User talk:1Veertje/Archive 3

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your help Rizlene (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

no source??

Hi, I can't understand why you put the {{no source since|month=April|day=3|year=2012}} template in File:Etapa3.jpg. This is an own work from Pau Bahí, an illustration student from the School of Art "La Llotja" in Barcelona. And the information is in the "Information" template on page. As co-tutor of him I've followed his work and I can guarantee that is own-work that has been supervised by Daniel García Castellanos from the Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera (ICTJA-CSIC). You can see details of the project here: Commons:Llotja. Please consider removing the template. Thanks. --Dvdgmz (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have looked into it sooner, I've been busy IRL. I see somebody else looked into it. Again, sorry. --Vera (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, doesn't matter. Greetings. --Dvdgmz (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Revisión de imágen

Saludos 1Veertje, he subido una imagen titulada cerveza, agradecería que la revises para detectar algún derecho de autor.--D vsquez (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

busy

I will be busy the upcoming weeks. --Vera (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are AWESOME!

Vera, I'm one of the people at MIT/Harvard working on the treemap project. Thank you so much for the very cool legend. This is really helpful. We're newbies on Wikicommons so pardon our amateurishness. We're learning slowly. Thanks again! User: Doubleodd

Ya estoy desbloqueada. --D vsquez (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamayo, Duato, Baltra

Hola, He visto que tu espada justiciera ha caído sobre mi cabeza. Afortunadamente, me has pillado confesado.
Vamos por parte:
Tamayo: la verdad es que cuando subí la foto del billete no encontré ningún documento que regulara la reproducción de los billetes bolivianos, sobre todo cuando tienen baja resolución. Pero como ha surgido este problema, hoy escribí al Banco Central de Bolivia haciendo la consulta correspondiente. Espero que respondan. Ya te informaré.

I moved this part of the conversation to the bank notes conversation page. --Vera (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Duato: Creo que al cortar la foto arguyendo que la imagen del fondo tiene copyright te has equivocado. La foto la saqué en la conferencia de prensa de 2010 cuando Duato anunció que pasaba a dirigir el ballet del Teatro Mijáilovski; fue Duato y su equipo los que decidieron acompañar la conferencia de prensa con slides y videos que se mostraban al fondo; ninguna advertencia fue hecha sobre que había que fotografiarlo solo a él "vivo"; el resultado es una nueva obra, que incluye a Duato + la imagen proyectada de Duato proveniente de una foto (hay muchísimas fotos de este tipo, por ejemplo, cuando sacas un foto en la que aparece un poster y ese poster está basado a su vez en una foto, por poner solo un ejemplo). En cualquier caso, ni Duato ni sus representantes ni ninguna otra persona han protestado por la foto, que por lo demás he visto por ahí en una página rusa. Resumiendo, creo que deberías revertir tu cambio y dejar la foto tal cual la publiqué. Pero si no estás de acuerdo, tampoco voy a romper lanzas por el asunto.

What you are describing (if the translation engine is working) is exactly the definition of a derivative work, and derivative works are protected by copyright. --Vera (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Baltra: esto ha sido lo más sencillo: he puesto el enlace a la página donde se dice que está bajo licencia CC. Ya que, según entiendo, parte de tu labor es supervisar la legalidad de las fotos subidas, será útil para ti saber que la Biblioteca del Congreso de Chile ha puesto sus fotos bajo licencia CC 3.0 y las que recibe como donación, por default se suben bajo esa licencia, salvo que el donante especifique especialmente otra. O sea, que cuando veas una foto de esa Bib, puedes estar tranquila.

Yes, I've seen this and the tag was already removed.--Vera (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Saludos y buen trabajo, --Roferbia (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot: You can answer me in English, if you want to, by-by,--Roferbia (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright or not ?

Hello there. I took a picture of a printing I made of an image on the net of an old map (definitely more than 100 yrs old). After wasting 3 hrs trying to work out if it's copyrighted or not, I ^{(got pissed off and)} eventually loaded it up. Here :

Siege of Montargis in 1427

and it comes from here, on this site.

Before I put it in wikipedia, can you please see what's what about the copyright, and if it's not right have it deleted without further ado ? Thanks.

Hi, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. I changed the licence to {{PD-100}} (PD = Public Domain). You can read more about licensing here Commons:Licensing. --Vera (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you sure about that ? The site it comes from seems very particular about copyright. I think they may think they own the picture of the copy of the map, or whatever. (Can't argue that the original's been made by a chimpanzee, for example ...) Just trying to avoid potential trouble, you sure know better about this than I do.

Yes, the map was created in 1853, the author has been dead for quite some time. Luckily, copyright doesn't last forever. In most countries it's "life of the author" + 70 years. We're also sticking to US copyright law here on Commons, so everything that was published before 1924 is OK. --Vera (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Re. File:Ste-magnance-sign.JPG, well I'll be. Would never have thought about it for THAT photo. Wld you mind telling me what , heh, what law it breaks, if I may say so ? Not for contesting it, but for trying to get a bit more savvy about it so I get a chance at not repeating the blob again (you'll have less work later by doing that little bit more now - sorry for the wasted time btw). Besides, I don't quite get it. If that sign is un-picturable, what about the pic of the statue itself ? Here :

It's a photocopy of a text that has a level of complexity in it. It's similar as if you would actually type out what the notice says and re-publish it. Publishing text in the form of labels on simple packaging or signs is OK since it isn't complex enough to be eligible for copyright. The prayer part of the document is probably OK, since it is old. But Commons isn't really meant for text. You could transcribe and store the prayer on wikisource. --Vera (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ok, thanks for the info. Yes I had thought of copying the prayer somewhere, for info. Never gone onto wikisource, will have a look.Basicdesign (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look how other prayers are transcribed [here --Vera (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ste-magnance-1.JPG. It's recent enough sculpture (don't know the year exactly but it's definitely been crafted after yr 2000). And just as definitely a work of art (contrary to the sign, which is not art - I think ? -, hence my wondering about it qualifying for unlawful).
Re. sign pics, I have a pic I inten(ed ?) to load up. A plain road sign in Château-Renard, but interesting coz it says "Quai des Brumes" to mark the entrance to the île du Canada, a listed place (which used to be extremely gloomy area in the old times) ; which says that someone's got some humour and poetic sense around there. So now I'm wondering if it's out of bounds too, coz I'm quite ready to bet it wasn't there when I was a kid, so it would be less than 50 y.o. too. What about it?

