User talk:Jan Arkesteijn/Archives/2015/March

.

Jan, you forgot to change source.. File:Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen 001.jpg is not a York scan. Will you please change it? --Hafspajen 13:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you added a source, but I doubt whether this is the source I got it from. However, I don't remember my source. Sometimes I get images handed over from other people and I don't have any idea what the source really is. Anyway, in the end it must be Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Jane Digby, Lady Ellenborough, by William Charles Ross.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jane Digby, Lady Ellenborough, by William Charles Ross.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Theo Frenkel (Mann-Bouwmeester) in haar rol als Francine de Riverolles door George Hendrik Breitner

Hi Jan, You suggested that Theo Frenkel (Mann-Bouwmeester) in haar rol als Francine de Riverolles door George Hendrik Breitner.jpg‎ is not a duplicate. I'm new to the duplicate template, could you please help me why this is not a duplicate of the painting? Do you mean we should keep both black and white and color reproduction of a painting? Or is this not the same painting? --Hannolans (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Note that there is also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breitner_Mann_Bouwmeester_original.jpg is that one the painting in an earlier state? --Hannolans (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand that black and white needs another entity. I added the field other versions with a gallery, could you have a look if it is correct like this? --Hannolans (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hannolans, there is no strict procedure concerning duplicates, only guidelines. Almost everything here is managed through guidelines, although some would like to see that differently. You added a template that says this image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version. It is not scaled down, in fact it is bigger. And it is not an exact duplicate, it is a black and white version of the image. I don't especially hang on to this version but I don't like lame reasoning determine it's deletion. The category you added looks alright to me, but my personal opinion is that it is to specific. It is obvious that it is a black and white image, and the category is only valid until someone decides to overwrite it with a colour version. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Is there a guideline of artwork to keep both the colored and a black and white? I wasnt aware that the black and white one is of better quality. If I find a better color resolution should we replace this black and white as duplicate or keep both? I added a gallery with the different versions. Did you have a look at it, especially because we have two black and white versions of the painting, but in two stages? Is the repainted version of the painting the same year? --Hannolans (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with all the guidelines. I rely on common sense, most of the times it keeps me in line with the guidelines. The template duplicate is a very destructive one. Images will be speedily deleted, and most of the times administrators don't really check why the images are in that specific category. Commons publishes free media for use inside and outside the wikipedia environment. Sometimes people need a higher resolution, sometimes a lower resolution. Sometimes the need a colour version, sometimes a black and white version. The template duplicate is intended for real duplicate versions. Don't use it unless you are absolutely sure of that. By the way, the two black and white versions are not the same. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This was the first time I did use this template. Didn't know how this template works. In nlwiki we have 'samenvoegen met', but this is another beast, sorry! Yes I became aware of the two versions. That's why I added the gallery in the color version links to the other versions with a short note. Hope that helps others. Not sure if I should add those galleries in each version. --Hannolans (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to do that, I mean the gallery. There is no rule for that, but it is commonly done by others as well. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gerard van Honthorst (studio): Elizabeth Stuart as Queen of Bohemia (1631)

Dear Sir, You published a portrait of Elizabeth Stuart (as mentioned in the title) with the reference "Sotheby's". We are going to reconstruct the lost Heidelberg Painting Gallery (lost since 1685), in whose inventary a portrait of the queen in full length is mentioned. There is an other version of that painting at Heidelberg, Kurpfaelzisches Museum (palatinate Museum) (clearly different in some details) and a totally other painting of the queen at Govenmenr Art Collection (actually exhibitet in the netherlands). Do you have more informations about that portrait you published? Owner, Location, origin, provenience? I were glad if You could help at our reconstruction attempt. Please be so kind as to answer to my private mail: buehler(at)landeskunde.eu Yours sincerely Dr. Christoph Buehler - Forschungsinstitut Kurpfalz, Heidelberg --Geroldsecker (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I published this painting five years ago and since then Sotheby's removed the source, as far as I can see. I can only advise you to address Sotheby's. Kind regards. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Hugo Walker (1974).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hugo Walker (1974).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

MoiraMoira (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationaal Archief licentie

Dag Jan, dank voor het controleren en terugdraaien van m'n bewerking op het sjabloon van het NA. Ik wilde alleen de licentie veranderen, maar plaatste per ongeluk een oudere versie met de betreffende categorie erin terug. Groet, JurgenNL (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)