User talk:Erik Baas/2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Andre Rochais[edit]

This picture is mine but I'm not the photographer.

Waroom kan ik niet het gebruiken ?

--Spiridon MANOLIU 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an error in the file: the picture doesn't show. You might try uploading it again. - Erik Baas 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weird: Firefox and IE6 say there's an error, but Opera 8 just show the image... - Erik Baas 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved. :-) - Erik Baas 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyside[edit]

Please refrain from placing an incorrect tag on this image. The issue has been explained to you -- obviously you are free to disagree and free to discuss it, of course, but not to stubbornly dismiss the concerns of other editors. If the black space is of concern to you, please remove it. And, your comments along the line of "leave it to the experts" are unnecessarily patronizing and show little respect for your fellow editors. Thank you. --Skeezix1000 12:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a couple of things that you don't (want to ?) understand:
  • I placed the right template, suggesting the iage should be cropped.
  • The people that do the cropping are experts, more than you or me. That's what I meant when I wrote "leave it to the experts".
  • They will know what to do (that is, just remove the black line, not the white border and the text). Again: that's what I meant when I wrote "leave it to the experts".
- Erik Baas 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to ask that you refrain from making patronizing and insulting comments. Writing "Do you understand all of the words and what they mean ?" is not appropriate. Simply because I disagree with you does not mean that I am incapable of understanding. Please stop.

As for your previous comments, yes I read them and I responded in the edit summary. You seem to believe there is a difference between {{crop}} and {{remove border}}, and there is not.

The template is not correct. You should not impose the burden on other editors to monitor all the images you have tagged to revert changes in case they do not "come out OK". There is a very simple solution to your issue -- if the black presents a problem to you, remove it. Otherwise, please refrain from trying to steamroller another editor with your preferred solution, when a mutually satisfactory solution exists. Thank you. --Skeezix1000 15:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find someone who can do it without having to discuss this with you over and over again. :-( - Erik Baas 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that. It looks great. --Skeezix1000 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crop[edit]

Hi,
You asked that an image I uploaded be cropped.
Do you know if I can just upload a new version cropped or is there some special issue to solve with licences ?
Thank you Ceedjee 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that this question is about Image:1920 demontration Palestine.jpg ? If so, you can just upload a new version, the license seems OK to me (but I'm not an expert). Thanks. - Erik Baas 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you !
I have another question... How to proceed to upload a new version ? :-) Ceedjee 12:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oups. Maybe I found. Thx. Ceedjee 12:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well...
On commons, it appears not cropped Image:1920 demontration Palestine.jpg
In the article where I use this, it appears cropped [1]
I don't understand. Ceedjee 12:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have to "purge" the image and/or the article (there's a tab on top of each page), or it may take some time before the server creates new thumbnails. Anyway, this one looks much better ! :-)- Erik Baas 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for Image:Herbert Samuel walking into Jaffa.jpg: I "purge"-d it, and it now shows up OK on fr:Émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920. If not: clear your browser's cache. - Erik Baas 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see what was the problem.
Thank you very much for your help :-) ! Ceedjee 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Erb ZA.svg[edit]

OK. I made a mistake. Bye Massimop 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ עברית ∙ +/−

Het is van belang om kalm te blijven, in het bijzonder als u antwoordt op opmerkingen over u of uw bewerkingen. Persoonlijke aanvallen en/of verstorende opmerkingen (Engels) laten een situatie alleen maar escaleren. Probeer alstublieft kalm te blijven en bedenk u dat het mogelijk is maatregelen te (laten) nemen tegen andere partijen. Een tegenaanval stemt slechts trollen tevreden of maakt andere redacteuren boos en leidt tot een slechte sfeer. Probeer hoffelijk te blijven in uw opmerkingen. Dank u!

