User talk:1Veertje/Archive 7

File:Beyond hashtags and likes — How to stimulate e-participation in foreign policy (18903725808).jpg[edit]

File:Beyond hashtags and likes — How to stimulate e-participation in foreign policy (18903725808).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

2003:D2:5F1A:365E:C61:67BA:BC42:2F3 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks you! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests van files die ik uploade.[edit]

Hoi Vera, Meestal ben ik het volkomen eens met jouw deletion requests. Moet ik nog wat doen om dat proces van deletions te versnellen? Groetjes, Alf

Het was netter geweest als je de info die in het "author" veld staat met behulp van OpenRefine had gematched met Wikidata zodat de RKD als authority control gebruikt kon worden voor de sterfdatum. voorbeeld met authority control. Piet Kramer was daarnet nog niet opgenomen in Wikidata maar ook daar kan nieuwe items aangemaakt worden. De licentie die je op deze en waarschijnlijk andere foto's hebt geplakt klopt niet: de website van het museum zelf geeft aan dat het PD is. In dit geval klopt dat. Maar al het werk wat nog niet PD is hebben ze een CC-licentie geplakt, terwijl dat helemaal niet hun werk is en helemaal niet het recht hebben deze te licenseren.

Wat wel OK is in deze collectie:

Gebruiksobjecten
Kleding (uitzondering zou kunnen er zijn als een tekening op een T-shirt het primaire onderwerp is, dan is het t-shirt een soort schildersdoek)

Grijs gebied:

Verpakkingen zijn soms waarschijnlijk al oud genoeg om PD te zijn of niet complex genoeg om ooit beschermt te zijn geweest.
Miniatuur beeldjes zijn ook auteursrechtelijk beschermd, tenzij de artiest in 1949 of eerder overleden is, dan {{Pd-old-70}}, anoniem/bedrijfswerk dat tot en met 1949 gepubliceerd is, is {{PD-anon-70-EU}}

Slecht:

Contemporain grafisch werk. brochures zoals deze hebben ze in beheer, ze hebben niet de auteursrechten. Je kan de moeite nemen DR's te beginnen waarbij je:

<noinclude>[[Category:Undelete 2050]]</noinclude> in de DR toevoegd zodat het ooit weer terug komt op Commons in de verre toekomst. Is wel aardig wat werk. --Vera ^(talk) 11:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veel archieven en musea slagen er in om licenties los te krijgen van schenkers of van collecties die ze in bezit hebben. Denk aan Nationaal Archief (>300k persfoto's Anefo 1944-1990), Rijkdienst Cultureel Erfgoed (>480k foto's monumenten 1850-2010) en Naturalis (>275k foto's dieren en planten). Ik weet dat sommige kunstenaars het Rijksmuseum zelf benaderen om toestemming te geven voor CC-BY-SA-licenties van hun eigen werk. Voordat er op grote schaal foto's verwijderd gaan worden, kan het de moeite lonen om Rotterdam- of Amsterdam Museum een simpel mailtje te sturen met een paar heldere informatieve vragen. Vysotsky (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

voor verpakkingsmateriaal, puzzels en schilderwerk is heruitgave erg uitzonderlijk terwijl dat bij foto's regelmatig gebeurt. Ik heb nog nooit van overdracht van rechten in die eerste categorie gehoord en dat Museum Rotterdam hier is losgeslagen met het plakken van licentie-stickers lijkt me erg aannemelijk. Het zou fijn zijn als ze hun database op zouden aanpassen als ze er op gewezen zouden worden. Vera ^(talk) 12:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:'De smokkelaar' 's-Heerenberg.jpg[edit]

@1Veertje: bedoelde je openstellen van de grenzen? of werkelijk opstellen :-) Lotje (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De omschrijving komt van Flickr, maar dat het "open stellen" moet zijn lijkt mij idd aannemelijk. Vera ^(talk) 13:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links naar hoogleraren[edit]

Beste 1Veertje, Ik heb niet alle 172 hoogleraren uit het boek Onze hoogleeraren bekeken die nu in Commons verschijnen (mooi initiatief), maar de links bij in elk geval twee ervan verwezen niet naar Onze hoogleraren maar naar de digitale versie vanOnze toneelspelers (1899) bij de dbnl. Vysotsky (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AH, dat is de link in het template {{Onze Hoogleeraren (1898)}}, dus hoefde maar op een plek aangepast worden

Vera ^(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank. Fijn dat dat hersteld is. Ik zie in de CommonsDelinker-rapportage dat je een tiental afbeeldingen die al in Commons aanwezig waren, "overgenomen" hebt en direct ook in alle Wikipedia-versies vervangen hebt door deze nieuwe afbeeldingen uit Onze hoogleeraren. Ik heb dat in het verleden ook met Anefo-afbeeldingen gedaan die in veel lagere resolutie in Wiki aanwezig waren. Waren deze afbeeldingen in nog lagere resolutie dan 60 kb? Vysotsky (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik had sterk de indruk dat ze uit dezelfde PDF waren gehaald maar dan d.m.v. een screenshot, dus op papier hadden ze soms een hogere resolutie. Ik heb PDF-software gebruikt om ze er uit te vissen dus meer dan dit kan je niet uit die PDF halen. --Vera ^(talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan vind ik dat je ze in Commons niet mag vervangen, maar de door jou gemaakte versie er naast moet zetten, en de afbeeldingen niet over alle Wiki's mag vervangen. Lijkt me een duidelijk staaltje van bij-twijfel-niet-inhalen, en bovendien voor een gewone Wiki-sterveling nu niet meer controleerbaar. Vysotsky (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ze staan er weer. --Vera ^(talk) 20:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank! Vysotsky (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er begint weer een Commons-Delinker een afbeelding met hogere resolutie op Wiki's te vervangen door een lagere resolutie-afbeelding uit de hooglerarenserie. Als dat eenmalig is, zal ik het netjes herstellen. Vysotsky (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zou je hier een voorbeeld van kunnen linken? Vera ^(talk) 19:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hier werd een afbeelding van hoogleraar Willem Kapteijn (310 kb) vervangen door een blekere versie in lagere resolutie (60 kb). Ik vermoed dat dat kwam omdat jij die blekere versie in Wikidata neerzette (Set a claim value), maar dat kan ik mis hebben. Ik heb de betere versie inmiddels in Wikidata gezet. Vysotsky (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik had zo goed als dat ik kon dingen terug gezet. Ik weet niet wat er toe geleid heeft dat de bot het nu nog op gedachte bracht dit klusje nu te gaan klaren. Ik weet daarmee ook niet of er iets gedaan moet worden om te voorkomen dat nog een keer te gaan doen :s.Vera ^(talk) 20:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik vermoed dat het een vergelijkbaar effect is als een klap van Obelix: je ziet het effect soms pas later. Op 4 april veranderde je dit in Wikikdata, en dat heeft blijkbaar nu pas effect. Ik had een van de pagina's waar het een gevolg had op mijn volglijst staan, daarom zag ik het. Als je in Wikidata een verslechtering aanbrengt, zet die verslechtering blijkbaar soms pas later door in de verschillende taalversies van Wikipedia. Ik zal een aantal van de betreffende hooglerarenafbeeldingen in Wikidata checken. BTNI is een nuttig voorschrift, zeker in Wikidata. Vysotsky (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dememorixer automated[edit]

Greetings. Is Category:Dememorixer automated still needed? I discovered it through Category:Images requiring trimming, which your category is the only member of. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. Not really. I created it to check up on a large set of photos I'd upgraded to a higher resolution after I build a back door into the art archives of the Netherlands. Some had higher resolution on that site because there was a cropped version here on Commons. I did double check for this at the time but I'm not going to triple check any time soon. --Vera ^(talk) 08:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perfect! I've removed Category:Images requiring trimming from your category, since many of the images don't need cropping and since the category isn't being actively used. I've reflected the change in Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Trimming. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse burgemeesters[edit]

Dag, ik zag dat je in deze edit de category 'Mayors of the Netherlands' verving door 'Mayors of [plaatsnaam]', dus uit de eerstgenoemde haalde. Nu ben ik bezig met voor alle provincies categorieën aan te maken voor in elk geval alle huidige gemeenten (conform Category:Mayors of Overijssel), en tot nog toe heb ik (vrijwel) telkens beide categorieën gebruikt, d.w.z. 'Mayors of the Netherlands' liet ik dan staan – wat is hier verstandig om te doen? Misschien heeft ook Robotje daar ideeën over. Eigenlijk is een overzicht op naam toch ook wel wenselijk, althans mogelijk nuttig, maar misschien is het beter daarvoor Category:Mayors of the Netherlands by name te creëren, zodat de hoofdcategorie een metacategorie kan worden (en dus in beginsel leeg blijft, behalve de ondercategorieën). Nu weet ik echter niet hoe ik ineens (zoals bij afbeeldingen met Cat-a-lot eenvoudig kan) al die ondercategorieën naar een nieuwe categorie over kan zetten: heb je wellicht daarvoor een tip of tool?
À propos: is Dememorixer buiten gebruik? De laatste tientallen keren dat ik het heb proberen te gebruiken, voor RKD, was het resultaat telkens "niet beschikbaar, gebruik de thumbnail", terwijl RKD wel aangaf dat er een hogere resolutie beschikbaar zou zijn.
Groet, Eissink (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Aangezien Category:Mayors of Wijchen een subcategorie is van Category:Mayors of the Netherlands zit elk item van die Wijchen categorie impliciet ook in de 'Mayors of the Netherlands'. Bij nl-wiki is het om die reden ongewenst om iets zowel in een hoofdcategorie als een subcategorie daarvan te plaatsen. Ik weet niet zeker of dat bij Commons ook zo is, maar ik vermoed van wel. - Robotje (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

een Mayors of the Netherlands by name is een prima idee. Een overzicht van burgemeesters zou een mooi dingetje om met Wikidata te doen. Zoals Robotje zegt is er inderdaad een hiërarchie in de categorieën structuur. Dat de Dememorixer het begeven had was bij mij nog niet bekend, ik zal er binnenkort naar kijken. Vera ^(talk) 19:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan zijn we het, geloof ik, wel eens. Bedankt voor jullie reacties. Ik zal t.z.t. de 'by name'-category aanmaken, want zo'n categorie heeft inderdaad meerwaarde. Eissink (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Inmiddels heb ik voor alle 355 huidige gemeenten een categorie aan kunnen maken – zie de hoofdcategorie Category:Mayors of the Netherlands. Ik meld het vooral ook even, omdat ik m.b.t. de categorie-hiërarchie zojuist op de Engelse Wikipedia de nuttige notie 'non-diffusing subcategory' tegenkwam, die een mooie en nuttige uitvlucht geeft voor al te rigide hiërarchie in het categorizeren. Maar toen had ik mijn klus hoe dan ook al geklaard. Eissink (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

