User talk:Drdoht/Archive 1

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

Rappen

If you think that "Rappen" isn't a coin from Germany, first change the text in this article.

--Carlomorino (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rappen

All shown coins belong to Switzerland, with one exeption http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rappen_pfennig_freiburg_.jpg a coin from 1290. Freiburg im Breisgau is indeed a city of Germany, but in 1290, there was no Germany! Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg you can read something about Freiburg in the year 1200.

My opinion: none of the shown rappen coins do refer to germany. Mit freundlichen Grüßen from Germany --Drdoht 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Danzig

Hello!

Please to use "Danzig" only about Free City. Thanks. --Starscream (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

at what location (category)? --Drdoht 17:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Danzig" and "Gdańsk" in English language are in the same way correct. But took root in Wikipedia to use "Danzig" only in the matter of the Free City. The usage alternant "Danzig" and "Gdańsk" causes misunderstandings. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Danzig became 1918 "Free city" after WWI. Now I dealed with very old coins, Holy Roman Empire. I suggest, at that time Danzig was named "Hansestadt", like Hamburg, Lübeck, Bremen in Germany. Danzig was german until 1945. Danzig is part of Poland since 1945, and so it changed to "Gdańsk". What shall we do now? greetings --Drdoht 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Kraków was also a member of Hanse. But it does not matter. I want avoidances of misunderstandings. The traversal of the subcategories in which "Danzig" and "Gdańsk" appears alternant, will cause misunderstandings. I assure that the name "Gdańsk" exists from Middle Ages. Even in Latin language are two names: "Dantiscum" and "Gedanum". The same way correct. I want only to prevent to the of chaos. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Fairchild opamp ado-13.jpg

Dear Drdoht,
Noticing the blue cast on the image File:Fairchild opamp ado-13.jpg, I wanted to ask whether you would mind if I balanced the contrast and colours a little? You're free to revert any changes, of course :-).
Best regards, --
ElHeineken (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

please feel free in adapting this picture of an very oldfashened opamp. best regards --Drdoht 15:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Sorry for taking so long. If you're unhappy with the results, don't hesitate to contact me or revert the changes. --
ElHeineken (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The thaler category

First of all, thank you for your thorough sorting of German coins on Commons!

I'd like to discuss a few things with you, though. My most pressing concern is that you generally remove the category "Thaler" from the thaler coins. It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that your rationale is that thaler coins do not belong to one single period of German history and thus cannot be confined to any particular section of German coins - e.g. thalers are not products of the Holy Roman Empire only.

This is how I see things: 1) "Thaler" is a concept that has prevailed through centuries of European history as an important currency type. 2) Therefore, we should have a "Thaler" category on Commons, and we should be able to find (in principle) all thaler coins on Commons by browsing the "Thaler" category and its sub-categories. 3) If you are not comfortable with the idea of all thalers from the Joachimsthalers to 20th century Maria Theresia thalers being lumped together in a single category, the "Thaler" category could always have sub-divisions that would fit into, say "Category:Coins of the Holy Roman Empire" and others.

Please note that there are other currency units that have their own category, even though they were issued by different states. See for instance Category:Solidus.

Let me know what you think. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other things

I'm also concerned about this edit (and similar edits). This is a Prussian 20 mark coin from 1914, and should thus remain in Category:Coins of Prussia. I realise that the coin was issued after the German unification of 1871 and was issued according to the gold mark standard of the German Empire. Nevertheless, it is a Prussian coin and should remain in that category. Think of the implications - should German euro coins also be moved to Category:Euro coins, and should we abolish Category:Euro coins (Germany), simply because German euro coins do not represent an independent currency? Probably not :-)

The final thing is moving coins to Category:Medieval German coins. I'm thinking of this edit (and similar edits). Basically, a coin from 1696 is not medieval, so regardless where it belongs, it doesn't belong in Category:Medieval German coins. There might be different definitions as to when the medieval era ended, but it was certainly before 1696. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your critical sight on the new directory of mostly german coins. I have structured the huge amount of mostly unsorted german money (coins & banknotes!) along the timeline. Now it’s telling a long story of with very interesting unknown details of history. The main structur was given by categories of others and I did some finetuning and streamlining.

