User talk:Furfur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Copyright status: File:Europa 1914.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Europa 1914.svg. 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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. --Furfur (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Alianzen in Europa 1914.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Alianzen in Europa 1914.svg. 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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Furfur (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Regierungsbezirke in Pommern

Hi. I have started to create articles on Prussian Regierungsbezirke for Swedish Wikipedia and I noticed that there was no good map for Regierungbezirke in Provinz Pommern. Do you have time to create one? I have used many of your other maps. Thanks!--Bothnia (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bothnia, thanks for your inquiry. I have seen that you have used the "Regierungsbezirke in Schlesien" image. Indeed I was thinking about creating a similar map for Pomerania, but I first have to find a suitable template and then I have to find some spare time for completing this task ... Greetings --Furfur (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Regierungsbezirke in Schlesien" is one of your finest contributions indeed. Here are two maps of Pomerania that you may find useful as templates. Looking forward to seeing the result!--Bothnia (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have created a new map: Pommern_1913.svg. Thank you for your interest in the subject. --Furfur (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Bothnia (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Alphabetisierungsrate Indien 2011.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Alphabetisierungsrate Indien 2011.svg. 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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fixed it. --Furfur (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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!

--Jayarathina (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Albertus

Moin Furfur! Wo hast Du denn das schöne Siegel her [1]? Das Gesicht wirkt jünger als die Umschrift. – Leider habe ich noch keine Lizenz für das gelöschte Foto der Albertusnadel in Würzburg.--Mehlauge (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Mehlauge, das Siegel habe ich aus Hubatzsch - Gundermann: Die Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg/Preußen in Bildern.. Erst gescannt und dann in svg umgewandelt. Dort ist es als "Siegel der Albertus-Universität" bezeichnet. Ich denke, da gibt es auch kein Copyright-Problem, das ist ja genauso wie bei anderen Universitätssiegeln auch. Der Scan ist von der Bildqualität praktisch verlustfrei wie die Vorlage, aber die hat natürlich ihre Mängel, z. B. ist der Wappenschild ziemlich undeutlich, etc. Irgendwann müsste sich mal ein Grafiker, z. B. aus der Grafikwerkstatt, daran machen und das Siegel ganz neu zeichnen. Man bräuchte aber hier wirklich eine qualitativ noch bessere Vorlage, aber die habe ich bisher nirgendwo gefunden.
Grüße --Furfur (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Brent crude oil price 1986-2014.svg

Hallo Furfur,

könntest du auch deinen Plot-Skript mit angeben?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Plot-Skript ? Da bin ich überfragt. Was ist das ? Du willst vielleicht die Rohdaten ? Gruß --Furfur (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass du mit Inkscape die Ölpreiskurve gezeichnet hast. Mit welchem Programm hast du das Diagramm erstellt?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nein, das habe ich tatsächlich nicht ... ich habe eine Exceltabelle der Ölpreise vom Mai 1987 bis Dezember 2014 genommen, in Excel ein Diagramm erstellt, dieses dann in Adobe Illustrator rüberkopiert und weiterverarbeitet (man muss da einiges Nacharbeiten, nicht an der Kurve, aber an den Beschriftungen). Mit Inkscape komme ich leider gar nicht zurecht. Den Freeware-Gedanken finde ich sehr schön und unterstützenswert (habe es auch schon unterstützt), aber für mich als Apple-Benutzer ist alleine die X11-Emulation sehr nervig, außerdem fehlen viele features von AI. Gruß --Furfur (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Maithripala Sirisena.jpg

File:Maithripala Sirisena.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.

 

Obi2canibe (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

color change on maps

Could you change the color green to red regarding to Sri Lankan Presidential Election 2015 maps? New Democratic Front political party's color is red. The current president of Sri Lanka was the candidate of New Democratic Front. --Anton^Talk 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Anton, ok, thanks for notification. I will change the maps accordingly. I thought the color would be green. The color of Sarath Fonseka was also red in 2010 ? --Furfur (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

... by the way: do you know any source where to get a photograph of Maithripala Sirisena with a commons license ? Dozens of photographs of Rajapaska exist here but no single one of Sirisena. --Furfur (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sarath Fonseka nominated under the same party. I have seen a picture of Maithripala Sirisena that uses in Tamil Wikipedia - Maithripala Sirisena @ Tamil Wikipedia. The file was taken from Flikr that has CC BY-NC 2.0 - Maithripala Sirisena @ Flikr. I think it would be ok to copy and crop, and then use here. --Anton^Talk 19:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot. I also changed the colors of the election maps for the 2010 presidential election. --Furfur (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Nord_und_Sued_Euro.svg

Colorize Slovenia, Malta south. Colorize Latvia, Lithuania north. RobiH (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I can do this (OK for Latvia and Lithuania) but do you have any sources for Slovenia ? --Furfur (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.eurospethmann.de/pdf/p93_Nordeuro.pdf RobiH (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok einverstanden, es ist ja bisher sowieso nur ein theoretisches Denkmodell. --Furfur (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Würde das Sinn machen, Nicht-Euro-EU-Mitglieder mit Hellrot und Hellblau als potentielle Hinzukommer zum jeweiligen Teil-Euro einzufärben? RobiH (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ehrlich gesagt meiner Meinung nach zum derzeitigen Zeitpunkt nach nicht. Dieses Konzept ist ja bisher rein spekulativ, viele Fragen auch der praktischen Machbarkeit sind offen und dann schon darüber zu spekulieren, welche Länder zu einer Süd- und welche zur Nord-Euro-Zone hinzustoßen können, wäre meines Erachtens nach zu weit hergeholt. --Furfur (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Stimmt, da hast Du recht. Man sollte sich mit dem Einfärben auf die drei Länder (DK, SE, UK) beschränken, die die Maastricht-Kriterien erfüllen, einen Beitritt aber aus eigenen Stücken abgelehnt haben. RobiH (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ich werde nichts einfärben, was nicht jetzt schon den Euro verwendet. Man kann das machen, wenn ernsthaft auf breiter Basis über die Aufspaltung der Eurozone geredet wird. Das scheint mir ohnehin ein unwahrscheinliches Szenario. --Furfur (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Error on the map of Silesia

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regierungsbezirk_Liegnitz#/media/File:Schlesien_Verwaltungsgliederung_1905.svg

In the Regierungsbezirk Oppeln is an error - there must be Grottkau not Grottau. Please correct this error.

Thanks, that's right, I will correct it. --Furfur (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh Districts

Finally had some time, 57 done, 7 to go. Keep an eye on en:User:Nafsadh/Gallery/Districts of Bangladesh locator maps. --Nafsadh (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nafsadh, thank you for your work. That looks fine but I notice that there are some lighter and some darker ones. Don't you want to have them all in the same color scheme ? --Furfur (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I want. I'd create the non-existent ones first and then go on correcting those grey ones (I wish there were someone extending a hand). --Nafsadh (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want I could also transform some of the images, if it is just the color ... --Furfur (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. It is just color. Nafsadh (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2010 UK blank Election Map.svg

Hello Thanks for your work but a constituency (Brighton, I think) is still in green. --Pitthée (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you really had a close look at it ... indeed, Brighton went to the Green Party in 2010. I will correct it. --Furfur (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

... ok, done. --Furfur (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Erste Fernsehdebatte Taiwan.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Erste Fernsehdebatte Taiwan.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:Erste Fernsehdebatte Taiwan.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Wylve (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but this is really a bit late. The election was in 2012. Meanwhile I had to change my email client to the buggy Apple Mail due to my employer's request for Microsoft Exchange. If you can tell me how to repair an apparently corrupted Thunderbird inbox mail file of I could perhaps restore the original email. Otherwise I can only tell you that I received it on Jan 15 2012 fron the specified email address. --Furfur (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I managed to restore the email and sent a copy to OTRS ... --Furfur (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Color change on images

Please change red color in below three images to #FEC0C6

• File:Wahlbezirkskarte Praesidentschaft Sri Lanka 2015.svg
• File:Wahlkreiskarte Praesidentschaft Sri Lanka 2015.svg
• File:Wahlbezirkskarte Praesidentschaft Sri Lanka 2015-neutral.svg

--Chamath456 (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 

1. FEC0C6

Hello @Chamath456: , why should I do this color change? I was advised by Anton that the party color of Sirisena's party would be dark red (see above). Can you please provide any references? --Furfur (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Furfur: , Rajapaksa's party color is dark blue but light blue in these maps because Light Blue is the shading color of Rajapaksa's party. Sirisena's party shading color is #FEC0C6 . You can see it by Template:Party shading/NDF. So, it should be light red. --Chamath456 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The current colors seem ok for me as it give better view. Or better to change to political parties color instead of shading color, and we need exact color verification from valid references --AntanO 14:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 

1. CE0000 Template:Party shading/NDF is no primary reference, this is the color definition in the English Wikipedia. This must not be correct or even suitable. In the en:WP article New_Democratic_Front_(Sri_Lanka) it is stated that #CE0000 is the party color of the NDF. However, this red is very dark and I don't know where it comes from since I could not find the website of the NDF. --Furfur (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. you are correct Sirisena's Party color is dark red and Rajapaksa's Party color is dark blue. So change blue color in these three images to dark blue.--Chamath456 01:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can do this, @AntanO: what do you think? Does the UPFA have a web site where one could see the colors? Which blue would be more appropriate:

 

1. 0000FF or
    
2. 353899 (I think I'd prefer the latter one), or another? --Furfur (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

UPFA website does not work.

 

1. 353899 This seems ok. political symbol of UPFA --AntanO 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No.

 

1. 0000FF This is the original color. Rajapaksa's official website --Chamath456 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 

1. 0161AE: The color on this website (the leaf symbol) ... ? --Furfur (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend, I'm a Sri Lankan live in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Please use #CE0000 and #0000FF for these maps.
Thank you. --Chamath456 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know that, since you don't have web page in the Commons. It causes quite some effort to change all election maps with the UPFA on it (it's not just a matter of the three maps above). Therefore I am asking to be sure, since AntanO (possibly also a (Tamil) Sri Lankan ?) had a different opinion. Rajapaksa's web site does not show the color #0000FF. --Furfur (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure about exact colors of both parties since there is no valid reference. We see different versions of colors in posters. Can we work on common sense or valid reference? Anyway, I don't have objection. --AntanO 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will reupload the maps in a adjusted blue and red color. I understand the point that both, blue and red, should either be light or dark. --Furfur (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, @Chamath456: , @AntanO: , done, hope this is ok. --Furfur (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope so. --AntanO 15:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Please correct below two maps (change light green color to light red as above maps).

• File:Wahlkreiskarte Praesidentschaft Sri Lanka 2010.svg
• File:Wahlbezirkskarte Praesidentschaft Sri Lanka 2010.svg

--Chamath456 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, .... done. By the way: will there be parliamentary elections within the next months? --Furfur (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:St.-moritz-1928-ohne Rand.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:St.-moritz-1928-ohne Rand.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:St.-moritz-1928-ohne Rand.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Wdwd (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:First-past-the-post 2015.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:First-past-the-post 2015.svg. 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.

JuTa 20:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I added one. --Furfur (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Präsidentschaftswahl Polen 2010 Runde 1.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Präsidentschaftswahl Polen 2010 Runde 1.svg. 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.

JuTa 08:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ... fixed. --Furfur (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Präsidentschaftswahl Polen 2015 Runde 1.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Präsidentschaftswahl Polen 2015 Runde 1.svg. 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.

JuTa 08:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ... fixed. --Furfur (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Karte der Reichstagswahlen 1871.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Karte der Reichstagswahlen 1871.svg. 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.

Jarekt (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Also

• File:Karte der Reichstagswahlen 1898.png
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

do not have licenses. Could you add them? --Jarekt (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hallo -Jarekt , thanks for the notification. All these images meanwhile exist also as svg files. I have added the licenses (and also added data sources). Since the svgs are better I will make a deletion request for the png files. --Furfur (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. --Jarekt (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Die Karten sind sehr gut gelungen. Es wäre wunderbar, wenn Sie solche Karten noch bei den Artikeln Reichstagswahl Februar 1867, Reichstagswahl August 1867 und Zollparlamentswahl 1868 hinzufügen könnten. Das ergäbe ein schönes Gesamtbild.