Lycaon 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wijze woorden, dank je, ik weet (denk ik) ook wel waar je op doelt; maar ik werd ook nogal grof zwart gemaakt, en dat was ook al niet voor het eerst... - Erik Baas 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChathamDockyardJulia&Basin.JPG[edit]

Well spotted! It was meant to be the Royal Charles- but it is still missing! ;-) ClemRutter 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping[edit]

Hoi Erik, als je een foto (flink) cropped zou je deze dan onder een andere naam willen uploaden zodat het orgineel nog toegankelijk is? Multichill 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dat doe ik eigenlijk nooit, maar de ingreep was bij de foto waar het waarschijnlijk om gaat inderdaad wel heel fors... Ik vond 'm via nl:Haagse_PCC, en daar hoort m.i. een foto van de tram, zonder al die huizen en auto's dus (en zeker zonder dat onderschrift !). - Erik Baas (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinky Toys[edit]

I've reverted some pages to restore the Category:Toy cars cat. Dinky didn't just make toy cars, so both cats are appropriate - even if the images so far are mostly cars. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct: Category:Dinky Toys itself is in Category:Toy cars, so an image should not be in both; please take a look at Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. - Erik Baas (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a transitive relation between Dinky Toys and Toy cars, which is usually an indication that only the hyponymic cat is needed. However in this case, Toy cars is not an ordinal relation for Dinky Toys, merely attributional, and so the extra categorization should be left in place. It's not true to say that Dinky Toys are Toy Cars (some are planes or boats), only that the Dinky Toys category itself is a member of the Toy Cars category. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make any sense at all. - Erik Baas (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categorization is to identify pages as belonging to relevant sets or categories. Where such membership is already implied by membership of one category, the page need not and should not be categorized again in a way that would add nothing. All Dinky Toys were "diecast metal toys" and "toys", but not all Dinky Toys were toy cars. For an individual Dinky page that is a toy car, it's thus approriate to categorize it as Dinky Toys and as Toy cars, but not to also categorize it as Toys or Diecast toys.
This isn't changed by the fact that Category:Dinky Toys is a member of Category:Toy cars (as a category). The deciding criterion for how to categorize the pages is based on their (the pages') appropriate membership of the categories, not on the membership between the categories.
In most cases, the membership between categories is a defining relationship, i.e. an "Is A ..." relationship. All members of Dinky Toys are Toys and Diecast Toys. However this isn't true for Toy Cars (some Dinky Toys aren't cars). At most it's an attribute of these pages that they're members of Dinky Toys, and Dinky Toys is itself associated with Toy Cars, or more formally, "They are members of a set defined by a category entity that has a relationship with another category entity". That's all we can logically infer - we cannot assume that a page is about a Toy Car, just because it's in the Dinky Toys category. Informally we can assume that they're likely to be toy cars, but it's a mistake to assume that this will always be true for all of them.
It's still correct to categorize the categories Category:Dinky Toys into Category:Toy cars, because MediaWiki and Wikimedia don't distinguish between these strong ordinal relationships and the weaker merely attributional relations. The limitation of that is that it allows us to construct "soft" categories like this where their relationship isn't the simple inclusive subset / superset tree (and MediaWiki doesn't have a way to annotate the difference). When the categories aren't like that (as here), it's wrong to start stripping categories out when we cannot support the logical inference ("if a page is a Dinky it's also a Car") that would justify doing so.
Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nissenhuette.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt[edit]

Hoi,

Bedankt voor het plaatsen in de juiste cat van de grafiek. Mijn Engels was helaas niet zo goed dat ik een cat kon vinden. Groet, Sterkebaktalk 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PannerdensKanaal1.jpg[edit]

Thanks, missed that one. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I guess that's what happens when you edit them by the dozen... ;-) - Erik Baas (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crop or not[edit]

Hello, I saw you tagged my image Image:IX Fort (2008-09-20)19.jpg with {{crop}}. Well, I want to discuss a little bit about it. You see, this image doesn't have a border. Those dark parts in an image is a part of viewing gap, so, it is a part of photography. It can't be removed. In description I wrote: "View from an observation post in Ninth Fort, part of the Kaunas Fortress". Subject of the image is not a panorama, but whole surrounding :) Andrius Vanagas (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a part of photography" that makes the whole image ugly... The "surrounding" is so dark, you can't even tell what it is. It can be removed, and then the image will show a nice panorama of the village; as a "view from the fort" it's just no good, also because it doesn't show any part of this fort. It would have been different if you had used flash... - Erik Baas (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the flash there would be no panorama of that village, because flash would lighten all the surrounding and nothing would be visible outside. You must know it, if you have a camera. If you think image should be cropped, than delete it at all, because the subject isn't a panorama (also it's not so interesting panorama) :) oh, by the way, "The "surrounding" is so dark, you can't even tell what it is" - and without that "surrounding" you can't tell what it is at all :) Andrius Vanagas (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagespam croppen[edit]

