You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless Wikimedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality.
Thank you for being willing to listen and revise your admin decisions based on new information. Commons needs more admins like you - keep up the good work! Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Niele provoking to the war of editors. He absolutely ignores the arguments of the other editors that he was wrong and continues to revert of edits other editors. You can that something doing with this editor that violates the rules.--Hanibal911 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can to again install the protection for this map 2014 Russo-ukrainian-conflict map because the editor Niele again harms to this map he making not substantiated changes on based the not reliable sources. Maybe it would be better for a little while for this editor put to ban for editing of articles about the military conflict in Ukraine. So now another administrator has blocked it on for 3 days but at the expiration of this period, he again continue make harm of the map.--Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dag, Natuur12, hier een oude bekende. (Ik.) Zou je File:Julianvanberchum123.jpg kunnen deleten als dat nog niet gebeurd is. Gebruikt voor privacyschending op nlwiki, het Twitteradres bestaat niet, maar je kan niet zomaar afbeeldingen van Twitter plukken, nog afgezien van portretrecht. Dank en groet, ErikvanB (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Natuur12, I have collected a bunch of Youtube-CC-BY images over time, could you please take a look at them at your spare time, I'll be much obliged.
I uploaded the files 'Tim Leiweke in LA.png'. I noticed that you had it removed due to a copyright violation. I checked the copyright information on Flickr, and see no problem. Could you please explain to me why it was deleted.
Why do you think that this apparetly is OK? As far as I can see, no one was able to prove that the picture was published before 1923 (as required by the template) or that the template provides copyright information about both the United States and the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ik zag dat u mijn verwijderingsverzoeken voor oude bestanden van de Amsterdamse tram niet hebt gehonoreerd, met als reden dat ze nog in gebruik zouden zijn. Behalve bij het bestand AmsterdamTram+Metro zie ik niet dat deze bestanden nog op andere pagina's worden gebruikt, of zie ik iets over het hoofd?
Eigenlijk heb ik maar bij die ene DR een reden opgegeven. Voor de rest ben ik zelf vrij terughoudend (behalve met vlaggen en logo's) om redundant files te verwijderen. Deze kunnen namelijk ook gewoon door re-users gebruikt worden. En deze re-users hebben misschien wel de voorkeur voor een jpeg of png. Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nog even File:Schilderij, zelfportret van Jacob Por - Utrecht - 20428314 - RCE.jpg[edit]
Beste Natuur12,
Ik begrijp de verwijdering nog niet helemaal. De erfgenamen Por (familie) hadden dit beeld geschonken aan de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed voor opname in de publieke beeldbank van de RCE, waar iedereen het kan downloaden onder CC-BY-SA-3.0. Dus het auteursrecht is in Nederland geregeld. Maar in VS niet? Groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er van uit gaande dat de licentie alleen voor de foto geld en niet het schilderij wat vrij vaak gebeurt behoort dit schilderij in Nederland niet tot het publieke domein. In de VS misschien maar om dat was te stellen heb ik nu te weinig informatie over het schilderij. Indien de nabestaande het auteursrecht hebben kunnen zij toestemming geven om het schilderij vrij te geven onder een cc-licentie. Wel hebben we daarvoor een expliciet bewijs nodig via com:OTRS aangezien de ervaring leert dat mensen en organisaties van alles vrij geven onder een cc-licentie zonder na te denken over of het werk op de foto wel in het publieke domein valt. Voor dit soort cases hebben we eigenlijk het Precautionary principle. Er kunnen dusdanig veel vraagtekens bij deze foto gesteld worden dat er gerede twijfel bestaat dat dit bestand niet oké is. Er is dus bewijs nodig dat zowel de fotograaf als de nabestaanden akkoord gaan met een vrijgave onder een cc-licentie. Indien de nabestaande hier afspraken over gemaakt hebben is het vast niet lastig om het document waarin dit alles geregeld is op te sturen naar OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RCE-beeldbank fotograaf en rijksambtenaar is in 2009 langs geweest bij erfgenamen, mondelinge toestemming was voldoende. De Nederlandse overheid garandeert rechtenvrije beelden op de beeldbankwebsite. Maar dat is blijkbaar niet genoeg voor wikimedia ;-) Hansmuller (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Aquarel, portret van Jacob Por, vervaardigd door H.W. Rosema in 1910 - Unknown - 20428316 - RCE.jpg ligt iets anders, de erfgenamen Por schonken dit op dezelfde manier enz. waarbij er vanuit gegaan werd dat zij de rechten hadden op de aquarel door Rosema. Hansmuller (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
De tweede afbeelding is waarschijnlijk niet oké. Maar wat is er nu precies afgesproken? En rechtenvrij is nogal een dubieuze term gezien er niet afgedaan wordt aan het auteursrecht wanneer een afbeelding wordt vrijgegeven onder en vrije licentie. En Commons is streng, dat klopt, maar dat is niet zo verwonderlijk. Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On september 14th, you deleted the picture "Jean-Pierre Fragnière.jpg" that I uploaded for the article "Jean-Pierre Fragnière".