Hallo 141.30.210.107, bitte die Kommentare immer unterschreiben (mit --~~~~, ist in der Menüleiste des Texteditors als Symbol enthalten), damit man weiß, wer hier spricht. Freut mich, dass die Karten gefallen. Bei Gelegenheit kann ich auch die Wahlen zum Norddeutschen Reichstag und zum Zollparlament noch nachreichen, die wären in der Tat eine sinnvolle Ergänzung. Grüße --Furfur (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hallo User:Furfur, kannst Du eine solche Karte noch bei der Reichstagswahl von Februar 1867 ergänzen, da ist nur ein Sitzverteilungsdiagramm? Bei der Zollparlamentswahl 1868 hast Du ja schon eine Karte eingefügt. Kannst Du im Artikel zum Zollparlament die Karten zur Zollparlamentswahl und die von der Reichstagswahl August 1867 zusammenfügen, damit die Gesamtverteilung im Zollparlament ersichtlich wird? Liebe Grüße --Bernsteinkater (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Bernsteinkater, ja, ich habe die Karte für 1867 auch schon länger auf meiner to do-Liste ... werde ich noch machen. Und eine zusammengefügte Karte wäre wahrscheinlich auch hilfreich, die kann ich auch machen ... wird aber wahrscheinlich noch etwas dauern. --Furfur (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Bernsteinkater: , ich habe eine Karte der Wahl zum Norddeutschen Reichstag vom Februar 1867 erstellt. Bei Mecklenburg fiel mir allerdings auf, das die Benennungen der Wahlkreise sich nicht so anhören als ob es sich dabei um territoriale Wahlkreise handelt. Kannst Du das evtl. klären? --Furfur (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Danke dafür. Habe nur kurz recherchieren können, aber Du hast recht. Das ist merkwürdig. Laut der Ausführungsordnung zum Wahlgesetz zum Reichstag des Norddt. B., in dem die Wahlkreise aufgezählt sind, ist die Benennung falsch und wie beim Artikel zur Wahl 1871 zu handhaben (siehe: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reglement_zur_Ausf%C3%BChrung_des_Wahlgesetzes_f%C3%BCr_den_Reichstag_des_Norddeutschen_Bundes). Allerdings fanden die Wahlen vor diesem Gesetz statt und es galten analoge landesrechtl. Regelungen (vgl. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlrecht_im_Norddeutschen_Bund_und_im_Deutschen_Kaiserreich#Norddeutscher_Bund_1867.E2.80.931870) Ich weiß nicht wie diese Benennung zustande kam. Sie ist allerdings schon in der Erstversion, die von https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Definitiv erstellt wurde, enthalten. Vlt. weiß er mehr dazu? LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe Definitiv entsprechend um Aufklärung gebeten. Die Karte zur Zollparlamentswahl muss ggf. überarbeitet werden. Ich hatte vor ein paar Wochen die Parteizugehörigkeiten in der Artikelliste kontrolliert und kleinere Änderungen vornehmen müssen. Damit dann bei Zusammenfügung dieser Karte mit der von August 1867 nicht nochmal überarbeitet werden muss. LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Er hat mir geantwortet: ":Hallo, ja, in der Tat, im Gegensatz zu allen anderen Bundesstaaten gab es 1867 und 1871 in Mecklenburg-Schwerin zwar gleich viele aber ansonsten verschiedene Wahlkreise:

• Die 1867er Wahlkreise findet man im 1867er Reichstagshandbuch hier
• Die 1871er-Wahlkreise findet man hier (diese Einteilung wurde 1869 festgelegt, entsprach außer in Meck-Schwerin auch der von 1867 und wurde dann von 1871 bis 1912 im ganzen Reich angewendet)"

Diese Bezeichnungen bilden insofern Territorien ab, als dass wie der Mecklenburgische Gesamtstaat sich auch Mecklenburg-Schwerin nach Besitzstrukturen in Domanium (Grundbesitz der Landesherren), Ritterschaft (Grundbesitz in der Regel adeliger Familien) und Landschaft (Grundbesitz der Städte)gliederte.--Bernsteinkater (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, dann wäre es aber vielleicht doch besser, man würde auf der Karte Mecklenburg-Schwerin 1868 als Ganzes darstellen mit einem Sektorenkreis, so wie momentan die Stadt Berlin mit ihren 6 Wahlkreisen. Mir erscheint es so, dass die Wahlkreise 1867/68 keine zusammenhängenden Territorien bildeten ("Ritterschaft", "Schwerin, Wismar und 18 Städte"), ab dem Jahr 1869 dagegen schon. Kannst Du evtl. auflisten bei welchen Abgeordneten Du die Parteizugehörigkeit geändert hast ? Ich möchte ungern nochmal die ganze Karte einzeln durchgehen. --Furfur (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ich denke das ist eine gute Idee die beiden Karten so zu ändern. Selbst, wenn es Territorien sind, so sind sie für eine Darstellung wahrscheinlich zu kleinteilig. Die geänderten Abgeordneten waren in Baden: Wk 10: Karlsruhe: neu: konservativ(-großdeutsch) (statt nationalliberal) und der Wk 2: Donaueschingen: neu: nationalliberal (statt klerikal). In Bayern: Wk Oberbayern 6 (Weilheim): keine angegebene Partei/leeres Feld (statt Patriot), Wk Pfalz 1 (Speyer): Patriot (statt keine angegebene Partei/leeres Feld) und Wk Oberfranken 5 (Bamberg): altliberal (statt keine angegebene Partei/leeres Feld). Du kannst das nochmal gegenchecken, wenn Du willst? Die Quellen geben da ja teilweise verschiedene Angaben für einen Abgeordneten an. Die Karten hier dürften gut recherchierte Vorlagen sein (http://www.wahlen-in-deutschland.de/akurtwalg.htm)

Bei Württemberg hatte ich die Parteizugehörigkeiten für die Tabelle im Artikel Zollparlament mal nachgeschaut. Württembergisch-großdeutsch ist da zu grob, auch wenn das die Gemeinsamkeit der verschiedenen Richtungen ist (ob linksliberal oder katholisch):

Württemberg: WK 1: Abgeordneter Neurath: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch); Wk 2: Abg. Probst: Großdeutsch-Katholisch; Wk 3: Nachwahl 1869: Abg. Becher: Deutsche Volkspartei (linksliberal); Wk 4: Abg. Varnbüler: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch); Wk 5: Abg. Freisleben: Deutsche Volkspartei (linksliberal); Wk 6: Abg. Deffner: großdeutsch-demokratisch (linksliberal?); Wk 7: Abg. Mohl: frakionslos-großdeutsch ("Gegen den Eintritt Süddeutschlands in den Nordbund, für Zollschutz"); Wk 8: Abg. Mittnacht: württemberg.-konservativ (Konservativ-Großdeutsch); Wk 9: Abg. Tafel: Deutsche Volkspartei (linksliberal); Wk 10: Abg. Reibel: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch); Wk 11: Abg. Oesterlen: Deutsche Volkspartei (linksliberal); Wk 12: Abg. Ramm: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch); Wk 13: Abg. Knosp: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch); Wk 14: Abg. Doertenbach: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch); Wk 15: Abg. Ammermüller: Deutsche Volkspartei (linksliberal); Wk 16: Abg. Erath: Deutsche Volkspartei (Linksliberal); Wk 17: Abg. Vayhinger: fraktionslos(-großdeutsch)

Ebenso ist es bei Bayern: OB 1: Abg. Schlör: fraktionslos (Liberale Mittelpartei?); OB 2: Abg. Kester: fraktionslos; OB 3: Abg. Meixner: großdeutsch-konservativ (Patriot); OB 4: Abg. Peter Karl v. Aretin: bayrisch-konservativ-großdeutsch (Patriot); OB 5: Abg. Freytag: fraktionslos-konservativ-katholisch (Patriot? laut bayr. Quelle); OB 6: Abg. Eichthal: fraktionslos; OB 7: Abg. Neumayr: großdeutsch-konservativ (Patriot?); OB 8: Abg. Thüngen: bayrisch-konservativ (Patriot?); NB 1: Abg. Ow: bayrisch-konservativ (Patriot); NB 2: Abg. Lukas: altbayrisch/bayrisches Zentrum (Patriot?); NB 3: Abg. Krätzer: bayrisch-konservativ (Patriot); NB 4: Abg. Bucher: Bayr. Volkspartei (Patriot); NB 5: Abg. Hafenbrädl: bayrisch-konservativ (Patriot); NB 6: Abg. Sepp: konservativ-greoßdeutsch (Patriot); Pfalz 1: Abg. Römmich: Bayrisch-konservativ (Patriot); Pfalz 2: Abg. Jordan: nationalliberal; Pfalz 3: Nachwahl 1869: Abg. Petersen: Bayrische Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); Pfalz 4: Abg. Schwinn: Nationalliberal; Pfalz 5: Abg. Benzino: Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); Pfalz 6: Abg. Kolb: großdeutsch-demokratisch (linksliberal!/Liberale Mittelpartei?); OPF 1: Abg. Diepolder: konservativ-großdeutsch (Patriot); OPF 2: Abg. Gürster: Freikonservativ? (Patriot?!; Quellen widersprechen sich (letzteres wahrscheinlicher)); OPF 3: Abg. Jörg: fraktionslos-konservativ (Patriot); OPF 4: Abg. Notzing: fraktionslos-konservativ (Patriot?; eher fraglich -->Quelle); OPF 5: Abg. Wild: konservativ (Patriot?-->Quelle?); OBFr 1: Abg. Jansen: nationalliberal; OBFr 2: Abg. Feustel: nationalliberal; OBFr 3: Abg. Hohenlohe-Schillingfürst: fraktionslos (eher liberal); OBFr 4: Abg. Pfretzschner: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); OBFr 5: Abg. Schneider: Altliberal; MFr 1: Abg. Crämer: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); MFr 2: Abg. Marquardsen: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); MFr 3: Abg. Stauffenberg: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); MFr 4: Abg. Franckenstein: großdeutsch-konservativ (Patriot); MFr 5: Abg. Erhard: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); MFr 6: Abg. Barth: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal); UFr 1: Abg. Kurz: Bayr. Konservativ (Patriot); UFr 2: Abg. Guttenberg: fraktionslos (lib. Zentrum?); UFr 3: Abg. Edel: fraktionslos (Liberale Mittelpartei?); UFr 4: Nachwahl 1868: Abg. Rhein: konservativ (Patriot?); UFr 5: Abg. Meder: bayr.-konservativ (Patriot?); UFr 6: Abg. konservativ (Patriot?); Swb 1: Abg. Barth: Bayr. Mittelpartei/Zentrum (Patriot); Swb 2: Abg. Arco-Stepperg: bayr.-konservativ (Patriot); Swb 3: Abg. Arco-Valley: Bayr.-konservativ (Patriot?); Swb 4: Nachwahl 1868: Abg. Seinsheim-Grünbach: konservativ-fraktionslos (Patriot?), Swb 5: Abg. Miller: Bayr.-Konservativ (Patriot?) und Swb 6: Abg. Völk: Bayr. Fortschrittspartei (linksliberal).

LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, danke, ich mache es damnächst (bin gerade anderweitig sehr beschäftigt). Grüße --Furfur (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Bernsteinkater: ich stelle gerade am Beispiel Württembergs fest, dass die Nummerierung der Wahlkreise eine ganz andere ist als bei der Reichstagswahl 1871. Ist das eine offizielle Nummerierung? Dann müsste ich die Karte dementsprechend ändern. Wenn nicht, würde ich vorschlagen, dass man der Übersichtlichkeit halber dieselbe Nummerierung verwendet, wie bei der Reichstagswahl 1871. --Furfur (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tatsächlich sind die württembergischen Wahlkreise 1868 und 1871 verschieden nummeriert und aufgeteilt (siehe Reichstagshandbücher; oben). 1868 lautet sie wie folgt (in Klammern die Oberämter, die der Wahlkreis umfasst). Es gibt in dem Artikel "Oberamt (Württemberg)" eine Karte der Oberämter: Wk 1 (Tettnang-Wangen-Ravensburg), Wk 2 (Waldsee-Saulgau-Riedlingen), Wk 3 (Biberach-Laupheim-Ulm), Wk 4 (Blaubeuren-Urach-Kirchheim), Wk 5 (Geißlingen-Göppingen-Gmünd), Wk 6 (Esslingen-Schorndorf-Nürtingen), Wk 7 (Neresheim-Aalen-Ellwangen), Wk 8 (Crailsheim-Gerabronn-Mergentheim), Wk 9 (Künzelsau-Öhringen-Weinsberg), Wk 10 (Heilbronn-Brackenheim), Wk 11 (Hall-Backnang-Marbach), Wk 12 (Ludwigsburg-Cannstadt), Wk 13 (Stuttgart), Wk 14 (Calw-Nagold-Böblingen), Wk 15 (Reutlingen-Tübingen), Wk 16 (Horb-Oberndorf-Freudenstadt, Wk 17 (Balingen-Rottweil-Tuttlingen). Die Aufstelllung in der Tabelle im Artikel ist genauer. --Bernsteinkater (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Das wird ja jetzt leider immer komplizierter. Die Wahlkreisgrenzen sind dann in Württemberg definitiv andere als bei den Reichstagswahlen ab 1871. Da stellt sich mir doch Frage wie es bei den anderen Staaten aussieht (Bayern, Baden, Hessen-Darmstadt, und auch den Staaten des Norddeutschen Bundes). Insbesondere bei den letzteren war ich davon ausgegangen, dass die Wahlkreisgrenzen dieselben waren wie 1871. Mecklenburg-Schwerin war ja da schon die erste Überraschung, aber gibt es vielleicht noch weitere Änderungen? --Furfur (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