The sign is very likely to be OK, it sound like a very short text that would be pd-textlogo. (your photo of that notice would still be your copyright, so the license of the photograph should still be a CreativeCommons by-sa). Those statues could be a problem indeed. It also looks like it could be a concrete replica of a slightly older statue. The design still looks fairly '70's in my opinion. If you are uploading batches of images, I recommend using Commonist. --Vera (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The statues are definitely made of scultured rock, not cement. You can have a look at what the sign says at the bottom before you delete it : "taille de pierre : Stephane Dupaquier ; sculpture : François Rouillot". Also "2008-2009" (had forgotten about that date being inscribed there). I have pics of the back of the statue, it's not as polished as the front and you can see the chisel marks. The pic also says that they chose some lime-associated stone, which is a bad choice coz too porous / water absorbing so that tablet's already splitting after only 3 yrs outside (that lady donator got robbed, there... won't be much of it left in 100 yrs' time, shame). Shame also for the pic. Ok, have a good day.Basicdesign (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, what about the pic of the post office in Chrd ? The building is less than 50 y.o. (but does not qualify as work of art, at least I think so but never know, coz upon building that particular place they did use red bricks on purpose so as to harmonize the lot with the château de la Motte right in front). Here : File:Bureau de poste-place du chateau 2.JPG. As I said, you sure know better about this than I do. - Basicdesign (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that building is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. --Vera (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete of a redirection

The file Panorama, courtyard of the Great Mosque of Kairouan : File:Panorama, courtyard of the Great Mosque of Kairouan.jpg and File:Panorama, courtyard of the Great Mosque of Kairouan.jpg was duplicated (Panorama1, courtyard of the Great Mosque of Kairouan.jpg which shall be deleted). Can you please delete the redirection (there is no links). Cordially Passionné d'architecture (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

sure --Vera (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Revisión de imágen

Hola 1Veertje, te pido por favor, que revices File:Into the boundresss.jpg ya que pienso que tiene algún derecho de autor y si es así quiero eliminarla.--D vsquez (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sloterdijk train collision.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment I'm not sure about this scope. Why should the Netherlands accidents have their own scope? What's the difference between Netherlands accidents and Hungarian accidents? The scope can be „Rail transport accidents” but there are so many images that it is almost impossible the best to be determined.--MrPanyGoff 08:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 'Sloterdijk train collision' is a better scope? --Vera (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that "Sloterdijk train collision" would be a valuable scope. Yann (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Rail transport accidents in the Netherlands to Sloterdijk train collision Vera (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Best for this scope. Yann (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance required re photo upload

Hello there. I don't know if I'm in the right place with this request (I'm just following a link and found your name at the top of an administrators list. while uploading a file) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Susan_Ferrier_gatepost_sign%2C_East_Morningside_House.JPG I was given a message that the upload had failed. On retrying, I was given a message that the file already existed. This had happened also with the previous upload, only this time a third message stated that the file did not exist and suggested contacting an administrator in the event of a bug. The file is intended for inclusion on the Susan Ferrier page. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yeah the list is ordered alphabetically and I'm the only one whose username starts with a 1. I've deleted the corrupted file. Uploading it again should work again. Alternatively, you could have clicked the "upload it" link on the page. You seem to be uploading large batches of images at once. I recommend using Commons:Commonist --Vera (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Laura Myntti.jpg

Inappropriate licencing applied in error; please, help to delete as soon as possible! Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You're kinda skipping a line when it comes to deletion requests, but ok. --Vera (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

maNY THAnks, 1Veertje; it is urgent as the photographer is insisting that he owns the rights and should be the one to upload before I can use it. Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND

There is a {{speedy}} tag for such situations. --Vera (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will remember to apply that if such situation arises in the future. Have a pleasant week ahead. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laura Myntti.jpg

Please pay a little more attention on properly closing DR, the delh template has to be placed on top of this subpage (above the file link, not below). --Denniss (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition you could take care that your reason for deletion is readable. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

--Passionné d'architecture (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename of a file

Hi 1Veertje, can you, please, change the name of this file : File:Grande Mosquée de Kairouan, vue de la façade de la salle de prière et d'une partie de la cour.jpg to this : File:Grande Mosquée de Kairouan, façade de la salle de prière et partie de la cour.jpg. Well cordially, Passionné d'architecture (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply add {{rename|the_new_name|numeric_reason_for_renaming}} and it will be processed. --Vera (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I add the new name and the reason, cordially Passionné d'architecture (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Photographer's Barnstar

Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. Kim Traynor (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rameshng's deletions

Hello, Can you help me rescuing some of my deletion. I want your help in blurring the images portion where there is a snap of images.--Rameshng (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

File:1Veertje hand burn.jpg

Oouch, I wish you a speedy recovery. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you. The first ~6 hours were very painful. But after a nights sleep it just feels painful when touched. --Vera (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Köln Heumarkt Eingangstor zur Fleischhalle und Relief vor 1903.JPG. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

High Contrast (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the same painting but in a higher quality. Files of paintings are overwritten all the time that way. --Vera (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the old pic wasn't a faithful representation of the painting, it had 1/3 of it missing on the right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Veertje (talk • contribs)

It is what it is. You have overwritten the image although it is not a minor edited version of the original file. The source information is not correct for your file version. And not, images of paintings are not treated differently compared to other files on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Low quality is defined as:

• "...not adequately illustrate the subject of the picture."

I would say that having 1/3 of the painting missing would be an inadequate illustration. "If a higher-quality image is available please consider replacing this one;"--Vera (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"If a higher-quality image is available please consider replacing this one;" --- the intention of this sentence is to replace lower resoluted version by their higher resoluted image version. Your file is completly different. A new upload under a new file name and adequate source information would be appreciated. After that you can nominate the "old" one for deletion. This would be the normal way to handle such issues. --High Contrast (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Haags-Gilde1.jpg

File:Haags-Gilde1.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!

91.57.81.35 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Eerste moderator"

Haha, word je er veel op aangesproken soms, dat je bovenaan staat? :P Ik had er nooit bij stil gestaan, maar ja, mijnes begint met een T natuurlijk. Trijnstel_talk 23:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, ja, een paar keer vragen gehad die uit het niets leken te komen. Op zich niet extreem veel, maar wel dat genoeg om het belletje te doen rinkelen over waarom dat wel eens kan zijn. --Vera (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Moses Hess.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support VI for me, I suggest put this picture in gallery --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Patrick Lodiers.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support It seems to be OK for VI.--MrPanyGoff 11:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Colin Goldner.JPG

File:Colin Goldner.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!

Nolispanmo 09:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colin Goldner.JPG

Hi 1Veertje, I've just reverted your attempt to re-open this. Please take some time to read through my rationale. And if you still object, carry this please to COM:UDEL. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ingrid Matthäus-Maier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 SupportBest in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Taslima Nasrin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 138.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Probably VI but, it is useful to attach the scope to a category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

it is part of a series on Rijksmonumenten in Amsterdam. It is the only photograph of this building. A category for it could be created in the hope that there will be documentation donated on its ruins. Vera (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Support This is a problem of form not of substance. This image deserves the lable, look at the scope of change that I made. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Dino fumaretto elia billoni.jpg

