User talk:Nina Eger

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Nina Eger!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eugen Eger 1953.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!

Rosenzweig τ 14:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sprüche Eger Freigabe 8.Aug. 2017.pdf 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!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)[edit]

In other languages (translate this)

Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  italiano  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  日本語  +/−

Please use SVG
Please use SVG
Thank you for uploading some images! Did you know that Wikimedia Commons recommends the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format for certain types of images? Scalable Vector Graphics are designed to look appropriate at any scale, and SVG images are easier to modify and translate, helping Wikimedia to distribute knowledge to all of the world. A lot of modern programs support SVG export. If you encountered problems or have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, a member of the Graphic Lab, or the Graphics village pump. Uploading images in SVG format isn't mandatory, but it would help. (To avoid any misunderstandings, please don't just put raster images into an SVG container as embedded raster.) Thanks, and happy editing!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018-09-21 Biographie.pdf 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Straßenschild.Härdtner.pdf 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!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Porträt1987.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

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

Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG Porträt20181124 155102.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!

JuTa 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Minnesängerdenkmal.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 and good composition -- Spurzem 21:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zitzmannsbrunnenbach, Bettenhausen.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!

Rudolf Simon (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stetten o. R., St. Leodegar, Maria und Johannes.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!

2003:DD:D720:2614:2CB4:D3EC:F32D:D907 12:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Nina Eger, wenn Du so schöne Innenaufnahmen aus deutschen Kirchen hochlädst, solltest Du bitte daran denken, in der Bildbeschreibung auszuführen, von wann und nach Möglichkeit von wem die abgebildeten Kunstwerke sind, so dass daraus deren urheberrechtlicher Status hervorgeht. Die Panoramafreiheit in Deutschland erstreckt sich leider nicht auf Innenräume. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ich war eigentlich auf dem Pfarramt und da hat eigentlich niemand etwas dagegen gesagt, aber ich kann noch einmal nachfragen. Die Pietá dürfte deutlich älter als 100 Jahre sein ! Ich glaube, es ist nicht bekannt, wer diese Pieta gemacht hat. Pfarrer Bachmor hat sie angekauft, meine ich.--Nina Eger (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Nina Eger, das Pfarramt regelt nicht die Urheberrechte, falls noch welche bestehen sollten. Im Augenblick ist die Bildbeschreibung ohnehin extrem dünn, da findet sich noch nicht einmal der Hinweis, um welche Kirche es sich handelt. Offenbar um St. Mauritius. Die notwendigen Angaben sollten doch der von Dir dort aufgeführten Literatur entnehmbar sein. In dem Artikel findet sich auch unbelegterweise die Angabe „Spätgotische Pietà mit Leuchterengeln (um 1650)“. So etwas sollte auch in die Bildbeschreibung mit Literaturhinweis. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mehr ist hierüber nicht bekannt (s. o.)--Nina Eger (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In den Beschreibungen der Files dürfte St. Mauritius bei allen deutlich ausgeführt sein. Als Bildunterschrift in einem Artikel über St. Mauritius halte ich es für redundant. Ausserdem ist die Frage der Provenienz spannend. Zweifelsohne gehören das Renaissance-Kruzifix und die Pieta in eine Werkstatt, meine ich. Alles andere musst du in den Rechnungen des Pfarrarchivs einsehen, vielleicht steht hier etwas über die Herkunft der Pieta ?--Nina Eger (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, AFBorchert (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, shalom ! Here the discussion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Kartenw%C3%BCnsche#Kann_man_davon_einen_Plan_erstellen:_Johanniterkommende_Rottweil_1798_? There is no doubt, it is legal, but nobody wants to help me. I´m not good in drawing picutures--Nina Eger (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Nina Eger, dazu möchte ich auf das BGH-Urteil vom 3. Juli 1964 verweisen. Zitat: „Ein Stadtplan kann als Abbildung wissenschaftlicher Art urheberrechtlichen Schutz genießen, wenn die kartographische Darstellung eine eigene geistige Leistung erkennen läßt.“ Dies lässt sich auch auf vergleichbare Werke wie dem Plan einer Kommende übertragen. Aus meiner Sicht dürfte es am besten sein, einen Scan des Originals von 1798 zu organisieren, hier hochzuladen und diesen dann nachzuzeichnen. Das ist dann urheberrechtlich unbedenklich. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AFBorchert Das dürfte allerdings sehr teuer werden. Ich habe 15 Euro für die Veröffentlichung des Plans in der Gedenkstättenrundschau für Oktober 2020 gezahlt und habe noch eine weitere Genehmigung für Oberbürgermeister Bross und die Rottweiler Heimatblätter. Eine Online-Veröffentlichung dürfte nicht unter 60 Euro kosten.--Nina Eger (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Nina Eger, wenn der Plan in Oktober 2020 veröffentlicht wird, kann dieser dann von einer beliebigen Person problemlos von dort eingescannt und auf Commons hochgeladen werden. Aus der Sicht von Commons wäre das kein Problem. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Auch wenn ich verstehe, dass die Archive chronisch unterfinanziert sind, halte ich es für ein Unding, dass die Veröffentlichungen mit solchen Kostenaufstellungen behindert werden. Wir haben hier andere Archive (wie z.B. das Stadtarchiv Gmünd), die sogar aus eigenem Antrieb hier Materialien hochladen. Ich habe selbst auch schon für solche Kopien bezahlt, Category:Ulmische Zustände aus dem Ulmer Stadtarchiv ist ein Beispiel, woraus später Ulmische Zustände auf Wikisource wurde. Für das gesamte Buch habe ich aber dennoch weniger ausgegeben, als was sie von Dir für den einen Plan verlangen. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Plan ist übrigens schon veröffentlicht in Hermann Schmid: Die Meliorationsvisitation der Rottweiler St.-Johann-KOmmende im Jahr 1781, in: ZWLG, 44.Jg (1985), S. 223, allerdings schwarz-weiß. In der Gedenkstättenrundschau ist es auch schwarz-weiß. Kann man es von dort aus Übertragen ?--Nina Eger (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, absolut. Und die fehlenden Farben stören nicht, wenn das zur Grundlage einer neuen SVG-Grafik verwendet wird. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Löwe des Ev. Markus.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!