... auch in Baden sehe ich dass die Wahlkreise nicht übereinstimmen (Wahlkreise 5, 6, 12, 13, 14), in Bayern und Oberhessen scheinen die Wahlkreise identisch (zumindest die Benennungen ...). Wichtig wäre aber doch zu wissen, ob die Wahlkreise des Norddeutschen Bundes identisch blieben. Bezüglich der Neuerstellung von Karten von Württemberg und Baden müsste man sich an die Autoren der entsprechenden Artikel wenden, die Verwaltungseinteilung durchschaue ich nicht ganz. Württemberg habe ich mir mal angesehen, da sind mir aber verschiedene Dinge nicht klar (in welchen Wahlkreis gehören das Oberamt Münsingen -4 ?, das Oberamt Neckarsulm - 9 oder 10 ? Der Wahlkreis 11 bildet, wenn man die Oberämter dieser Karte zusammenadddiert, kein zusammenhängendes Territorium, bildet die Karte die Verhältnisse von 1867 hier korrekt ab ?). --Furfur (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Die Karte spiegelt ja den Stand Mitte der 1920er Jahre wider, daher vrmtl. die Unstimmigkeiten. Bei den Wahlkreisen habe ich weiter keine Unstimmigkeiten festgestellt. Nur die Nummer unterscheidet sich manchmal: so Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach: 1867: Wk 2: Neustadt, Wk 3: Eisenach; 1871 beide getauscht. Bei den Wahlen besteht aber immer die Parteizugehörigkeit der Nationalliberalen, daher dort unwichtig. Die Nummerierung der Wahlkreise des Großherzogtums Hessen unterscheidet sich, da die Wahlgebiete 1867/68 nach Zugehörigkeit zum Norddeutschzen Bund aufgelistet werden so: 1-3 (wie 1871); Wk 1-6 (Südhessen)(1867) bilden Wk 4-9 (1871. Die letzten beiden sind aber getauscht: Wk 8: Mainz-Oppenheim, Wk 9: Bingen-Alzey und 1871 eben umgekehrt. LG--Bernsteinkater (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Die Nummerierungen zu ändern wäre kein Problem, auch die Wahlkreise von Württemberg und Baden kannn man neu zeichnen, aber ich werde eben aus der Beschreibung der Wahlkreisgrenzen nicht ganz klug. Wahrscheinlich haben sich eben einige Oberämter seit 1867 geändert und da müssten wirklich die Spezialisten, die die Artikel zur Verwaltungsgliederung Württembergs und Badens geschrieben bzw. die entsprechenden Karten erstellt haben, helfen. Wenn man Karten der Verwaltungsgrenzen von 1867 hätte, wäre es kein Problem daraus die Wahlkreise zu erstellen. Grüße --Furfur (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Denke ich auch. Hast Du schon welche angefragt? --Bernsteinkater (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nein, bisher nicht. Gruß --Furfur (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Schau mal hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungsgliederung_W%C3%BCrttembergs#Verwaltungsgliederung%20ab%201818 Die Verwaltungsgliederung ab 1818 mit der Karte (Stand 1835) müsste passen.

Bei Baden kannst Du ja auch im entsprechenden Artikel nachschauen, aber da passt es nicht. LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Die genauen gesetzlichen Regelungen zu Bayern findest Du hier ab S. 126: http://bavarica.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10345306_00126.html?zoom=0.6500000000000001 Die Wahlkreiseinteilung änderte sich nicht (http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/artikel/artikel_44821)

Was Baden betrifft. So findet sich ab Seite 589 Das Wahlgesetz nebst Wahlkreiseinteilung (http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10510112_00589.html?zoom=0.7000000000000002)

Die entsprechenden Angaben sind dann mit diesen zu vergleichen (https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Bekanntmachung_der_Nachtr%C3%A4ge_zum_Wahlreglement_vom_28._Mai_1870)

Vlt. ist diese Darstellung der württembergischen Oberämter besser (http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/W%C3%BCrttemberg#K.C3.B6nigreich_W.C3.BCrttemberg_.281806-1918.29) Die Wahlkreiseinteilung scheint nicht die einfachste zu sein (ab S. 27), ist dafür aber sehr präzise beschrieben: http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10510558_00027.html

LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bei diesen beiden Karten lassen sich die Änderungen der Wahlkreisgrenzen ganz gut nachvollziehen (zumindest was Württemberg betrifft). http://www.wahlen-in-deutschland.de/kuKarte18671868.htm http://www.wahlen-in-deutschland.de/kuKarte1871.htm

LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Das ist ein guter Tipp, danke. Die Seiten kenne ich im Prinzip, aber sie sind wohl nicht ganz fehlerfrei. Was mich an der Karte auch wundert sind die Wahlkreisgrenzen in Mecklenburg. Da waren wir ja zu der Meinung gelangt, dass die so nicht stimmen können. Was Württemberg bin ich imm Wesentlichen (bis auf die genannten Unklarheiten) zu den gleichen Ergebnissen gelangt, wie auf dieser Vorlage. Grüße --Furfur (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wie ist denn nun das weitere Vorgehen? --Bernsteinkater (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ja, bitte etwas Geduld, ich werde mich darum kümmern, wahrscheinlich schon in den nächsten Tagen. --Furfur (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Bernsteinkater: die Wahlkreiskarte habe ich umgearbeitet und könnte sie demnächst hochladen, jetzt müsste ich aber noch wissen wie verlässlich die von Dir angegebenen parteipolitischen Zuordnungen sind. Stammen die aus der im Artikel angegebenen Quelle (Hirth’s Parlaments-Almanach für 1868. 7. Ausgabe, 6. Mai 1868. Verlag von Franz Duncker, Berlin 1868)? Da fehlen immer noch einige Zuordnungen. Ist der Text im Artikel aktuell? --Furfur (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Bei drei Abgeordneten hattest Du auch die Nachwahl angegeben (Pfalz 3, UFr 4, Swb 4). Ich fände es sinnvoller, wenn die Erstwahl angegeben würde. --Furfur (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Furfur:

Ich habe alle bei der Tabelle im Artikel Zollparlament angegebenen Quellen genutzt. Natürlich zuerst Hirth's Parlaments-Almanach von 1868 und 1869 bzw. die Datenbank der deutschen Parlamentsabgeordneten, zum Crosschecking das BIORAB Kaiserreich von gesis und bei den bayerischen Vertretern die Seite: "Geschichte des Bayerischen Parlaments seit 1819 - Personen nach Namen" des Hauses der Bayerischen Geschichte. Deswegen ja der Hinweis, dass die Angaben nicht in allen Werken übereinstimmen, gerade bei den bayerischen Vertretern sind manche nach der bayerischen Seite Mitglied der Patriotenpartei, dies aber im Reichstagsalmanach oft weniger genau bezeichnet (konservativ/katholisch od. Ähnliches oder gar ohne Parteizugehörigkeit). Den Artikel hatte ich überarbeitet und dabei die Bayer. Fortschrittspartei mit linksliberal übersetzt, da bei den anderen immer nationalliberal angegeben wurde und da Einheitlichkeit in der Angabe zu wahren ist. Ich entsinne mich bei einem Abgeordneten eine Angabe als freikonservativ und eine als bayer. konservativ (Wk. Opf 2) gefunden zu haben. Das ist dann immer eine Entscheidungsfrage. Angesichts der Quellen ist eben die EINE Zusammenstellung kaum möglich, bei einzelnen Abgeordneten ist keine letzte Sicherheit. Bayer.-Konservativ wurde immer als Patriot(-enpartei) übersetzt, da dort die Besonderheit des bayerisch-konservativ-großdeutsch-klerialem besser eingefangen wird.

Welche Kategorien verwendest Du denn?: nationalliberal, linksliberal, altliberal, Konservative (großdeutsch), Bayer. Patriotenpartei, Klerikale und unbestimmt, wie in deiner ersten Karte fürs Zollparlament oder wegen Konsistenz abgeleitet von den Reichstagswahlkarten Norddeutscher Bund: statt Linksliberal: Deutsche Fortschrittspartei und statt Patriot eben als größere Kategorie: Konservativ (großdeutsch) oder für die Bayern: bayerisch-konservativ? Bleibt Klerikale eine Kategorie? Am sinnvollsten erscheint mir auf jeden Fall Fortschrittspatei statt linksliberal zu nehmen. Bei den anderen Dingen, musst Du Dich entscheiden.

Es fehlt in der Tabelle dann zu den Namen die Angabe, wenn die Quelle keine Angabe angegeben hat. Dann muss ich annehmen, dass es entweder keine Info dazu gab oder die Person partei- bzw. fraktionslos war. Im Endeffekt heißt das: weiß gefärbter Wahlkreis. In meiner hier bei Dir angegebenen Liste (siehe oben), finden sich ja bei den jeweiligen Abgeordneten auch konkurrierende Angaben und mit Fragezeichen versehene Ableitungen von mir. Ich hab die hier ja extra angegeben, damit Du überlegen kannst, was Dir anhand meiner Angaben aus den Quellen wahrscheinlicher/zutreffender erscheint.

Wenn wir also die Erstwahl nehmen, kommt bei Wahlkreis 3 in Württemberg (Ulm): Abg. Schäffle (keine Angabe bzw. parteilos?); Bayern: Pfalz Wk 3: Abg. von Soyer (Bayer. Fortschrittspartei --> linksliberal??: Das ist nämlich eine interessante Frage, ob man die Fortschrittspartei schon als linksliberal einordnet, weil wir ja erst in der Zeit der Trennung von Links- und Nationalliberalen sind, sodass man die ursprüngliche Fortschrittspartei auch als altliberal einordnen könnte oder man gibt eben einfach Fortschrittspartei an), Unterfranken Wk 4: Abg. von Luxburg (bayerisches Centrum --> altliberal (später im Reichstag des Kaisereichs Mitglied der Liberalen Reichspartei); Schwaben Wk 4: Abg. von Aretin (im Almanach und bayr. Quelle: ohne Angabe; bei BIORAB: Konservative Partei --> d.h. in Süddeutschland konservativ-großdeutsch?)

Ist offen, ob der Artikel: Liste der Mitglieder des Zollparlamentes in der Folge auch überarbeitet werden muss. Die dortigen Angaben hatte ich weder überprüft, noch für die Tabellen in beiden Artikeln (Zollparlament und Zollparlamentswahl 1868) genutzt. Immerhin kann man hierzu eine halbwegs verlässliche Karte zeichnen, bei der Wahl zur Frankfurter Nationalversammlung 1848 ist das ja aussichtslos bei den ganzen fluiden Fraktionen und Fraktionswechseln. LG --Bernsteinkater (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Bernsteinkater: ich habe die Karte jetzt endlich fertig und folgende Zuordnung für die 85 süddeutschen Abgeordneten getroffen:

• süddeutsche großdeutsche Konservative, bayr. Patrioten: 28
• württembergische Großdeutsche: 8
• Klerikale: 5
• Altliberale: 2
• Fortschrittspartei: 9
• Linksliberale: 7
• Nationalliberale: 16
• Unbestimmt: 8
• Freikonservative: 2
  Kannst Du bitte, wenn Du damit einverstanden bist, die Zuordnungen im Artikel so ändern, dass diese mit der Karte kongruent sind? Mit den zugehörigen Quellen kennst Du Dich besser aus. Wenn Du noch Fehler in der Karte entdeckst, gebe mir bitte Bescheid. Grüße --Furfur (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Super, gefällt mir sehr. Danke @Furfur: . Ich hab mir alles nochmal angeschaut. Sowohl bei der Karte zur Reichstagswahl Aug. 1867 und dann auch bei dieser Karte wird der Wahlkreis 3 des Regierungsbezirks Frankfurt/Oder in Brandenburg als freikonservativ dargestellt, obwohl die Angabe in den Quellen: Konservative Partei ist für Albert von Levetzow.

Nur in der aktuellen Karte ist der Wahlkreis 6 im Regierungsbezirk Trier der Rheinprovinz falsch als Freie Vereinigung gefärbt. Der Abgeordnete Stumm-Halberg ist aber, wie in der Karte zur Reichstagswahl Aug. 1867 richtig dargestellt ein führendes Mitglied der Freikonservativen.

In Hamburg ist sowohl bei der Karte zur Reichtsgawahl Aug. 1867 und bei der Karte zum Zollparlament das Verhältnis falsch dargestellt. Es wurden nur ein Abgeordneter der Fortschrittspartei gewählt und 2 Nationalliberale statt 2 Fortschrittler zu 1 Nationalliberalem.

Bei den süddeutschen Wahlkreisen scheint mir soweit alles recht plausibel. Bei manchen sind es in Bayern klare Entscheidungsfragen, die aber konsistent wirken. Nur bei den liberalen Abgeordneten der mittelfränkischen Wahlkreise weiß ich nicht, warum Du sie in die Kategorie Freie Vereinigung, süddeutsche Liberale eingeordnet hast. Die Angabe ist ja Bayr. Fortschrittspartei, die Du sonst immer auch zur Fortschrittspartei zugeordnet hast. Warum bist Du hier anders verfahren? Die Differenz hat keine allzu große Bedeutung, fällt mir aber auf. Nach Antwort werde ich die Tabelle entsprechend anpassen.