Hello :) Unfortunately, permission was given to me by e-mail. But the photos are not protected by any copyright, as indeed there is no warning from the page of the website where I got it. What should I do? thank you--Pava (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As you can read in the instructions on the template, ask to be send an e-mail that uses the Consent template and forward it to the e-mail address stated there. Don't forget to include headers when forwarding the e-mail (google what that means). --Vera (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

file deleted

:( sorry but you have reported to me a substantial amount of deleted images, why? have been identified as violations of copyright but is not true, all the photos taken at the PAC meet the concessions offered by the museum, and the subjects (and their intellectual property) is attributable to the designers Pixar, where's the copyright infringement? File: File: Alexander Flowers dead.JPG is a picture that I made to a concert, because it's been canceled? because File: "12 - ITALY - Fruit juice Pineapple and Orage ZUEGG Skipper 100% Fruit Juice Tetra Pack brick.JPG HQ has been cleared if the category is already the notice and there are many other similar images have not been canceled?--Pava (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of derivative work. If I make a drawing, I own the copyright. If you make a picture of that painting, you can't publish it without my consent. This also applies to artwork on packaging once it gets above a level of complexity. This applies to the drawings you photographed at the museum. This applies to video being projected at a concert. This also applies to 3D pieces of art. It doesn't apply to objects you use, like cars. But it does applies to artful representations of useful objects, like a bush being cut into the shape of a car. When you find artwork on Wikimedia Commons, it has either been cleared by the original author, or the author has died a long time ago (usually 70 years ago) --Vera (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

but if the museum to the right to photograph then also be entitled to share, when there is freedom of photography there is also consent to the sharing, provided that the specific author. Indeed it is precisely for this reason that in many museums is prohibited photography. no? --Pava (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

no, the museum allows photography for personal use. But all pictures on Wikimedia Commons pictures published here should be able to be used commercially. Be freely used in any way possible. A big company like Pixar would never allow that. By default, you keep the exclusive right to publish your art. There is such a thing as Freedom of Panorama, but that applies to public space only, and not in all countries.--Vera (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, but tell me how do you know that the topiary is a work of art? the cube car is a work of art? then all the installations are a work of art and impossible to photograph. Could you please explain why the brick ZUEGG not good? because a graphic work is copyrighted and a industrial design work is not?--Pava (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

topiary is a form of sculpting, and this particular one was in a exhibition in a non-FOP country. They are discussing if the cube car can be considered a piece of art, not your authorship of the picture. The ZUEGG bottle featured photography on its packaging that is protected by copyright. It makes no difference if something is mass produced or not. You wouldn't say of the latest Hollywood motion picture that it is without copyright because the authors decided to mass produce it. --Vera (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

uhm.. ok but on commons there are many brands, logos and copyrighted images avaible, also do not understand why it was canceled just my photography and in the chronologies there are still dozens, hundreds of photos but not eliminated, as well as infringing :( I do not want to violate the rules, but if I see an image on commons is available and this has not been canceled I will load such. Then I see my deleted and is a bit 'annoying. Thanks for the explanation, however, have lately happened a little 'things that I was very disheartened to contribute on commons, I do not publish photos of the commons as it were my flickr or my facebook, I do contribute to the availability of multimedia information, there are actions that restrict users and the desire to contribute and share, which is a shame. Thanks anyway explanations, good day--Pava (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there aren't many copyrighted images. If there are any, they aren't suppose to be there. There are logo's on Commons, usually because they are so simple in design that they don't get copyright protection. --Vera (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Grb.JPG

File:Grb.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jelle Brandt Corstius.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It is for sure the best image in scope. The file page should be geocoded though. If the exact location should not be published due to privacy reasons, please indicate the approximate location. Has Jelle been asked for consent to publish this photo under commercial reuse terms? Assuming the photo was taken in Holland, I do not know the rules about consent there as it is not listed in Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Any other reviewer know about this? --Slaunger (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment For me, this is a non-place-related photo, and so geocoding is not required, though some location description would be nice, and it seems necessary to know at least the nation where it was taken so we can determine what the consent requirement might be. cmadler (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

•  CommentI've added the geocode. Personality rights in the Netherlands (that's something other than Holland btw) is quite leaneant. Photographs of prominent members of society can't be used to advertise without their consent. People who make their living with their image (pop idols, soccer players) can make objections when you start printing their face on t-shirts. But he is a journalist. --Vera (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Netherlands is (confusingly) called "Holland" in Danish, and I am a Dane, so that somehow slipped through, sorry. I guess the journalist is a "prominent member of society"? If so, there may be a problem as the image is (as all images on Commons) licensed in a manner which allows commercial reuse (and can thereby be used for advertising I guess). So without being terribly knowledgable about the rules for consent (COM:PEOPLE has not had so much focus previously on Commons), I would be inclined to think that Jelle should have been asked for consent not only to take the image (which I implicitly think can be assumed, as he is evidently posing for the camera), but also that it would be published under a license, which allowed commercial resuse. I would like the opinion of reviewers more knowledgable in this area though to do a sanity check on that line of thought. --Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I know you've freaking out because of that picture of Colin Goldner getting deleted, I did too. But this picture was taken in the Netherlands, not Germany. There isn't a requirement to get permission when your commercial publication, only rare cases it is. When the work you're producing can be considered merchandise about an idol. And he isn't an idol, it's a journalist and tv presenter--Vera (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      •  SupportI am actually not familiar with the Colin Goldner case you are referring to. I was just not sure I understood correctly the rules for the Netherlands, so that was what I was trying to understand. I am sorry if it appeared that I was freaking out - I perceived it as better safe than sorry. For reviewers, it would be much easier is more country specific rules were spelled out in Commons:Country specific consent requirements, also the "easy" countries, just as in COM:FOP. --Slaunger (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unknown warning: "duplicate-archive"

Hi, I'm trying to upload an image (the coat of arms of a town) but I always get this warning message: "Unknown warning: duplicate-archive" and the upload fails. I think it's a bug. This is the URL of the image: http://www.zastave-grbovi.com/default.asp?menu=70262&jez= (the image must be opened with a click because there isn't a direct link). Thanks. --Eagle204 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, the file was already uploaded before here. You can make an undelete request here. But are you sure this logo is in the public domain? It has complex aspects to it that would make it a copyrighted work, and we don't allow those here on Wikimedia Commons. Some heraldry is, but this is country specific. To which village/town does this belong? --Vera (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The image is the coat of arms of Blace, a town of Serbia, and its license is described by this wikitext: {{PD-SerbiaGov}}. I have already uploaded other coats of arms with this system and never found any problem, so I think it's allowed to be here. --Eagle204 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

License for Matt Dillahunty.jpg

Hi, regarding license use for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Matt_Dillahunty.jpg, I've written an answer to you at the talk page. – Sunny256|✎ 01:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

jessica Nigri

Hello. It's not a violation, because I'm the author of these pics. Friendly. --Metisauvergnat (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You can see my pics since a longtime in my facebook. --Metisauvergnat (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also uploading a picture to facebook doesn't prove very much. Your behavior on commons is highly suspect. You apparently take an interest in Jessica Nigri, but the pictures you upload seem to have been taken at different conferences. Yet the date on them are the same. You upload an old photograph that seems to be PD because of age, but claim it as your own work by giving it a CC license. The quality of this picture is so low, making it likely to be a picture of a picture, which could again be a copyright violation. It would be great if you went to a red carpet event here and donated the pictures to commons, but again this picture is all on its own. A couple of these pictures seem to be very high profile and have been used on dozens of websites before you uploaded them a few weeks ago. --Vera (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fallas photos

We have had photos of fallas for years on here! before deleting nothing, please, open a discussion. I'm tot a lawyer, but it was everything ok with those photos.--Coentor (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I tried doing that, but I think I haven't yet found the right forum --Vera (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added some samples to this deletion request. On a side note, If you are aquanted with some of the artists in you series, it would be great if you would to get permission for publication of their work. It seems like this event is a big thing and it sure would be sad to not have its Wikipedia page illustrated. --Vera (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Very difficult to look up for all the artist. In the discussion I say about one I suspect uploaded some of his own work.--Coentor (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

at leat this figure is in permanent exhibition, as long it was saved of fire and kept in the Museu Faller (Museum of the Falles).--Coentor (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's OK. The only thing I feared was a "quickly [de facto, unavoidable] deletion" ;)--Coentor (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Station Luik-Guillemins.jpg

File:Station Luik-Guillemins.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!