Het resultaat

Hoi Erik, er is iemand aan het imagespammen. Jij bent goed in knippen ik ik vroeg me af op je deze afbeeldingen van de spam kan ontdoen? Als je geen zin tijd of wat dan ook hebt dan moet je het zeggen, dan ga ik zelf wel even met de schaar in de weer. Alvast bedankt, Multichill (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nog een sokpop. Multichill (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ik kijk vanavond even of ik het prachtige werk van deze slimmerik bruikbaar kan maken. ;-) - Erik Baas (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ik ben in de wondere wereld van het klonen terechtgekomen. Zie de afbeelding hiernaast. Ben er nog niet helemaal tevreden over, maar het gaat wel de goede kant uit. Ben jij daar een beetje handig in? Multichill (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ziet er goed uit, toch ? Alleen als je de helderheid opschroeft kun je nog zien dat de deur bewerkt is, en wie het niet vooraf weet zal het niet opmerken. Ik poets inmiddels de gekste dingen vrijwel onzichtbaar weg ;-) , maar er zijn grenzen: sommige dingen kunnen gewoon niet zonder een lelijk resultaat achter te laten, en deze lijkt me wat dat betreft al vrij lastig. - Erik Baas (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb de rest ook gedaan, sommige waren al gecropped of anderszins bewerkt, voor de meeste heb ik de makkelijke weg gekozen: zulke bijzondere foto's zijn het nou ook weer niet... - Erik Baas (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact[edit]

Beste Erik Baas,

Zou je zo vriendelijk willen zijn contact met mij op te nemen? Ik heb een vraag over een foto die jij op Wikipedia hebt geplaatst en ik stel deze liever per e-mail. Je kunt mij bereiken via marjet.de.ruyter@nti.nl.

Alvast hartelijk bedankt.

Image:NS_Logo_2.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:NS_Logo_2.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

Sterkebaktalk 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan and Cole Sprouse.jpg[edit]

Where did you find this image? It seems to me to be a copyvio. See Image talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse.jpg. -- Zsero (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong person: I didn't upload this image. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the history of Image:12387713a4898924939l1.jpg: I may (IIRC) have put {Remove border} and/or {Rename} templates on that image, which later was moved to Image:Dylan and Cole Sprouse.jpg. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't exist, so it has no history (at least not one visible to the public). -- Zsero (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's really that important, you should ask an administrator. But, once again: I did not upload that image. - Erik Baas (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're not going to be deleted[edit]

Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you're interested to see why I think these are useful, please see Commons:Photo scavenger hunts (which is a work in progress). Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mănăstirea Vlădiceni14.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Why do you think, this image should be rotated? Do you know the Building personally? I never have been there (I took the image from ro.wikipedia) but I guess you have overlooked that it was a view from revers, comparing to Image:Mănăstirea Vlădiceni.jpg -> see the background: mountains/ plaine (with Iaşi city)... --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of rotating the image 2 or 3 degrees to the left, because the camera was not held straight while taking the picture. See for instance Image:Mikulov the Dietrichstein tomb detail 02.jpg and Image:Hembrug.jpg, which had the same problem before Marku1988 rotated them (check out the previous versions of both images). - Erik Baas (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE:kWh meters[edit]