Liebe Grüße --Bernsteinkater (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Bernsteinkater: vielen Dank für Deinen feedback, der sehr hilfreich ist. Den Wahlkreis 3 (Frakfurt/Oder) habe ich korrigiert, ebenso den Wahlkreis 6 Im Regierungsbezirk Trier. Allerdings scheint mit Hamburg korrekt, da sind aktuell 2 Nationalliberale (Wahlkreise Hamburg-1 und -3) und ein Linksliberaler (Hamburg-2). Die 5 fränkischen Linksliberalen habe ich jetzt in die Fortschrittspartei einsortiert. Dadurch ändern sich auch die Verhältnisse im Wahldiagramm links unten: vorher aus Süddeutschland:

• Fortschrittspartei: 9
• Linksliberale: 7

nachher:

• Fortschrittspartei: 14
• Linksliberale: 2

Gruß --Furfur (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Furfur: . Stimmt, bei Hamburg habe ich nicht richtig hingeschaut. Ich habe die Tabelle nun entsprechend angepasst. Ich denke damit ist das Projekt wohl erfolgreich abgeschlossen. Liebe Grüße --Bernsteinkater (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sprachenkarten preußischer Provinzen

Hallo Furfur. Ich weiß, Du hast viel auf der To-do-Liste.

Du hast bisher Karten zu den Sprachverhältnissen in den Provinzen Westpreußen und Posen erstellt und mit der Karte zum Abstimmungsgebiet Allenstein den Südteil Ostpreußens abgedeckt.

• 
• 
• 

Ich denke, dass breites Interesse besteht Karten dieser Art auch für die (gesamte) Provinz Ostpreußen und die Provinz Schlesien (jeweiliger Gebietsstand 1914) zu erstellen. Bei den Provinzen Pommern und Brandenburg erscheint es mir weniger bedeutsam, ob solche Karten bestehen.

Würde mich freuen, wenn Du dafür irgendwann Zeit fändest. Ich würde Dir die Arbeit gerne abnehmen, aber ich habe keine Ahnung in diesem Bereich. Liebe Grüße --Bernsteinkater (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Bernsteinkater, da gebe ich Dir vollkommen recht. Eine Schlesien-Karte hatte ich ja auch schon mal erstellt und eine geeignete Ostpreußen-Karte gibt es auch schon. Ich würde mich dann auch mal daran machen, davon ausgehend Karten der Sprachenverhältnisse zu zeichnen. Der Tag müsste nur 48 Stunden haben ... aber ich habe es auf dem Schirm ! Aber gut zu wissen, dass sich jemand dafür interessiert. --Furfur (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Danke, dass es so schnell ging. Sind wieder sehr gut geworden. Kannst Du noch aus der Schlesienkarte den Regierungsbezirk Oppeln plus den Kreis Namslau des Regierungsbezirks Breslau ausschneiden und in den Artikel zur Volksabstimmmung in Oberschlesien 1921 einfügen?

Es stellt sich zwar die Frage, ob so viele Grafiken den Artikel dort überladen. Aber ich finde, dass das die zwei Grafiken über die jeweiligen Stimmmehrheiten und die schließliche Aufteilung sinnvoll ergänzt, da sie mehr als der Text es könnte klar macht, dass viele Polnisch sprechende Oberschlesier für Deutschland votierten (Warum auch immer?) Liebe Grüße --Bernsteinkater (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Na gut, das kann ich bei Gelegenheit machen. --Furfur (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Danke, würde mich freuen. --Bernsteinkater (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Furfur: Das Abstimmungsgebiet umfasst en detail die Kreise: Namslau, Kreuzburg, Rosenberg, Oppeln (Stadtkreis), Oppeln (Landkreis), Neustadt O.S., Lublinitz, Groß Strehlitz, Cosel, Leobschütz, Ratibor (Stadtkreis), Ratibor (Landkreis), Rybnik, Pleß, Tarnowitz, Tost-Gleiwitz, Gleiwitz, Beuthen (Stadtkreis), Beuthen (Landkreis), Hindenburg, Kattowitz (Stadtkreis), Kattowitz (Landkreis) und Königshütte. Liebe Grüße --Bernsteinkater (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

File:UNESCO Tag der Muttersprache 2010.png

File:UNESCO Tag der Muttersprache 2010.png 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!

Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Referenden zum Vertrag über eine europäische Verfassung.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Referenden zum Vertrag über eine europäische Verfassung.svg. 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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fixed! --Furfur (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Bodu Bala Sena symbol.svg

File:Bodu Bala Sena symbol.svg 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.

 

MediaJet talk 10:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kenya Provinces referendum 2010.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kenya Provinces referendum 2010.svg. 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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, license added! --Furfur (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kenya Provinces referendum 2005.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kenya Provinces referendum 2005.svg. 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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Ok, thanks for notifying, license added! --Furfur (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

map needed

Hello Would you have the map File:Stelling van Amsterdam the Netherlands de.svg with no writings on it. This would be to create an interactive map. Regards. --Io Herodotus (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Frage

Bei dieser Grafik sehe ich keinen Eintrag bezüglich Israel - warum? Bwag (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Israel nimmt keine arabischen Flüchtlinge auf. Das ist nicht weiter erstaunlich, auch weil sich viele Staaten weiterhin im Kriegszustand mit Israel befinden und man davon ausgehen kann dass auch die meisten arabischen Flüchtlinge Israel nicht besonders wohlgesonnen sind. --Furfur (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, aber du hast alle Nachbarstaaten von Syrien auch schriftlich ausgeworfen (beispielsweise: "Libnon 1,2 Mio" oder "Saudi-Arabien 0"), nur Israel nicht. Bwag (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ja, aber alle anderen Nachbarstaaten sind islamische Staaten. Bei Israel scheint es mir evident, dass die nicht noch zusäzliche Flüchtlinge aus arabischen Staaten mit unklarem Hintergrund (evtl. Islamisten etc.) aufnehmen wollen, auch angesichts des israelisch-palästinensischen Konflikts. Das hat, glaube ich, niemanden wirkich überrrascht und niemand kritisiert das öffentlich ernsthaft. Das eigentlich Überraschende, um nicht zu sagen Skandalöse - finde ich zumindest - ist, dass die superreichen Ölstaaten am Golf Null Flüchtlinge aufgenommen haben. Stattdesssen drängen die sich jetzt in Mitteleuropa. --Furfur (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Furfur, mir ging es nicht um Überraschungen oder Evidentes, sondern um die Konsistenz der Grafik oder man benennt die Grafik um in: "Syrian refugees in the Middle East without Israel.svg". -- Bwag (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Das halte ich nicht für sinnvoll. Dann müsste die Karte ja "Syrian refugees in the Middle East without Israel, Iran, Oman and Jemen.svg" heißen. Das ist aber sicher nicht sinnvoll. Das Israel keine arabischen Flüchtlinge aufnimmt ist wie gesagt jedermann verständlich, der sich mit der Politik dieser Region befasst. Die Karte und die Kartenbeschreibung sind vom Inhalt her unmissverständlich. --Furfur (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, dann bleib halt bei der POV-Grafik und spare Israel aus (als einziges angrenzende Land Syriens). Bwag (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ist keine POV-Grafik, da brauchst Du nicht beleidigt sein. Wie gesagt: die Karte und die Kartenbeschreibung sind vom Inhalt her unmissverständlich. Man muss einen Namen wählen der etwa den Inhalt beschreibt, wichtig ist aber vor allem, das der Inhalt der Karte korrekt ist. Wenn Du solche Kriterien an die Namen von Dateien anlegen wolltest, müsstest Du Millionen von Dateinamen in den Commons ändern. Das wäre aber auch nicht sinnvoll, man kann nicht schon in den Dateinamen den gesamten Inhalt des Bildes hineinpacken. Es erscheint auch nicht praktikabel 50 oder mehr Zeichen lange Dateinamen zu wählen. Andererseits soll der Dateiname auch irgendetwas aussagen, und nicht nur eine sinnleere Buchstabenfolge sein. Notgedrungen muss man da Kompromisse eingehen und es kommt zu Ungenauigkeiten. Der Dateiname interessiert aber letztlich die Leser nur sehr wenig, entscheidend ist der Inhalt des Bildes und die zugehörige Bildbeschreibung. --Furfur (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"entscheidend ist der Inhalt des Bildes und die zugehörige Bildbeschreibung". Korrekt und die ist unvollständig. Israel als Nachbarstaat soll der Betrachter selbst interpretieren, aber egal für mich EOD. Bwag (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Map of countries supporting/opposing quotas

Could you update the quota support map on European Migrant crisis article again, because I have a reliable source (unfortunately in slovene language) saying that the foreign minister of Slovenia promised support for the quota system. Here is the source; http://www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2015/09/karl_erjavec_potrjuje_slovenija_je_za_kvote_sprejeli_bi-2000_beguncev.aspx

Thanks, Mrwho00tm (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mrwho00tm, thank you for the notification, I will update the map. Greetings --Furfur (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Präsidentschaftswahl Polen 2010 Runde 2.svg

Hallo Furfur, wie ich gesehen habe bist Du der Ersteller der Karte (Präsidentschaftswahl Polen 2015 Runde 2.svg), wofür ich mich herzlich bedanke. Jetzt habe ich auf Basis Deiner Karte, eine für die vorherige Wahl erstellt und bin über die schwarzen Balken (rechts unten) verwundert, welche hier verschwinden, wie es sein sollte. Vielleicht hättest Du eine Idee, wie man dieses Problem lösen könnte. Vielen Dank im voraus. MfG --Kiepski1 (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Kiepski1, vielen Dank für Deine Arbeit und die schöne Karte. Ich vermute, Du hast die Karte mit Inkscape bearbeitet? Dann ist es vermutlich der "Fehler", der unter Help:SVG/de#Schwarzes_Rechteck.2C_Textfluss-Fehler beschrieben wird. Du kannst dann ja mal versuchen das schwarze Rechteck wegzubekommen, wie es dort beschrieben ist. Wenns nicht geht, gibt mir Bescheid, und ich versuche es mit Adobe Illustrator hinzubekommen.

Bist Du sicher, dass die Wahlkreise sich nicht geändert haben? Ab und zu ändern sich die Abmessungen einzelner Wahlkreise. Wenn das der Fall ist, sollte man das anpassen.
Grüße --Furfur (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Furfur, ich bedanke mich vielmals für Deinen Tipp :) Die einzelnen Powaits scheinen mir gleich geblieben zu sein. Ich schaue mir dies aber noch einmal genauer an.--Kiepski1 (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:States Reorganisation Act 1956.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:States Reorganisation Act 1956.svg. 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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, corrected, thank you. --Furfur (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ölpreisdiagramm

Hallo Furfur

der Ölpreis ist inzwischen stark gefallen, sodass eine neue Version von File:Brent crude oil price 1986-2014.svg nötig scheint.--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, einverstanden, habs gemacht. --Furfur (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Danke.--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Danke auch.. aber könntest du das irgendwie so machen dass nur die Jahreszahl, am besten 2stellig und dann horizontal erscheinen ... oder einfach ein paar auslassen - für gute Lesbarkeit auch schon in thumbgrösse. Mal so ganz allgemein angemerkt. gruss. --Itu (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wenn man das horizontal macht und es zudem noch in Miniaturansicht lesbar sein soll, passen nur ganz wenige Jahreszahlen dahin. --Furfur (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Desto lesbarer desto besser und alle 10er Jahre würden ja genügen. --Itu (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Lithuanian state in 13-15th centuries-de.svg

@ Furfur, irgendwie passen hier die Flächenfarben von Karte und Legende nicht ganz zusammen.

Einen frohen 3. Weihnachtsfeiertag wünscht dir Ulamm (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Ulamm: , Du meinst die Erwerbungen unter Vytautas (habe ich jetzt korrigiert)? Oder noch etwas anderes? --Furfur (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Nee, das war es. Danke!--Ulamm (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Tsai und Su.jpg

File:Tsai und Su.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!