124.149.151.113 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:We Have Band.jpg

Hello!

Can you provide some evidence that the author of this image really released it under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeroen publishes his pictures here and on his facebook account. It says at the top in Dutch "Want to use my photo's? No problem. Want to do something back? Recomend my company Knowories". Which Wikimedia NL kinda does by having his company to sponsor Wiki Loves Monuments. He had some database issues a while ago, which is why this photograph has a lower resolution: I transferred it from his Facebook account. He really likes that his pictures show up on Wikipedia, but doesn't have the time to find out how things work around here. --Vera (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you bring some evidence for the applied ""Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"-license, please? Your pasted source does not even mention something about Creative Commons. This -> "Want to use my photo's? No problem. Want to do something back? Recomend my company Knowories" <- is insufficient to assume a free CC-license. Besides, you should paste the real facebook source in the image description instead of {{own}}. --High Contrast (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Facebook links are fairly useless since most of the people on the internet aren't friends with Jeroen. I've asked him before if he could put a CC logo in the footer, but he's been traveling. --Vera (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not know anything about how facebook is organised but using {{own}} as source is not suitable. Besides, it is very curious from where this newly uploaded higher resoluted version comes from. You must give clearance about this as well. So, you do not have any permission for releasing this file. How did you get the idea to transfer those file to Commons and tag them with the applied license? Because there is no evidence for a free CC-license, I have tagged the files in question with "no permission"-tags - as such issues get handeled regularly. --High Contrast (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you not read? I linked to the source of Jeroen's archive in my first reply. I do have permission, Jeroen is a personal friend of mine. Ever heard about assuming good faith? --Vera (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was travelling through your links but they do not help to solve the problem. Again, you need to provide a valid permission for the free Creative Commons license that you were using in those images. Neither this link nor this one or this one contain any Creative Commons license released. In the contrary, a deeplink brings this - which is not good. --High Contrast (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the license of the content managment system -.- --Vera (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this can be read by anybody. But this was the only license info that could be found with your links. --High Contrast (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The EXIF data says it's PD btw. --Vera (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeroen has changed the header image on the website to include the CC icons. --Vera (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

EXIF information are irrelevant in this issue because the image was not uploaded by the author himself - please remember EXIF info can easily be modified. Where is a clear CC-license information on this page (Which is actually the source)?

Jeroen updated the page header, but that might nog update automatically since your browser has very likely cached it. Follow the link, hit F5. --Vera (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't the browser chache - it was a different problem that is solved right now. But thank you for your attempt to help me. Well, the CC-logo could be considered to be insufficient. Can you persuade your friend to clearly mark all his files as CC-by-3.0 or the like? By now, we still do not have a verification for a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"-license - but you used it in all your images from your friend. You may ask him to enhance his text: e.g. "CC-by-3.0 for all my images" in the header. --High Contrast (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He was going to put a link in the footer, but he somehow can't change that while on vacation. --Vera (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. He only had the time to insert the Creative Commons icons. I wish him a pleasant vacation and please Vera, remember him to give a clear source statement. --High Contrast (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Images

Hello, please review the images I uploaded to Commons recently. D vsquez (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Imagen propia

Esta imagen es tuya, ¿por qué quieres eliminar la mia?. D vsquez (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's being used on my userpage. Your photograph isn't being used, and doesn't seem to be you. Commons in't here to host family photographs. --Vera (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Then add to my user page and if it's me ... Please check this new photo that I added. File:Panoramapaisaje.jpg D vsquez (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you uplaoad picture you're not the owner of? You know we won't accept them here on commons. Why do you want to identify yourself on your userpage as a young girl when it's just a test-shot picture? --Vera (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

La imagen panorama la revisé y contiene licencia libre, y añadí la imagen a mi página de usuario el nombre está incorrecto, al principio pensé que el nombre "imagen de prueba" estaría bien. ¿Por qué no me dejas los mensajes en mi discución?. Lo siento tal vez no estoy muy informada sobre esto, no tengo una comprensión total del inglés, cada vez que intento añadir una imágen me dicen que tiene Copyright cuándo en verdad las he tomado con mi propia cámara, no sé de donde sacan el derecho de autor. D vsquez (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Election posters

Dag collega, ik zie dat je o.a. foto's van verkiezingsposters aan het nomineren bent. Op het sjabloon dat dan verschijnt bij zo'n bestand, wordt verwezen naar de discussiepagina bij de betreffende nominatie ("Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag."). Bij deze het verzoek om die pagina's daadwerkelijk aan te maken, zodat er discussie kan ontstaan op de juiste plek. Een categorale pagina over het verwijderen kan daarnaast ook nuttig zijn, want dit nomineren lijkt me niet onomstreden. Zoals je kunt zien heb ik al een aanzet tot een discussie gegeven door bij mijn posterfoto een sjabloon toe te voegen. Groet, Apdency (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Er valt niet heel veel te discussiëren, posters vallen niet onder FOP. De portretfoto's die gebruikt zijn in de posters zijn beschermd door auteursrecht, zodoende is het een afgeleide werk. --Vera (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Toch lijkt het slabloon te suggereren dat er altijd sprake is van een 'talk page'. Ook gebeurt het redelijk vaak dat iemand vindt dat iets niet ter discussie staat, terwijl een ander daar anders over denkt... Apdency (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Als je het niet eens bent met de nominatie, zou je dat kunnen verdedigen op de talk page. Maar als je het sjabloon over het Nederlandse auteursrecht nogmaals Leest zie dan het gedeelte waarbij het gaat om objecten die permanent in de publieke ruimte bevinden. --Vera (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright, forever! copyright.

Excellent, now all the pictures I take with my own camera contain copyright, good!. D vsquez (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure

I can take it from here. Thanks for trying and I know how some users really don't get it :) It's just a matter of time I think. Let's see what I can do. Alhen .::··¨ 13:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your medal...

	Photo improvement barnstar
	For your work retouching File:Piatnitzkysaurus floresi.jpg cmadler (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I really like barnstars ^-^ --Vera (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for having another look on File:Piatnitzkysaurus floresi.jpg. --McZusatz (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

you're welcome --Vera (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 1Veertje. You have new messages at Targaryen's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commons:Deletion requests END

How can you close this deletion requests? The first is for a long that is in this way, the second seems to me wrong.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raoli
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:View from our room.jpg

Thank you raul (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia

Hi Vera,

I was wondering why you added {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} on some of the Wikimedia servers. You do not think that {{Wikimedia trademark}} is enough in these cases ?

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I came across the copyright notice I added once in passing, made a mental note that such a notice should be added to Wikimedia logo's and then did so when I went through all the files of that user (he had quite some DW issues). I hadn't come across that other license before. Maybe the license I added is too scary since most of the pictures are not taken up by the logo. I don't know. --Vera (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello, can you help out here please? or guid me to some 1 if you are busy. Thank you--Bassem (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help :) I've added 2 new photos, here, thanks in advance--Bassem (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is really no need to alert me personally, Images posted there are processed rather rapidly. --Vera (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is customary for the person making the request in the graphics lab to reply there that they are satisfied with the work or not. If you are, please mark the post with {{Resolved}} --Vera (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

removal of images

Hoi, ik heb onlangs twee afbeeldingen geupload ([1] en [2]) omdat ik aan de maker ervan gevraagd had of het mocht en hij ja zei. Toen ik hem echter door het OTRS-proces wilde halen was hij er tegen. Zou je deze afbeeldingen dus van commons kunnen verwijderen? Amphicoelias (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done jammer maar helaas - Vera (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! De Koog-Dorpstraat 164.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit of overblown clouds, but OK. --King of Hearts 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jisp-Dorpstraat 75.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --King of Hearts 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

False "no permission"

Hi. Please don't spam files with inappropriate "no permission" templates. Files by User:Supervht have clearly stated author (identic with the uploader) and clearly stated right license (i. e. permission). There is no relevant reason for doubt about these statements. The fact that the author has also his own websites cannot make the permission invalid.

