How great you are texte tagalog version

User talk: 79,214

- 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images [edit]

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Image: Höheberg with Dietröder Klippen.JPG was uncategorized on 11 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: View over Großbartloff to the Westerwald.jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Schimberg (Eichsfelder Westerwald) (1) .jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: View from the railway viaduct to the Obereichsfelder heights (2) .jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: View of Mackenrode in Eichsfeld.jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Zehnsberg south of Berlingerode.jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Steinbachtalbrücke with Bodenrode in the foreground (2) .jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Entenbergtunnel der Kanonenbahn.jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Teufelskanzel (Eichsfeld) (1) .jpg was uncategorized on 17 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Gut Herbigshagen (1) .jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Winter on the Eichsfelder Höhe.jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Blick von den Dieteröder Klippen (3) .jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Eichsfelder Landschaft (Hellberge) .jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Naturparkzentrum Fürstenhagen.jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Eichsfelder Landschaft (Dün) .jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Warteberg im Winter 01.jpg was uncategorized on November 27, 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:36, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Eichsfelder Landschaft Leinetal 01.jpg was uncategorized on 27 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image: Junkerkuppe seen from Hanstein.jpg was uncategorized on 28 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Images to choose from [edit]

Hello 79.214s, since you take care of Eichsfeld: I have made a few pictures from the area (and a few others) smaller and otherwise mostly unedited for selection here. Nature and landscape come together in the album "Eichsfeld" (fourth from last). If any picture is needed for an article, I can upload it here in full resolution and share it under cc-by-sa. Just let us know and be patient ... Attention to all readers: The pictures in the web.de photo album are still under full copyright (except for the ones that I have already uploaded here), I only want to release selected pictures that actually needed for Wikipedia and not single-handedly littering Commons. --Dehio (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I only came across the photo album now. After a first brief overview, I noticed quite a few useful pictures (that is to say, pictures suitable for corresponding articles), some of which have already been incorporated recently. Although I'm at home in the area, I don't have nearly as many pictures, I'm not a photo expert (see here: spire), simple photo technology and time problems. I will look at the galleries completely, compare them with the corresponding articles and possibly suggest suitable images (for articles and possibly also for the categories). However, there are no picture numbers for a clear assignment. Kind regards 79.214er (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that with the picture numbers is a problem. But if you click on a picture in the gallery and then right-click on the picture in the larger view and click "Show graphic" or "Save graphic" or something like that, then the computer should have you (even if you don't save, but cancel) display the file name (e.g. Landscape 544) - either in the dialog box or in the title bar of the image display or something. I had already started adding descriptions, but that is an endless amount of work. And in the meantime a few hundred Eichsfeld photos have been added to my hard drive that I have not yet managed to upload. Unfortunately, I don't know a really good solution ... I don't feel like uploading tons of pictures that will never be needed afterwards. Maybe we have to meet one Saturday or Sunday afternoon in Heiligenstadt in the cafe and I'll bring my notebook and my hard drive with me or something. My photos are mostly not that great, but with the amount there is maybe something sufficient for Wikipedia (it doesn't have to win an art competition, it has to illustrate a certain subject). --Dehio (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons: Upload help # Upload wizard [edit]

was answered by me (although not satisfactorily). Next time you can just write or reply on the project page (not the talk page). - Rillke(q?) 09:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File: Eschweger Basin 01.jpg [edit]

                                                                            +/− 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File: Eschweger Basin 01.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 CommonsAttribution-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 (eg 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 (eg 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 OTRS 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.

Denniss (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

File: Leuchtbergpanorama Schlierbachswald.jpg [edit]

Hello, something seems to have gone wrong with the picture. Can you fix the gray stripe below and re-upload the image? The best way to do this is via the link "Upload a new version of this file", if you check the box next to "Ignore warnings". The existing file description is not changed by the new upload. Holger1959 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing with the gray stripe must have happened during the image processing, I didn't notice it and then uploaded it like that (the original image was from Milseburg, I divided and uploaded different images). Unfortunately I no longer have the original file, so I would have to download the image again, remove the bar and upload it again (there is a special upload form here) - 79.214er (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I have reworked the picture accordingly and re-uploaded it with "your" upload form. In the Schlierbachswald article, however, the old picture is still in it, I thought the latest version would automatically be displayed. Can you take another look at where there could be an error? - 79.214er (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Everything is fine, also in the article! If you still see the stripe, it must be related to the intermediate storage. "My" upload form is of course not mine, but can be found on every file page, but is a bit hidden in the "File versions" section. That's why I wrote it to you as a direct link. Holger1959 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thuringia, map of Johann Baptist Homann. [Edit]

Sorry I don't speak German (I use Google Translate). As per your request, I downloaded a few pictures cropped from my map of Thuringia. They are to be found under "History of Thuringia"; "Thuringia", "Thuringia in the 1710s", "Vogtei", "Eichsfeld". I will download a few more in the comming days (Territorium Efurt; Grafschaft Schwarzburg, etc.).