January (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:TheTransneptunians 73AU-de.svg

File:TheTransneptunians 73AU-de.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Zika virus infections worldwide.svg

Hallo Furfur! hast Du File:Zika virus infections worldwide.svg erstellt? = kannst Du diese Karte aktualisieren (bzw. eine neue Version einstellen)? - m. W. müßte Deutschland jetzt doch hellblau sein (vgl. tagesschau.de und die USA jetzt sogar dunkelblau (vgl. nochmal tagesschau.de; vorher dort gar kein Nachweis wundert mich übrigens auch ...) Danke --Kai.pedia (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Kai.pedia ich verstehe Deine Anregung. In den USA war es ja wohl so, dass eine Person durch Sexulakontakt mit dem Zikavirus infiziert wurde. In Deutschland ist es nach der von Dir angegebenen Quelle aber bisher ausschließlich Zikavirus-Infektionen bei Touristen, die aus Endemiegebieten zurückkehrten, gekommen. Die Infektionen haben die Betroffenen nicht in Deutschland erworben. Eine Übertragung in Deutschland ist meines Wissens nach bisher nicht bewiesen.
Überhaupt ist die Intention der Karte (die ich modifiziert nach einer Vorlage dr CDC erstellt habe) eine etwas andere: hier sind die natürlichen Übertragungswege gemeint (d. h. über Stechmücken), nicht die Übertragung über Sexualverkehr. Bei den Übertragungen über Sexualverkehr (was ja erst seit Kurzem erst als Möglichkeit bekannt ist) ist man nicht so besorgt, da sich alleine daraus keine Epidemie entwickeln kann (das Virus persisiert nicht auf Dauer im Organismus wie HIV, sondern verschwindet nach durchgemachter Infektion wieder). D. h. diese Fälle werden von selbst schnell verschwinden bzw. nur bei der Umgebung von Personen, die sich vor Kurzem im Ausland infiziert haben, kurzzeitig eine Rolle spielen. Etwas ganz anderes ist es, wenn es eine Mückenpopulation gibt, die das Virus in sich trägt, dann wird es immer wieder zu Neuinfektionen im Land kommen. Ich ändere deswegen mal die Kartenlegende um das deutlicher zu machen. Diese eine Infektion über Sexualverkehr eines Tropenheimkehrers ist deswegen nicht gleichzusetzen mit dem Millionen Infektionen in Südamerika.
Wierso wundert es Dich, dass es in den USA bisher keine Zikavirus-Infektion gab? Das Zikavirus kommt aus Afrika und breitet sich jetzt allmählich über die Erde aus. Genau dasselbe ist beispielsweise mit dem West-Nil-Virus vor einigen Jahren passiert. --Furfur (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Furfur! Danke für die Infos - ok, I see: USA zählt demnach aber (wie D) zu den Ländern mit serologischem Nachweis, oder? (mich hat übrigens nur gewundert, dass die USA nicht schon länger diesen Status hatte: es gibt sicher viele Nord-Amerikaner, die in Südamerika unterwegs sind und ggf. den Virus im Serum mit heimbringen und wenn es eine Übertragung durch Sexualkontakt gab - auch wenn man diese nicht als "in der Region erworben" wertet - muss/müßte der Überträger bzw. dessen Land ja schon einen serologischen Nachweis haben, oder? :-))

wie auch immer: ist daran gedacht, die Karte von Zeit zu Zeit anzupassen (oder nach 2012 und Jan 2016 ggf. weitere Ausbreitungsstände anzugeben)? Danke Dir dann jetzt schon! :-) cu --Kai.pedia (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So ist die Karte aber nicht gemeint. Die Frage, die die Karte beantworten soll, ist die, ob es lokale Übertragungen durch Stechmücken gibt. Die Übertragung durch Sexualverkehr ist epidemiologisch nur relevant, wenn es wirklich eine große Zahl von Infizierten gibt. Das Virus persistiert ja nicht dauerhaft, sondern verschwindet dann irgendwann wieder, d. h. ein einmal Infizierter ist nicht dauerhaft infektiös (so wie bei HIV). Eine nur durch Sexualkontakt übertragene Zikavirus-Infektion wird sich daher nie groß ausbreiten können.
Bei manchen Ländern hat man das Virus direkt in der Mückenpopulation nachgewiesen, bei anderen dagegen, wo die Überträgermücken existieren, aber nicht. Man nimmt aber bei einigen dieser Länder aufgrund der Tatsache, dass Individuen Antikörper gegen das Virus haben, an, dass diese in der Vergangenheit einmal durch Mückenstiche infiziert wurden. Das ist aber eine indirekte Annahme, die mit einer gewissen Unsicherheit behaftet ist. Die Antikörpermessungen können auch fehlerhaft sein, es gibt ja eine erhebliche Kreuzreaktivität mit anderen Flaviviren. Importierte Infektionen wird es dagegen immer geben, das ist gewissermaßen angesichts des internationalen Reiseverkehrs fast trivial. Da das Virus aber von Mensch zu Mensch nicht sehr ansteckend ist, wird sich aus diesen importierten Infektionen nur dann ein dauerhaftes Problem entwickeln, wenn das Virus in eine Überträgermückenpopolation gelangt und dauerhaft dort persistieren kann. Die eigentlich relevante Frage ist also die, ob es vor Ort eine Mückenpopulation gibt, die das Virus überträgt. Die Karte würde ich anpassen, sobald es neuere Informationen gibt. Gruß --Furfur (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Andhra Pradesh Landesteile.svg

File:Andhra Pradesh Landesteile.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Vin09 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bangladesh divisions 1971-1993.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bangladesh divisions 1971-1993.svg. 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.

And also:

• File:Bangladesh divisions 1993-1998.svg
• File:Bangladesh divisions 1998-2010.svg
• File:Bangladesh divisions 2010-2015.svg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Licence added. --Furfur (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Pulau Perak, Kedah, Malaysia.png

File:Pulau Perak, Kedah, Malaysia.png 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!

MGA73 (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bezirkskarte für BPW 2016

Hallo Furfur,

kannst du auch eine Bezirkskarte für die BPW erstellen ?

Hab einen Link zu den Ergebnissen: http://static.kurier.at/elections/bp16/?apaactualSection=apaMap

PS: Danke für die Gemeindekarte !

--The Pollster (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, ich werde mich darum bemühen ... Grüße --Furfur (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hallo nochmal, danke für die Karte ! Allerdings ist dir bei Wien-Meidling im Süden von Wien ein Fehler passiert: Dort konnte nicht Hofer gewinnen, sondern Van der Bellen. Siehe: http://wahl16.bmi.gv.at/9.html --The Pollster (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, alles klar ... werde ich korrigieren ... da kann man leicht die Übersicht verlieren ... --Furfur (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Danke für die Korrektur. Ich habe noch einen kleinen Fehler bei der Gemeindekarte gefunden: Linz ist noch "blau", wurde aber mithilfe der Wahlkarten von Van der Bellen gewonnen. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundespr%C3%A4sidentenwahl_%C3%96sterreich_2016_1._Runde.svg --The Pollster (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, danke, ist korrigiert. Gib bitte Bescheid, wenn Dir noch etwas auffällt. --Furfur (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Wilhelm Weinberg.jpg

File:Wilhelm Weinberg.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!

Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Serum protein electrophoresis normal and paraprotein.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Serum protein electrophoresis normal and paraprotein.svg. 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.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Frage

Könnten Sie mir dies in richtiges Deutsch übersetzen helfen? Es tut mir leid wenn ich dir Umstände bereite. Link Danke

Hallo @MaryroseB54: , natürlich, sehr gerne. Wir können auch auf Englisch kommunizieren, wenn das einfacher ist (we can also communicate in English if you prefer to do so). Grüße --Furfur (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Die Übersetzung:

Leben des Orpheus

Kikonen: von Orpheus regiertes Volk

Díon, Pimplea: Geburtsort und frühe Wohnstätte

Mygdonien: Königreich des Oiagros oder Apollon

Parnass: Residenz, zusammen mit der Mutter Kalliope, die ihn singen lehrte und ihm eine Lyra gab

Pella: Residenz des Pierus, des Vaters von Oiagros

Iolkos: hier brach Iason mit den Argonauten auf

Tod: in Pieria, Pangeo oder Aornos durch Selbsttötung

Lesbos: Gliedmaßen & Lyra begraben, Lyra später Sternbild Leier

Grab: in Leibethra, Reliquien in Lesbos und Smyrna

Athen: Wirkungsort des Musaios, Sohn des Orpheus

Theben: Wirkungsstätte des Bruders Linos

Lesbos, Antissa: Orakel & Tempel, später des Apollo Napaios <-- ??

Drys: Eichen des Orpheus

Ionia -> Ionien

Delfi -> Delphi

Tebas -> Theben

Epiro -> Epirus

Peonia -> Paionien

Migdonia -> Mygdonien

Danke. Der Beiname des Apollo in Lesbos wurde [Murikaios]

File:France L-1 (1812)-de.svg

Hallo Furfur, mir ist aufgefallen, dass in der Karte das Wort „Weser“ im „Département des Bouches-du-Weser“ mit zwei s geschrieben ist. Wäre schön, wenn du das korrigieren könntest. --Toffel (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hallo @Toffel: da hast Du aber genau hingesehen! Habe es korrigiert. Gruß --Furfur (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Danke. Ich wollte in der Region was nachsehen. ;-) --Toffel (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Map mistake

[[2]] < You forgot to change the color of nothern Noth Ireland and Gibraltar. --MGChecker (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that Gibraltar is wrong. I have to check Northern Ireland . Then I suppose that the original map also contained errors because I used "select same fill color" when I changed the colors. --Furfur (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

...@MGChecker: I changed Foyle and Gibraltar --Furfur (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --MGChecker (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@MGChecker: siehe gerade ... Du hättest ja auch Deutsch schreiben können ... --Furfur (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hätte ich dann wohl, ja ^^ --MGChecker (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Wappen von Jemgum.svg

File:Wappen von Jemgum.svg 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.

 

 MaxxL - talk 17:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ma und Wu.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ma und Wu.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:Ma und Wu.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Wylve (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have replaced the permission template in this image. Please send the permission email to OTRS as proof that permission for this file was indeed obtained (see COM:OTRS for help). Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Soong und Lin.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Soong und Lin.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:Soong und Lin.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Wylve (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have replaced the permission template in this image. Please send the permission email to OTRS as proof that permission for this file was indeed obtained (see COM:OTRS for help). Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Thüringen Landtagswahlkarte 2014.svg

File:Thüringen Landtagswahlkarte 2014.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

MPD (t - c - u) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Referendum in Ungarn 2016.svg

Hello! Thank you for uploading File:Referendum in Ungarn 2016.svg. Since then a mistake was corrected in one of the poll stations in Baranya County. So the turnout in that county was 98.18%, and not 98.01%. Could you update this data? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, I will correct it! --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 19:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all those maps! Utcursch (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Atal Bihari Vajpayee 2001 cropped.jpg

File:Atal Bihari Vajpayee 2001 cropped.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!

Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:146 Constans.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jcb (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Invalid votes in italian Constitutional Referendum 2016

@Furfur: While in regional results in Italy there is a very very small % of invalid votes (zero.something), there is a very big % of invalid votes abroad, average 17 times higher than in Italy (for example: almost 10% invalid votes from Germany, 14.8% from Canada, other countries more than 20%). If you have time, could you please consider to make a map with one colour scale of invalid votes abroad? I think it's an interesting data. --Holapaco77 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Holapaco77: yes, I also noticed this and was wondering about the reasons for this. Do you have any explanation for it? I can think about a map. Do you expect significant worldwide variations? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Furfur: I can't find any answer about it , but also past referendums have this problem with abroad invalid votes: so there were also some official parlimentary questions about all these invalid votes abroad, but the government never answered (or I can 't find any official answer). My personal opinion is because it's a vote by mail and for that there could be many possibile reasons: I red that some voters put inside their "ballot evelopes" other things more than ballot papers, like letters of protest to the government, photos of relatives and (ok I know that now you won't belive it, but it's true) one voter from England put inside the envelope a check of 7.000 UK pounds to help people who soffered for earthquake in central Italy! Then maybe other burocratic problems: abroad they must use a black or blue pen to make the cross on the ballot paper, while in Italy we normally use indelible pencils (I don't know...maybe abroad voters are used to use the pencil like us here); the envelope must include two smallest envelopes: in the first they must include one identity certificate (if missing, volte bis invalid); in the other envelope they put only one ballot paper voted (it's not allowed to put two ballot papers in the same envelope): all this bureocracy can be difficult to understand and to do. Pay attention: these are only MY personal hypotesis. --Holapaco77 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I was again thinking about the invalid votes and I think it's not really worth the effort. Many countries have so few voters that this does not permit a really meaningful analysis. When looking roughly at the data of the remaining countries published in La Repubblica I can't see any meaningful correlation or trend. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Austrian runoff re-vote (Dec. 4) maps

Hey, could you please create some district and municipal results maps like you did in the first two rounds ? Thanks ! --The Pollster (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, yes I could, I am in the process of doing this. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Verfassungsreferendum in Italien 2016.svg

Hallo Furfur, danke für die Erstellung der Karte zum italienischen Verfassungsreferendum [3]. Meiner Meinung nach sollte auch die Metropolitanstadt Cagliari in Deine Karte eingezeichnet [4] und ihr ein Wahlergebnis zugerechnet werden. Ließe sich das umsetzen?--Patavium (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, habe ich eine Region übersehen? Ich sehe es mir an und wenn ich das nachvollziehen kann (was wahrscheinlich der Fall sein wird) trage ich Cagliari natürlich nach. Vielen Dank für die Benachrichtigung! --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ich habe das auch mit User talk:Thern diskutiert. Offensichtlich geht das italienische Innenministerium davon aus, dass die Provinz Cagliari in den Grenzen vor 2005 wiederentstanden ist [5]. Das ist zwar unzutreffend, aber da Du die Zahlen wohl aus dieser Quelle bezogen hast, ist die Karte - so wie Du sie gezeichnet hast - eine korrekte Wiedergabe dieser Quelle. Daher besteht wohl doch kein Anpassungsbedard. Ich werde lediglich die Legende im einschlägigen Artikel entsprechend anpassen.--Patavium (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Siehe [6]--Patavium (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Patavium, vielen Dank dass Du Dich so eingehend damit befasst hast. Ich kenne mich mit italienischen Verwaltungsregionen nicht aus und habe die Daten so genommen, wie sie präsentiert wurden. Grüße --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 16:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

HRR

Guten Tag Furfur,

Months ago you notified me a few errors in file:Map of the Holy Roman Empire (1618) - DE.svg, and I finally fixed them just now. Thanks again for finding them! I haven't really experimented with the colour-scheme yet, as I find that to be one of the more difficult aspects of map making. I will let you know when I finally finish more interesting things. Sir Iain (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

goedendag Sir Iain,
bedankt for your excellent work that is very much appreciated! I am keen to see what you intend to do next ... --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 14:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)--Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 14:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Priyanka Vadra 2013.jpg

File:Priyanka Vadra 2013.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Achim (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nutzung der Karte zu ethnischen Gruppen USA

Guten Tag,

ich wüsste gerne, ob sie der Urheber dieser Karte sind https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg/400px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg.png

und ob und unter welchen Bedingungen man die Karte frei nutzen darf und welche Grundlagen der Karte (z.B. andere womöglich urheberrechtlich geschützte Karten) zugrunde liegen und welche Datenquelle?