File:Nashville TN (49817635212).jpg[edit]

File:Nashville TN (49817635212).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Address (16260189646).jpg[edit]

File:The Address (16260189646).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus): Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dubai

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burj Khalifa (15666243823).jpg[edit]

File:Burj Khalifa (15666243823).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus): Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burj Khalifa (16100053229).jpg[edit]

File:Burj Khalifa (16100053229).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus): Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dememorixer[edit]

Beste 1Veertje, onlangs heb ik verschillende foto's van de RKB-databank geüpload naar Commons. De uploads hebben een RKD-watermerk, omdat het me niet lukt met je (overigens erg handige) Dememorixer-tool de oorspronkelijke afbeelding op te vragen. Ik zie echter dat het jou vorig jaar wel is gelukt bij een eerdere upload van mij. Zou je misschien kunnen kijken of je bij onderstaande afbeeldingen ook de oorspronkelijke afbeeldingen zonder watermerk kunt downloaden? Hartelijke groet, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Fentener, De Dememorixer doet het weer! De verandering die het deed stuk lopen was waarschijnlijk een update van mijn hosting provider, waardoor het "ok" bericht als een fout werd uitgelezen, waardoor alle links onterecht in het "kan het niet vinden" traject terecht kwamen. Omdat ik dacht dat er iets was veranderd aan de Memorix Maoir image viewer zat ik in eerste instantie de oplossing in een verkeerde hoek aan het zoeken. Maar hij doet het nu dus weer. --Vera ^(talk) 11:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hartelijk dank! En ook veel dank voor die tool, dat maakt het allemaal een stuk gemakkelijker! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Dragon City logo.jpg

And also:

File:SocialPoint logo 2017.jpg

Yours sincerely, GRuban (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:NEXT Conference (29889801347).jpg[edit]

File:NEXT Conference (29889801347).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jacob_Lachmann_(entrepreneur)[edit]

Jacob Lachmann (entrepreneur) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

2.104.86.226 11:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nguy Thi Khanh - 2016.jpg[edit]

File:Nguy Thi Khanh - 2016.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

GRuban (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County COVID-19 cases[edit]

Thanks for your interest in keeping Data:COVID-19 Cases in Santa Clara County, California.tab up to date. Please note that there are specific instructions for updating this table. It isn't just a matter of adding a row for today with the topline figures from the county's dashboard – that was causing charts like w:Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/California/Santa Clara County medical cases chart to have a misleading spike in cases today, whereas no new cases have been reported yet today. The discrepancy is due to the 30 or so undated cases, most of which are from March or April (but the county doesn't know exactly when). If any consumer of this table needs the total count of known cases by this day, as opposed to on this day, they can add the undatedCases column. Moreover, the county revises dozens of dates every day, making a piecemeal update even more misleading.

Matching the county's methodology has real-world implications: as the county prepares to loosen shelter-in-place restrictions, all eyes will be on the rate of new infections. As the county uses the infection rate to justify loosening or tightening shelter-in-place restrictions, it's important that the public see the same trendline that the county sees; the actual total number of confirmed infections is less important. This table's inclusion in w:COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area means that it could have an impact on the public's trust of the county's actions.

As you update this table going forward, please use the script and only run it after 5:30 PM PDT or so, once the county publishes their daily update. (To confirm whether the dashboard has been updated today, see the timestamp at the top of the dashboard, under the title.) Otherwise, if you'd like to maintain a table tracking the change to the overall case count over time, please create a separate table. Thanks for your attention to these details and let me know if anything is unclear.

– Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verzoek[edit]

Dag, 1Veertje. Zie jij wellicht kans om van RKD de grote versie van File:Gerhardus Dumbar (1680-1744), by Gerhard Jan Palthe.jpg te uploaden? Het gaat om https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/images/167502. Bij mij loopt Dememorixer erop vast (of er is een ander probleem met de site). Jan Arkesteijn heeft het beeld voor uploaden (tweemaal) n.m.m. dusdanig gecorrumpeerd, dat het niet om aan te zien is, zodat ik die versie alvast heb overgeschreven, zij het ook met een veel kleiner formaat. Als het lukt, dan alvast bedankt, en anders is er uiteraard geen probleem. Groet, Eissink (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

oef die is groot, dat aan elkaar brijen duurt te lang voor mijn hosting provider. Het is wel beter om een appart bestand aan te maken dan het te overschrijven. Net zoals er van de Mona Lisa meerdere bestanden zijn is er plek voor meerdere versies van dit schilderij. Vera ^(talk) 11:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, in dit geval, aangezien er ook flink is bijgesneden, is een nieuw bestand wel beter, maar uploads van Jan Arkesteijn zijn vaak dusdanig ernstig verkleurd en anderszins aangepast (terwijl hij ze door liet gaan voor origineel), dat ik ze doorgaans liever vervang, maar ik zal hier een retouched-sjabloon aanbrengen. Mijn vriendelijke dank voor het grote bestand, dat heeft Dumbar wel verdiend, Eissink (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

pattypan[edit]

Hello 1Veertje,

I have noticed that you are using pattypan for uploading. Do you know if there is away to uolad the files with caption on structured date. Could't find anything about it. Thank in advance. -- Geagea (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't know how one would do that. I've only worked with captioned videos a couple of times and that was always for just one video, so no batch upload was needed. --Vera ^(talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:NEXT19 (48765343241).jpg[edit]

File:NEXT19 (48765343241).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monumentenschildje Lingewaard.svg[edit]

Beste 1Veertje,

Je hebt in 2015 bovengenoemd schildje geüpload als monumentenschildje van de gemeente Lingewaard. Ik heb daar twijfels over omdat alleen een verwijzing kent naar de oude gemeente Bemmel. Heb je een bron die bevestigt dat dit ook het schildje is van de gemeente Lingewaard? Electionworld (Talk? -Atlas) 07:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Electionworld, zoals in de omschrijving van deze afbeelding te zien is heb ik toendertijd File:Ressen (Lingewaard) gemeentemonument Brandspuithuisje.JPG als bron gebruikt. --Vera ^(talk) 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor je snelle reactie. Ik heb dit bordje op geen enkel gemeentelijk monument in Huissen zien staat. Omdat het schildje is afgeleid van het wapen van de voormalige gemeente Bemmel heb ik het vermoeden dat het schildje het monumentenschildje het schildje is van die voormalige gemeente. Dat verklaart het gebruik op het Brandspuithuisje in Ressen, want dat ligt in de voormalige gemeente Bemmel. Electionworld (Talk? -Atlas) 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verdenking van copyright violation[edit]

Beste Veertje, Ik kreeg net een melding van een van mijn plaatjes mogelijk een copyright violation is: Zie hier. Echter, het betreft een schilderij van Louis Delfau van voor 1937. Het vermoeden van violation is waarschijnlijk gestoeld op het feit dat die schilderij ergens online te koop aangeboden wordt. Nu heb ik naar Commons help gekeken hoe ik het ongedaan kan maken, maar kom er niet uit. Moet ik hier een aanvraag doen voor annulering van die nominatie? Zoja, ik zie niet hoe dat gaat. Het lijkt anders dan in Wiki. Kun je me assisteren dit op te lossen? Alvast bedankt, --Chescargot (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Chescargot,

in de beschrijving van dit bestand had je aangegeven zelf de auteur te zijn van dit werk. Omdat het werk velemale op internet te vinden was voordat je het uploadde was dit bestand aangemerkt als een auteursrechtenschending. Wat je had moeten doen is niet alleen in de omschrijving maar ook in het auteursveld de naam van de auteur moeten vernoemen en niet een Creative Commons maar een publiek domein sjabloon voor de licentie eronder moeten hangen. Deze aanpassingen heb ik nu al gedaan, je kan deze als voorbeeld gebruiken. Zoals je kunt zien dat ik een koppeling naar Wikidata heb gemaakt. Daar kunnen geboorte en sterfte gegevens goed met bronnen onderbouwd worden. Kan jij het nog aanvullen met een publicatiejaar? Vera ^(talk) 15:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ik zie dat je meer werken van deze schilder hebt geüpload. Met help:VisualFileChange.js kan je meerdere bestanden omzetten naar de juiste licentievorm ({{PD-art|pd-old-70}})Vera ^(talk) 16:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Veertje, dank je! Ik ga proberen volgens je raad de benodigde aanpassingen te maken. Vergeef me als het niet meteen goed gaat, ik ben totaal nieuw op Commons (ik ben er ook alleen maar omdat er iets fout blijkt te zijn gegaan met het uploaden), en de logica hier is toch net iets anders dan op Wikipedia. --Chescargot (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrie, maar ik heb geen idee waar ik de bewerking moet starten. Ik laat de plaatjes altijd op via Wikipedia in visual mode. Ik weet Wikidata te gebruiken voor artikels, maar niet voor plaatjes. Kun je me een link of pad geven hoe ik naar een bewerkingsveld kan komen? Die voorbeeld dat jij gemaakt zou hebben, hoe kan ik die bijvoorbeeld inzien? --Chescargot (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb inmiddels met jouw voorbeeld en instructies van derden (m.n. Vysotsky) mijn weg gevonden. Dank. Groet, --Chescargot (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top 👍Vera ^(talk) 09:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moniek Toebosch on an elephant pulling a harrow.jpg[edit]

Hi Veertje,

Ik heb via OTRS een claim binnengekregen voor de auteursrechten door de uploader. Aan jouw eerdere "no permission" nominatie kan ik niet zien waarom dit hier op zou gaan: de uploader heet Theo, en hij legt de auteursrechten neer bij de fotograaf die Theo heet. Op de foto staat een figuur gekleed in het wit, op een olifant met een ploeg-constructie. Er is voor mij geen reden om aan te nemen dat er extra toestemming nodig is.