This picture was sent to me by Jean-Pierre Fragnière who took it himself a long time ago. I might have made a mistake, since this was my very first contribution on Wikipedia, but I would like the picture to be back.
What kind of proof do you need and where can I explicitly mention that the picture is free of use?
Do you know how to E-mail Zhuyifei1999 to tell him that his flickr review bot has stopped marking images since Sept 30 and that the flickr backlog is over 4,000 images. He has been away from Commons for a few days now. He would know how to restart the bot. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I was hoping other users can mark some images once the bot is fixed as I am free likely on weekends only. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have marked those images but can you or another Admin or trusted user please mark this image below as Commons has no good image of Jose Pekerman of Argentina.
Can you reply to this DR. Its clearly a derivative but the uploader is new and doesn't know the rules. Unfortunately, I have to sign off now and go to bed. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures deleted in Electrical Muscle Stimulation[edit]
Hi Natuur12, I noticed that the pictures I had loaded for [1] have been deleted for lack of copyright permission. I probably did something in my filling out the copyright procedure, but I don't understand what it is. Since this happened to me in the past, and you seem to have a good grasp of the copyright matter, would you mind explaining it to me, so that I can correct the situation?--Gciriani (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gciriani, In this case it is really simpel. You overwrote a file some time ago so I had to split the file history. All you have do do is inclcuding a license tag like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and the problem is solved. After you have added this template or another valid licensing template you may remove the no license tag. Natuur12 (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I overwrote it. Somebody else changed the extension, because it was not loading correctly. It was something like changing from jpeg to JPG, or similar to that when the pictures went into OTRS (a process I don't really understand). If I go to where the pictures where supposed to be they are not there. What shall I do?
Also it sees that the Wikipedia automatic e-mailing system for the watchlist seems to be malfunctioning. Did it happen to you too. Where do I address this problem?--Gciriani (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry, that responce was written for something else. Please ignore it.If you send evidence of permission to OTRS there is nothing that you need to de except watching your email in case you receive an email from OTRS. If everyting is validated an OTRS-agent will restore those files. If you didnot have send evidence of permission please do so, for more info about this subject see OTRS. You can enable the email at the tab preferences. Natuur1212:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures had been OTRS validated. See the edit and comment by Kylie Tastic: "Fixed images - just a slight file name issue - User:Gciriani pointed me towards the OTRS validated images". Could you please let me know what else needs to be done? Is it the case of an extension spelled differently like JPG instead of JPEG or of different capitalization? --Gciriani (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just deleted a candidate of a picture of the year and favorate picture in astronomy[edit]
Dear Natuur12,
Please review the full discussion regarding the copyright before deleting
Well, I did review the discussion before I deleted the images (except for the talk pages) but I restored the files for now so that commonsdelinker won't remove the files from the articles while the discussion is ongoing however I don't understand, you are the one who nominated them for speedy deletion. Could you please explain since this is something I really don't understand. Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have choosen the unconventional way in order to raise some attention here.
If a well respected organization publishes an image under cc-by-3.0 in a comprehensible way, it shouldn't be a matter of doubt to delete the image.
ESO is a major source for wikimedia, for me it is important to know for future contribution, wether i can believe their copyright assignment. In fact if we do not believe, a large pile of images has to be deleted.