Beste Erik, ik laat me niet graag door een systeem op m'n kop zitten. Dus heb ik je suggestie geprobeerd in de "bewerk" pagina bij Category:kWh meters. Dat werkte niet zoals ik hoopte. Grrr. Als het anders moet worden toegepast, hoor ik dat graag. Er is uiteraard een alternatief, ik kom ook wel weg met Category:Electricity meters (kWh). Als dat trouwens de voorkeur heeft ga ik wel weer een berg files omzetten. Met groet, --Stunteltje (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb het nog niet eerder op een categorie toegepast zien worden, maar zie eigenlijk ook geen reden waarom dat niet zou werken... Zie nl:iPod, waar het o.a. toegepast wordt (via sjabloon {Kleine letter}). Ergo: kweenie... Vraag het eens op en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎ ? - Erik Baas (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Twents (public transport).JPG[edit]

Hoi Erik. Ik snap eerlijk gezegd niet waarom je een nieuwe versie van bovenstaande afbeelding heb geüpload. Ten eerste: de afbeelding is nu eenmaal om een uur of vier 's middags genomen, in december, dus ik snap niet waarom het licht opeens anders gemaakt moet worden zodat het lijkt alsof de foto eerder op de dag is genomen, en ten tweede vind ik de nieuwe afbeelding een wezenlijke achteruitgang ten opzichte van het origineel. Ik snap best dat de eerste foto lichtelijk aan de donkere kant is, maar dat er op Wikipedia zoveel foto's opnieuw geüpload worden met aangepaste contrasten, helderheid e.d. begrijp ik niet; het neemt het aspect van het moment van de dag waarop een foto is genomen ook weg. Het is zelden een verbetering ten opzichte van het origineel. Tubantia (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tja, ik vond 'm echt té donker, de bus was haast niet als zodanig herkenbaar, en dát - de encyclopedische waarde - is toch waar het om gaat ? - Erik Baas (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waarom zou de bus niet als zodanig herkenbaar zijn? Bij invallende schemering ziet een bus van Twents er nu eenmaal zo uit. Ik snap niet waarom dát aspect geen encyclopedische waarde heeft. Er wordt te snel voorbijgegaan aan de momenten van de dag/maand/jaar waarop foto's genomen worden; de stelregel lijkt wel te zijn licht-lichter-best, maar mijns inziens gaat dat niet altijd op. Bovendien was deze foto destijds de eerste foto van een Twents-bus die ik bij toeval snel kon nemen in Almelo; mijn camera staat echter een betere kwaliteit dan de huidige korrelige structuur (die dankzij het extra contrast en de veranderde gamma-instelling sterk verduidelijkt zijn) terwijl er thans tal van andere foto's van Twents-bussen zijn die scherpere contouren hebben (zoals bijvoorbeeld Image:Syntusbusrood.JPG). Tuurlijk, ik weet best dat het niet de beste kwaliteit foto is, maar een nachtfoto ga je toch ook niet zo licht mogelijk maken, puur omdat dan hetgeen wordt afgebeeld helderder zichtbaar wordt? Tubantia (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Een foto van de nacht zo inderdaad donker moeten zijn, hier gaat het om de bus, en die was nauwelijks herkenbaar. Een modernere camera zou onder vergelijkbare lichtcondities ook een veel helderder opname maken ! - Erik Baas (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrast, wellicht, ik heb ook aangegeven dat mijn camera niet meer de beste is; maar als je niet een extra flitser erop hebt zitten, ga je van invallende duisternis echt geen heldere winterochtend maken, zoals de foto er nu uit ziet. Kijk, ik ga het ook niet terugdraaien, maar ik vind het belachelijk dat van een foto niet zichtbaar mag zijn dat deze later in de middag is genomen. Lichter is niet altijd beter. Besef dat daar óók een subjectief gevoel in zit. En dat nauwelijks herkenbaar haal je overigens voor de tweede keer aan, maar ik zie geen verschil. Ja, de kleur rood is nu helderder, maarja, zo ziet hij er eind december niet uit om vier uur 's middags... Tubantia (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Je hebt grotendeels gelijk, maar bekijk het eens van de kant van een derde persoon die de foto toevallig in Wikipedia ziet: die heeft er geen boodschap aan hoe laat het was toen die bus daar stond, die wil alleen maar de bus zien; ik vind echt dat door mijn correctie de foto op dat punt verbeterd is. - Erik Baas (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meydenbauer Franzoesicher Dom.jpg[edit]