Als dit volgens jou wel zo is, zou je dit dan willen doen via de DR-constructie en niet via de versnelde verwijderingsprocedure? Ik kan nu de verwijdering eigenlijk niet motiveren naar de uploader toe, maar dat is uiteraard wel gewenst. Ciell (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ik zie bij deze foto een OTRS-ticket hangen, dat zal wel kloppen. Het is al weer even geleden dus ik ben een beetje de draad kwijt waar het om gaat maak heb er alle vertrouwen in dat ik jou hier mee kan vertrouwen. Heb je mijn admin rechten nodig om iets te herstellen? Vera ^(talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vera,

De foto was versneld verwijderd omdat jij hem had genomineerd als "Missing Permission". Toen hij door de bot werd verwijderd uit het Wikipedia-artikel op nlwp heeft de uploader OTRS gemaild en heb ik hem hersteld (ik heb ook admin-rechten - in de voorkeuren zit een uitbreiding waarmee je ieders rechten achter de handtekening vermeld ziet, erg handig). Maar ik snap dus niet waarom je hem überhaupt hebt genomineerd. Doordat er een botje loopt worden bij verwijdering van een bestand ook direct alle links uit de alle artikelen op alle projecten verwijderd: in dit geval ging het waarschijnlijk om 1 artikel, maar het is dus heel moeilijk om een verwijdering te herstellen, zeker waar het gaat om foto's die we al langer in gebruik hebben. In zo'n geval dus liever voor een DR kiezen, ook omdat ik dan als OTRS-er weet waar ik op moet letten omdat die helder gemotiveerd moeten worden. Ciell (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Je foto[edit]

Misschien vind je dit leuk: hier de-haagse-tijden-2020-13 staat linksonder een foto van jou. Hoewel "Meer en Bos" en Wikimedia genoemd worden kan ik deze foto helaas niet terugvinden op Commons. Of zoek ik niet goed? --VanBuren (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, leuk om te zien. Het gaat om deze foto Vera ^(talk) 19:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vervolg[edit]

Ik ben wat verder wezen zoeken. Er is het artikel over de Haagse wijk nl:Bohemen en Meer en Bos waar de begrenzing van deze wijk wordt aangegeven. Als dat correct is dan is in commons de Category:Meer en Bosch (Loosduinen) niet correct, toch? Er zijn nog wat plaatjes die in die categorie horen: File:Meer en Bos, het meer.JPG, File:Meer en bos in de winter - panoramio.jpg en File:Meer en Bos muur.JPG maar dat doe ik nu maar even niet. --VanBuren (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben er nu achter dat de toevoeging Loosduinen betrekking heeft op het stadsdeel waar de wijk Bohemen een onderdeel van is. Lastige kost. Voortschrijdend inzicht dus. Ik heb de categorie toegevoegd aan de genoemde plaatjes. --VanBuren (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Netzfest 2019 DSF3848 (46866310995).jpg[edit]

File:Netzfest 2019 DSF3848 (46866310995).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

2003:DA:A70C:B942:30C4:B490:DF63:F10D 09:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Can you help me?[edit]

I posted an image that has been allowed to be redistributed by the Italian government on here but a bot keeps marking it for deletion. Could you please help me out? Here is the link. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to me it is not clear that the cc-licence applies to the photo. It reads to me like data on who and when served in parliament was published under a CC-by license on data.camera.it. That is something independent from the photo that was published on senato.it so unfortunately the license doesn't cover this work. Vera ^(talk) 08:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

van Saarloos[edit]

Beste 1Veertje, Kan je me vertellen waarom je van deze foto van Van Saarloos die ik in 2017 uploadde, een doorverwijzing maakte naar dezelfde foto, die je vandaag inbracht? Als het gaat om een hogere resolutie, kon je die foto toch gewoon als nieuwe versie van hetzelfde bestand uploaden? Wat je ook nog eens deed, was de drie jaar geleden door mij ingebrachte foto als Duplicate kenmerken en vervolgens dat verzoek zelf afhandelen. Dat is niet heel netjes, lijkt me. Zou je je actie terug willen draaien? Vysotsky (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt voor het herstellen. Vysotsky (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gisteren had ik alle foto's van dit evenement op Commons toegevoegd. flickr2comms had niet herkend dat jouw upload al op Commons stond, waarschijnlijk omdat de identifier niet in de titel gebruikt werd. Het samenvoegen van identieke bestanden is niet een controversiële handeling, dus dat kan je onderaan de bestandspagina gelijk uitvoeren als admin. Welke van de twee bewaard blijft vind ik niet altijd even duidelijk. Als je in de bestandsgeschiedenis kijkt kan je zelfs zien dat toen ik het probeerde te herstellen het nog een keer verkeerd heb gedaan. Ik wilde dit in eerste instantie niet herstellen omdat het ook weer andere wiki artikelen daarom bewerkt moeten worden. Vera ^(talk) 11:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor je uitleg. Als stelregel bij identieke bestanden hou ik altijd een simpele stelregel aan: de eerste upload gaat voor, tenzij de metadata daarvan veel fouten bevat die herstelwerk nodig maken (foute licentie, ontbrekende link). Feitelijk: bij twijfel niet inhalen. Dan hoeft er ook op Wikipedia het minst te veranderen. Bovendien is dat het meest rechtvaardig tegenover de oorspronkelijke uploader. Vysotsky (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dat had ik ook eerder willen doen.--Vera ^(talk) 12:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please revert the deletion of File:Team-PopUpRainbow2014-in-MaMa.jpg[edit]

webpage http://queersport.info/node/24 from which image originates is under the correct license --Zblace (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please follow protocol for this and file an undeletion request. Vera ^(talk) 05:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teetse Gonggrijp.png[edit]

Dag, 1Veertje. In 2011 heb jij deze foto gerestaureerd, maar het viel mij op dat deze Teetse Gonggrijp niet dezelfde is als de burgemeester die in 1838 overleed (toen was de fotografie overigens ook nog lang niet zo ver ontwikkeld). Ik heb de foto verwijderd van Wikidata en van de Friese Wikipedia, zou jij het misschien willen verwijderen van de Nederlandse (artikel en lijst)? Bedankt, Eissink (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canon EOS-1DX Mark III.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. --Peulle 12:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canon EOS-1D X Mark II.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
Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005-09-18 - United Kingdom - England - London - Trafalgar Square - National Gallery - Alison Lapper 4887704797.jpg[edit]

File:2005-09-18 - United Kingdom - England - London - Trafalgar Square - National Gallery - Alison Lapper 4887704797.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007-02-18 -- United Kingdom -- England -- London -- Trafalgar Square -- Alison Lapper -- Army 4889215815.jpg[edit]

File:2007-02-18 -- United Kingdom -- England -- London -- Trafalgar Square -- Alison Lapper -- Army 4889215815.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canon EOS R5.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
Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bewerking op Category:Bezuidenhoutseweg 73, The Hague[edit]

Met deze bewerking heb je een bewerking van mij ongedaan gemaakt. In de bewerkingssamenvatting schrijf je "Pas dan de gegevens op Wikidata aan". Maar als ik Wikidta bekijk, zie ik de foute info daar helemaal niet staan, ook niet in de versie van het moment van mijn bewerking. Door jouw bewerking is de {{Wikidata Infobox}} er weer, maar de inhoud van de infobox is nu niet meer fout. Ik zou dit alleen kunnen verklaren met {{Wikidata Infobox}} bevatte een fout, of zie ik iets over het hoofd? --FredTC (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De omschrijving die je had achtergelaten van wat er fout zat was redelijk raatzelachtig. Het kan zijn dat de categorie aan het verkeerde Wikidata-item was gekoppeld, maar ook dat kan rechtgezet worden in Wikidata: dan had de categorie ontkoppeld moeten worden aan het item waar het aan vast zat en aan het rijksmonument gekoppeld moeten worden. Door de infobox weg te halen los je die fout niet op: dan is er nog steeds een verkeerde verwijzing in Wikidata naar deze categorie. Het weghalen van de infobox is dan het probleem onder het tapijt vegen. 4 februari is deze categorie aan het wikidata-item over het rijksmonument gekoppeld. Waar deze daarvoor aan was gekoppeld is lastig terug te halen. --Vera ^(talk) 10:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Digital Lehren (nicht nur) in Corona-Zeiten.jpg[edit]

Hi 1Veertje, I was not able to find the still image in the source video. Little help? Gikü (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's cut from the thumbnail to the video. My bot automatically cuts them down to 2/3 of the left before uploading them from this channel. Vera ^(talk) 12:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, didn't notice because the video started playing automatically. Best, Gikü (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethiopia 2012 African Union, new HQ (6972190151).jpg[edit]

File:Ethiopia 2012 African Union, new HQ (6972190151).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY en YouTube[edit]

Hoi 1Veertje, ik heb zojuist File:Burgemeester J.Th.C.M Verheijen (2019).jpg kunnen uploaden omdat jij een YouTube video op Commons had gezet waarin dat fragment voorkwam. Die video schijnt vrijgegeven te zijn onder CC-BY en een reviewer heeft dat ook kunnen bevestigen. Dus dat zit wel goed. Maar als ik zelf op YouTube ga zoeken naar dergelijke video's en deze tegen zou komen, hoe kan ik dan zien dat die specieke video vrijgegeven is onder CC-BY? Ik kan dat zo snel nergens vaststellen/herkennen. - Robotje (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zie mijn "learning pattern" Find free license videos on YouTube for Wikipedia. In de omschrijving van een afbeelding zie je onderaan license: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Vera ^(talk) 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beste 1Veertje, Je raadt aan om video2commons te gebruiken voor het uploaden van een video van YouTube. Heb je ook een tip hoe je een video uit YouTube kan downloaden? (Want het intikken van een url in video2commons werkt al meer dan een jaar niet meer. Zojuist probeerde ik het nog even: dit filmpje met video2commons binnenhalen, maar dat lukte me niet. Google heeft wel geld gegeven aan Wiki, maar het dochterbedrijf YouTube heeft video2commons in 2019 op de blacklist gezet.) Vysotsky (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zal er eens naar kijken. Bedankt. - Robotje (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Door de tijd heen heb ik gemerkt dat websites die je in staat stellen een YouTube filmpje te downloaden nogal eens ophouden te bestaan dus meestal doe ik een zoekopdracht en ga dan naar het eerste resultaat, wat meestal werkt. Vera ^(talk) 08:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misschien de handleiding dan een beetje aanpassen? Vysotsky (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Great thanks for lifting my block :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please don't disappoint. Vera ^(talk) 18:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Larry Stedl - 1969.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Larry Stedl - 1969.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Larry Stedl - 1969.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020! Please help with this survey[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear 1Veertje,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.