2003:DD:D711:9985:B010:33E6:D79C:FEB5 11:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bucher, Franz - Große Weide - 1964.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!

Martin Sg. (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catarina Bubenhofen, geb. von Freyberg.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!

Nina Eger (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting source files[edit]

Hi Nina!

You have nominating some files for deletion because improved versions of the files have been uploaded. I think deleting the source files is not a good idea because they are used as proof of who the photographer is and for the license of the files.

It is possible to upload the new file on top of the old file (or merge the files) but per COM:OW we usually prefer to keep both versions.

Deleting the file will not save any space because the file is just hidden from public so saving space is also not a good reason to delete. So I hope you don't mind we keep the original file too. --MGA73 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St. Otmar (Hochmössingen) - Turm.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

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

Krd 11:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philipp Jeningen - Glasfenster Südseite St. Ottmar (Hochmössingen).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!

2003:DD:D716:378E:24F8:AD18:4C00:9F30 16:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Ignaz Rohr Hochmössingen.jpg[edit]

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  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ignaz Rohr Hochmössingen.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!

Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, es handelt sich offensichtlich um ein Gemälde. Wer hat es gemalt? Wie sind seine Lebensdaten? --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Das wissen wir nicht: die Kirchengemeinde kennt nur einen Vermerk über das Enstehungsjahr. Es könnte aus dem Besitz des Reichstagsabgeordneten Klemm sein. Heute gehört es der Gemeinde.--Nina Eger (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ich gehe allerdings davon aus, dass der Schöpfer des Werks kriegsbedingt (zwei Weltkriege) bereits länger als 70 Jahre verstorben ist. Ob es eine Schöpfungshoheit besitzt weiß ich nicht, da ich den Maler nicht kenne. Es wurde auch nicht öffentlich ausgestellt, sondern gehört der Pfarrei Hochmössingen, die mit der Publikation einverstanden ist.--Nina Eger (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also mein Großvater - ich schrieb Großvater - ist 1887 geb. und 1953 verstorben, hat aber allerdings erst meine Großmutter auf dem Wochenbett porträtiert. Für solche Porträts dürfte man schon etwas reifer gewesen sein. Das ist nicht das Werk eines 20-Jährigen. Ich gehe davon aus, dass der Mann - ausgerechnet auch noch in Breslau wohnend - bereits gestorben sind. Entweder er starb während des Krieges, der Vertreibung oder an einem Herzinfarkt. Nein, ich denke, das ist public domain.--Nina Eger (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Du kannst das jederzeit im Pfarrbüro zu den Öffnungszeiten ansehen. Das ist schon ein bisschen öffentlich, denn du kannst ja dort vorbeigehen.--Nina Eger (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nina,
ich habe jetzt mal die Angaben im Beschreibungsbaustein und die Lizenz den verfügbaren Daten angepasst. Auf :de würde das Foto nach der dort üblichen Handhabung akzeptiert. Die Lizenz habe ich von CC auf PD geändert, weil wir ja letztlich davon ausgehen, dass das Kunstwerk PD ist. Für eine getreue Reproduktion, die dein Foto ja sicherlich darstellt, gibt es aber kein eigenes Urheberrecht. Der Begriff, den du erwähnt hast, ist übrigens Schöpfungshöhe (oder auf deutsch de:Schöpfungshöhe). Die ist hier definitiv gegeben. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danke--Nina Eger (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Antoniuskapelle (Hochmössingen) - Fischpredigt (Pater Tutilo Gröner 1939).jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Antoniuskapelle (Hochmössingen) - Fischpredigt (Pater Tutilo Gröner 1939).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Der wahre Jakob (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Der wahre Jakob Das Bild wurde von mir gemacht und von mir hochgeladen. Die generelle Genehmigung des Leiters des Beuroner Kunstverlags wurde von mir an Muskelprozz weitergeleitet. Ich verstehe deine Frage nicht !--Nina Eger (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dann ist es ja gut, wenn der Kunstverlag der Rechtenachfolger des Benediktiners ist und Commons das akzeptiert.--Der wahre Jakob (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ich würde jetzt keine genealogischen Forschungen anstellen wollen ... Ich denke das geht so in Ordnung und wird von Pater Mauritius unterstützt. Es tut ihm eher Leid, dass man seine Arbeit nicht entsprechend gewürdigt hat.--Nina Eger (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Antoniuskapelle (Hochmössingen) - Fischpredigt (Pater Tutilo Gröner 1939).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!

Mussklprozz (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Eisenbahnerheim Bad Dürrheim.pdf. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Eisenbahnerheim Bad Dürrheim.pdf]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Stefan Bellini (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ich glaube, das betrifft Lothar, nicht mich. Nina (unangemeldet).--2003:DD:D718:5542:5549:AD3C:5145:C278 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am besten geht er (der Autor) wohl nach dem Freigabe-Assistenten vor, der oben verlinkt ist. Fragen beantworten sicher gerne auch Admins, auf meiner Benutzerseite stehen unten ein paar deutschsprachige hiesige Admins. Ich persönlich habe das Verfahren noch nie gebraucht. Grüße, --Stefan Bellini (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Die Datei kann wiederhergestellt werden, wenn der Autor es nicht geschafft hat, so schnell eine OTRS-Mail zu senden. Endgültig "gelöscht" wird in Wikimedia-Projekten ja nichts. Dafür müsste man sich dann einen Admmin wenden, welche Metaseiten hier in Frage kämen, weiß ich nicht. Grüße, --Stefan Bellini (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Magda Teter.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Magda Teter.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Magda Teter.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Magda Teter.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Die Genehmigung liegt vor.--Nina Eger (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]