Please do not touch this picture. This is a messbild and the border is an essential part of this image. Please go and read something about Meydenbauer and Photogrammetry. Curtis Newton (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of time and effort in cleaning it up, so don't just revert it ! And what do you mean by "messbild" ?? - Erik Baas (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert it. This is a messbild (image used for measuring purposes). This image is part of the famous Meydenbauer Messbildarchiv. The border is an essential part of the image. Without it one is not able to use it for the reason the image was taken. Further readings. Curtis Newton (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you already did revert it, twice; you should have notified me first ! - Erik Baas (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meydenbauer Franzoesicher Dom.jpg[edit]

Hi Eric,

we had a complain at de.wiki about your behaviour at Image:Meydenbauer Franzoesicher Dom.jpg. This is a photo of en:Photogrammetry and therefore the frame and the markings are needed. Please don't crop the picture or at least give a reason why you think the picture should be cropped. Thanks, --schlendrian •λ• 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, I cleaned that image months ago... - Erik Baas (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I discovered it now. So what. Please go on and read something about photogrammetry. Curtis Newton (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sir. I'm sorry, sir. Pfft.... - Erik Baas (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Curtis Newton (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I was a little bit tired and my baby was crying - so I shouldn't have start this conversation. Now I thought about it. Perhaps it would be a good solution if you upload your version as a different image (i tried that but failed - perhaps due to my bad englisch). So anyone interested in the Französischer Dom could use your version and any interested in the measuring part could use the original one. What do you thing? Curtis Newton (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. BTW, see the cropped version; already there since yesterday evening. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cropping[edit]

Hi Erik, I would like to ask you not to be too generous with adding template Remove border to images. Where borders were added afterwards I can understand they need to be removed, but with older, historic, or artistic images, in my opinion it's desireable to keep them as they are or as they are meant in most cases. Thanks, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if remove template Remove border on Image:Grainsilo from America.jpg? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the border is part of the original image I guess it doesn't have to be removed, although I would like the image better without the border, and it would certainly look better in Wikipedia... - Erik Baas (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the individual image. But I think on the whole we understand each other. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mont Saint-Michel France.jpg[edit]

Thanks for Geocoding.   ■ MMXXtalk  05:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, I like doing jobs like that. :-) And I thought that such a nice picture deserved to be seen by anyone browsing Google Maps. :-) - Erik Baas (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photorail and watermarks[edit]

Hi Erik, I saw that someone on the italian Wikipedia moved the images token from Photorail.com here in Commons, and that you added the remove watermarks template on some of them. But there's a (big) problem about that, the license that the webmaster gave us (OTRS 2007051610009234), said that is mandatory keep the watermarks and insert the credits of the images also inside the relative image boxes in the pages where these photos are used (something like that). This thing is reported also in the old version (before they removed the notes of use of every authorization to made a table instead) of the image authorization page of it.wiki link (IT). It said is mandatory

  1. the indication of the author and of the site
  2. the original text (eventually translated with the same meaning)
  3. not for profit.

The user that dealed the permission, in a talk about this thing (IT) clearly said the things above and

  • The conditions dealed for the permission ask to insert the author's name also in the text under the image in the pages, upon the author's request that impose this clause to give the authorization, compatible with the license (it's the way he wanna exercise the BY clause of the CC license he chose).
  • Resuming it's also a way to keep the rights to the authors, 'cause here in Italy a not artistic photo after 20 years become of public domain (with this watermark it doesn't append as he said).