If you have any well-founded reasons for you personal doubts whether the uploader really is the author and that the photos are his own, you should use rather some less invasive way how to communicate with him. Spamming of hundreds files with inappropriate template isn't the right way. --ŠJů (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The web http://www.supervht.com which is stated as the source of photos licensed by User:Supervht, said at this page: Naše skupina propůjčuje některé svoje fotografie a text z Alp a horstev svobodně do otevřené encyklopedie Wikipedie... Do you consider this statement as a proof that User:Supervht isn't any deceitful thief but that his permissions are legitimate? --ŠJů (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See also cs:Diskuse s wikipedistou:Supervht#dotaz aprosba (in Czech) where the user discusses adding the above text to the website. My advice would be to either remove the no permission tags or bulk nominate the files for a deletion discussion so that more people can check whether there might be any copyright issue (I myself don't believe there is here). -84user (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vera, +ACK ŠJů, wanted to state the same thing, images have been uploaded over a long timespan, user was active until 2008 with more than 3800 edits, mostly in czech. He states clearly on his webpage (in the footer and quite bright), that some of the images have been donated to Wikipedia, and to be honest, some of the fotos are not the best of quality - which for me is always an indication for honesty. You would not steal a low quality image, would you? Please undo your deletion spam. greetings from Vienna, --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Herzi Pinki ? What deletion spam? Could you provide links? -84user (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 84user, I wanted to confirm your opinion, found the same, and ask Vera to undo her deletion spam. deleted the misleading formulation. But she's not reacting, although present. So we should undo the no-permissions. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I put an example DR on one of the files left, please support in keeping this and undeleting the others. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

about those butterflies

Hi,

Those butterflies are not drawings; they belong to the NHM butterfly colletion, and my sister made the pictures. Once those insects were alive. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

that's why I removed the nomination within a minute of placing it--Vera (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Residentie_Noord.jpg

Mag ik vragen onmiddelijk te stoppen met het voordragen van allerlei afbeeldingen op deze wikipedia met als reden 'geen vrijheid van panorama'? U doet Wikipedia namelijk meer kwaad dan goed. Vandaag ontdekte ik opnieuw dat een goede afbeelding van de Noorderresidentie met dergelijke onzinredenering verwijderd is. Zeker afbeeldingen zoals de Noorderresidentie (waar de architect zelf niet eens bekend is) zijn gewoon veilig en kunnen zonder problemen gebruikt worden. Dit nomineren getuigd van mierenneukerij en beschadigt de wikipedia. Met die aanpak kan namelijk geen enkele foto van een gebouw meer getoond worden. Dat is niet allen onzinnig maar het is ook niet nodig omdat er misschien formeel geen uitzondering van vrijheid van panorama geldt. Heel absoluut is dat ook niet. Slechts een handvol gebouwen zoals het Atomium vallen in een risicocategorie.--__ wɘster 22:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

new photo

Hi :-) can you help out here please--باسم (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Horse eating Mark normal.jpg

Hi 1Veertje, why had you restored[3] File:Horse eating Mark normal.jpg after its deletion? --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The deletion process must have gone crooked. The photograph itself was still listed, only the description page was deleted. I restored the page in order to nominate it for deletion since it was still listed in Susan's file list. --Vera (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

verkiezingsposters

Best Veertje (talk) please be consequent with proposals for deletions and look also to this? --Gewild File:Tweede Kamerverkiezingen 2012.jpg (Aanplakbord voor verkiezingsaffiches) --Gewild (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a magician. There will always be more photographs containing copyright violations. --Vera (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

political parties

Are you intended to do proposals for deletion for more than 1 political party? Or do you remain by only 1?
see: Category:Logos of political parties in the Netherlands
--Gewild (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you copied the disclaimer from SP to the MenS logo. The thing is: SP actually makes that statement on their website, MenS doesn't. This isn't something personal, there are strict copyright regulations here that we intent to keep. --Vera (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Loren Pankratz 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Four file moves - would you take care?

Hi, until I get a file-moving permission for my account, would you please be so kind to take care of 4 files I lately requested renameing for, that rendered kind-of-a-mess misnamed (by someone apparently with disregard of the requested names as posted by me earlier today). The original move tasks as I requested them are as following, kindly re-rename thusly:

• From File:Ha'AtzmautSt.jpg to File:Ha'Atzma'ut Street.jpg
• From File:Ha'AtzmautSt 02.jpg to File:Ha'Atzma'ut Street_02.jpg
• From File:PalyamAve.jpg to File:Palyam Avenue.jpg
• From File:951-core.jpg to File:951 Group.jpg

Thanks very much! Orrlingtalk 19:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Commons. As you can read in the template that welcomed you, there is a template that automates renaming of files. --Vera (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've utilized that little button at the top-right bar of my interface that says "Move", which generated the rename-tag. Please view 1, 2, 3, and 4. But some user on duty disregarded the requested renames and made up title-redo's that I'm terribly unhappy with. I think I can't fix it myself. Would you attend the list and fix. Orrlingtalk 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Loren Pankratz.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope. --JLPC (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Derivative files

Why are you reverting uploads by other users and insisting on derivative files?! Don't read too deeply into the policies! I can find you countless files that have been overwritten either by cleaning or cropping of turning into black and white. I demand that you revert what you have done and delete the derivative files.

There is no sensible reason why a de-colorized version should replaced the colored version when they can be separate files just fine. --Vera (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Enschede, Verkiezingen 2012, Aanplakbiljetten.jpg

Lulkoek nominatie verwijderd. Kleuske (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reclame in de openbare ruimte is beschermd door auteursrecht. Alleen werk wat een vrije licentie heeft mag worden gepubliceerd op commons --Vera (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Gelul. Kleuske (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Het zijn de regels --Vera (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Het is gelul. Aangezien er vele posters op staan en het onderwerp het gehele bord is, is het geen "afgeleid werk" van welke poster dan ook. Ik weet niet wat je insteek is, maar "de regels" zij het beslist niet. Kleuske (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nou ben jij echt larikoek aan het uitslaan. Zie dit, een afbeelding die is samengesteld uit 6 verschillende afbeeldingen, dat betekend niet dat niet elk van die afbeeldingen weer zijn eigen auteursrechten heeft. --Vera (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben je nou zo dom, of doe je maar alsof? Net als in die afbeelding is elke afzonderlijke poster (misschien) beschermd, de hele stellage met (vele verschillende) posters beslist niet. Net zomin als het voorbeeld dat je hier geeft. Als ik een enkele poster had gefotografeerd, had je (misschien) gelijk, maar in dit geval sta je uit je nek te kletsen. Kleuske (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Jij weet duidelijk niet waar je het over hebt --Vera (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow... Wat een argument! Daar heb ik niet van terug, hoor. Kleuske (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Want jij bent zo diepgravend. Ik kap hier mee, het is echt niet meer dan een welles nietus gebeuren met jou. --Vera (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Kap dan tegelijk met die idiote nominatie van je en ga wat nuttigs doen. Kleuske (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons vrijhouden van auteursrechtenschendingen is wel degelijk nuttig werk. --Vera (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Doe dat dan en laat goedwillende gebruikers met rust. D'r is niks mis met die foto, keurig netjes gedekt door FOP. Kleuske (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