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). 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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team, 08:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Logo SGP.svg[edit]

File:Logo SGP.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ætoms (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dememorixer[edit]

Nogmaals dank voor je Dememorixer. Ik gebruik dat gereedschap regelmatig, en het werkt prima. Vysotsky (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dankjewel 😊, fijne feestdagen Vera ^(talk) 14:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik was de term Dememorixer al enkele keren tegengekomen maar wist niet wat het was. Vandaag vroeg ik Eissink hoe hij van de RKD site hoge resolutie plaatjes kreeg zonder watermerk bleek dat het jouw tool is. Tot nu toe werkt het fantastisch (een keer was er aanvankelijk nog een storend zwart vierkantje maar bij een twee poging was dat weg). Bedankt! - Robotje (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Re publica Accra 18 – Day 1 (44534405870).jpg[edit]

File:Re publica Accra 18 – Day 1 (44534405870).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Svajcr (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mees & Mees[edit]

Hoi 1Veertje, er waren rond 1905 twee verschillende Tweede Kamerleden met de achternaam Mees. De ene was Rudolf Pieter Mees en de ander Pieter Rudolph Mees. Ik heb net twee files hernoemd omdat er wat fout ging bij naamgeving toen jij ze aanmaakte. Kan iedereen overkomen, vooral als het onderdeel was van een omvangrijk project en met zo'n soort instinker. Het gaat om (met de nieuwe filenamen): File:Onze Afgevaardigden (1901) - Rudolf Pieter Mees.jpg en File:Onze Afgevaardigden 1901-1904 - Rudolf Pieter Mees.jpg. De hernoemde files zitten intussen in de juiste categorie maar sommige links moeten geloof ik nog aangepast worden. Kun je daar nog even naar kijken? En, oh ja, natuurlijk nog de beste wensen voor 2021. - Robotje (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, dat is idd een instinker. Ik heb het op Wikidata ook recht gezet: daar had ik een verwijzing opgenomen dat de persoon omschreven werd door dit werk, en die waren dus ook alledrie bij Pieter terecht gekomen. Jij ook het beste voor het nieuwe jaar. Vandaag heeft het publiek domein deze James Bond lookalike erbij gekregen :P Vera ^(talk) 19:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dememorixer vraagje[edit]

Hoi 1Veertje, soms staan er bij RKD twee varianten van een afbeelding op dezelfde pagina (zie bijv. hier waar de tweede afbeelding me iets duidelijker lijkt). Is er een manier/trucje om de tweede afbeelding bij Dememorixer te kiezen? - Robotje (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

als je de url van de thumbnail invoert krijg je die. Vera ^(talk) 14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zal het binnenkort eens proberen. Alvast bedankt. - Robotje (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Le Port (3635833798).jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:WW17-140 (33128562823).jpg[edit]

Hallo 1Veertje, vreemde foto vind ik dit. Lotje (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dat is sluierbewolking vanaf boven gefotografeerd vanuit een eenmotorenvliegtuig. Vera ^(talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt 1Veertje voor de toelichting. Ik voeg dit aan de "description" toe. :-) Lotje (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Maria Tesselschade Roemers Visscher (2).jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Maria Tesselschade Roemers Visscher (2).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Tesselschade Roemers Visscher (2).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Dear 1Veertje..I ask help for two different issues:

I've made a category on Commons (Go Straight) along with its Wikidata counterpart, and I've made a connection to it. The page is now connected from Wikidata to Commons, but not vice versa! What's wrong?
I suggest to rename the category Category:Sammy Brooks (actor) (a silent film actor) to Category:Sammy Brooks. But the suggested name is already being held by an actress. I think the actress deserve the name Category:Sammy Brooks (actress), because she has much less free files than the actor.I prefer to solve the naming matter before connecting the actor's page to wikidata--Maher27777 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! 1.: the cash "Go Straight" category simply hadn't updated yet. There's the "Page Purge" maintenance tool you can enable in your list of Gadgets that enables you to purge the cash of a page. 2.: I've created a disambiguation-page for the Sammy Brooks category. --Vera ^(talk) 12:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoalbum Tweede Kamerleden 1875[edit]

Hoi 1Veertje, ik kwam net dit tegen. Een fotoalbum met de Tweede Kamerleden van 1874-1875. Alle foto's zijn dus minstens 145 jaar oud maar zonder vermelding van de fotograaf. Met het sjabloon {{PD-old-assumed}} dus prima op Commons te gebruiken. Ik moest dan ook meteen aan jou denken met je fantastische serie foto's van Nederlandse parlementariërs van 1913 en eerder 1903/1904. Als je zin hebt, weer een mooie uitdaging. Zo niet, dan zal ik de komende tijd alleen voor de parlementariërs zonder afbeelding op Commons wat afbeeldingen gaan uploaden. Kende je dat album trouwens? - Robotje (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., nr. 68 is Johannes Hendricus Hubertus Poorter (1804-1870) die Tweede Kamerlid was van 1850 tot 1866. Tenminste een deel van de foto's in het album zijn dus nog langer geleden gemaakt. - Robotje (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben intussen een beetje begonnen om uit dat album afbeeldingen over te nemen waar hij parlementariërs betreft waar we nog geen afbeelding van hebben en daarnaast duidelijk is wie afgebeeld is. Bovendien heb ik nog twee soortgelijke albums met foto's van Tweede Kamerleden aangetroffen op de RKD site ([1] en [2]). Mocht je t.z.t. nog systematisch een of meer van die albums willen nalopen, dan weet je vast dat ik al bezig geweest ben. - Robotje (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Het kan best wel eens zo zijn dat ik het boek in het echt gezien heb bij de rondleiding aan Wikipedianen in de Tweede Kamer eind 2019. Een aantal fotoboeken waren door de gids getoond die bewaard werden in een vochtig keldertje, wat de archivarissen onder het gezelschap erg bezwaarlijk vonden. Ik weet nog niet wanneer ik hier tijd voor heb. --Vera ^(talk) 16:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nog even een update. Ik ben enkele maanden o.a. bezig geweest met het zoeken naar afbeeldingen voor Commons van Tweede Kamerleden waar we op Commons nog geen afbeelding hadden. Dat viel niet mee, maar alles bij elkaar is het toch heel wat keren gelukt. Voor mezelf heb ik dat eigen project voor nu afgesloten. Bij Wikidata zijn momenteel 2623 Q-items waarbij bij Ambt 'Tweede Kamerlid' is opgegeven. Daarvan zijn er nog maar 787 zonder een afbeelding (P18). Het percentage van Tweede Kamerleden waarvoor we al wel een afbeelding hebben is dus intussen opgelopen tot 70%. Er waren laatst verkiezingen en komende week worden de nieuwe Kamerleden beëdigd dus dan zal de situatie iets veranderen. Hopelijk hebben we al vrij snel weer voor de meeste nieuwe Kamerleden een afbeelding. - Robotje (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoFoP-Luxembourg[edit]

Template:NoFoP-Luxembourg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:NEXT Conference (43916213835).jpg[edit]

File:NEXT Conference (43916213835).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons![edit]

Dear 1Veertje

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:OTRS release generator[edit]

The translation is OK. But this phase of last step:

Una vez que haya enviado el correo, usted haya terminado! Un voluntario de Wikimedia OTRS le responderá cuando se procese su correo. El tiempo de atraso es actualmente 7 días.

It should be translated as:

Una vez que haya enviado el correo, ¡usted habrá terminado! Un voluntario de Wikimedia OTRS le responderá cuando se procese su correo. El tiempo de espera es actualmente 7 días.

It seems that the rest translated well. So I don't see a problem.--DSan (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only the welcome message and "start" hadn't been translated yet. Because I had made my assessment of a Spanish translation being missing as a whole based on that. As you can see in the version history User:Ecelan helped with that bit last Tuesday. I had also posted a request for translation on the Spanish Wikipedia. I'll pass on your improved translation to the creator of the release generator. Thank you. Vera ^(talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured out how to get your correction processed. has now happened.Vera ^(talk) 19:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC[edit]

Hello 1Veertje,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Rana El Nemr - 2012.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Rana El Nemr - 2012.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rana El Nemr - 2012.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Renata Litvinova (1984) (17995756052).jpg

And also:

File:Renata Litvinova in Moscow (17994705382).jpg

Yours sincerely, Vera ^(talk) 09:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardino Ragni[edit]

Buongiorno, l'immagine File:Bernardino Ragni.jpg. è una foto tessera che Ragni si è autoscattato alle macchinette negli anni ottanta. L'ho trovata in internet e la moglie, che conosco personalmente e che mi ha fornito il permesso per altri scatti, mi ha informata sulle circostanze dello scatto. Prima di pubblicarla ho fatto una domanda al Bar di Commons e mi è stato spiegato di fare come ho fatto. (Ora però non me lo ricordo, mi aveva risposto Sailko.)

L'altra immagine File:Luigi Antonini e Gian Carlo Menotti.jpg l'ho caricata in commons già da qualche anno; è una mia scansione di una foto trovata nella fonte che cito. Ho sbagliato a citare il permesso?--Manuela Musco (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:OTRS/it for the picture of Bernardino Ragni. Scanning a document doesn't make it possible for you to license a photograph: that is still with the copyright owner. Based on this info I strongly doubt it can stay on Wikimedia Commons. --Vera ^(talk) 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raoul Boucke - D66 TK2021 candidate Nr.10.jpg[edit]

The video is unavailable--removed by the uploader. I have to work soon. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-uploaded, I updated the source info. I checked and the others are still in the same place --Vera ^(talk) 21:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have to sign off soon. Sorry. I have to sign off now. My work has come in. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Day the Sun Went to Sea - 1974 Persian Story for Children (Vinyl).jpg[edit]

I have challanged your speedy deletion tag because the file may be public domain in Iran. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOTD Notification[edit]

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:A Night in the Newsroom at Daily Nebraskan.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Lubin (24961256615).jpg[edit]

File:Joseph Lubin (24961256615).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Photographer & copyright holder = Ivo Näpflin; so for clearly not an: "own work of Joseph Lubin" (= dep. person).

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

LexICon (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Ospina.jpg[edit]

Dear 1Veertje, I think that the file was not deleted. It's not urgent, but please, take a look to see what's happened. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, check. Fixed it. thanks. Vera ^(talk) 19:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Burj Khalifa (16260269606).jpg

Yours sincerely, Ras67 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Spiderman' Meerten Verhoffstraat Breda (18674189224).jpg[edit]

File:'Spiderman' Meerten Verhoffstraat Breda (18674189224).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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Photograph of copyrighted work, too prominent to be de minimis.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Di (they-them).

