich momentan mit dem RAW-Konverter eher noch zu kämpfen habe? Wobei ich mich auf den Autofocus verlassen muss. Mir fehlt der Blick für das Detail mittlerweile - ohne Lesebrille geht gar nix mehr. Vielleicht lade ich übers WE wieder mal etwas hoch - und frag Dich bevor ich zu QI gehe wie Du einige bewerten würdest. Falls Du bereit wärst Dir so viel Aufwand zuzumuten. Beste Grüße --Verum (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

zur Bidbearbeitung - bei Sony bietet sich da natürlich Capture One an - oder hat das einen weniger guten Ruf? --Verum (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nur kurz, denn die Tipperei am Smartphone ist umständlich. Man kann Kameras und Objektive kalibrieren. Ich habe schon mehrere beim Service gehabt und der Erfolg war sichtbar. Klar, alles hat Grenzen. Mit Front- und Backfokus hat mir Reikan Focal geholfen. Zumindest meine Canon EOS 70D lässt sich damit justieren. Und der Autofokus ist so ein Ding für sich. Manche Kameras zeigen die Kanten, an denen scharf gestellt wird, manche Sony-Kameras. Das ist hilfreich. Aber es muss was für den kontrastgesteuerten Autofokus da sein, was Kontrast hat. Sonst hilft nur manuell scharf stellen. Ich will den Schnittbildindikator meiner längst vergangenen Minolta X-700 wieder haben ... --XRay ^talk 18:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zweitens: Capture One soll mittlerweile echt gut sein. Ich nutze allerdings den Platzhirschen Adobe Lightroom, für meine Kameras. Da ist auch eine Sony-Systemkamera dabei. --XRay ^talk 18:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo; ich bin noch da. Und zumindest bei den Epitaphen weiß ich die Antwort. Die standen alle hinter Bänken und die gerade zu rücken war eine extreme Trapezkorrektur in sämtliche Richtungen. Vielleicht produziere ich dieses Wochenende mal ein paar ansehnliche Ergebnisse. --Verum (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Arnsberg gesehen vom TrupÜP Wildflecken.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 Comment Posterized (look at the gras), may be not 100% JPEG, compression artifacts. Tilted CCW. --XRay 05:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC) thanks fpr review - new version --Verum 12:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO it's still tilted CCW. I added a note to your image. --XRay 07:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC) new version; difficult, because the fence is now tilted:-) --Verum 15:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be sharper, but IMO QI now. (In deutsch, weil's mir ein wenig leichter fällt. Gerade bei Dingen wie Zäune oder Pfosten ist nicht immer alles senkrecht, aber der Gesamteindruck sollte passen. Und das macht er nun. Vorher wirkte der Beobachtungsstand sehr schief. Wenn du aber sagst, dass es tatsächlich so ist, dann sollte man es so lassen und in der Beschreibung angeben. Wir sollten keine Objekte gerade richten, die es nicht sind.) --XRay 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mariengrotte (Poppenhausen)

Hi Verum.

Would you have the kindness to locate this "grottoe"? I have a draft destined to replace the current French page in a few. All new (located) pics are welcome .

Have nice week. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 02:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I add some - but there are much more, I think the most villages have one. --Verum (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eiche im Wald beim Strehlhof

Hallo Verum,

unter User:Holger1959/WLE16/DE/HE/2016 May 9 stehen ein paar Bilder von Dir, bei denen nicht so ganz klar ist, ob sie das Naturdenkmal selbst oder seine Umgebung zeigen. Für den Wettbewerb ist es mittlerweile egal und ich wollte sie schon nach ok verschieben. Dann habe ich mir gedacht, Du könntest vielleicht etwas zur Aufklärung beitragen.

Viele Grüße, --Blech (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nun denn. Auf dem 1. 2. und 3. Bild ist besagte Eiche in der Bildmitte. 4. und 5. zeigen wohl nur die Umgebung mit besagter Eiche kaum erkennbar im Hintergrund am Bildrand. Bild 6. ist die Krone zu erkennen - wenn auch leider Richtung Unschärfe. Beste Grüße --Verum (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Ich habe versucht, die Beschreibungen, soweit nötig, zu ergänzen. Grüße, --Blech (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2017

Hallo Verum,

bald startet wieder Wiki Loves Earth Deutschland, unser Fotowettbewerb rund um das Themengebiet Naturschutz. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du wieder mitmachst.

Bilder können vom 1. bis 31. Mai 2017 eingereicht werden.

WLE Deutschland kooperiert dieses Jahr mit der Deutschen UNESCO-Kommission (DUK). Die bestplatzierten Bilder von Biosphärenreservaten, Weltnaturerbe und UNESCO-Geoparks sollen auf http://www.unesco.de präsentiert werden.

Die allgemeinen Wünsche der Organisatoren haben sich nicht geändert: Schutzgebiet oder -objekt angeben, Originalauflösung, keine Signaturen oder ähnliches im Bild.

Die Suche nach geeigneten Motiven erleichtern unter anderem neue Listen aller deutschen Naturwaldreservate oder Listen der Naturdenkmale in Baden-Württemberg, im Saarland, Hessen und Brandenburg. Stöbere einfach mal bei Wikipedia, z. B. auf der Karte.

Eine Vorjury wird die Vorauswahl der Bilder übernehmen. Hier kannst Du Dich ebenfalls gerne beteiligen. Bei Interesse bitte unter WLE-Vorjury eintragen, das Passwort kommt per E-Mail.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams,

--Blech (talk) April 2017

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Warnschild an einem Autobahnparkplatz in Baden-Würtemberg bei Bickelberg 03.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sihlquai - Zigarettenfabrik Sullana 01.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 Comment Good quality but first, sign by adding --~~~~
done -sorry:-) --Verum 01:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good Quality --PJDespa 09:41, 18 APril 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2018

Hallo Verum,

vom 1. bis 31. Mai 2018 können beim Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth Deutschland wieder Landschafts- und Naturfotos eingereicht werden. Sie sollen in Schutzgebieten aufgenommen worden sein. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du auch dieses Jahr mitmachst.

Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen, als Einstiegsseite kann diese Karte dienen.

Als ehemaliger Teilnehmer kannst Du bis Ende April bei der Wahl der Jury abstimmen.

Da viele tausend Bilder zu bewerten sind, wird die sogenannte Vorjury ab Anfang Mai eine Vorauswahl der eingereichten Bilder übernehmen. Deine Beteiligung daran ist ausdrücklich erwünscht. Bei Interesse trage Dich bitte unter WLE-Vorjury ein, das Passwort kommt dann per E-Mail.

Wir wünschen viel Freude beim Fotografieren,

--Blech (talk) April 2018

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grundstein am Gottlieb Duttweiler Institut.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.--Famberhorst 15:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rehskulptur.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 Much better! --Poco a poco 17:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frage zum Aufnahmezeitpunkt

Hallo Verum, bist Du Dir sicher, dass Du dieses Foto wirklich Mitte Juli aufgenommen hast?

abs9olut sicher. juli 2015 - mit deutlichen spuren der beweidung in einem eher nassen sommer. --Verum (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warum nicht einfach

{{subst:npd}} dort - [2] statt LA? Dann erledigt sich das innerhalb einiger Tage, sofern der Ersteller keine Freigabeerklärung schickt. --Pentachlorphenol (talk)

Hallo. Danke für den Hinweis - die Vorlage kannte ich bisher nicht. Hat aber so den Vorteil, dass der Hochlader etwas länger Zeit hat eine Freigabeerklärung zu schicken - wem ihm das jemand erklärt. Das er der Ersteller der Dateien ist würde ich aufgrund seiner Reaktion nicht ausschließen - nur funktioniert dieses Projekt nicht so, dass wir Accounts Behauptungen einfach glauben, weil sie plausibel erscheinen. --Verum (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

das npd-Template enthält praktischerweise gleich die Infos und Links für den Uploader um die Freigabe in die Wege zu leiten. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! John Deere 6534 with WM Kartoffeltechnik WM 4500 DSC00299.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. --Tournasol7 00:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Scheunenbrand Petersberg DSC00488.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
Could you give it more categories and English description? --Podzemnik 05:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC) :Done. Look also to the categories in Category:Scheunenbrand in Petersberg im September 2016 --Verum 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not great but better, thanks :) --Podzemnik 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Scheunenbrand Petersberg DSC00506.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
Please check the verticals. --Ermell 20:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC) New version. --Verum 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wolfgang Hamberger DSC03026.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. --Ermell 23:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Thomas Hering DSC03181.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 Just over the bar --Poco a poco 21:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzigungsgruppe Fuldaer Straße in Motten DSC03005.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. --Poco a poco 21:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mordstein Motten DSC02999.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. --Ermell 23:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!

Dear Verum,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked.

In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.

Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Drohnenaufnamen von Schutzgebiet

Hallo, du hast beim WikiLovesEarth Wettbewerb mit einer Drohne aufgenommene Fotos eingereicht. In der Regel ist es jedoch verboten Schutzgebiete mit einer Drohne zu überfliegen. Da wir im Wettbewerb keine Fotos haben wollen, bei denen gegen Naturschutzbestimmungen verstoßen wurde, müssen wir die Fotos disqualifizieren. Wenn es für die Fotos doch eine spezielle Genehmigung gab oder du meinst, dass sie aus anderen Gründen doch zulässig sind, hast du noch zehn Tage Zeit das mit zu teilen. Vielen Dank. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auf der Juryseite habe ich genatwortet. Für wie blöd hälst Du mich eigentlich, dass Du meinst die Bilder wären nicht bei einem genehmigten Flug enstanden? Noch blöder müsste ich allerdings sein, wenn ich jemand wie Dir eine Schreiben mit meiner vollständigen Adresse zur Verfügung stellen würde. --Verum (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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:Saules akmens no Ranka dambja 07.09.2003.JPG

Yours sincerely, kyykaarme (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirche Hofbieber-Wiesen 5.JPG

File:Kirche Hofbieber-Wiesen 5.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） ∙ /−

Martin Sg. (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirche Hofbieber-Wiesen 6.JPG

File:Kirche Hofbieber-Wiesen 6.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） ∙ /−

Martin Sg. (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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:GLAM Zürich - Wikipedianer im Migros Museum 01.jpg

And also:

File:GLAM Zürich - Wikipedianer im Migros Museum 02.jpg

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Verum

TUSC token 06cd7b8c61a2a57da4aedac7721b062e

Danke für deine Beiträge auf QI

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Mistake

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

File:Katharina Nocun 01.jpg

File:Rapsfeld bei Fulda.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Ein Herzliches Dankeschön für Deinen WLE-Beitrag 2016

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

QI

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Deine Bilder

Quality Image Promotion

Category:Mariengrotte (Poppenhausen)

Eiche im Wald beim Strehlhof

Wiki Loves Earth 2017

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Wiki Loves Earth 2018

Quality Image Promotion

Frage zum Aufnahmezeitpunkt

Warum nicht einfach

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!

Drohnenaufnamen von Schutzgebiet

Notification about possible deletion

File:Kirche Hofbieber-Wiesen 5.JPG

File:Kirche Hofbieber-Wiesen 6.JPG

Notification about possible deletion

Navigation menu

Search