You mean another solution than blocking you for vandalisme and whacking myself with a trout for not noticing it? A discussion in the village pump perhaps? Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Natuur12! I know, the rename reason is not exactly listed, but since the photo is not possible to see anymore in the article in Wikipedia since the last renaming. Please have a look at de:Cristo Rei (Dili). Maybe you have an idea to solve the problem. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OW dear, this is an onorthodox problem. I renamed the file for you but their may be a whole set with disfuctioning filenames since it was renamed before under criteria 5. Should be fixed in a few minutes. Natuur12 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, could you confirm whether there was an active DR notice on the top of the file page when you deleted it? Or there was no such notice after first DR was closed? It will help as to find whether it was a negligence from the TFA team at EN. Jee07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, calling it negligence on my part (and by inference my part alone) is rather harsh. There are lots of fingers that can be pointed in different directions - I'm not having them all pointing at me. Bencherlite (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jee, Thanks for the notice. There was an deletion template with the following text: {{delete|reason=Invalid closure. A file can't be kept under a claim that the image is anonymous unless it can be shown that it is anonymous. Such evidence could for example be evidence that the photographer wasn't credited in the original publication (which typically means that the photographer is anonymous). However, such evidence has not been provided here, and it doesn't say how to check the original publication to confirm whether the photographer is credited or not. The only source which has been provided is a link to a contemporary website, which provides absolutely zero invormation about whether the photographer was credited in the original publication or not.|subpage=File:Chadwick.jpg|year=2014|month=October|day=7}}. This notice has been there since seven October. I didnot know that it was used un the main page since a) the file was not protected b) nobody mentiones it and c) what are the odds that someone uses an image nominated for deletion at the main page?. So it is a pitty that this happened, if I would have know I would have left it open untill it was removed from the main page. @Bencherlite, nobody is poiting all the fingers at you. All you could have done wrong is missing a deletions template (I understand that you are the one that put it on the main page?) and stuff like that does happen. Believe me, nobody is pointing all the fingers at you but I can understand that it feels this way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I, for one, would rather avoid copyvio on the main page, so would say it being on the main page was a good reason to panic and get it off, not to wait. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Err, re your point (a): although it wasn't on the en main page at the time of deletion, it was still protected at that time - see this page which shows that it had full cascading protection at Commons at the time of its deletion. Not that it particularly matters now, but I was worried when you said it wasn't protected - if it wasn't, then we would have had another Commons protection failure in the space of less than a week (see here for the previous problem). Bencherlite (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can determine if this image is the flickr account owner's own work, then please close the DR as keep. If not, consider deleting it as the other Admins don't seem to want to deal with this problematic image. Or don't make a decision. Its up to you here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for determining that it is a copyright violation. Perhaps this account should be put on a blacklist, if necessary. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your intervention! I'm new to this place and the intense reception by a very eager editor was a bit too much. I'm really trying to learn the ropes, and I appreciate the guidance. Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, however it is most of the time not an good ending when somebody gets blocked. You might find Commons:Talk page guidelines usefull to read btw. You did nothing wrong of course when you removed the warning tags but some people can get a bit irritated if you do so. I saw that some of your uploads are deleted as copyrightviolations. If you are the copyrightholder you might want to concider mailing evidence of permission to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only image on this flickr account and I do not know if it is own work. If you think it is own work, please consider passing it. If it is a flickrwash, please delete it. The uploader appears to be new. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the feeling that those images are scans or printscreens. They don't look like "own work" but I can't find them elswhere. Either way, more opinions on those two are welcome so I nominated them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, that changes things. I got the impression that the JPG was used to illustrate a discussion but since that's not the case I will reclose the DR as delete. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dit plaatje File:Rollator, to help with walking.JPG staat zonder bron in de Delftse Post van vandaag. Bij "Attribution" staat: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". Wat betekent die laatste zin? Als ik het zo lees kun je het lezen dat wanneer de "author" niets specificeert dan mag de foto zonder meer door eenieder gebruikt worden. Klopt dat? Er staan trouwens zoveel "licenses" dat niet duidelijk is welke je moet gebruiken. --VanBuren (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beste VanBuren, het duurde even voordat het krantje binnen was bij mij. In dit geval zal JohannesJ dus als auteur genoemd moeten worden samen met de licentie. De auteur mag dus kiezen hoe hij/zij aangeduid wil worden. Bij mijn foto's is dat als Natuur12 maar ik zou er bijvoorbeeld ook voor kunnen kiezen om aan te geven dat ik J. Flipse als credit wil of www.natuur12foto's.nl om maar wat voorbeelden te noemen. En dit dient dan ook als credit gegeven te worden. Daarnaast dient natuurlijk de licentie genoemd te worden. Bij deze licenties dient er altijd een auteur genoemd te worden, de licentie eist namelijk dat er een auteur genoemd wordt. op Commons worden foto's onder een cc-licentie verwijderd wanneer er geen auteur genoemd wordt maar dit is een beetje een grijs gebied.