Besten Dank.

Hallo,

die Ausgangskarte ist wohl diese hier: File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg. Ich habe damals die Karte ins Deutsche übersetzt: File:US ancestry2000 de.png. Die Quellen und auch die Lizenzen sind dort angegeben. Beide Karten sind gemeinfrei (public domain), d. h. frei nutzbar (auch für kommerzielle Zwecke) und veränderbar. Hier in den Commons sind grundsätzlich alle Dateien frei nutzbar und veränderbar – andere Dateien dürfen hier gar nicht untergebracht werden und werden gelöscht –, manchmal schreibt die Lizenz aber noch Verpflichtung zur Namensnenung vor. Ich finde es auch generell einen guten Stil, die Herkunft zu nennen, auch wenn das nicht explizit verlangt wird. Bedingung für die Nutzung ist meist auch, dass man die (eventuell veränderte) Datei unter gleichen Bedingungen zugänglich machen muss und keine Eigentumsansprüche darauf erheben kann. Bei den o. g. Dateien ist aber selbst das nicht der Fall.

Informationen zu Lizenzen gibt es auch hier (leider nur teilübersetzt). Grüße --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:P A Sangma (cropped).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:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

FightWe (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

FightWe (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Просьба

Приветствую. Я заметил, что вы загрузили логотип грузинской партии. У меня к вам просьба, возможно вам будет интересно. Загрузите пожалуйста в википедию логотипы четырех политических партий Беларуси. Я сам пытался это делать, но постоянно нарушал какие-то правила и права. Вот список партий. Партия свободы и прогресса, Белорусская партия левых «Справедливый мир», Коммунистическая партия Беларуси, Республиканская партия труда и справедливости. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.72.218.141 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

https://translate.google.com/?hl=ru

Hallo! ich kann leider nur auf Deutsch oder Englisch antworten. Es gab schon vorher ein Logo dieser georgischen Partei in den Commons. Ich weiß nicht warum es hier möglich war und warum nicht für Weißrussland. Vielleicht sind die Urheberrechtsbestimmungen anders. Besser aber nicht zu viele Fragen stellen ... --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 20:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Pro-Kopf-Bruttosozialprodukt in Indien 2011.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Pro-Kopf-Bruttosozialprodukt in Indien 2011.svg. 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.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:ROM

Template:ROM 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Russian Rocky (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

File:BJP election symbol.svg

File:BJP election symbol.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ÂkBY$ 15:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:P A Sangma (cropped).jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

NightFighter 10:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Macron & Le Pen.jpg

File:Macron & Le Pen.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!

Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Pepe the frog.svg

File:Pepe the frog.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

FallingGravity (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Northern Ireland).svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Northern Ireland).svg. 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.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Text in vector images

Please, do not place text items—to an SVG file—as <path>s. It makes images less editable and less reusable in general. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I know about SVGs. Sometimes it is however unavoidable to convert text to paths because of poor image rendering by the Winimedia renderer. Which image do you refer to? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 09:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What in File:Serum protein electrophoresis normal and paraprotein.svg could be “poorly rendered”? Show examples of objectionable rendering, please, possibly as uploaded and then overwritten versions. Anyway, <path> text can be only implemented with good font support; it’s File:Balkan 1912.svg that actually resulted in damaged text not fixable by a couple of edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I am mostly using Adobe Illustrator and AI has multiple issues with text in SVGs. The image often appears markedly different from the preview. Sometimes this is acceptable, sometimes not. If you need an SVG with text of File:Balkan 1912.svg you can refer to the original Spanish version from which this file is derived. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 11:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It’s me who needs to convert a Spanish-text map to German, really? Your wiki needs it—legitimately—but don’t bore yourself (and others) with Adobe for such a job. Open the SVG source file (it’s a text), edit labels to restore spelling from Spanish corruptions and/or to add Germanisms to your flavour. Upload the image then. If some labels become placed poorly, then you (or other editors) can make tweaks by changing alignment attributes or just playing with «x=». Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, actively developed browsers understand SVG natively from c. 2010. They also have tools like DOM Inspector, even built-in functions in some modern browsers, which help to find relevant code simply by activating the context menu over an element in GUI and choosing “Inspect Element”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Dear Incnis Mrsi, I'm like you opposed to non editable SVGs or vector graphics uploaded in a non-editable file format. But that you are demanding work from a volunteer strikes me. And we're not talking about DOM problems, the problem are flow-texts and the font selection routine of rsvg.--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A considerable piece of job was made to remove Spanicisms (stress marks, “Constanza”… ) from an SVG – nice job. But the output turned to have non-editable text and visible text corruptions over Romania. This strikes me, indeed. Have a good day. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You tone, Incnis Mrsi, is indeed inappropriate. The great majority of my uploads contain editable text, simply have a look! I did not ask you to translate a Spanish file to German – this has already been done. You want to translate this file, presumably to Russian and I suggested that you can do this by using the Spanish file. If there are errors in the text you can ask me politely to correct them. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 14:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Let’s drop Balkan_1912.svg together with poor fonts and all AI stuff. What about Serum_protein_electrophoresis_normal_and_paraprotein.svg? A virtually language-neutral image suitable for immediate use and translations to French, Russian etc., but… without editable text. What in the word “Albumin” or lone “αβγ” letters (some suffixed with numerals) can be rendered so adversely in MediaWiki? Does such a problem exist actually, or only because you didn’t get to preview each brand-new SVG, before uploading, in Google Chrome or Mozilla to check for defects? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop advising me what do. You can ask me something, but don't lecture me. Care for the data you have uploaded. There are several things to improve (conversion to svg, e.g.). Try to improve your graphics capabilities. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 20:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:APGgeo.jpg

File:APGgeo.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Guanaco (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Bundestagswahl 2017 Erststimmenergebnisse.svg

Hallo Furfur,

du hast die Karte File:Bundestagswahl 2017 Erststimmenergebnisse.svg hochgeladen. Die Farbcodes sind allerdings irreführend, da Linke und AfD in derselben Farbe erscheinen, obwohl sie entgegengesetzte Enden des politischen Spektrums repräsentieren. Für die Linke wird zur Unterscheidung von der SPD oft violett verwendet. Kannst du das eventuell noch ändern? Danke.--Colomen (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Die Farben und politischen Ausrichtungen kenne ich, danke :) ! Das ist einfach ein Fehler, der korrigiert werden muss, mache ich gleich. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Super, danke dir! :-) -- Colomen (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Furfur, ich hatte gestern Abend deine Grundkarte genommen und diese so aufbereitet, dass man alles sehr angenehm per CSS stylen kann. Da in deiner Karte leider trotz der diversen Korrekturen immer noch einige Fehler fahren, habe ich mir mal erlaubt, meine neu Version über deine zu speichern (siehe auch Disk dort). Ich hoffe, du bist mir nicht böse. -- Christallkeks (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Habt ihr gesehen, dass der Wahlkreis 143 (Dortmund) in der Legende rechts falsch eingefärbt ist? --178.201.133.173 10:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wird gefixt, war ein Fehler im SVG -- Christallkeks (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Inwiefern? 143 ist doch SPD? Gruß --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 11:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Es war in meiner Version falsch, weil ich beim Zuordnen der Polygone offenbar doch durcheinander gekommen war. Mittlerweile passt aber alles. Bzw. mittlerweile hast du ja wieder deins drüber geladen, was ich aber gut finde, da das mit den in die Hauptkarte integrierten kleinen Karten natürlich besser ist. Kannst du die Grenzen der Bundesländer noch etwas deutlicher machen? Das wäre schön. -- Christallkeks (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC

Außerdem ist in 246 noch ein komischer Fitzel. Kriegst du den noch weg? -- Christallkeks (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @Christallkeks: habe eine neue Version hochgeladen. Das Problem ist natürlich etwas, dass die Karte in verschiedenen Browsern und unter verschiedenen Betriebssystemen immer etwas anders aussieht. Gruß --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 12:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Naja, aber der MediaWiki-Renderer rendert die PNGs ja immer gleich ;-) Meinetwegen könnten die Bundesländer-Grenzen nochmal stärker raustreten, bzw. die Wahlkreisgrenzen etwas zurück (hellgrau statt weiß?) Und der Fitzel, den ich meinte, liegt daran, dass an der Stelle irgendwie noch einige winzige Polygone rumschwirren und im Polygon des Wahlkreises ein "Loch" ist. Weiß nicht, ob du das leicht repariert bekommst. -- Christallkeks (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @Christallkeks: , ja, aber auch PNGs werden anders gerendert. Chrome z. B. stellt die Linien dünner dar. Und die Vorschau sieht definitiv in verschiedenen Browsern unterschiedlich aus. Ich habe verschiedene Browser und da sieht man wirklich Unterschiede. Die Grenzen hatte ich verstärkt. Ich finde sie so gut sichtbar, Du musst evtl. Deinen Browsercache löschen um die neue Version der Datei zu sehen. Der "Fitzel", den Du meist ist Teil des Wahlkreises 245 (Nürnberg), siehe die kleine nebenstehende Karte, der hat eine Exklave (Karte beim Bundeswahllleiter). --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Das ist mir klar. Was ich sagen wollte: Das endgültige Kriterium sollte sein, wie es auf der WP gerendert wird. Ob das jetzt bei mir unter Windows im Firefox oder bei dir unter Linux im Chrome anders aussieht, ist doch wumpe. Das WP-PNG ist das was zählt. Von daher kann man verschiedene Design-Vorstellungen nicht wirklich auf unterschiedliche Systeme schieben.

Ich find das nicht, man muss immer noch ziemlich genau hingucken, um sie zu sehen.

Ok, danke für die Aufklärung mit der Exklave, das erklärt das natürlich. -- Christallkeks (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wahlkreis 132 (Gütersloh/Bielefeld) ist fälschlicherweise schwarz eingefärbt. Bei der zwischenzeitigen Version war es mal rot, aber dann hat sich der Fehler wieder eingeschlichen. https://bundeswahlleiter.de/bundestagswahlen/2017/ergebnisse/bund-99/land-5/wahlkreis-132.html --Lorion42 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lorion42: OK, danke, korrigiere ich! Hier haben mehrere Personen neue Versonen hochgeladen und nichts genau dokumentiert, was sie geändert haben. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Bundestagswahl 2017 Erststimmenergebnisse.svg

Den Wahlkreis 171 gewann die SPD. Bitte umfärben. Viele Grüße --Bluemel1 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bluemel1: oh, pardon, und danke für die Mitteilung, mache ich gleich! --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Sarbananda Sonowal-cropped.png

Yours sincerely, Rahul Bott (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Help:SVG/de

Hallo Furfur, erstmal vielen Dank für deine Tätigkeit dort, ein Abschnitt dort verstehe ich jedoch (als Nicht-Laie) nicht. Uzw. "Deutsche Sonderzeichen in SVG-Codierung", solche Zeichen sind mir noch nie untergekommen. Kannst du da etwas konkreter werden (Kodierung?), ansonsten scheint diese Info zu sehr spezifisch (daher überflüssig). MfG -- User: Perhelion 07:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @Perhelion: diese Codierungen sind dann nützlich, wenn man eine SVG-Datei mit einem Texteditor editiert (z. B. MS Word). Beispielsweise, wenn man eine SVG-Datei mit englischem Text editiert, um den Text gegen deutschen Text auszutauschen. Das ist für Benutzer, die keine Kenntnisse in Inkscape, Adobe Illustrator etc. haben, bzw. diese Programme nicht bei sich installiert haben, oft die einfachste Methode. Dann kannst Du in diese Textdatei kein "Ü", "Ä", "Ö", etc. reinschreiben (sonst gibt es eine Fehlermeldung), sondern musst diese Codierungen verwenden. Ich schreibe noch etwas dazu. Grüße --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 11:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Syrian refugees in the Middle East map-ar.svg

File:Syrian refugees in the Middle East map-ar.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Kartografische Darstellungen im Artikel "Nationalratswahl in Österreich 2017"

@Furfur: Hallo Furfur. Vielen Dank für deine Arbeit bzgl. dieser Grafiken im Artikel [7] [8] [9] [10]. Sehr gut gelungen!