FOP is niet van toepassing op reclameposters --Vera (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pedro Rodriguez, Zandvoort, 21.06.1971.jpg

Hi 1Veertje, as you are from the Netherlands, could you look into this file whether the copyright status is correct or not. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this file is still protected by copyright. There was a large donation by the Nationaal Archief a few years ago. I checked if your file might have been a duplicate to a file that was part of that donation, but it isn't. --Vera (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem with. I wasn't just sure about the terms etc. of Nationaal Archief. --Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

They do have a Flickr account that has images licensed under {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, like this little fellow --Vera (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:D66 anders JA A3.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:D66 anders JA A3.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

MoiraMoira (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This poster is not complex enough to get copyright protection. --Vera (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion when the author is a Wikimedia project user but uploader into Commons is different

Hello, recently, I have experienced following problem. Many years ago, I uploaded an image into cs.wiki. The file had everything what is needed - I was mentioned as an author and the file was properly licensed. Then, some time later, somebody else moved the file into Commons. Then, years later, you wanted to get a confirmation to be sent to OTRS. Because it did not arrive, the file was deleted. It could not arrive since nobody sent me a warning. I noticed it just by chance when a delinker removed the file from an article at cs.wiki. Then I started to care about it. It was not as easy as the file was already deleted and when it was later undeleted, the confirmation was still required. Because nobody sent a warning this time either the file was deleted again. When I recalled that there was some problem with this file, I checked whether the file already exists. Instead, I realized the file is deleted again. Now, thanks to User:Fastily, the file is undeleted again and hopefully for ever.

When you did this , why you did not contact me? I was clearly noted as an author!

This image itself is not so valuable. But this bothers me a lot since much more images could be already deleted without any notice if such a practice is common at Commons. Many files have been moved to Commons from local Wikimedia project by somebody else. If these disappear just because administrative mistakes it will be surely a big lost.

The questions are:

1. How to avoid this in future?
2. How to find cases when this happened in past and correct them?

Best regards, Miraceti (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the file you point to is uploaded by Supervht, not by you. Which is weird. How come this is the case? --Vera (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just explained that! He moved my file from a local Wikimedia project to Commons. Miraceti (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see. What I've seen others do is leave a note in the description saying that the file was transferred from a wiki to commons. Like what happened with this file --Vera (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have had similar experiences. I have left explicit notes on some images, indicating I was the copyright holder -- rather than the person who transferred the image from commons.

But, to be fair, I think the nominator has an obligation to try to track down the original uploader, as original uploaders can easily be unaware of how their legitimately uploaded images were improperly transwikied. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Enschede, Verkiezingen 2012, Aanplakbiljetten.jpg

Since you took it upon yourself to write-protect the page indefinately, you are now formally requested to either unblock the page or apply a {{de minimis}} yemplate yourself as advised in the deletion discussion. Sinc you are very much invested in said dispute, the former seems most appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to your apperently first DR process. Templates aren't removed untill the discussion is closed. The discussion will be closed when another admin will review the discussion (most likely some time in the next month) we've been having and will then in all likelyhood delete your photograph. Please don't obstruct protocole in the future by removing templates. --Vera (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about removing templates, but lifting page-protection. Learn to read what it says, instead of what you want it to say and perhaps you may learn a thing or two. Given the number of recent nominations on this page, perhaps you're not the expert you claim to be. Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you were to actually scratch the surface of those notices you would see that MoiraMoira seems to have a pension for asking for OTRS verification on files that are obviously {{PD-textlogo}}. I also think that if files with such a license were questionable asking for verification wouldn't be the proper protocol to follow, since it wouldn't be the permission but the license that should be changed to start with. She has yet to say what would be copyrightable about 3 words written in Ariel on 3 mono colored blocks. --Vera (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:PvdT logo.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:PvdT logo.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

MoiraMoira (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Octagonal footed gold cup from the Belitung shipwreck, ArtScience Museum, Singapore - 20110319.jpg

File:Octagonal footed gold cup from the Belitung shipwreck, ArtScience Museum, Singapore - 20110319.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!

Marekich (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Blanke_Kussen.jpg

Kan je ophouden om hier copyvio op te plakken? Is gewoon vrij volgens Artikel 18b. Multichill (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

De verpakking bestaat niet allen uit letterkundig werk, er staan ook nog een vijftal negerzoenen op die Door een fotograaf gerangschikt zijn. Aan citaten, of fair use, doen we niet hier op commons. Als je van Buys toestemming hebt voor de de cc licentie moet je dat regelen via het OTRS systeem. Let wel: zo'n toestemming moet meer zijn dan een "ja, ik vind het oké als de foto op Wikipedia komt" aangezien een CC licentie ook gebruik Door derden, op commerciële basis, toe zou moeten staan. En ja, toestemming moet gevraagd worden aan Buys, niet Boys, aangezien die de oorspronkelijke verpakking hebben ontworpen. - Vera (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Blanke Kussen.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!

Multichill (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Klokhuis apples.jpg en File:Poken.JPG

Heb je beide verwijderd, echter volgens mij snijd je redenatie geen hout. File:Poken.JPG is geen speelgoed maar een apparaat: je kunt er communicatie mee verrichten en het is dus een 'useful article' volgens Commons:DW. File:Klokhuis apples.jpg is geen screenshot van de televisie maar heb ik gewoon zelf gemaakt. Geen fraaie foto geef ik toe, maar zeker geen screenshot. Had het op prijs gesteld als je me iets meer tijd dan één dag had gegeven om commentaar te leveren ipv direct te verwijderen.

Groet, Husky ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

De poken is een gebruiksvoorwerp wat een ontwerp erop heeft zitten, zie Commons:Casebook#Utility_objects

De klokhuizen zijn ook sculpturen op zichzelf, zie COM:DW. Ik vind dit wel jammer, <3 Het Klokhuis.

Tja, het is nou eenmaal beleid dat als werk duidelijk een auteursrechtenschending is, om die gelijk te verwijderen. --Vera (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nee, Vera, hier vlieg je toch echt uit de bocht. Het is beleid om overduidelijke auteursrechtenschending meteen te verwijderen. Het feit dat we hier nu een discussie over hebben geeft al aan dat dit niet overduidelijk is. Het beleid is om bij enige twijfel altijd een normale deletion request te starten. Het herhaaldelijk taggen van dezelfde afbeelding is bijzonder irritant. Multichill (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Voor mij is het toch wel degelijk overduidelijk dat het om auteursrechtenschendingen gaat. Ik ben de rede waarom dat zo is aan jou aan het uitleggen, dit maakt het niet twijfelachtig. Dit zou ook de mening moeten zijn geweest van degene die de uiteindelijke verwijdering heeft doorgevoerd. --Vera (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain ...

You recently left a heads-up on User talk:Geo Swan.