Dag Natuur12, de regel: "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" suggereert dat niet de naam van de auteur genoemd moet worden (in dit geval "Author JohannesJ") maar dat de auteur feitelijk een specifieke beschrijving moet geven die overgenomen moet worden door een gebruiker van de foto. De onduidelijkheid kan ik ook verwoorden als: "Attribution ... in the manner specified by the author"is iets anders dan: "Attribution ... by specifying the name of the author". Als de persoon die het plaatje gebruikt geen specificatie kan vinden van hoe de auteur zichzelf vermeld wil zien dan hoeft dat blijkbaar niet. Kun je me volgen? En wat betreft de licenties: er staat nu een licentie naar versie 1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 2.5 en 3.0. Er wordt steeds verwezen naar de laatste, dat maakt de oudere blijkbaar overbodig en/of ongeldig. Om verwarring te voorkomen zouden die dan toch beter verwijderd kunnen worden? Groet. --VanBuren (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beste vanburen, wat het eerste punt betreft, we zijn het geloof ik redelijk met elkaar eens enkel twijfel ik of geen auteur opgeven wel kan. Ik heb gezocht maar kan hier nergens duidelijk uitsluitsel over vinden helaas.
Wat betreft de versienummers, elke versie heeft een net wat andere licentievoorwaarde. Alle versies zijn geldig en die horen ook te blijven staan omdat deze licenties niet in te trekken zijn. Het verschil is marginaal maar het is er wel. De oude versies zijn ook nog geldig. Die oude versienummers zijn inderdaad een beetje overbodig maar weghalen mag ook niet en zo kan iedereen de licentie kiezen die hij/zij wilt gebruiken. Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deer Natuur12, many thanks for checking the recent batch of uploaded stills, but I've collected more during passed time! Could you please take a look in your spare time at:
Deer Natuur12, as always many thanks for checking the stills! I looked at the old ones and to my surprise discovered that some of them are already being heavily used in different projects, that means that our time was not wasted away in vain! I am asking you to kindly look at another batch: this time I have noted the exact minute of every still placement in the source:
I restored the files. We never delete files just because they are available in other formats - unless each and every usage has been replaced or can be replaced. In this case commons delinker bot can't replace them, and at least one usage at de-WP can't be replaced by links to the pdf file due to format limits. --h-stt!?11:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't undo adminactions ourself because we don't agree with them, we file a request or discuss it with the admin who did the specific action. If something goes wrong when the file is beiing replaced, what does happen every now and than, just recplace it yourself or go to com:UNDEL but don't misuse your tools. Plus your second statement is false, we do actually delete them if somebody just put the file somewhere to prevent deletion for example. Natuur12 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mark (pass or fail) this image? It appears to come from a fickrwashing account but may be too simple to be copyrighted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is better if an Arab speaking reviewer looks at the first image,I'm not sure of this one is okay or not. Yann marked the video. Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you or Lymantria know how to mark this image? It does not appear to be a picasa image but the permission is given on the image link. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, I told this new user on 6:19 on his talkpage that a few of his uploads were not free. Now, after 6:19 he deliberately uploads images with no verifiable online source...and I cannot find the source. He must be deliberately doing this and his unsourced images should be deleted...at a minimum since he was told what was a free license here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t have a google plus account so I can;t validate the source. Theere is something strange going on with that new user, his images are used here en this looks fishy. Added the no permission template to the image without the proper source information.
