Chrkl

Important: I only pop in ocassionally these days. You can happen to get one, but please don't count on a timely response. Thanks.

Reflections

May I ask what picture you used for the environment box of the reflecting wiki-thermometer? Is it a bottle near a tree? --chris 00:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is the Space Needle in Seattle, Washington, USA. --NoPetrol 00:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*räusper*

jetzt aber schnell ;-) --:Bdk: 14:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ist beim Copy&Paste verlustig gegangen, hab die Vorlage "gfdl-small" nicht als solche erkannt. Danke --chris 論 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Teleborgs slott-entrance.jpg

Hallo. Ich habe diesen Bild heller gemacht, wollte es dir nur mitteilen. Es war zwar eine weile her (entschuldigung habe nicht daran gedacht) Regards, Fred Chess 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Striking your vote

Hello Chrkl,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

remerciements joubarde

J'avais bien trouvé trace de la grande, mais pas de la petite... Et encore, pas en fleurs. A vrai dire, ici, dans le Doubs, il n'y a que sur mon rocher que j'en ai vu... Na ! LOL

Merci encore

Guymartin1 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

De rien :) --chris 論 21:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

joubarde des toits

Peux-tu, maintenant que tu l'as identifiée, modifier le nom de l'image ? Si tu penses qu'elle vaut le coup de rester sur Wikipédia commons, sinon supprime-là... Merci (jene suis pas encore assez doué pour juger de tout ça)

Guymartin1 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

L'images sont très jolies - alors elles resteront probablement. ;-) Mais on ne peut pas changer le nom d'une image (sauf si on charge le fichier encore une fois sous les noms nouveaux). En plus je ne suis pas un biologiste et ne suis pas certain, et comme ca on laisse plutôt pisser les mérinos. J'ai categorisé les deux fichier comme "sempervivum inconnu". --chris 論 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

File:New_York_1999_bruce_lee-perspcorr.jpg

File:New_York_1999_bruce_lee-perspcorr.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!

Mangostar (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merci

Merci beaucoup pour ton travail sur mes photos de saint-Merri, c'est beaucoup mieux ce que tu fais; Merci encore --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

De rien. Dans quelque cas je n'étais pas sûr, si tu veux avoir l'environment avec les peintures. Alors je n'ai fait rien. Si tu penses que l'un ou l'autre a besoin d'un peu de surproduction, dis-moi. (Et ignores mon commentaire dans ta discussion, je n'avait pas vu ça ici avant que je l'aie ecrit.) --chris 論 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Korrektur

Hallo Chrkl, danke für die Korrektur hier. ~Lukas talk 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bitte, kein Ding. --chris 論 15:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Chrkl!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Fortuna9.jpg was uncategorized on 17 October 2009.
• Image:Gilda 014.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

File:PetroKyrk CoA.svg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad name! --chris 論 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:PIxelArt PixelPlaza-DemoGrid.png

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:PIxelArt PixelPlaza-DemoGrid.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 ([email protected]). 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:PIxelArt PixelPlaza-DemoGrid.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

--Rockfang (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rockfang.

As stated in the details, sll of the authors of this (I am one of them) have given me their permission to publish the composition of our works under the CC-license as stated. All of them have been informed about the implications of the CC license, potential commercial use and so on. Since this was a more or less oral agreement (dealt with in the chat system of the PixelPlaza platform) there is no written record of the agreement. Some of the users concerned have meanwhile left the community there and are out of reach for me. --chris 論 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Wiener Neustädter Altar-offen.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wiener Neustädter Altar-offen.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 19:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Wiener Neustädter Altar-halb offen.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wiener Neustädter Altar-halb offen.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 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Wiener Neustädter Altar-geschlossen.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wiener Neustädter Altar-geschlossen.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 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal of Andhra Pradesh.svg

File:Seal of Andhra Pradesh.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!

Stefan4 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Noma Dojo, 2006.JPG

File:Noma Dojo, 2006.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!

139.218.178.198 07:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

sMirC

Hallo Chrkl,

sind die Smilies wirklich von dir? Ich finde sie wirklich klasse, trotz ihrer oder gerade wegen ihrer subtilen Einfachheit, im Gegensatz zu den Gnome-/Tango-/Pidgin-Smilies (ich mag den Style und vor allem behalten sie in kleiner Größe ihren Ausdruck). Nun ist die Frage ob man dieses Set erweitern kann (Pidgin hat z.B. über 110) was ja der ein oder andere schon getan hat. Die andere Frage ist inwieweit sind diese noch im Gebrauch, sMirC habe ich leider nie kennengelernt. Gibt es dieses noch? Daran schließt sich gleich die nächste Frage, in wie weit dürfen diese verändert werden?

Liebe Grüße → User: Perhelion 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, Perhelion.

Freut mich, daß Sie dir gefallen. Die Smilies sind Wikimedia-weit recht unterschiedlich häufig im Gebrauch, je nach Einzelmotiv. Der Name war ein Akronym, was ich mir ausgedacht habe, in Anlehnung an das englische Wort "smirk" für (hämisch) Grinsen. Es ist also keine Software wie bei Pidgin oder Gnome, sondern lediglich ein Name und das Set habe ich speziell für Wikimedia erstellt. Mittlerweile kursieren im Netz auch einige nicht lizenzkonforme Kopien, aber ich bin der eigentliche Urheber, bzw. einige andere Leute hier, die neue Motive abgeleitet haben.