Obviously I wouldn`t have uploaded it, if I thought it was a copyright violation, and I would appreciate you explaining to me what you thought made it such.

FWIW you made some kind of mistake when you left your note, and it didn`t render properly. Geo Swan (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see how weird the notice turned out. I use a gadget that automates copyright violation notification, so I don't know what went wrong. This morning I marked a whole batch of photographs that were posted to Category:Posters. They all had to some extend a derivative work issue where a photograph had been taken of a (advertisment) poster. These posters are protected by copyright and can't be uploaded to commons. --Vera (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, you tagged a bunch of images that you thought contained a poster in the background too prominent to be considered `de minimus`. Sorry, that doesn`t help me figure out what was wrong with this particular image. If the source URL still works, could you reproduce it here? Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A, I found a way, in the change history of your talk page you can see it's about File:Mommy, what is waterboarding....jpg. All the dots at the end might have made the machine run less smoothly. --Vera (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 006.jpg

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pre reformation paintings in the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, Wateringen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot photo

Hi Vera. I noticed that File:Pussy Riot by Igor Mukhin.jpg was CSDed earlier today. I removed the CSD because I don't think it was legitimate. I thought I'd mention it to you since you've done some work on the file. I'll keep it watched. INeverCry 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yeah I do vaguely remember doing a Google image search on this file when it was posted in the Graphics Lab. I do think it is legit, the user seems like a high end photographer. Besides, there is a whole category of . Were other users to raise more doubt, a speedy delete wouldn't be appropriate since this photograph is so widely used; I've seen it being used by Amnesty International. --Vera (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Karen Stollznow 1.jpg

Please do not delete a file for invalid reasons. Thank you. --Denniss (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I know Susan personally, we're Facebook friends. She asked me to delete this photograph because its subject prefers the other pictures we have of her to be used. - Vera (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2012 (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:Bewaarschool Wateringen.jpg

And also:

• File:Herenstraat 1910.jpg
• File:Johan Gerard van Walsum.jpg
• File:Kerklaan-Ambachtseweg-Noordweg.jpg
• File:Kwaklaan 1920.jpg
• File:Kwintsheul-Rijswijk Station.jpg
• File:Opening St-Jan de Doper kerk.jpg
• File:St-Jan de Doper -oud-inside.jpg
• File:St-Jan de Doper-oud.jpg
• File:View from Windlust onto Wateringen.jpg
• File:VIOS 1920 celebration.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 002.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 003.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 006.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 013.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 014.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 015.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 016.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 017.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 019.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 020.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 021.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 025.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 026.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 027.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 028.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 030.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 031.jpg
• File:Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 033.jpg
• File:Wateringse veiling (corrected).jpg

Yours sincerely cmadler (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also:

• File:Wateringse veiling.jpg
• File:Windlust kaart (crop).jpg
• File:Windlust kaart.jpg
• File:Zeven plagen huisjes.jpg

cmadler (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2012 (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:ST LUCIA.JPG

Eleassar (t/p) 12:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear 1Veertje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 16:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nuweg!

Hé ik baal wel een beetje van het feit dat je mijn 4 JAAR OUDE afbeeldingen voor nuweg nomineert. Deze afbeeldingen bevinden zich inderdaad op de grenzen en misschien erover, maar geef me aub de kans om daarop via een gewone nominatie te reageren, het is dat ik het nu toevallig zie, maar voor hetzelfde geld waren ze weggegooid zonder een kans om te reageren (want het zijn geen overduidelijke copyvio's).

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kommentaar op een {{Copyvio}} dient te worden gegeven op de talk page van de bewuste afbeelding. --Vera (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Denk je dat de mod die snel alle copyvio's verwijderd dat ziet? Punt is dat dit geen copyvio's zijn (copy's van foto's die iemand anders gemaakt heeft), maar afgeleide werken die niet onder FoP vallen. Een normale nominatie lijkt me dan op zijn plaats (het is niet altijd even overduidelijk). Een speedy deletion zou geen commentaar op moeten kunnen komen uberhaupt. Zie ook de discussie hieronder, het is erg raar als één van je duizenden afbeeldingen opeens weg is terwijl je denkt altijd netjes goede foto's te uploaden, zonder dat je precies weet om welke foto het gaat. Als ik het gisteren niet toevallig zag had ik hetzelfde gehad als de persoon een kopje lager. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In tegendeel, het template zit zo in elkaar dat het de admin er op attendeerd dat er iets op de talk page is geschreven. Als het goed is er wel degelijk een tweede evaluatie voordat een foto verweiderd wordt. Als je later was geweest had je hier moeten aankloppen voor een discussie. Tja, auteursrecht is een lastig ding, iedereen heeft wel eens wat. Dat ook beeltjes beschermd worden is niet altijd bekend. --Vera (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ik las elders dat FOP zaken gewoon via de verwijderlijst horen te gaan, dat lijkt me ook bij dergelijke incidentele fouten wel het beste. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

File:NRWTag W Sonnborn 29 ies.jpg

Dear Vera, yesterday evening you informed me about a possible copyright violation.

File:NRWTag W Sonnborn 29 ies.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.

 

Vera (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This morning, actually only few hours later, the image is already deleted. There was no discussion and there was not any trace of explanation why you think that there is a copyright violation. As I can't remember the content of this particular image among the thousends I uploaded I'm pretty confused. Please enlighten me

• about the content of the deleted image,
• why you think that there was a possible copyright violation,
• why you didn't explain what particular content of the image might be copyrighted, and
• why you deleted the image immediately and without discussion.

Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the protocol, I didn't nominate and delete this image, I only nominated it for a speedy deletion. After that, another admin looks at my reasoning and either desides (s)he:

• Disagrees compleatly and removes the template
• Thinks it's worth a discussion and converts it into a DR
• Agrees and deletes.

Your photograph featured a billboard showing a graphic design (a map). Billboards only temporarily display works of art and are therefore not covered under Freedom of Panorama. I dislike that the tool I use to process copyvio's only posts my reasoning on the page itself and not on the users talk page, leading to confusions and nobody learning anything. I should look into contacting its developer --Vera (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I can't remember that I took an image of a map on a billboard, but if this was the reason I certainly accept the delition. Nevertheless I agree in your opinion that speedy delitions without given reasons - like this one - rather lead to confusion than to learning. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hello 1Veertje, I noticed that within the coarse of a day File:Sinterklaas in chocolade.JPG was deleted as a copyright violation. File:Sinterklaasschuimpjes.jpg is also gone. As far as I can see there has been no thorough discussion. At least, the file discussion pages do not lead me there. I doubt very much whether these representations of traditional candy's are copyrighted and they should at least have been nominated for deletion in the 'gentle instead of a speedy way to allow for a discussion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that the way Sinterklaas has been depiction has changed a lot over the past century. It isn't very likely that there is archive material proving that these have been unchanged for so long, making it a fairly straight forward copyvio. --Vera (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions. But my main objection is the fact that you don't allow the uploader to give their say. There was no need for this sudden deletion. Just nominate it, instead of speedy delete. Jan Arkesteijn (talk)

Europeana

Thanks 1Veertje, for making clear I have to add URLs to the images I took over from Europeana. I will try to do this a.s.a.p. I hate copyright violations as much as you do. Sincerely, Vysotsky (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Vera (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK like this? (And you were right about Jim Fouché -I didn't know about Wikia). I have asked the son of Albert Termote if he could give a copyright clearance for the picture of the Stanislas statue. Jij ook geboren in Wateringen? Vysotsky (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ja, geboren en getogen. De link zo is goed. De perfectionist in me heeft het ietsjes netter gemaakt. Toestemming van derden wordt overigens geregeld via COM:OTRS. Lees goed de instructies, het is wat lastig een eerste keer. --Vera (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:0000 Antonio of Saint Anne Galvão Chapel, Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil .JPG

Leis brasileiras = Brazilian Laws

Português: Esta imagem é de uma capela pública (não privada) e, que me consta, as leis brasileiras permitem que se use livremente imagens nesta condição.