I will be away the next two weeks, first I'm in London for a few days and the next week I'm in an area called Veluwe so I won't be able to check my talk page often. Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grawp and a few others have been at it for about 10 years. Jermboy27 has been on Commons for atleast 6 or 7, and has done atleast 250000 edits here, all on roadsign images and cats. We have 2 sockmasters that I know of with 10000+ socks each... INeverCry08:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deer Natuur12, thank you for checking the previous uploads! To turn your mind away from all these scheming sockmasters and their ever-multiplying socks (my sock drawer is full of guys missing their mates, so now I know where to look for them), I decided to ask you to kindly check these images, the exact minute of every still placement is noted:
Hello. Please restore a deleted image file was deleted by mistake. The file that you want to be removed was removed about a week ago, this is the right file again loaded me with the correct license and faithful description, just the name of both files are the same. Apparently page remove the red link again turned blue after downloading :) JukoFF (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting the Table4five images. Ok, explanation. 1) The files are not overseen yet. As you can see at the bottom, I've been going through them as there indeed are useful files amidst the many, many personal ones. No other editor has mentioned going through them either. I am not yet ready with the files from " to J. I have not seen any of them. 2) There has not been much discussion. Consensus has not been reached. No one has commented on my comments as per what files are useful, and there has not been enough time either. Some of the files are such that my current knowledge is not enough to determine if they can be kept. 3) You are welcome to delete the commented-on Spaceship Earth files and all files without comments from "Spartys" to the end and from "H" to "Some of these". Those are good to go (unless you have something to say). --Pitke (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but it's not premature. This file is a clear copyrightviolation and that discussion is already over, only you refuse to accept the outcome. Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated the first one for deletion and marked the second since I cannot find other versions of this file on they internet but nontheles, the file looks a bit suspicious. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I not speak english. Hola. He quité las imágenes del artículo en donde se las usaba, ¿cómo hacer para retomar las consultas de borrado? --DLeandroc (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Natuur12 no sabe español y me pidió a ayudar en eso. Lo que hay que hacer es simplemente nominar los archivos de neuvo. Puedes nominarles con como razón (incluido una traducción en inglés): 'mapa contiene error, ya no en uso / map contains error, no longer in use' - Jcb (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those posters are likely copyrightviolations but we have permission from the copyrightholder for others. Some are PD and some are below TOO. It really depends on the poster. Not all of the posters can be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the poster where I filed a copyvio notice there was a picture of the candidate so it was likely unfree. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur12. I noticed the above discussion was closed as delete, but the image was not deleted. I think this was an oversight? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you misunderstood, and my request wasn't clear enough. The watermark was removed voluntarily by the copyright owner himself, not by me. There was no infringement on the copyright owner's rights of any kind - the linked draft does not include removal of own watermarks. As a new uploader, he just wasn't aware, he could overwrite the old version and uploaded the de-watermarked version under a new filename. Sorry for the confusion. But please do not imply bad intent on my actions, I usually try to follow current procedures - as far as I understand them :). GermanJoe (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is my own work and I have created a more accurate vector version(based on this).
I'm sorry but this file is in use so I can't do a courtesy deletion plus the file has been on the Common for more than 7 days so the file needs to face a regular DR. If you remove the image from the article, it is quite likely that an admin will delete the file if you nominate it but there are no quaranties. Natuur12 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moi Natuur12, Volgens mij heeft de gebruiker [[User:Richard Drost] diverse afbeeldingen van het internet geplukt en hierheen geupload. Ik had er een genomineerd en zit nu de rest te kijken. Met al die watermerken geloof ik er niets van dat deze foto's (of in ieder geval de recente) eigen werk zijn. Zou je hier naar kunnen kijken? --Meerdervoort (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moi Meerdervoort, ik heb ze op twee na allemaal genomineerd. Twee foto's uit 2012 kunnen best eigen werk zijn maar de rest zeer waarschijnlijk niet. Bij een van de printscreens stond de cursor van de muis zelfs in beeld. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moi, Ik heb inmiddels weer drie nieuwe afbeeldingen van deze gebruiker ter verwijdering aangedragen. Ik heb niet het idee dat hij wat uit doet op de berichten op zijn overlegpagina. Misschien dat er wat andere stappen moeten volgen? --Meerdervoort (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moi, ik heb de gebruiker voor de duur van 2 weken geblokkeerd. Hij is niet regelmatig actief (vandaar ook deze lengte) maar hopelijk ziet hij dit en komt hij tot inkeer. Natuur12 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you consider passing or failing this image? I don't know if it can be copyrighted but I thought it has this problem. The image is a recent upload. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the image for deletion, DW of a poster and McDonalds likely owns the copyright and not the Flickr account holder and I closed the DR. Natuur12 (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago, I nominated File:QuattroElementi.png for deletion. The image had then and has now no source. It's fairly obviously copied from a book or a poster. Would you be so kind as to either find a source for the image and get it out of images without source or reconsider your closure? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're problem and my closure seems to be a bot strange, however, reconsiddering my closure is not the outcome I preferre. I would rather see a new nomination based on the no source argument since the DR was about "scope". Natuur12 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those logo's may or may not be below com:TOO but more important, the files where imported from Flickr and the account at Flickr seems to be the copyrightholder. It could be a com:LL account of course but I found no evidence of that. You can release a trademark under a cc-license but there could be some consequences. We ignore trademarklaw but you can add the {{trademark}} template to the file pages if you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this DR. While many of the files are certainly derivative works of packaging, I ask you to reconsider the deletion of File:Freikartensperre-Cinemaxx.jpg and File:Freikartensperre Cinemaxx.jpg (two files, once with hyphen, once without). There is no drawing etc. to consider here, and the text is very basic and formulaic. It essentially says that it is not possible to attend screenings of these particular films with complimentary tickets because the film distribution company requested this. So the text is below the threshold of originality. Regards --Rosenzweigτ22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the best argument you can come up with for protecting ANU? "Trolling"? I'm not trolling.