Was eine Erweiterung angeht so steht dieser also nichts im Wege. Gerne werde ich auch selbst noch mehr machen, wenn Du Vorschläge für Motive hast. Veränderungen an den Originaldateien würde ich schade finden, auch weil Sie halt teilweise doch sehr stark benutzt werden in den Wikimedia-Projekten. Aber abgeleitete Varianten unter eigenem Namen hochzuladen ist im Rahmen der Lizenz hier selbstverständlich möglich, ein Verweis auf mich ist je nach Stärke der Veränderung vielleicht gar nicht mehr notwendig aber immer nett, und ich fände es schön, wenn alle sMirC-Seiten und die Kategorie auch die neuen Versionen enthielten, sofern natürlich die Veränderungen das doch relativ einheitliche Erscheinungsbild nicht zu stark verlassen. Ich fände zum Beispiel andere Formate/Seitenverhältnisse als das Quadrat nicht so schön und praktisch, aber das ist meine persönliche Meinung und kein Gesetz

Ich hoffe das beantwortet alle Deine Fragen. Das Feedback allgemein hat mich sehr gefreut. --chris 論 09:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Schön dich zu sehen, bzw. vielen Dank für deine Rückmeldung! Das freut mich sehr zu hören, bzw. hast du völlig recht. Ja ich hab einige Ideen, bzw. erst mal vordergründig die fehlenden Emotions von "gängigen Sets" zu ergänzen. Ich würde ein paar erstellen und du könntest sie absegnen, bzw. nachbessern. Man könnte "die Neuen" ja in der Ga(l)lerie als Erweiterung kennzeichnen (per Kategorie wäre auch möglich aber evtl. zuviel). Um jetzt noch konkreter zu werden, ich beschäftige mich schon seit einiger Zeit damit Smilies generell in Wikipedia zugänglicher zu machen, da ich das für einen wesentlichen Zusatz in der Kommunikation halte. Ich hatte auf De die Smilie-Vorlage ja schon mal komplett ausgewechselt bzw. erweitert (Gnome). Ich bin technisch dabei eine allg. gebräuchliche Button-Smilie-Bar als Gadget einzurichten, ohne Template (ich habe bereits einen Protoytp in Gebrauch). Daher ist es wichtig, dass es ein Set ist, das alle wichtigen Emotionen abbilden kann. Bis auf Weiteres, VG (PS: hast du Email-Benachrichtigung bei dir an?) → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ja, die hab ich an, die geht aber auch auf einen nicht täglich gecheckten Spezial-Account. Das mit der Vorlagen-Standardisierung finde ich toll. Ich glaub die Franzosen haben sowas auch im Einsatz, zumindest glaube ich mich aus der sMirC-Verwendung zu erinnern. Und ich glaube nicht, daß wir irgendetwas als Erweiterung kennzeichnen müssen. Wenn der Stil ja paßt, dann gehört das nach Erweiterung dazu. Punkt. Und was die Neuzuerstellenden angeht, würde ich mich sehr gerne beteiligen, wenn Du mir ein paar der geplanten Grundemotionen als Stichwort zukommen läßt. --chris 論 14:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

PS: Drei neue, die mir sofort als fehlend aufgefallen sind habe ich mal ergänzt. Außerdem die Umbenennung einer früheren Ergänzung von jemand anderem veranlaßt (sceptic). , , --chris 論 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow* genau das wollte ich eigentlich noch sagen, dass ich dir natürlich den Vortritt lasse. Ich dachte an solche (irre) (nerd) ^^ (oder soll das dieser sein ?) Mir kommt es vor allem auf die Ausdrucksstärke in kleiner Größe an. Dabei ist mir ein Schwachpunkt aufgefallen, wesentliche Elemente wie Hände sollten eine starke und dunklere Kontur bekommen. PS: hier sind wohl alle wesentlichen aufgelistet[1] → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sowas wie angry fehlt noch, oder sowas wie genervtes Roulleye. Noch eine Schwäche, des Lach-Smilies, sieht in der Verkleinerung recht seltsam aus, fast nach Vollbart , die Lippen sind entweder zu dick oder ein klein wenig zu dunkel (aber ist wohl subjektiv). → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 04:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, ich hab die Konturen der Lippen von und schmaler gemacht, die der Hand in und deutlicher abgehoben mit dunklerer Kontur. Außerdem gibt es nun neu , ,, und (für ^^, der von Dir genannte sollte eher für x) stehen). Außerdem noch , , , , , und . Danke Dir für die Gesamtliste, aber das wird eine Zeit lang dauern, sich da durchzuwühlen, da sind sehr sehr viele redundante Sachen gelistet. --chris 論 08:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow* Klasse!! Ja sie laden richtige ein neue zu erstellen. Gefallen mir sehr gut, nur ein zwei passen mir nicht ganz. Ich dachte ich lade auch mal welche hoch und du schaust sie dir erstmal an (und dann ggf. zu übernehmen oder zu verschmelzen). Betr. wie findest du diesen ? Wenn das so weiter geht haben wir auf jeden Fall bald das Pidgin-Set mit über 110 überholt (das sollte uns denke ich nicht beängstigen). Jetzt zur Kritik: Der Angry Smilie sollte doch schon eher Rot sein, von mir aus auch genau mit dem selben Hintergrund wie der "Verschwitzte". Ähnlichkeit sollte schon ein wesentliches Element in einem Set sein. Der Shy-Smilie könnte entweder eine 2. Version bekommen (da wohl nicht jede Peinlichkeit zum schmunzeln ist aber doch sehr passend sein kann) oder wesentlich größere rote Backen. So ungefähr ein Zwischending zwischen dem hier . Wenn du nichts dagen hast würde ich mich mal an diesem, meinem Lieblingssmilie probieren.. Und noch eine Kleinigkeit. Bei dem sind da die Zähne nicht etwas zu weiß? Also man könnte schauen wie ein Helligkeitsverlauf zum Rand hin ausschaut. Beste Grüße → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)