So removing the watermarks (and also not putting the credits also on the pages where these photos are used) we go against the license, with all the troubles connected. I think is better remove those templates, and specify the situation before this append. Bye! ;) --Alex10 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but that leaves us with anoter problem: Commons:Manipulating_meta_data#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons states that "Visible tags or watermarks inside images are strongly discouraged at Wikimedia Commons", and "We don't tag our Wikipedia articles with our names in a prominent way inside the article text", so I still think the watermarks have got to be removed, and the info shall be moved to the image-page (and possibly into the EXIF-info). If that is not satisfactory to the uploader of the images, we may have to point him to an explanation of "cc-by-sa-2.0", which AFAIK does not give him the right to put his own name in the picture. - Erik Baas (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those photos until now were uploaded to it.wiki and not on commons probably to avoid problems of this type (BTW also in it.wiki the watermarks are discouraged and we don't put names on the mainspace pages, except in these rare cases where the authorizations impose that). Anyway the CC-BY-SA 2.0 says
"You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"
and the author/licensor as I said asks that the attribution must be keepen in the photos and inserted in the captions, so IMHO is fully compatible with the license chosen. --Alex10 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, resuming that part I lost a key point. The 3 conditions refer to the original authorization of January 2006, when the photos were released under a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license. For the problems with the EDP, the webmaster switched all the photos to the actual CC-BY-SA 2.0 license in May 2007 (the one of the OTRS), so the point 3 since May 2007 is not valid, the commercial use is allowed.
Seems one of the wikilink of my previous post doesn't work, that's the good one: [2] --Alex10 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just some quick notes:
  1. the "not for profit" clause has been dropped by the author after the policy changes from wikimedia, as you can see on the authorization pages on it.wiki. AFAIK the photos are now a full CC-BY-SA.
  2. the watermark has been required as a mandatory attribution by the author. Ok, it is discouraged, but the CC license says an author can ask to enforce this clause, so it is pretty cleare that you can't remove the watermark
  3. the watermark was strongly required since according to italian law, if a non-artistic photo of an inanimate object, older than 20 years and anonymous or without a written explicit attribution on it (e.g. watermark) falls de facto in public domain. Most of the rail photos communities use the watermark to keep track of their images in the exchanges and to protect them from this loss of rights. Please use my email for further exchanges, I am no more an active user. C ya --Jollyroger (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, and I'm not at all happy about that. But let's leave it to the administrators from here on, okay ? - Erik Baas (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh? "Administrators"? Aren't they users just like anyone else? I got the authorization, according to our guidelines and to the CC license is a perfectly valid license, so what the hell an "administrator" has to do here? Those images were licensed for it.wiki, since i strongly disapprove the current Commons approach to problems regarding specific national licenses/legislation. You wanted to transfer those, your problem. Leave your "administrators" out of the talk. --Jollyroger (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have anything to do with transferring images from it-wiki, I have no idea what this is all about (after all it's 5 weeks ago), and I assume the images we were talking about were nominated for deletion, and that's why I mentioned the administrators. - Erik Baas (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ada Lovelace 1838.jpg[edit]

Hoi, ik heb gelijk even de vandaal versie verwijderd. En de DR gesloten voordat een admin per ongeluk de complete afbeelding zou verwijderen. Zou jij naar een afbeelding kunnen kijken als je tijd hebt? Der moet wat aan bewerkt worden. Sterkebaktalk 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filenames[edit]

Can you please explain to me what is wrong with the filenames? I had a multiple problems in the past with overwriting existing images. Since all images are on CC and the author MUST be given anyway with any use, what is the problem then? Zureks (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's neat to put your own name in the title; that's almost as bad as writing it in the picture itself, like some people do (see Category:Images with watermarks)... Your name is in the image description, that should be enough. - Erik Baas (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, when you reply, PLEASE reply on my talk page - I am not a mind reader and cannot know that your replied if it is not on my talk page. The "by Zureks" is NOT a watermark as it has nothing to do with a graphical content of the image. The main reason why I am adding this is that many of the edits are uploaded semi-automatically (with Commonist etc), so I got fed up with filename conflicts with the already existing images. So please stop complaining and messing with other people's images, as I can see from your talkpage you did with other images too. If it ain't broken don't fix it. Chill out man... Regards --Zureks (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I write my reply on the page where the discussion takes place; you have a watchlist, don't you ? I understand why you put your name in the filename , but I still don't like it... And I am not "messing with other people's images": I am fixing problems and cleaning up images that are on commons, which means they are not your images anymore. - Erik Baas (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the images - whatever. But do keep in mind that some of your actions can annoy people (as they clearly did in the past), so this might actually drive people away from the project. However, more importantly - isn't it nice when you log into Commons and a nice box notifies you that someone modified your talk page? I bet it is. For the same reason just do the same thing, that is REPLY ON OTHER PEOPLE PAGES, not on your own. When you are in Rome do what Romans do... Zureks (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1: Almost everyone answers on the same page. 2: Please don't shout at me; that's very impolite. - Erik Baas (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where you found watermark from my picture[edit]