Before starting I reflected on the problem – what’s the best way? Sorting by content, name or timeline. Everything seems to be mixed before I started and so there was a confusing bulk of names. „Money of Austria“ has until now a interesting structure along the timeline (somebody did this work). Generally it’s unfortunate that many coins are only pictured with only one side. (two sides on one picture is optimal). Refering to „Commons“ we need as much as possible subfolder and as less as possible files in it. Many many user don‘t understand the sense of categories and subcategories, and so a small mixing up will continue. These user are thinking “category“ means a „field of interest“. Everybody should compare the structure of wiki-categories with the computer’s directory.

So I considered primarily gathering all coins by time is the savest way for non-numismatic user (as I am). On this way I discharged all folders like „Thaler“, „Vereinsthaler“, „Groschen“, „Rappen“ etc. which are refering only to names and content (unfortunately there are suddenly confusing new austrian, switzer and other coins).

--> The very rest of my work I collected all unknown coins (to me) together in the folder „medevial coins“. Sorry.

On my way I recognized two main problems: 1) New times (>2002) – only few staates but a huge number of material. 2) Old times (<1900) – only few coins but a great number of small shorttime countries

1) Euro Coins: As you can check, every state wants to show its own pictures on the coins („Euro coins (Austria)“ until „Euro coins (Vatican)“, each ca 40-50 coins). It’s a unique currency indeed, but in sum to much coins! I did not create the folder „euro coins (germany)“, but I made subfolder for german goldcoins (32 files) and german commemorative coins (188 files) – and what’s in the year 2014?? It’s a overwhelming amount of pictures, please dont mix them up in the general folder „euro coins“. Euro coins are bringing up a new inflation – a numismatic one.

2) Old coins <1900: Just now. I had a short look on two schoolmaps from 1815 and 1914 – very confusing number of borderlines inside europe. And there was a great number of currencies (Gulden, Kronen, Thaler ...) I suggest the following will be helpfull:

- Let’s create a new main category/folder „Money of Europe before 1900“ or „Money of Europe until beginning 20th century“

- Next platform to be linked: „money of counties before 1900“ e.g. Duchy of Prussia, Duchy of Hanover-Lüneburg-Braunschweig, Hansestadt Lübeck, Freie Stadt Frankfurt ........, Lombardei ..... Böhmen ..... Switzerland .... Austria .... Vatican

- Other platform to be linked: „currencies before 1900“ e.g. Rappen before 1900, Goldmark before 1900, Kreuzer before 1900, Groschen before 1900, Heller before 1900, Kronen before 1900, Gulden before 1900, Forint before 1900, Thaler before 1900

By this way it should be possible, to incooperated all interesting coins listed in all categories „Money by country“ manually. Every interesting file gets only a second link. By this way, nobody disturbs the existing structure of main folders „Money of xxxx“ containing the stock of coins.

If we do so, I get rid of false categories switzer „Rappen“ austrian „Maria-Theresia-Thaler“, curious name „Groschen“ linked to my german structure of coins.

What do you think about this proposal? best regards --Drdoht 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

=========

"Coin picturing Wilhelm II": He was virtually King of Prussia but in reality Emperror of the German Empire. All coins are printed "Deutsches Reich 19xx" e.g. http://www.usagold.com/gold/coins/ger20mark.html and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Reichsgesetzblatt_1896_Seite_195.png. Otherwise there are no stamps existing for prussia at that time. Very complicated political correlations in this time.

"Coin of Prussia" would mean, invalid in e.g. Bavaria and other parts of the German Empire. In fact this coin was valid in all parts of the German Empire.

hello

What do you mean by "private source" ? The coin is 1923 and created by a bank, but the photo is not. Are you the author of the photography ? The cleaning surrounding the coins is also pretty badly made, could you please rather uplaod the source image and request a wikigraphist to redo it ? thank you Lilyu (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for uploading the original photo :) the right part still have harsh hedges but it's ok
Are you the photographer ? If yes, you would have to add your name as the photographer : the bank is only the creator of the coin. I don't know who hold copyright of the design of the coin, probably the German state or public domain. But as the photographer, you are the author of the photo, and your name should be cited :)
Have a nice day, and thank you for sharing your images.--Lilyu (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:ASM-A-1 Tarzon