English: This image is fro a public chapel (not private) and, to my knowledge, Brazilian laws allo you to freely use pictures in this conditions.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in this image's DR discussion page - Vera (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Simson kit (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ximeg 18:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Simson kit (6).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ximeg 18:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppenhuis van Petronella de la Court.jpg

Hi Vera, can you please have a look at this RfD as I don't speak Dutch? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to This and this too, thanks :) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made my comments now that I'm back on-line --Vera (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

VI and Evelyn Regner

Hi Vera, I borrowed a page element that I put on mine. "Dyslexics of the world unite you." Why did you not choose File:Evelyn Regner (1).JPG which is better photo? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit in dubio. I made a couple of pictures of her last Monday. I had to pick one for VI but one of the others might be somebody elses pick. --Vera (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request: no-FoP Italy

Hi Vera. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm really bussy at the moment processing ~700 pictures I took at TEDxAmsterdam. --Vera (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, don't worry. :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

However, I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Mortuarium GZG Den Bosch

Goedendag mevrouw de Kok, Nu ben ik redelijk goed bekend in Den Bosch. Het mortuariumgebouw van het GZG had ik echter nooit gezien. Zou u me ook kunnen vertellen waar het precies staat? Met vriendelijke groet, LeeGer (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoe ik het me kan herinneren, was het op een binneplein. (51.690185,5.306034) om precies te zijn. --Vera (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! TEDxAMS Art Rooijakkers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe not quite clean retouche on the background, but QI to me anyway. --A.Savin 11:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

TEDxAMSTERDAM

Hallo Vera, bij de maandcategorieën zoals Category:November 2012 in the Netherlands staat: Images should be placed directly in this category, not in subcategories. Dus ik dacht dat dit een speciale regel was voor zulke categorieën, anders had ik het wel op de makkelijke manier gedaan. Dinsdagskind (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Greetings

Heel hartelijk bedankt !--Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dank voor je goede wensen, natuurlijk ook voor jou prettige dagen toegewenst. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wateringen en Kwintsheul, Toen&Nu - 006.jpg

Dag 1Veertje, die afbeelding werd verwijderd. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ja, ergens ben ik van plan protest aan te tekenen. Hij is verwijderd in een batch waarbinnen deze afbeelding qua copyright erg van afweek. --Vera (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

merry xmas

thank you :) merry xmas to you :) and best new year. You can translate that greeting card in Italian please? so it is complete :) thank you very much --Pava (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

good :) i have see it thank you :* --Pava (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi Vera. Thank you for taking the time to create such a nice design. It's always great to see someone doing their best to spread some cheerfulness and positive feeling. I wish you the best of luck in 2013! INeverCry 20:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To You, too ;).--Coentor (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you too!

Let's hope for more great pictures of heritage sites in 2013! Jane023 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:1998 campaign Poster PvdA.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content. We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules. In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files. Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions. Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

 

--Motopark (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The owner of the copyright, the PvdA, published it under a CC-BY license on their official Flickr account. How is this a copyvio? --Vera (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Ha Vera! Voor jou geen kerstkaartje maar een kerstkatje! Ik wens je alvast fijne kerstdagen en al het beste voor het komende jaar!

MD van Leeuwen (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Evelyn Regner.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Not the optimum technical quality, but best in scope, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Systermatic deletion nominations

I've noticed in a very short space of time you have nominated a number of images from my catalogue for deletion. Tell me are you going through my catalogue? This seems a very spiteful, petty and malicious act. It's acts like this that deter me from participating any further in this project. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)+

I consider it rather efficient. Where there is one copyright violation, there is more likely to be more. You seem to not know that art (like photographs incorporated in advertisements) that is only temporarily displayed in the public space is protected by copyright. Only art permanently on display can be published on commons because of Freedom of Panorama not all countries have a FOP policy. It really are only a few bad apples and you can't accuse me of not being meticulous. --Vera (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find it spiteful and malicious, to destroy someone's work in such a fashion. You're response is arrogant and very typical of a petty little-Hitler. I was not baiting for a debate about copyright law, if I wanted one I would consult someone qualified to give me an opinion. I am merely pointing out what a nasty, petty individual you are. I take personal offence to your actions and hold you in contempt. What a nasty, spiteful thing to do. Not one of your lot understands the basic principle of de-minimus criteria, you merely set your own bar. Forgive me for being blunt, but I am sick of petty milk-monitors like yourself undermining my efforts and that of other editors. So don't give me snotty response about copyright, frankly, I can't be arsed with that argument (I've had them with other unqualified morons countless times), I thought I might appeal to your better nature by trying to unsubtly point out what a nasty and arrogant person you have become. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you see how it's hard to take your argument serious when you're the one calling me names. Commons is a work of collaboration that aims to have content that can be freely used. This can only be when we delete content. One persons opinion that he/she should somehow be free from this possibility undermines the project. You have taken photographs of other people's work and published it as being your own, we can't allow that. This is only a fraction of all the photographs you've contributed, but you're acting like it's the end of the world. That was yesterday, move on. - Vera (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2012 (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:1950s 領土不容侵犯.jpg

And also:

• File:1954 隨時準備.jpg

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello,

Thank you for your greetings. I wish you Meryy Christmas and a Happy New Year. Yann (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Malone Hoard Deletion

Hello there They may look like modern art but they are from the Neolithic (I see why you thought so, my own view is that they are too perfect 19th century forgeries).The museum allows unrestricted photography in this gallery.Notafly (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the discussion in the DR, if you don't mind. --Vera (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

License problem bij August_Falise

Beste 1veertje, Je hebt aangegeven dat er een licentieprobleem is met een foto (August_Falise_Cello_Player_Bronze.jpg) die ik heb toegevoegd aan het lemma August_Falise. Kun je wat specifieker zijn en aangeven wat het probleem precies is? --Butch (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Het is een beeldje wat ontworpen is door een artiest die nog niet 70+ jaar dood is. Net als 2D objecten zijn 3D objecten beschermd door auteursrechten. Dit is vaak verwarrend omdat beelden die zich in de openbare ruimte bevinden wel gefotografeerd kunnen worden vanwege panoramavrijheid. --Vera (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

please use the PD-art tag

hi there,

concerning your message of the images here Category:Honmaru Palace (Nagoya Castle), there was no PD-art license option when they were all uploaded, therefore I used whatever license was available. Feel free to change them to PD-art. Gryffindor (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can recommend using Commonist, especially when uploading batches of files. The standard uploader as the option of selecting "Another reason not mentioned above" which allows you to type out the license tag {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. this file shows how to set up the basics Commonist. --Vera (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Category:Windmills_in_Streefkerk

Windmills in Streefkerk has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Akoopal (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)