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minyeshu foto[edit]

Hallo Vera, ik heb de wiki translation tool gebruikt om een Engelstalige versie van de Nederlandse pagina van Minyeshu te creeren, dat is inclusief de foto waarop jij rechten op hebt. Heb je hier bezwaar tegen? Mag de foto gebruikt worden voor de Engelstalige versie? Groetjes Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Weet jij toevallig haar geboortedatum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawit S Gondaria (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey, ja natuurlijk kan die foto op de Engelstalige Wikipedia gebruikt worden! Foto's in de Nederlandse Wikipedia zijn afkomstig van Wikimedia Commons. Werk dat hier gepubliceerd is valt in het publieke domein (te oud voor auteursrecht) of is gepubliceerd onder een vrije licentie. Dat houd in dat ook buiten de Wikipedia's het werk gebruikt kan worden zolang men zich aan de licentie-voorwaarden houd: doorgaans enkel licentie- en naamsvermelding. Dat maakt dat Wikipedia de vrije encyclopedie blijft. Soms wordt ook auteursrechtelijk beschermd materiaal door iemand anders dan de auteur geupload naar Commons, dan moet dat weer verwijderd worden. Vera ^(talk) 06:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Mauro Javier Lugo Verón[edit]

Hi Vera. Thanks for pointing out about the picture of Mr. Mauro Javier Lugo Verón. You are commenting that "this picture is already in use at ProZ.com". To tell you the truth: I do know Mr. Lugo in person, and I personally used the picture in order to setup his profile at ProZ.com (that the same picture was later used at Wikipedia is a mere coincidence, but it was not "stolen" from ProZ.com). Hope this clarifies. Best regards, --Fadesga (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you can only publish this picture under a free license if you've made it yourself. The file as it was uploaded to Commons is missing the information about what camera model and settings were used when this photo was taken. A jpeg file typically gets stripped of such identifying features when published on a website such as proz.com. Until you can upload the original file this will remain an apparent copyright violation. Vera ^(talk) 20:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FoP speedy[edit]

I've converted some of your speedy tags to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Publicidad Luis junio 2019.jpg. Please note that COM:FOP cases are ineligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you're clearly not understanding that advertising isn't exampt from copyright protection when it's on public display. FOP applies to works permanently part of public space. Advertising is very much not a FOP issue. Vera ^(talk) 08:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn't eligible for FoP in the end does not mean that it is not an FoP case. Even sculptures in the United States would be considered an FoP case. The goal behind the FoP restriction in F3 is to force a discussion as such issues can be complex. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Future Affairs Berlin 2019 - „Digital Revolution Resetting Global Power Politics?“ (47959587208).jpg[edit]

File:Future Affairs Berlin 2019 - „Digital Revolution Resetting Global Power Politics?“ (47959587208).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

86.56.57.46 09:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burj Khalifa (16098657028).jpg[edit]

File:Burj Khalifa (16098657028).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. A reason for the tagging has not been detected or none was placed.

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Pppery.

And also:

File:Burj Khalifa (16098665758).jpg ( Nominator : Pppery )
File:Burj Khalifa (16100060749).jpg ( Nominator : Pppery )
File:Burj Khalifa (16260270066).jpg ( Nominator : Pppery )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Lente 2017 in Opdorp - 07 (33480946692).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Vera ^(talk) 18:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schiebroek Welcome sculpture 02.JPG[edit]

File:Schiebroek Welcome sculpture 02.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

PseudoSkull (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Future Affairs Berlin 2019 - „Digital Revolution Resetting Global Power Politics?“ (47959587208).jpg[edit]

File:Future Affairs Berlin 2019 - „Digital Revolution Resetting Global Power Politics?“ (47959587208).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

86.56.124.179 09:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRefine starts SDC development! 💎[edit]

Hello 1Veertje! I hope all is well :-) As you may be aware, OpenRefine has started development of features for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. Would you like to be informed about ongoing work? You can sign up here to receive occasional updates on a Wikimedia talk page of your choice. Also, feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions! SFauconnier (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The New York Times, front page 24 May 2020.jpg[edit]

I happened to run across this file today. It was deleted following a DR finding it was above the TOO, but it reappeared today. It doesn't appear to be a re-upload, given that it has history dating back to March, but I couldn't find any discussion about restoring this. Was this just a weird upload bug, or did you intentionally restore this file?

Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it was deleted for text copyright reasons. As you can see I uploaded a lower resolution version where it's impossible to read the text. Vera ^(talk) 05:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you were doing. Thanks. Vahurzpu (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boji - VOA 2021.jpg[edit]

File:Boji - VOA 2021.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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: This picture is from Reuters not VOA. VOA cited the video.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Kadıköylü (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ah, that's a pity. Vera ^(talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Hari[edit]

Even ter info, een door jou 'geretoucheerde' afbeelding van Mata Hari (File:Mata Hari 6.jpg) staat vandaag op de hoofdpagina van de Engelstalige Wikipedia: en:Main page. - Robotje (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, het is een van m'n retouches die ik het vaakst zie opdagen. Zo'n vergeling fixen is iets wat een fotobewerkingsprogramma automatisch kan doen. Had toendertijd eigenlijk netter een nieuwe versie moeten uploaden. Had nog 10 jaar minder ervaring hè.Vera ^(talk) 08:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nog even iets anders. Bij File:Piet Hiemstra.jpg heb ik vandaag een foto uit een Nederlandse krant uit 1937 overgenomen. Omdat er geen fotograaf vermeld werd geldt dus {{Anonymous-EU}}. Later zag ik bij biografischportaal.nl dezelfde foto maar dan niet gerasterd dus heb ik die onder dezelfde filenaam geüpload. Vervolgens kwam ik erachter dat er toch wat kleine verschillen zijn. De houding van de romp, de kleding, de achtergrond en zo zijn hetzelfde maar de hoek waarmee het gezicht naar de camera kijkt is net iets anders. Hoogstwaarschijnlijk zijn de foto's net na elkaar gemaakt en is alleen het hoofd iets gedraaid. Dat lijkt me niet genoeg voor {{Anonymous-EU}}. Ik heb geprobeerd de wijziging terug te draaien maar daarbij blijft de foto vanbiografischportaal wel zichtbaar. Vermoedelijk zijn moderatorrechten nodig om die foto van biografischportaal te verwijderen. Het gaat dus om een afbeelding die ikzelf vandaag geüpload heb. Kan jij me daarbij helpen? De foto uit die krant wil ik wel graag behouden. - Robotje (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nah, als er niet nog iemand anders naar kraait vind ik het wel best. De stropdas en haardracht doet sterk vermoeden dat ze op hetzelfde moment genomen zijn, en dus even oud zijn. Ook het parlementaire archief zou die andere foto niet hebben als ie ook niet gecirculeerd zou zijn. Vera ^(talk) 16:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prima dan. - Robotje (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red_envelopes[edit]

Red envelopes 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odapark Venray (16306057081).jpg[edit]

File:Odapark Venray (16306057081).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lodewijk Lemlijn (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odapark Venray (16306056421).jpg[edit]

File:Odapark Venray (16306056421).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lodewijk Lemlijn (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete[edit]

Please delete the image Iskandar Mahmud Badaruddin because Fake sultan, sworn in in 2017 and only one person, namely Habib Shohibul Faroji Azmatkhan, illegitimate, legitimate Sultan Mahmud Badaruddin three Prabu Diradja who were inaugurated in 2003 and pledged allegiance by 4 scholars along with many palembang nobles Please delete the image Symbol Kesultanan Palembang Darusalam because Not the original logo of the Sultanate, the logo on display belongs to Iskandar Mahmud Badaruddin--Budak Plaju (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

those aren't valid reasons for deletion. Vera ^(talk) 11:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean Swagers vindt tijdelijk onderdak.webm[edit]

File:Jean Swagers vindt tijdelijk onderdak.webm 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

92.110.185.14 22:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Instanties geven “niet thuis” ondanks noodsituatie.webm[edit]

File:Instanties geven “niet thuis” ondanks noodsituatie.webm 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

92.110.185.14 21:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gemeente rooit zieke jeneverbessen bij begraafplaats 't Groenedael.webm[edit]

File:Gemeente rooit zieke jeneverbessen bij begraafplaats 't Groenedael.webm 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

141.76.249.180 16:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haags Stadsarchief[edit]

Hi, waarom nomineer je foto's uit het Haags Stadsarchief? Die zijn vrijgegeven met de melding [Download afbeelding Als u een foto, tekening, prent, kaart of affiche publiceert, bijvoorbeeld in een boek, op uw eigen website of op sociale media zoals facebook (dit geldt ook voor besloten groepen), moet u rekening houden met het volgende.

Het persoonlijkheidsrecht (Auteurswet art. 25) bepaalt dat u de naam van de maker van een werk moet vermelden, zolang het auteursrecht bestaat. Dit persoonlijkheidsrecht kan bij overlijden van de maker zijn overgedragen op iemand anders. Naamsvermelding is dus in veel gevallen verplicht. Ook moet u de collectie vermelden waar u de afbeelding vandaan hebt. Uw bronvermelding wordt dan bijvoorbeeld: fotograaf Jan Jansen, collectie Haags Gemeentearchief.] Misschien handig om eerst even te vragen voor je foto's wil laten verwijderen? [3] File:Leeghwaterstraat, gezien naar de Rijswijkseweg, Den Haag - HGA001414420.jpg Joris (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dat ze zoiets op hun website zetten betekend niet dat ze overeen zijn gekomen werk onder een Creative Commons licentie te publiceren of dat ze überhaupt de rechten bezitten. Werk in je archief beheren is iets heel anders dan rechten bezitten, die verliest de auteur niet zo makkelijk. Dat jij die tekst interpreteerde als een Creative Commons licentie is onterecht: je moet wel als auteur/rechthebbende expliciet vermelden dat je voor die licentie hebt gekozen. Voor gebruik binnen de Wikimedia omgeving moet niet alleen voor gebruik door de rechthebbende worden gegeven: er moet ook toestemming voor het kunnen maken van afgeleiden werk. We hebben in Nederland op rkd.nl een goede documentatie over wanneer fotograven zijn overleden, zo weten we bijvoorbeeld dat File:Overzicht van Spoorweghaven Rotterdam, met diverse schepen - NL-RtSA 4029 PBK-6510-01.jpg vandaag publiek domein is geworden. In het vervolg is het beter zelf na te gaan of werk daadwerkelijk te gebruiken is op die manier. Helaas is er nog een taak voor de boeg werk wat jij onterecht een CC-zero of cc-by-sa licentie hebt gegeven te verwijderen, want er wordt simpelweg geen vermelding gemaakt van zo'n licentie. Vera ^(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik vind het niet duidelijk. Je zal wel gelijk hebben, maar ik ga Haags Stadsarchief wel even mailen hoe zij daar naar kijken. Bij het Rotterdams archief geven ze de meeste foto's wel zelf expliciet vrij onder CC0 / publiek domein. Joris (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Je hebt een collectie Creative Commons licenties die auteurs/rechthebbende kunnen kiezen. De vrije cc-licenties zijn welkom hier op Commons. Een tekstje wat een beetje lijkt op een cc-licentie betekend niet dat er ook daadwerkelijk een werk die vrije licentie heeft. Er wordt nergens daadwerkelijk naar de CC licentievoorwaarden verwezen en het is dan ook erg onheus dat jij hier materiaal hebt geupload waarbij je zei dat die er was. Ik vind het ook zeer onterecht dat die foto van PF van den Ende bijvoorbeeld door het archief gedistribueerd wordt alsof ze de rechthebbende zijn. Ze zouden toch wel beter moeten weten: bezit maakt je niet rechthebbende wat betreft auteursrecht. Vera ^(talk) 20:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joris: Ik zag dit toevallig voorbij komen. Zelfde probleem lijkt te spelen met foto's uit andere archieven zoals Velsen & Rotterdam. Ik zie ook aan aantal leuke foto's van treinen zoals File:Lisse - MP3012 - 18-05-1991.jpg gemaakt door Frans van Rooden, maar geen indicatie waarom het deze licentie heeft. Wellicht {{Heirs-license}}? Multichill (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frans van Rooden is mijn eigen vader! Dit wordt echt te gek. Wil je die nominaties weghalen? En ik ga er toch echt van uit dat als het archief een foto vrijgeeft onder PD (deze bijvoorbeeld) die licentie dan gewoon geldt. Dat is hun verantwoordelijkheid om ze zo vrij te geven, dan hoeven wij dat toch niet nog een keer te controleren neem ik aan. Joris (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, die was niet genomineerd excuus, mijn overlegpagina staat ineens vol berichten. Ik heb geen probleem met die nominaties van het Haagse archief, dat is mijn interpretatiefout en ik heb ze gemaild om te kijken hoe ze dit nu bedoelen. Ik heb wel moeite met nominaties van sites/archieven die foto's zelf onder PD vrijgeven. Joris (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joris: Dat vermoedde ik al, vandaar dat ik als {{Heirs-license}} suggereerde. Ik heb het voorbeeld aangepast. Doe jij de andere foto's? Dan is alles duidelijk en voorkom je onnodig gedoe in de toekomst.