Hi there,

I noticed you removing Category:Tallboy bomb from Category:ASM-A-1 Tarzon. I readded the category only for it to be removed again without comment. The category is appropriate for the ASM-A-1 to be included under, as the ASM-A-1's actual "bomb" component was, in fact, a Tallboy. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger,

thank you for your remark refering ASM-A-1 Tarzon. As you can see I have structured the huge field [„air-dropped bombs“] by creating subfolders. First I sorted by states and then by time (WW1, WW2). There are about 600 entries from me and so I had no time to comment each move. Sorry that I didn’t notice, that you have made a remove of category „ASM-A-1 Tarzon“. Well, this type is US and made „after WW2“. The „Tallboy bomb“ is UK and made „during WW2“. There are similarities (not by size but by technique):

best regards --Drdoht 00:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I can see your point. I assumed though, that since actual Tallboys (not sure if they were bought from England or license-produced) formed the core of Tarzon, it would fit as a subcategoy of Tallboy. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

sin/cos drehen?

Hallo Drdoht, wieso willst du das Bild drehen lassen http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sine_cosine_one_period.svg&action=history  ? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

owehhhh, sorry, ich dachte, das wäre nur eine Darstellungsoption für meinen Bildschirm. Bitte nix drehen an der Grafikdatei, wäre ja Unsinn. Beste Grüße --Drdoht 21:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Alles klar, kein Problem - habe es revertiert. Ich versuche mal zu sehen, wie wir da noch einen kurzen erklärenden Text wie z.B. "Hiermit kannst du falsch gedrehte Bilder korrigieren (wie es z.B. oft bei Digitalfotos im Hochkantformat vorkommt)" in das Pop-up-Fenster einfügen. Falls es dich interssiert: Hilfe findest du hier: Help:RotateLink. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Dronning Ingrid (1951).jpg

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:Dronning Ingrid (1951).jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: Please clarify who the author is. Were your parents the photographers or did they just "collect" a bought photo/postcard?

Saibo (Δ) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks here, too! --Saibo (Δ) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ferry-site.dk/ferry.php?id=DronningIngrid1951&lang=en (very bad quality) was not apparently the source, as everybody can see e.g. at the flag, the top of the front windows and the position of the name. best regards --Drdoht 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that the image it not from there (I saw it at the water on the front of the ship). However, the description is more clean without a external URL, don't you think? I have linked the Wikipedia article of the line instead. Übrigens können wir natürlich auch Deutsch reden, wenn du magst. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
ok, nu vi kan taler tysk! (Klar, weiß ich doch) Den Link hatte ich nur deswegen beigefügt, weil ich zwecks Kategorisierung das Baujahr brauchte. Außerdem stehen dort andere wissenswerte Daten (z.B. daß sie später in Sjælland umbenannt wurde). Von der Sjælland gab es bei Commons auch schon ein Bild, aber eben ohne Bezug zur Dronning Ingrid. Mange hilsener fra --Drdoht 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
War das jetzt Norwegisch? Dänisch? Das kann ich leider nicht. Okay, ich habe den Link wieder hinzugetan, mit Beschriftung. Danke für die Bilder! Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
*smile* Det var dansk. Aber norwegisch, dänisch und schwedisch unterscheiden sich nur relativ wenig in der Schreibweise, mehr dagegen in der Aussprache. So ähnlich wie bei den deutschen Dialekten, schlimmer ist es nicht. Nu jeg ønsker god nat. Farvel og tak for alt. --Drdoht 02:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Jeg forstår det ("Det var dansk"). Du er velkommen og smuk søndag! (with a bit help from google :-)   ) --Saibo (Δ) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Deutschland (1953).jpg

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:Deutschland (1953).jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: Please clarify who the author is. Were your parents the photographers or did they just "collect" a bought photo/postcard?

Saibo (Δ) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - in case you do not want to make such statements public: send them to OTRS instead. --Saibo (Δ) 16:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Dampffaehre_Deutschland_1909.jpg

File:Dampffaehre_Deutschland_1909.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Saibo (Δ) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:DK-14051963_vogelfluglinie.jpg

File:DK-14051963_vogelfluglinie.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Saibo (Δ) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:20 dm bbkII bdr rs.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 14:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

danke für Hinweis, Lizenzbaustein falsch im Text eingesetzt und daher vom bot nicht erkannt. --Drdoht 14:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drdoht/Archive_1&oldid=659197854"