Man hat sich in dieser Diskussion [11] darauf verständigt einen zweiten Farbparameter für die ÖVP zu erstellen, was auch schon umgesetzt wurde.[12] Aufgrund von Einheitlichkeit der Farbgestaltung im Artikel wäre es toll, wenn du die vier Grafiken umfärben könntest. LG --Benqo (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @Benqo and Buschbohne: gibt es denn Belege dafür dass die ÖVP dauerhaft ihre langjährige Parteifarbe geändert hat, also nicht nur auf der momentanen Kurz-Euphorie beruhend? Im Artikel steht zur Parteifarbe "Farbe: Schwarz, Türkis. Man muss ja evtl. zwischen einem Wahlkampf-"Layout" und der langjährigen Parteifarbe unterscheiden. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Furfur: Wie ich das mitbekommen habe, ist geplant die Farbe jetzt erstmal zu behalten. Außerdem veröffentlichte z.B. der ORF oder Der Standard am Montag nach der Wahl ähnliche Grafiken eben in der neuen Farbe. Auch beim BMI war türkis angemeldet. Laut diesem Artikel [13]:„Jetzt bleiben wir fürs Erste einmal dabei“, sagt ein ÖVP-Stratege. Was in ein paar Jahren sei, werde man sehen." Vielleicht wird es dann in 10 Jahren einen neuen Farbparameter geben ÖVPab2027 oder ähnliches. Sogar das alte Logo von der Parteizentrale in Wien wurde abmoniert und ist auf der Webseite der ÖVP nicht mehr herunterzuladen. LG --Benqo (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Need Help with the West Bengal districts map

Hello! Hope you are doing well.
I would be grateful to you if you could help me in the following regard. An additional 4 (four) districts were recently created in the Indian state of West Bengal. They are Paschim Bardhaman district (bifurcated from Bardhaman district), Kalimpong district (bifurcated from Darjeeling district), Alipurduar district (bifurcated from Jalpaiguri district) and Jhargram district (bifurcated from Paschim Medinipur district). Hence the districts map of West Bengal needs to be updated. This is the existing map.
Here you can find the Updated map (on the Government of West Bengal website) where all the 23 Districts are shown. Is it possible for you to help by creating a new Districts-map for West Bengal. Please do write to me in my Talk page if you need anything.
On behalf of West Bengal Wikimedians community, many thanks in advance. -- Mouryan (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Mouryan: thanks for your notification. I could try to add the districts to the map (or better create a new map). However, the district map published by the government of West Bengal has quite a low resoution. Do you know of any other more detailed maps with the new districts? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Berliner Senat zum Volksentscheid über Tegel.jpg

File:Berliner Senat zum Volksentscheid über Tegel.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 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

LandTagsWahl Tirol 2018

Danke für die informativen Karten! Agricola Planitius (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Agricola Planitius: danke. Erfreulicherweise hat Der Standard seine Karten unter einer cc-by-sa-Lizenz veröffentlich, so dass ich sie via pdf als SVG-Karten übernehmen konnte. Grüße --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Erste Fernsehdebatte Taiwan.jpg

File:Erste Fernsehdebatte Taiwan.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!

Wcam (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian referendum

Hi. Thanks. I will as soon as I find the available time. Cheers.--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 09:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy: thank you very much. Could you please also make a language-neutral version (without English text)? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 11:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bayern Landtagswahlkreise 2018

Danke für die Karte. Die Nummern der Oberbayerischen Stimmkreise hat sich aber durch den zusätzlichen Sitz geändert. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.241.171 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, danke ich werde es mir nochmal ansehen. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 04:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian electoral map 2010

An anonymous editor reported on the talk page for the Australian federal election, 2010 that on the electoral map File:Australische Wahlen 2010 en.svg, Bennelong was the wrong party colour. I fixed that one but they have reported three more errors: Dickson, Forde (both in Queensland) and Hasluck (in Western Australia). They are all red (Labor) but should be blue (Liberal National for Queensland, Liberal for WA). Are you able to run out the file from your source document with these adjustments? Thanks, --Canley (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Canley, thanks for having a close look at the map and I regret the errors. I will have a look if I still have the source file. Otherwise I would download, correct and re-upload the file. But if you like you could also do it ... --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 06:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, I've done the edits. --Canley (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Canley: OK, thank you very much! --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 09:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Canley: I note that some borders don not seem to be well adjusted, e.g., Freemantle, Hobart, Adelaide Area and surrounds, etc. ... will try to fix this. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 09:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I was hoping you could do it from the source, I find different software can do weird things to SVGs. Also, I corrected the spelling of Fremantle. --Canley (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

ROC National Assembly election map 1991

Dear Furfur,

I hope you have been keeping well! Thank you for pointing out this error, indeed according to the spreadsheet on my laptop, there were two independents elected to the national assembly in 1991, one in the 4th electoral district of Changhua County, and one in the 3rd electoral district of Kaohsiung County. The source I used at that time had was from a scanned PDF copy of the written text by the CEC, with a list of the elected candidates (which I unfortunately have not been able to find on my laptop)... Have nevertheless, corrected it on the cartogram File:1991ROCNA-cartogram.svg, if you could just double check it has been accurately reflected.

Best,

Sleepingstar (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Sleepingstar:

thanks, I’m fine and I hope that you are also doing well.

Unfortunately Taiwan’s Central Election Commission starts with the documentation of national elections in their database not before 1995 (see here).

I had a look around the web and and found web pages with information about the National Assembly election 1991.

If I understand it right this list contains the nationwide and "overseas" delegates: pdf, and the following page contains links with the results in the constituencies according to administratve units: [14].

constituency map

My problem is also a little bit that cannot exactly assign the constituencies in the map (e.g., the right one). E.g., I understand that Kaohsiung County has 4 constituencies but I do not know which one is which. Do you have a key for this?

I am asking all this, because I wrote an article about the election 1991 (and also will write one about the 1996 election) during the current Asian Month in de.wikipedia.

Thankx --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 16:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Northern Ireland relief de.svg

Copyright status: File:Northern Ireland relief de.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Northern Ireland relief de.svg. 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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:Kamaluddin with President of India.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kamaluddin with President of India.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:Kamaluddin with President of India.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, President of India (cropped 2).png

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, President of India (cropped 2).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:Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, President of India (cropped 2).png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sirlanz

Hello. Help vote. Thanks you. Pv sindhu (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Green Party Taiwan Logo.png

File:Green Party Taiwan Logo.png 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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: logo Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wcam (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wcam, I responded to the deletion request on the Discussion page of this file als requested. Why was there no discussion about this? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I responded to your comment on File talk:Green Party Taiwan Logo.png. --Wcam (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Gano Forum Election Symbol logo.png

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gano Forum Election Symbol logo.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:Gano Forum Election Symbol logo.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Gano Forum Election Symbol logo.png

File:Gano Forum Election Symbol logo.png 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!

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Test Devanagari 2019-02-16.png

Copyright status: File:Test Devanagari 2019-02-16.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Test Devanagari 2019-02-16.png. 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.

JuTa 11:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Subduction-de2.svg

Copyright status: File:Subduction-de2.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Subduction-de2.svg. 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.

Jcb (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding new version of China_1820 map

Hi, I have uploaded new versions of the map in both Traditional and Simplified Chinese. I think I have to inform you since you are the first to upload these files and continuously improve the files. Thank you for your contribution to help the Chinese users. Greeting from China. --Unravel17 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Furfur: : I just have a look at the German version of the map, in part of Tibet, you translate Chinese characters according to its Pinyin, but it is not accurate for these Chinese words are actually translated from Tibetan have corresponding words in English according to Tibetan.

• For example, "西藏" should be Tibet, which you translate correctly. But in the original map, the two characters of “西藏” crosses a lot of space which may lead to confusion, so the "Cang" near "Kang" should be deleted. Also, in Chinese, 西藏 is pronounciated as Xi Zang instead of Xi Cang. So even if you make translation according to Chinese, it is inaccurate.
• Also, what you refer to as "Kang" is actually "Kham". "Ali" should be "Ngari". "Cang"(not the same as the previous one, this one is right above where you place "Tibet") should be “Tsang”. "Wei" should be "Ü".

Here is a map which I hope can help you to understand. --Unravel17 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Unravel17 thanks for having a close look, I will correct these texts. Of course usually Pinyin should be the norm. Some terms have historical German names but I think none of these. And thanks for correcting the zh-hans and zh-hant versions. And I found an improved version of the Greater Tibet map. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 20:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Furfur: : I think the map you provided is good, but I think some further info about Ü-Tsang should be included. Ü-Tsang is actually a combination of two areas (Ü and Tsang). In Chinese, Ü (卫, the Chinese name according to the pronunciation) is also called 前藏 which means the front of Tibet, and Tsang (藏, the Chinese name according to the pronunciation) is called 后藏 which means the back of Tibet. So in the Chinese map, you will see the names labelled in the same areas, like in Ü you will find 前藏 and 卫 and in Tsang you will find 后藏 and 藏. But the two Chinese names are actually referring to the same place so you don't need to translate the names twice. I think the names "the front and back of Tibet" were described according to the distance from China proper, but I am not sure. --Unravel17 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Unravel17, thank you. I think I now understood the meaning. 前藏 and 後藏 could then be translated as "Upper" and "Lower" Tsang? In German it would be "Vorder-" ("before") and "Hinter-" ("behind"). I uploaded a new map version. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 19:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

...I have noticed that you added 回部 in Xinjiang. Is this another name for Xinjiang? Does is literally mean "region behind the Hui? And 準部?
In Qinghai you added 青海蒙古 (Qinghai Mongolia?) and 玉樹等四十族 (Yushu and the other 40 nomadic areas?). --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 20:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

回部 is not another name for 新疆. Technically, 新疆 wasn't called a province until 1880s, so the administrative division within was complicated. Before that Qing ruled Xinjiang according to the religions. In Xinjiang, there were two major groups, Dzungar Mongols who believe in Buddhism in the North Xinjiang and Muslims in South Xinjiang. Although most Dzungar people were killed, but the name Dzungaria was remained. In Chinese, Dzungaria is called 准噶尔部 or 准部. In contrast, 回部 means Muslim tribes. 回 can mean Muslim in Chinese.

Qinghai Mongols refer to Upper Mongols in English. 玉樹等四十族, which literally means 40 tribes in Yushu and other places, are Tibetan tribes who competed with Mongols for grassland in the area.

前藏 and 後藏 are purely Chinese names, so you can just use Pinyin. But note that 藏 has multiple ways of pronunciation in Chinese. When it refers to Tibet, its Pinyin is Zang instead of Cang, which you can check out [here.

Ü and 卫 is actually the same, but it's better to use the original Tibetan name, which is also true to Tsang and 藏.--Unravel17 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unravel17 thank you again, that’s all very interesting and I notice that you are quite well informed in history. Would you say that 部 should be translated as "tribe"? In the German version I translated 部 in Outher Mongolia as "Abteilung" which means "section", or "department". Should 西藏 be translated as Tibet (Xizang), but 藏, 後藏 and 前藏 as Tsang, Hou Tsang and Qian Tsang? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 21:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think 部 means "tribe" under the circumstance but a proper translation is another thing. If there has already a name in German, you should use that name, instead of creating a new name. Translating 部 into section is not so wrong because 部 in modern Chinese actually can mean section.

I don't think half Pinyin and half Tibetan is a good way of translation, but 後藏 and 前藏 are not used in Tibetan according to the Chinese wikipedia article related to 前藏, so I think Qianzang and Houzang are enough.

But 藏 alone in the map means Tsang, so you should translate standalone 藏 as Tsang.

I think I forgot to mention Kham or 康 in Chinese, which you translate as Kang.

I don't know much about the Outer Mongolia part, because, you know, it is no longer part of China. The reason I know something about Tibet and Xinjiang is that I planned to travel there. I went to Xinjiang during last summer vacation. --Unravel17 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unravel17 Yes these are definitively highly interesting places I would also like to visit ... I have now uploaded a new version, hopefully with most errors eliminated. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 21:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The annotations in Tibet are now perfect from my perspective. Xinjiang was an exciting place to visit when I visited last year. But I think China's visa policy was very strict especially for foreigners who want to go to politically sensitive areas such as Xinjiang and Tibet. --Unravel17 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unravel17 yes, I can imagine that. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 04:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

GRW Salzburg

Hallo Furfur,

bei deiner Karte zu den Bürgermeisterwahlen in Salzburg ist Zell am See falsch eingefärbt: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bürgermeisterwahlen_Salzburg_2019.svg

Dort hat nämlich der SPÖ-Kandidat die Stichwahl gewonnen, nicht der ÖVP-Kandidat.

--Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Glasperlenspieler, danke für den Hinweis – wird geändert! Gruß --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 17:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hallo nochmal, danke.

Maria Alm ist leider auch falsch (sollte SPÖ sein). Ebenso Oberalm bei Hallein und Seekirchen am Wallersee (sollten beide ÖVP sein).

Witzigerweise ist auch auf der Ergebnisseite vom Land Salzburg die Stadt Salzburg falsch eingefärbt: ÖVP-Kandidat Preuner hat die Stichwahl gewonnen, ist aber als "Sonstige" eingefärbt.

https://www.salzburg.gv.at/stat/wahlen/bmw/index2019.html

--Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Glasperlenspieler, ja, in der Tat – ich habe etliche Fehler gefunden und korrigiert. Weiß gar nicht, wie das passiert ist ... :-( --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Danke. Bitte auch deine Karte zur Gemeinderatswahl aktualisieren. Bei den Gemeindevertretungswahlen sind 3 Gemeinden falsch eingefärbt: Mattsee, Seekirchen und Straßwalchen (alle SPÖ, wurden aber von der ÖVP gewonnen). https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gemeindevertretungswahlen_Salzburg_2019.svg https://www.salzburg.gv.at/stat/wahlen/gvw/index2019.html Danke. --Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Glasperlenspieler korrekt, habe es entsprechend geändert. Gruß --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

SVG optimisation in maps of Bulgaria

Hi Furfur, I saw you translated some of my maps of Bulgaria into German. Thanks for that. I saw also that you proceeded to some optimisation of the svg. I will be interested to have some feedback what can be improved. Thanks --Ikonact (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Ikonact: first let me thank you for your very nice and high quality maps of Bulgaria and Bulgarian history. I assume that you are using Inkscape? I am usually using Adobe Illustrator. Inkscape adds a lot of stuff that is not necessary for the correct display of an SVG file and is not recommended by the SVG standard. Therefore I often remove this because this only increases the file size or (in older Inkscape versions) it even makes the file “invalid” (https://validator.w3.org/). Basically, I am doing this by editing the svg file with a word processor, e.g., Microsoft Word, in "plain text" mode (very important - not as a Word file). There you can remove all the text items that contain either "sodipodi" or "inkscape" (except for those at the beginning xmlns: ...) and the files still displays in the same way (however, I am not sure if Inkscape will add all this again if you edit the file again afterwards).

Some examples in the file Bulgaria_after_unification_political_map-en.svg:

you will find such passages as:

sodipodi:nodetypes="ccccccccccccc ... cccccccc"

You can delete these without loss of content throughout.

You can also delete all items like

inkscape:connector-curvature="0"

;-inkscape-font-specification:'DejaVu Sans Semi-Condensed'

;-inkscape-font-specification:'DejaVu Sans Condensed, Italic'

etc., etc.

But when optimizing a file in such a way you always should be careful not to delete too much by accident (e.g. , one more quotation mark, one more semicolon, or one more empty space than intended). Every time you have deleted something you should reload the file in your browser if it is still correctly displayed and if not, undo and recheck the delection.

If you want to get used to this you should play a little bit around with a file as described. I first learned about this, when I tried to make "invalid" files "valid". The Validator lists you the errors and then you can try to delete a piece and see if the error disappears. Then you get a feeling which part of the syntax is really necessary, and which part is not.

--Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Furfur. I am aware of all these Inkscape additional features and I can clear them a bit but at the same time I would like to keep some that are useful (layers for example). I generate my svg maps in text and then I use Inkscape to optimise the visual aspects (move some names of towns, add river and mountains names, optimise colours etc.). I can clean up after all this is done but if I need to modify something later on Inkscape adds again all this stuff. So it is a bit anoying to clean up every time :-) I will check your suggestions.

I saw that you are using another font. Is Liberation better than DelaVu? --Ikonact (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course I don't want to clean anything that is essential for the image display, but since I am not usually using Inkscape, I don't need any Inkscape features. Some Inkscape additions however seem to make the file "invalid", but I have the impression that newer versions of Inkscape produce "clean" SVG files.
Regarding the font: Liberation Sans is not better than DejaVu but usually I am using Arial as my default font and since Arial is a proprietary font, I usually choose the Liberation Sans (with same letter-spcing as Arial) as first choice for display in Wikipedia (it is a free font installed in Wikimedia) and Arial and the generic sans-serif as fallback fonts. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Inkscape defines valid SVG with the version I use. In fact the only feature I need in Inkscape is the layer definition. May be I have to see how layers are defined in Adobe Illustrator. For the font I use DejaVu Sans Condensed as default. The only issue is that there is no automatic fallback and I have to define by hand sans-serif. Apparently style definition for the font does not always work. Thanks for your comments. I will check my code :) --Ikonact (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Lotos flower symbol.svg

File:Lotos flower symbol.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your ethnic map of West Prussia

Your map is wrong when it comes to Kashubians in Tuchola (Tuchel) county. Tuchola was not Kashubian territory but Polish. See this new publication "Kashubians in the light of Prussian census data 1827-1911" by Leszek Belzyt: http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Acta_Cassubiana/Acta_Cassubiana-r2017-t19/Acta_Cassubiana-r2017-t19-s194-235/Acta_Cassubiana-r2017-t19-s194-235.pdf

Official figures on Kashubians/Poles, Bilinguals and Germans during the whole century:

Provinz Pommern:

Tabela 1 - Bytow county, general census
Tabela 2 - Bytow county, school children
Tabela 3 - Lebork county general census
Tabela 4 - Lebork county school children
Tabela 5 - Stolp county general census (see comments below the table)
Tabela 6 - Stolp county school children

West Prussia:

Tabela 7 and 8 - Wejherowo county
Tabela 9 and 10 - Puck county
Tabela 11 and 12 - Kartuzy county
Tabela 13 and 14 - Kościerzyna county
Tabela 15 and 16 - Gdansk Highlands county
Tabela 17 and 18 - the city of Danzig
Tabela 19 and 20 - Chojnice county
Tabela 21 and 22 - Schlochau county

Tabela 23 and 24 - all counties together, estimates based on all the data

And here another publication which focuses on Kashubians in Pommern:

http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Acta_Cassubiana/Acta_Cassubiana-r2010-t12/Acta_Cassubiana-r2010-t12-s93-122/Acta_Cassubiana-r2010-t12-s93-122.pdf

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the notification. I will have a second look at the publication that I used for the creation of the map. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Lasantha Wickrematunge with co journalist Sunalie Ratnayake.jpg

File:Lasantha Wickrematunge with co journalist Sunalie Ratnayake.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

African Month

Hello Furfur,

Can you create the banner for the Wikipedia African Month 2020, identical of File:Wikipédia Mois africain 2019 Banner.svg ?

Thanks, AirSThib (talk), the 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC).

Salut AirSThib, voilà: File:Wikipédia Mois africain 2020 bannière.svg. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 14:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Austria_Hungary_ethnic_de.svg

Vielen Dank für diese ja schon vor 8 Jahren hochgeladene Karte!

Allerdings wäre sie noch besser, wenn nahe Verwandtschaften und weite Verwandtschaften der Sprachen durch die Farben wiedergegeben würden. Das gilt insbesondere für die slawischen Sprachen. Zur politschen Dimension eine kleine Tabelle:

Sprachanteile [%] in der Donaumonarchie 1910
Deutsch	23,36
Ungarisch	19,57
∑ Staatsvölker	42,93
Tschechisch	12,54
Slowakisch	3,83
∑ CZ+SK	16,37
Serbokroatisch	8,52
Slowenisch	2,44
∑ Südslawen	10,96
Polnisch	9,68
Ukrainisch	7,78
∑ Slawen	44.52
Rumänisch	6,27
Italienisch	1,50
∑ Romanen politisch irrelevant

Hallo @Ulamm: , die politischen Dimensionen sind mir bekannt, aber ich verstehe nicht genau, welche Änderung Du vorschlägst. Sollen die Farben geändert werden (Blautöne für alle Slawen, etc.?). Gruß --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 17:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ja Furfur, so etwas meinte ich (wobei wohl im Überblick verschiedener Karten Rottöne für Germanen, Blautöne für Romanen, Grüntöne für Slawen häufiger verwendet werden).--Ulamm (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, ich habe mal einen ersten Versuch gemacht. Die Farbenvariabilität wird dadurch geringer (6 verschiedene Grüntöne), aber das Argument kann ich nachvollziehen. Gruß --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 17:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Schon ganz gut. Allerdings sind die benachbarten, aber unterschiedlichen Familien angehörenden Sprachen Slowenisch und Italienisch mit zu ähnlichen Farben dargestellt. Du könntest Slowenisch bisschen grüner machen als Serbokroatisch, jenes von der Farbrichtung so wie jetzt, aber etwas dunkler. Gruß, --Ulamm (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Naja, ausprobieren kann man vieles und die Geschmäcker sind unterschiedlich. Auch das Farbsehvermögen unterscheidet sich. Ich kann versuchen, das zu variieren, aber manches sieht dann eventuell anderen wieder zu klotzig oder grell oder zu ähnlich aus. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Mit "grüner" meinte ich nicht "knallgrün" sondern "ohne Blaustich". Und die auch bei der Farbe für Serbokroatisch noch vorhandene Nähe zur Farbe für Italienisch kannst du auch anders als mit einem dunkleren Ton vermeiden. Du kannst auch. die Farbe für Italiensch dunkler machen. Bei den relativ kleinen Flächen stört ein dunkler Frabton weniger als bei großen Flächen.

Zur Erinnerung: Wir haben ja verschiedene Möglichkeiten Farbtöne zu variieren, die man alle nutzen kann:

• die Vektorrichtung im Farbenkreis
• die Sättigung: Wie stark dominiert die R-G-B-Hauptfarbe gegenüber den beiden anderen, oder die beiden R-G-B-Hauptfarben gegenüber der dritten.
• die Helligkeit, also ob die R-G-B-Mischung tendenziell aus hohen Werten besteht oder tendenziell aus niedrigen.
• Vermindert man Helligkeit und Sättigung, dann wirken die Farben graustichig bis "erdig"

Beste Grüße, --Ulamm (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Es steht Dir frei, die Farben auch selbst zu ändern. (allerdings dann auch die verlinkten Texte, wo auf diese Farben Bezug genommen wird). Erinnerungen benötige ich nicht und auch nicht Bewertungen, wie “schon ganz gut”. Stattdessen wären die Wort "bitte" und "danke" ganz angebracht, dann steigt die Motivation hier Zeit zu investieren. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 20:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SVG kann ich selber nicht erzeugen.

Wenn mein Lob dich beleidigt statt aufgemuntert hat, tut mir das leid.

Ich bitte dich jetzt in aller Höflichkeit und Freundschaft darum, entweder deine zweite Umarbeitung als "File:Austria_Hungary_ethnic_de2.svg" zur Verfügung zu stellen, oder mir zu erlauben, sie unter diesem Titel hochzuladen, natürlich weder als Autor noch als Bearbeiter. Vielen Dank für prompte Bereitschaft, andere Farbgebungen durchzuprobieren, --Ulamm (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, als Lob habe ich es leider nicht verstanden. Die Datei ist ja nicht mein Eigentum, sondern unter einer freien Lizenz hochgeladen, d. h. jeder darf sie im Prinzip bearbeiten. Du kannst sie aber ohne große SVG-Kenntnisse selbst bearbeiten, wenn es nur um die Farben geht. SVG-Dateien sind reine Text-Dateien. Dazu lädst Du die Datei herunter, öffnest sie als reine Text-Datei (wichtig!) in Deinem Textverarbeitungssystem (z. B. Word). Danach kann der entsprechende Farbcode per "Suchen und Ersetzen" beliebig ausgetauscht werden (z.B. '#FE5E5A' gegen '#FF0000'). Nach dem Speichern der Datei (als "nur Text") kann sie im Browser geöffnet und angesehen werden. Anschließend siehst Du Dir jedes Mal das Ergebnis an, indem Du die lokale Datei in Deinem Browser ansiehst. Wenn das Ergebnis gefällt kann die Datei wieder hochgeladen werden. Unter Apple Mac ist das alles sehr einfach. Ich weiß aber nicht, ob das unter Windows genauso ist. Ich bin allerdings der Ansicht, dass die jetzige Lösung nicht so schlecht ist. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 00:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Farbcodes:

1. FE5E5A
2. FAED52
3. 80DBAF
4. 6DC77C
5. 0BBE5D
6. 009850
7. 4BE49B
8. 35B082
9. 62BDEF
10. A3A4D6