Het archief heeft de foto helemaal niet vrijgegeven, dat is juist het probleem. In het Noord-Hollands archief zitten allerlei collecties van gemeentes waar alleen de metadata CC0 is, maar de afbeeldingen zelf niet. Behoorlijk balen want het zijn hele leuke collecties. Je bent helaas niet de eerste die hiermee de mist is ingegaan en waarschijnlijk ook niet de laatste. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is dit geverifieerd bij gemeente Velsen en andere gemeentes die daar hun archief hebben gegeven, of is dit een aanname? Er staat een foto met daarnaast informatie over die foto waarin expliciet staat dat er geen auteursrecht is. Het kan toch niet zo zijn dat ik dan die link van jou moet gaan zoeken om er achter te komen dat dit alleen over de metadata zou gaan. Dat kan niet waar zijn. Zo'n gemeente kan toch zelf aangeven dat de in haar opdracht gemaakte foto's publiek domein zijn? Dat doet de Rijksoverheid toch ook. Joris (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik moest even zoeken, maar lees Commons:De_Kroeg/Archive/2019#Stadsarchief_Amsterdam, Commons:De_Kroeg/Archive/2019#Category:Images_from_fotoburo_de_Boer en Commons:De_Kroeg/Archive/2020#Re:_Stadsarchief_Amsterdam even door. Er is een CC0 licentie, maar die is alleen voor de metadata dus die kunnen we niet gebruiken. Het "Auteursrecht Nee" is onduidelijk wat het nu precies is dus onbruikbaar voor Commons. Dit is ook bevestigd door de (toenmalige) informatiemanager van het NHA. Multichill (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vervolg op Commons:Deletion requests/File:IJmuiden Halkade gezien in westelijke richting, links op achtergrond voorm. Visstation - NL-HlmNHA 1098 KNA001004185.jpg. Multichill (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

update[edit]

Hi..These protected templates {{PD-US-no notice}} {{PD-US-not renewed}} need to be updated by purging!

that happens by itself over time. Vera ^(talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleting some unfree flickr files[edit]

Hello 1Veertje, hope you're having a great day!

Can you please delete these unfree flickr files (a copyright violation)? These haven't been in a long time, so asking for it.

1) File:Apollo Smile 2000.jpg

2) File:Antequera (Oruro).jpg

3) File:Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina 1954.jpg

4) File:Caio Andrade premio iBest.jpg

5) File:Carlos Martin Flickr.jpg

6) File:Chi Nguyen.jpg

7) File:Conference at the Berlin Music Video Awards.jpg

8) File:David McLachlan-Karr.jpg

9) File:Drew Dollar in ARCA Menards Series.jpg

10) File:Eastbound Bridge Opening Day.jpg

11) File:Pham Binh Minh on March 3, 2014 1.jpg

12) File:Pham Binh Minh on March 3, 2014.jpg

13) File:Visit to Units of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) in Egypt.png

14) File:Tsavo West National Park, lake.jpg

15) File:Phrynocephalus przewalskii by vil.sandi.jpg

Thanks in advance so much for the same. --Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 04:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotatie[edit]

Ha Vera, heb jij een idee waarom dit ebstand opeens is gaan liggen? Het oorspronkelijke bestand (dat stond) was opeens in de editor liggend te zien. Ik heb het daar 90 graden geroteerd, maar nu is het uiteindelijke resultaat opeens een foto die op de kant staat. Huh? Kan jij dat repareren? Ecritures (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik kom ook niet verder dan "moet ergens in het fotobestand zitten", zie COM:ROTATEFIX. Ik heb al de RotateLink gebruikt. Vera ^(talk) 21:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Memorix[edit]

Hoi Vera, ik heb intussen de nodige ervaring opgedaan met je zondermeer nuttige tool om een afbeelding op maximale resolutie te verkrijgen. Ik zag hier een glas-in-loodraam van Jan Schouten die in de jaren 30 overleden is. De lage resolutie jpg afbeelding is te vinden op https://images.memorix.nl/aha/thumb/mediabank-vertical/a11a735d-acb2-5d03-e02a-8a1bfe6c158a.jpg Dan zou je zeggen met jou tool moet dat dus lukken. Maar mij lukt het niet. Hoe kan ik in zo'n geval de juiste URL vinden? - Robotje (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben van alles aan het proberen geweest en met https://images.memorix.nl/aha/thumb/250x250/a11a735d-acb2-5d03-e02a-8a1bfe6c158a.jpg is het me gelukt. Wellicht kun je jou tool iets aanpassen zodat het met 'mediabank-vertical' ook kan werken. - Robotje (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Even voorstellen… Ernst Kuipers- Van arts naar minister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport.webm[edit]

File:Even voorstellen… Ernst Kuipers- Van arts naar minister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport.webm is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

F8. Exact or scaled-down duplicate

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

— Ætoms (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sina Nazari - Along the Way - IFFR 2022 (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
Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mijke de Jong - Along the Way - IFFR 2022 (1).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. --Imehling 06:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing.[edit]

Have a nice day! AngeredJawico (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimitri Gilissen, gemeenteraadslid VVD Utrecht (5207662488).jpg[edit]

File:Dimitri Gilissen, gemeenteraadslid VVD Utrecht (5207662488).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyright in metadata

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Agora (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimitri Gilissen, gemeenteraadslid VVD Utrecht (5207662488).jpg[edit]

File:Dimitri Gilissen, gemeenteraadslid VVD Utrecht (5207662488).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Verbcatcher (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breda Four[edit]

Beste 1Veertje, De correcte Engelse term is The Breda Four (zo ook gebruikt in de Britse en Amerikaanse pers). Zonder tegenbericht van jou verander ik de categorie The Four of Breda morgen daar naar toe. Vysotsky (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicht_geimpft!.jpg[edit]

Beste Vera, I cannot agree with your decision on "Nicht geimpft!" ("not vaccinated") written in "Nazi font": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nicht_geimpft!.jpg

This "picture" is propagandistic, not educative or documentary. And yes, it's antisemitic: https://www.belltower.news/erklaert-warum-ist-es-antisemitisch-wenn-sich-impfgegnerinnen-einen-davidstern-mit-ungeimpft-an-die-brust-stecken-99575/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/591656-holocaust-survivor-condemns-use-of-yellow-star-at-covid-19 https://www.adl.org/blog/shocking-rise-of-holocaust-trivializing-yellow-stars-across-europe

Please, revert your decision. Silberštejn (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of nazi propaganda garbage on here. That's what an media database that documents history is for. Vera ^(talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - but this "picture" does not document history, it is not documentary at all. The user created it to spread his own opinion. Please, revert your decision, it does not comply to Wikimedia rules. Silberštejn (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens today is history tommorrow. There are currently people that make pictures like this. This is also a thing that needs documenting. That makes it in COM:SCOPE. --Vera ^(talk) 11:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files Ordnungspolizei/Covid[edit]

Hi Vera, you rejected my deletion requests at Ordnungspolizei-Schnelltest.jpg and Krakau,_Razzia_von_deutscher_Ordnungspolizei_-_impfpass_bitte.jpg.

I had argued that the pictures were not educational and not documentary. You answered this was no valid reason for deletion. I cannot understand this decision because to be educational and documentary is just the project scope.

The two pictures don't document history, they are not documentary at all. Using documentary photos (showing control or detention of Polish Jews by German police in 1941), the user only added self-made text to spread his own opinion (that Covid-19 measures are comparable to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany). Please, revert your decision, it does not comply to Wikimedia rules. Silberštejn (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube-channel tool[edit]

Hello Vera,

Are you still a maintainer of this little tool?

https://youtube-channel.toolforge.org/

I tried parsing this URL in this tool, but it gave me an error 'Invalid input'. https://www.youtube.com/c/legianet/

Could you check if the tool is malfunctioning? Or maybe I'm doing something in a wrong way?