Please tell where you found watermark from my picture because I havent added any watermark--Motopark (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which image do you mean ? - Erik Baas (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mekaanisen8.jpg--Motopark (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the numbers in the image ("89 7 11") that should be removed. BTW: The same goes for a lot of (or all ?) of your other pictures. - Erik Baas (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's date when the picture has been taken, I use camera where was possible to put date to the picture--Motopark (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please don't. The date can be in the EXIF-information and on the image's description page, but not in the image itself. See also Commons:Manipulating_meta_data#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons. - Erik Baas (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the year, picture has taken with diafilm camera and in that time there was no exif-info in analog cameras. Then the diafilms has been scanned to computer--Motopark (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that leaves the description page, or, more precisely: the "Date" field in the "Information" template, as the place to put the date. But please, please not in the image itself... - Erik Baas (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MearsMemorialBridge.JPG[edit]

Original image lacks sufficient source info. -- HarveyHenkelmann (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoorweg icoontjes[edit]

Hoi Erik, iemand is een hoop nieuwe icoontjes aan het uploaden en probeert de oude verwijderd te krijgen. De nieuwe zijn vaak niet identiek (net anders) en er is geen credit voor de orginele uploader. Verwijderen lijkt me in de lijn van Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded niet gewenst, maar wellicht heb jij er wat over te zeggen. Multichill (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ik zag het al, en volgens mij is hij goed bezig. Er zijn door verschillende mensen vele icons aangemaakt, die soms kleine afwijkingen in de maatgeving (slordigheidjes), kleurkeuze (onduidelijkheid over de "normen"), en naamgeving (erg lastig, ik kom daar zelf ook vaak niet uit) hebben. Hij is nu bezig de symbolen voor stations en haltes qua stijl en titel in orde te maken, zie ook de tabel onder [3]. En tussen de overige 3000+ icons weet ik er nog wel een paar die niet helemaal perfect zijn... ;-) Dat de bestanden soms net niet gelijk zijn klopt dus wel, eigenlijk gaat het daar dus juist om. - Erik Baas (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:BSicon dSTRnl1.svg
Zie b.v. deze twee: dSTRnl1 is niet netjes getekend, én de naam is bedacht door iemand die het systeem niet kent, de juiste naam is STRlf. Axpde heeft die opnieuw gemaakt omdat de oude versie ook slordig getekend was; in andere gevallen heeft hij nieuwe gemaakt. Ik kijk mee, maar alles wat ik tot nu toe gezien heb is gewoon goed; het enige waar ik met zulke acties wel eens bang voor ben is dat er een typo in een naam zit, maar dat wordt dan binnen een dag of wat wel ontdekt.
- Erik Baas (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my dutch got rusty, was only able to understand half of what you talked about. I coded several hundred BSicons from the scratch, trying to make them as small as possible and give them names according the original naming convention (i.e. <modifier> + <NAME> + <modfier>, e.g. Image:BSicon HSTR.svg is violating this rule and furthermore it can be mistaken for Image:BSicon HSTr.svg). If you have any concerns let me know! Groetjes Axpde (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for writing in Dutch, it came naturally. ;-) I mere explained your actions, that I think you're doing just fine, and that my only concern is about possible typo's. - Erik Baas (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BSicon_KRZ5d.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:BSicon_KRZ5d.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

Axpde (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please link images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello Erik Baas/2008!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg[edit]

I have fully-protected this image for 2 weeks because of upload warring it appears you have participated in. Please discuss on the image talk page any outstanding issues. I will unprotect that image when the dispute is resolved.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. - Erik Baas (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik_Baas/2008&oldid=20150740"