File tagging File: Portal Grenzmuseum.jpg [edit]

Brackenheim (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The picture was not taken by me, I just moved it to Commons with the CommonsHelper. The originator is probably the border museum itself (or an employee). I don't know what to do there either. - 79.214s (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
That's right, the script notified you at the same time instead of just marking the file. On de.wiki you added the "presumed author" on the file description page on Jul 24, 2013. It would have been better to send the file through Wikipedia: File Review to get confirmation from the user that he is indeed the author. I am restoring the file on de.wiki, maybe he'll get in touch ... Regards --Brackenheim (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File: Dachsberg Schwebda.jpg [edit]

                                                                            +/− 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File: Dachsberg Schwebda.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 CommonsAttribution-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 (eg 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 (eg 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 OTRS 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.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 01:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Landmarks [edit]

Hello 79,214s, I answer on your side: the templates It was freely accessible on the Thuringia website in the download area until about 10 years ago, but it was a bit hidden, I had dealt with the GIS topic at the time and came across it by chance. In the meantime, however, the relevant page has been completely revised and various PDF files were lost, unfortunately also the files on old district boundaries. Of course, you can still order / buy older maps of the districts with the borders, but you have to scan them in separately, etc. and there is still a Geogreif website of the University of Greifswald with the GDR-TK10 - but the border strips are in white there only partially useful. Send me an email and I can send you a pdf of the corridor boundaries from the EIC if necessary. Greetings - Metilsteiner (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. That with the mail is again like a "Book 7 (or more) seals", although I had already sent an email to a user. Under Geogriff you can find e.g. the closure maps of the GDR (1:25), where the district boundaries are drawn, can be downloaded. Should be enough then - 79.214er (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello - just send me an email with the subject cards. The technical is described here beautifully flowery, but possibly. you haven't (so far) added your own email address to your user account in Wikipedia, or I'm too dumb and can't find the relevant area (“... mostly top left ... ???). At the end of the help you can also get an email address from Wikipedia (for example [email protected]) - also good to know .-- Metilsteiner (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
One last note: If you have to create the terrain reference, this Thuringia Cultural Landscape project might also be useful. Unfortunately they currently have the histor. Maps / measuring table sheets removed or disabled for guest users, ?? At the top right in the corner is a switch to switch the map layer - there comes, after a few zoom levels, the current TK25 and, alternatively, OpenTopomap - but mostly the labels for the mountains etc. are still missing. The project already covers most of the federal states, just try it out Greetings --Metilsteiner (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
File has arrived - thank you. The boundaries of the corridors are sometimes very confusing, so you have to deal more intensively with a demarcation. I'm also interested in maps and have already uploaded a few (like this one). But I'm not such an expert in image processing and the tech. Details (jpg, pdf, etc.). --79.214er (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On the stone

Hello, in Category: Pictures from somewhere else have just landed on the stone, I'll be sorting them right away (according to Category: Nature Reserve Auf dem Stein (Menden)), but I think a permanent solution should be found. The introduction in de: Dietzenröder Stein confuses me a bit ("On the stone there is one on the Dietzenröder Stein ..."), the link is Category: Dietzenröder Stein and this category is again in Category: On the stone ... In addition, de: On the stone now an article on the NSG.

Suggestion: Category: Move on the stone to Category: On the stone (…) where you suggest what should be written for "…" (mountain? Gobert? Hesse?). And "on the stone" would then become a disambiguation; there are also completely different possibilities of what can be meant (including 2 NSGs of the same name). What do you think? Holger1959 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I haven't been there for a couple of days. That with the categories and the article "Dietz. Stein" is confusing at first, see also the discussion there. The problem was that there was no name for the entire mountain in modern maps. That is why the article is based on the Dietzenröder Stein (cliffs), which at the time already made me a little uncomfortable. I now have a histor. Measuring table sheet found with the (official) name "Auf dem Stein". I want to create a new article for the entire mountain when I get the chance and restrict the "Dietz. Stein" as part of the mountain to the actual hilltop and shorten it accordingly.
But then there would still be a problem with the name: an addition to brackets would be better, since there are probably several geogr. Objects with the same name. But the question is which one? Gobert as a mountain name is not entirely consistent, since as Gobert (or Goburg) in the narrower sense, only Muschelkalkhöhen lying south of the Hesselkopf are called that way, but in terms of natural space it is counted as Gobert. A place name is problematic because the mountain is distributed over many districts of very small places (most likely still "Asbach-Sickenberg", but it is quite long). Historically, it probably belonged to Bad Sooden-Allendorf (Hesse), but only came to the Eichsfeld district (Thuringia) in 1945. Or just the addition "mountain" in brackets? At the moment I'm still very undecided. -79.214er (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, sounds really difficult to find a suitable terminology addition. If the entire mountain is in the district of Eichsfeld (and not even the smallest part in Hesse), then that would be the best option, right? Holger1959 (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion actually belongs better on the corresponding disk page (Dietzenröder Stein WP.de), can you just copy it over?
yes, if there is something useful for you, take it easy. I'm only interested in a solution for Category: On the Stone. The introduction to de: Dietzenröder Stein is still not a complete sentence, by the way, a word is missing somewhere;)
Maybe you can see if there are more mountains / ridges etc. "On the stone". If not, I would add "(mountain)" to the shift. Holger1959 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)