Also, if you need help maintaining/developing this tool, let me know. — Dudek1337 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the way the url to the channel is formatted makes it hard to deduce the channel ID. My script is not alone in this, this one can't either. Maybe the channel ID can be found in the source code of the channel's page on YouTube? I didn't find a Wikidata item about Legia.Net. It would be relevant to create an item about this website there and add their socials as properties. Nice to hear that it's being used. Vera ^(talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legia.Net (Q111475079) created the item. https://www.youtube.com/user/legianet does work. Shouldn't be too much work to adjust the script to also understand /c/username. Not sure if the source code is on my Github yet. I'm /VDK there. Vera ^(talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hulp met pattypan upload[edit]

Hartelijke groet en Prettige Pasen! Heb jij enig idee om voor deze hele blok aan uploads (van Maltaper) te voorzien van werkende RKD links? De metadata is afwezig behalve de RKDimages nr. in de naam van het bestaand, dus om te kijken moet ik deze edit steeds handmatig uitvoeren. Voor de hele batch (ongeacht of ik de juist item heb toegevoegd of niet) zou het prettig zijn als alle source regels gefixed kon worden zoals hier. Het zijn ongeveer 4,000 stuks totaal. Alvast dank voor het meekijken! Jane023 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

als ik het goed begrijp zijn de RKDimages IDs wel aanwezig in het Wikidata item waar de afbeelding gebruikt wordt, maar niet in de metadata van de afbeelding zelf? Volgens mij kan het relevant zijn de nieuwe SDC mogelijkheid te gebruiken van OpenRefine. Spinster heeft daar een paar maanden geleden een presentatie over gegeven. Vera ^(talk) 15:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zou ook OR aanraden! Ciell (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Future Affairs Berlin 2019 - „Digital Revolution Resetting Global Power Politics?“ (47959579472).jpg[edit]

File:Future Affairs Berlin 2019 - „Digital Revolution Resetting Global Power Politics?“ (47959579472).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

5.28.112.8 09:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on regex[edit]

Hello, I come to ask your help for a VFC regex. In Category:Files tagged as PD-BNF to be checked;, I would like to select groups of files and to replace the section with the PD-BNF template that takes a Gallica url (e.g. {{PD-BNF|1=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8626777x}}) with something other than this template in order to gradually empty the category. Some users are adding extra spaces in the template (e.g. "PD-BNF |" or "1= http") and some others are omitting the "1=" part. Please let me know if I am not clear enough and thanks in advance, — Racconish ^💬 16:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Racconish: ! sorry for the delayed reply. With the regex:

/{{PD-BNF\|.*(http.+)}}/

You should be able to reffer back to the url with $1 in the "Text to insert instead" section of VFC. Vera ^(talk) 09:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Vera. Please forgive my dumbness :do you mean I just have to insert $1 in the "text to insert instead" section of VFC? Cheers, — Racconish ^💬 10:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The regex goes in the "Pattern to match" section. Then the switch to the left of that field neads to be set to /R/. Then in the "Text to insert instead" section you can do something you want the template to be, and can reference the URL with $1. If you only put $1 there then the URL will only remain. If you put "{{PD-BNF|1=$1}}" in that field then the you get the template with the "1=" part that might have been omitted. Don't forget to check changes with the "Examine scheduled changes" option. Vera ^(talk) 10:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your step by step explanation is very appreciated. I will do as instructed

. Many thanks again, — Racconish ^💬 11:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcomeVera ^(talk) 18:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I am afraid I cannot make it work. As you may have gathered, I am trying to empty the category Category:Files tagged as PD-BNF to be checked. Taking the first file that shows up in VFC, File:(Carte d'étude) btv1b8458797n.jpg, I would have hoped to (A) select {{PD-BNF|https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8458797n}} and replace it by nothing (since the file is already PD-Vietnam) and then (B) replace Category:Files tagged as PD-BNF to be checked with nothing (since it is checked). Testing the (A) part with the regex and replacing it by nothing gives no result. Any idea? Thanks in advance, — Racconish ^💬 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the same regex and than leave the "Text to insert instead" field empty. Vera ^(talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the license out would leave these files without a license. Please don't do that and pick a relevant applicable PD license. Vera ^(talk) 10:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Why did you rename this file? The new name includes two typos, and the move was not acceptable given COM:FR. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The old filename was very incomprehensible to me, with all these unhyphenated letters smushes together. Didn't mean to misspell the name of the road of course. Vera ^(talk) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot uploading unfree Flickr files[edit]

Your bot was uploading a huge amount of Flickr files licensed as all rights reserves on Flickr. I blocked the bot for stopping the current batch until the problem is solved. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr user used to have these images licensed under the license stated and then changed it. I included a Internet Archive link for this reason. You can also find a large number of files by this photographer that were transferred to Commons before he changed the license. As you should know it's not actually possible to remove a free CC license from work once you've agreed to it. Please unblock my bot and try to do a couple manual reviews. I'm 100% certain these files used to have a CC-BY licenseVera ^(talk) 07:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know but I think linking the non achived page is not correct because that is not the source of the free license photo. I unblocked the bot as these changes can easily be done later. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the license review tag to needing manual review. This was always my plan for this set of pictures. How would you have me adjust the metadata for the other half of the pictures (total is ~5200)? Vera ^(talk) 08:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would just not link the current Flickr page for the photo. The archived page can be the only source for this photo with a cc-by license. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flickr images needing human review zit nu wel heel erg vol. Wellicht nog een poging wagen of hij de licentie weer terug wil zetten? Dan kan de robot gewoon de review doen. Multichill (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoe worden bulk-uploads gecategoriseerd?[edit]

Beste 1Veertje, Ik zag dat je via 1VeertjeBot vele honderden, wellicht duizenden, foto's hebt ge-upload uit Flickr, mooie foto's, passen goed op Commons, hulde. Maar ze hebben geen "echte" categorieën. Daardoor zijn ze terecht gekomen in de categorieën Media needing categories as of van de dag van uploading, of van een dag daarna. Die zijn daardoor bovenmatig vol. Een aantal eruit heb ik overgeheveld naar Category:Uncategorized media with description in Dutch language, maar ook die loopt nu aardig vol. Mijn vraag: Hoe krijgen deze foto's alsnog correcte categorieën? Is daar een plan voor? --JopkeB (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben nu nog even bezig met het uploaden afronden: zo'n 1000 beelden zijn bij het eerste proces niet mee gekomen/al weer verwijderd. Het lastige aan deze set is dat de auteur de vrije licentie heeft verwijderd op Flickr eerder dit jaar, waardoor er hier op Commons wat rode vlaggen de lucht in gingen. Ik heb gisteren een script voor 3/4 een oude

Internet Archive link gevonden die ik nog bij de afbeeldingen wil plaatsen. De auteur had de foto's in zo'n 250 sets ondergebracht. Die nalopen met cat-a-lot is denk het efficientIn totaal gaat het om zo'n 5200 afbeeldingen. De metadata van deze set had ik in 2015 gedownload omdat het idd mooie beelden zijn. Dit account volgde ik op dat moment al jaren. Deze set zijn grotendeels van voor de tijd dat ik begonnen was het account te volgen. In 2015 was mijn technische vaardigheid minder en liep ik er ook tegen aan dat zo'n grote set categoriseren lastig is. Vera ^(talk) 13:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor je uitgebreide antwoord. Wat een gedoe met die licenties. Sterkte ermee. Ik lees dat je een methode hebt gevonden voor de categorisering, ik ben gerust gesteld.

Nog een tip voor een volgende keer: Als je van een hierbij gebruikte categorie (in dit geval Category:FaceMePLS uploads 2022-05-18) geen Hidden category maakt, dan komen de foto's ook niet in een Category:Media needing categories as of. In deze category kun je als description vermelden dat het om te categoriseren files van jou gaat en of je hulp daarbij wel/niet op prijs stelt. Dat geeft je meer controle (en dan gaat ook zo'n control freak als ik zich er niet mee bemoeien).

--JopkeB (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dat ik enigszinds een plan heb om de afbeeldingen verder te categoriseren betekend niet dat hulp hierbij niet gewaardeerd wordt. Zoals je in de bestandsgeschiedenis kunt zien heb ik er zelf voor gezorgd dat het uncat sjabloon werd toegevoegd tijdens het uploaden. Ik wilde in de eerste plaats er voor zorgen dat het gedeelte wat alleen ik kon doen gedaan werd. Kan ik je wellicht interesseren in de categoryColor gadget? Dit is een uitbreiding op de interface van 'Commons die ik heb ontwikkel om beter te zien hoe grondig een afbeelding gecategoriseerd is door de kleur van het onderschrift aan te passen. Het voegt ook de datum van een bestand onder het onderschrift toe. Vera ^(talk) 17:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor je toelichting. Als de files door de Flickr-controle zijn gekomen, wil ik zeker meehelpen. Zolang dat niet is gebeurd, ben ik bang dat mijn werk voor niets is als ze alsnog verwijderd worden, dat heb ik te vaak meegemaakt. Dank ook voor je gadget, ik heb hem uitgeprobeerd, maar vooralsnog ga ik hem niet gebruiken. --JopkeB (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ze zijn allen door de review gekomen. Vera ^(talk) 18:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gefeliciteerd! Ik had er een hard hoofd in, maar ben blij dat ze mogen blijven. Om mijn belofte na te komen: hoe vind ik gemakkelijk de files die nog categorieën nodig hebben? Als ik zoek met "media needing categories" FaceMePLS vind ik ruim 2200 hits, niet allemaal door jou geplaatst, maar ze moeten wel allemaal nog categorieën krijgen. Persoonlijk zou ik er het liefst een aparte category voor maken (bijvoorbeeld Category:Photographs by FaceMePLS needing categories, met als bovenliggende categorieën Category:Uncategorized media with description in Dutch language en wellicht Category:Photographs by FaceMePLS) waaruit ik kan werken. Wat vind je daarvan, gebruik je al een andere methode en/of heb je een beter idee? --JopkeB (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: er staan nogal wat afbeeldingen zoals deze bij commons. Interessant ware misschien een categorie die aangeeft dat het hier om "gedekte" schapen gaat (gezien de groene kleurstof afkomstig van het dekblok). Of misschien bestaat er reeds een dergelijke category? Thanks.

Lotje (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Ongetwijfeld zou het goed zijn om voor dit soort afbeeldingen een aparte categorie te maken. Maar ik heb geen andere foto's kunnen vinden en ook geen categorie die er op lijkt. Dus ga gerust je gang. Ik ben al blij als we de duizenden nieuwe foto's van FaceMePLS fatsoenlijk kunnen categoriseren, al is het maar in hoofdcategorieën, dat is één van de dingen uit een lange lijst waar ik me op ga concentreren. --JopkeB (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JopkeB (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) ja, vreemd is het wel

Eerder had ik er een hele resem op mijn scherm staan. Komt wel terug denk ik. Grts. Lotje (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Met deze zoekquery heb je ze allemaal Vera ^(talk) 13:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, Vera, ik ga ermee aan de slag. --JopkeB (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De gallaries die ik gemaakt heb voor het review proces bieden een overzicht obv crearie- en publicatiedatum. Dat zijn vaak foto's die wat met elkaar te maken hebben. Vooralsnog laat ik deze galleries staan omdat dit ook wel handig is bij het categoriseren. Bij de "what links here" sectie kan je die vinden. Ik was ook nog van plan "2008 in Amsterdam" ed categorieën toe te voegen door middel van een scriptje. Vera ^(talk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ik voeg vooralsnog alleen inhoudelijke categorieën toe, vooral over het "wat" (wat zien we op de foto) en "waar", de data laat ik zitten. Hoe vind ik de galleries precies, in welke pagina's staan de genoemde "what links here" links? --JopkeB (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zie bijvoorbeeld File:'Lighthouse Brandaris' Terschelling (2533912217).jpg#File usage on Commons. In zo'n onerzicht zat nog een afbeelding van deze vuurtoren die al gecategoriseerd was. Vera ^(talk) 18:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1Veertje: betekent dit dat hier bv. de Category:Uncategorized media with description in Dutch language handmatig dient verwijderd? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klopt Vera ^(talk) 21:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Nicole Brenez[edit]

Dear Madam Vera de Kok, the photo you took of https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brenez#/media/Fichier:Nicole_Brenez_-_The_Image_You_Missed_-_IFFR_2018-1.jpg makes her very sad. Is it possible not to show it on the wiki article ? Madam Brenez is not a movie Star, her photo don't appear on the covers of the books she wrote. She asked you not to post. So what is the reason this photo is so important ? Please. Acide borique (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A photo improves the quality of a Wikipedia article tremendously. Because Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia we only accept material that has a free license. This material is rare and hard to source. One of the ways I help to make Wikipedia better is by going to events to take photographs so I can publish them under such a license. That's why I was at the scheduled photo call for the premiere of her movie and that's why it's the only free license photograph we have of her. Vera ^(talk) 06:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not her movie. Nicole Brenez is not a movie star nor a director. Presenting her like a movie producer when she is mainly a professor and a film critic does not "improve the quality of the article tremendously". Acide borique (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph does tremendously improve the quality of a Wikipedia article. This is so obvious that I will not discuss this further. Vera ^(talk) 09:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FaceMePLS uploads 2022-05-18[edit]

I am not sure if you uploaded the files from Category:FaceMePLS uploads 2022-05-18 or if someone else used your bot, but I am currently setting up a bot request to go through these images. I have also mentioned this issue on the administrators' noticeboard as a part of my request to get some help clearing out Category:Flickr images needing human review. Just wanted to give you a head up.--Elisfkc (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Logo[edit]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sionstraat 2, Voorburg (2).JPG[edit]

Beste 1Veertje, het lijkt erop dat de afbeelding op File:Sionstraat 2, Voorburg (2).JPG niet Sionstraat 2 is, maar dat Sionstraat 4 is, osm streetview. Ik pas de beschrijving daarom aan. Wimmel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

file:Flowchart_geschiedenis_vorming_NTR.png[edit]

Ik heb je afbeelding behalve bij de NTR ook ingevoegd in de artikelen over NPS, RVU, Teleac, NOT en Educom! Bedankt voor het maken van de afbeelding! IIVQ (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, dit was mijn allereerste upload naar Commons. Inmiddels zit ik bijna aan de 75.000 Vera ^(talk) 14:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jan Duys[edit]

@1Veertje: 1VeertjeBot had dit aangemaakt en ik vroeg me of een rename hier kan: spelling: J. E. W. Duijs en ook hier. Kan je dit even nazien? Thanks Lotje (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

het achterliggende scrip neemt een serie Q-nummers en maakt op basis daarvan de wikitext voor een categorie op Commons. Omdat Duys de spelling op Wikidata is in het Engels was die spelling overgenomen. In die tijd kwam het wel eens voor dat de y en ij dan weer wel en dan weer niet gebruikt werd dus ik heb een redirect achtergelaten. Vera ^(talk) 16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr images by FaceMePLS needing human review[edit]

Hoj Veertje. I've been reviewing some of your bot uploads. My question is: What do we do with files without an archived link? Do we trust your bot to have picked the right images or should we rather delete such files?

OT: I like your new signature. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the full story at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by FaceMePLS with review issues. In short: I downloaded the metadata from this account back in 2015. Wasn't skilled enough to complete the task of uploading the files. It is not my bot who did the selecting but me. I also went over these files multiple times in an attempt to filter out derivative works. I think my 10+ year record should count for something. The graphs at Flickr images by FaceMePLS needing human review/By date created and Flickr images by FaceMePLS needing human review/By date published also show that I had started following this account leading up to the final uploads in this set. Vera ^(talk) 20:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright. I somehow missed the link to the DR when I read your post at the admin board. I for one don't doubt that these files originally came with a CC-by licence at Flickr, but the DR should suffice to get some pro forma approval. Regarding derivative works though you might have missed this one. Anyhow, kudos to you for having gone through so much effort with uploading that Flickr user's content. Much appreciated. De728631 (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to prune the DW, but it was inevitable that some had still slipped through. It's sad that I have to say goodbye to following this account after so many years. The photos almost always had a nice documentary style and high quality. Would have been even better if I had managed to upload these files before the license change, but you can't see everything coming. Vera ^(talk) 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, with such masses of files there will always be outliers (and thank you again for zapping the one above). In general, it's a sad state of affairs that Flickr still doesn't keep a record of their licenses – especially in case of such a valuable contributor. You did get a huge chunk of that person's work though which is great for Commons, too. Now we just need to get the "approved" seal for all of them. De728631 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005-08-03 - US - New York - New York City - Manhattan - Central Park - Art - Taxi - Chin (4887619891).jpg[edit]

File:2005-08-03 - US - New York - New York City - Manhattan - Central Park - Art - Taxi - Chin (4887619891).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Beeldentuin Museum de Fundatie Heino (7285997756).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, JopkeB (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:DK-84 - København - Sign - Copenhagen - Denmark - Chordata (4890260463).jpg[edit]

File:DK-84 - København - Sign - Copenhagen - Denmark - Chordata (4890260463).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iceland - Golden Circle - Haukadalur - Hidden People - Road Trip (4890513620).jpg[edit]

File:Iceland - Golden Circle - Haukadalur - Hidden People - Road Trip (4890513620).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Web_Summit_flickr_stream[edit]

Web Summit flickr stream 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

10 0cellsman 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Peuple du Bois.jpg[edit]

Bonjour @1Veertje, voici le ticket avec la permission du photographe et coauteur de l'ouvrage: [Ticket#2022121210005051] Re: Autorisation d'édition. Je vous remercie par avance restaurer la photo. Je suis en attente des autres tickets pour les autres visuels. Merci Yasminkaa (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't process vrt tickets Vera ^(talk) 08:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Re publica 2013 Tag 2 – Trebor Scholz (8719240524).jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Re publica 2013 Tag 2 – Trebor Scholz (8719240524).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.

Lutheraner (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:ONLINE DATING- "VOOR ALS JE SOCIAAL BEPERKT BENT" -- -WZHV -65.webm[edit]

File:ONLINE DATING- "VOOR ALS JE SOCIAAL BEPERKT BENT" -- -WZHV -65.webm 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

92.110.121.107 10:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 1Veertje, You performed a very quick deletion of this (your own) upload. The video was verified as having a CC-BY license. As far as I know, CC-licenses can't be retracted. I think you (as an administrator) should refrain from handling your own uploads. Vysotsky (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a very interesting video, not one I would transfer to 'Commons today. It's better to keep a good relation with a big publisher of content like RN7 than to dissuade them from publishing under a CC license. Making this a drawn out discussion would be a good reason to stop doing that. Vera ^(talk) 11:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But do you agree an administrator should refrain from handling deletion requests of "own" uploads? Vysotsky (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. I've in the past uploaded content that I knew wouldn't be PD for another decade or so and than filed them under "undelete in 20xx" without involving other people. I upload a lot of large sets that sometimes have one or two items that don't comply due to being DW. Those don't need discussions, I just close them when one is pointed out. We don't need am even longer backlog. This video was from the time that I put through a lot of videos and like I said: not something I would have transferred had I paid more attention to com:scope Vera ^(talk) 20:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:ONLINE DATING- "VOOR ALS JE SOCIAAL BEPERKT BENT" -- -WZHV -65.webm[edit]

We normally preserve the histories of notable companies and don't delete files just because they're old. When had the file been uploaded? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8 February 2018. This wasn't a history of a notable company. RN7 is a local news channel for the city of Nijmegen. This was a vox pop segment on online dating. Vera ^(talk) 13:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and it merited deletion for what reason? Currying favor with a valued source seems like a corrupt deletion reason to me and reminds me of reporters who may kill bad publicity about a politician because they value access to them as a source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their editor said that they hadn't given permission. All involved need to agree to a free license, aparently this one video in their large catalogue didn't have that fixed. Vera ^(talk) 13:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what they said in the deletion request thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because most people don't know what licenses even are. I don't want to kick the hornets nest and have them stop using a free licenses. Vera ^(talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this doesn't sound right to me. If they meant that there was never a free license on that video, they should have said so. But anyway...Merry Christmas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays. Vera ^(talk) 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilmersdorfer Moschee -Algemeen Handelsblad 1923-08-09 (cropped).jpg[edit]

Vielen Dank für das hochladen des historischen Fotos. Allerdings handelt es hierbei nicht um die Grundsteinlegung der Wilmersdorfer Moschee sondern um eine später nicht gebaute Moschee der Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. Die Grundsteinlegung der Wilmersdorfer Moschee war erst im Jahr 1924. Auch ist im Zeitungsartikel vom Kaiserdamm die Rede, wo der Grundstein der geplante Ahmadiyya Moschee am 7. August 1923 gelegt wurde. Der Zeitungsartikel wurde zwei Tage später veröffentlicht. Insofern passt das. Hier sind zwei unabhängige Sekundarquellen: Muhammad S. Abdullah: In: Michael Fitzgerald u. a. (Hrsg.): Band 5. Styria, Graz 1981, S. 28. und Bernd Bauknecht: Muslime in Deutschland von 1920 bis 1945, Teiresias Verlag 2001 Köln, Seite 59-60 - Wenn keine weiteren EInwände sind, würde ich den Namen, Beschreibung und Kategorisierung entsprechend anpassen. Freundliche Grüße --Ceddyfresse (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Sehe gerade, dass in der Beschreibung auch von "Zuback Ali" die Rede ist womit eher Mubarak Ali gemeint ist, der Imam der AMJ siehe auch [4] --Ceddyfresse (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muriëlle and Maarten at the Forth Bridge -) (9358776243).jpg[edit]

File:Muriëlle and Maarten at the Forth Bridge -) (9358776243).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Malcolma (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bij de dood van Pomona - Vlaardingen 2023 (1).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
Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 08:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Judit Elek - IFFR 2023 (002).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
Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 08:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joaquim Lechà 2017.jpg[edit]

File:Joaquim Lechà 2017.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion as promotional material. Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow advertisements. Use Google Ads, Facebook ads or find other forums/websites. If you continue to upload advertisements, you may have to face some strict administrative actions. Please act wisely!

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now ! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Trade.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joaquim Lechà 2017.jpg[edit]

File:Joaquim Lechà 2017.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G10 (files and pages created as advertisements)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Lymantria (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joaquim Lechà 2017.jpg[edit]

File:Joaquim Lechà 2017.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Kadı Message 16:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Re-publica 22 - Tag 2 (52132536457).jpg[edit]

File:Re-publica 22 - Tag 2 (52132536457).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Olgi42 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Streikrecht-Tarifeinheit-Gewerkschaftspluralismus (17045553738).jpg[edit]

File:Streikrecht-Tarifeinheit-Gewerkschaftspluralismus (17045553738).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

131.220.49.143 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Re-publica 22 - Tag 3 (52136219459).jpg[edit]

File:Re-publica 22 - Tag 3 (52136219459).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jbergner (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]