I'm not breaking any rules. I'm not evading any blocks. There is no rule that says I must login to my account to leave messages. I simply don't wish to get in the sights of the people who took out Fred simply for defending him. He's done me a few favors and I like him as a person, and believe he's been unfairly treated. So your response is to deny me access and censor what I have to say? You wouldn't happen to be a right-wing voter would you, they enjoy the curtailing of people's free expression and reducing their right to privacy. Or are you just pissed that your blocking of a dynamic IP didn't work? --103.17.199.8023:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not violating any policy or rule. Perhaps you should read the link you gave, specifically the second half of the very first sentence? I'm not using Tor, and it says that users are free to use proxies until they are blocked. There was no vandalism, no rule breaking and there was no reason to block the Czech IP address. We have such a low quality set of admins these days. No wonder the project is going downhill. You block productive (but mouthy) editors and you welcome copyright violaters and perverts <smh>.
Are you really sure you should have returned if you can't even get something simple like this right? Also, I'm not using an "open" proxy, I'm using a closed one. Try and connect through it if you can. So please carry on doing what is easy rather than what is right.
I'm an American who has no particular interest in Europe. He speaks German, is active on de.wiki so whether he is Austrian or German makes no difference to me, to me they are pretty much the same thing.--103.27.221.25115:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fred the Oyster, please understand that saying anti-FtO (predominantly German) cartel is at least personal attack for admins speaks German. As a matter a fact you were, according to you rational, under international cartel - German, Israeli, Russian, French and others that support you indef block. But in fact you blocked because of your behavior which include personal attacks, bad wording against other users etc. And even that you were already blocked for three month after discussion were some users support your indef block, you still don't understand the problems in your behavior. Not even thinking for apologize. So if you dont have nothing else to do beside trolling go ahad. you will be one among others. And you dont full nobody by calling Fred the Oyster him. -- Geagea (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no proof whatsoever that I'm FtO so you are making unfounded allegations. Not that this is unexpected from you. Your history demonstrates your non-neutral bias against certain users. Why do you think I'm staying anonymous? It's because of unethical and deficient admins like you and their petty politicking. Incidentally, it's "fool noone" and "dont" has an apostrophe in it because it's a contraction. I think I made it clear from my report of the email conversation I had with FtO that he doesn't care about coming back, therefore he doesn't care about the block being lengthened. He is quite comfortable with openclipart. I understand why he doesn't want anything to do with the toxic atmosphere that is so prevalent at Commons. I can't say I blame him. This is quite apparent by the lack of action against Freud for his unsolicited attack on FtO. Without that, none of this would have happened. But because it was against someone like FtO the perpetrator gets off scott free. Just another example of the corruption and double standards in this cesspit. FtO has nothing to apologise for, he was the one who was attacked. If you can't see that then you are very much a part of the problem here. --103.27.221.25115:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tacit admission that you serve no useful purpose in this discussion, and that you are prepared to lie on a block log about your reaons for blocking an IP range. There has been no spam or abuse from that IP range. It seems my views on the current state of adminship on Commons is quite correct. --43.249.129.10218:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Views" is plural, so you should've used "are quite correct" not "is quite correct"... Now go find another page to drone on with your tedious bullshit. I need to up my protection stats anyways. INeverCry19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blijkbaar hen je niet zo veel van Belgische Franken. Het is algemene kennis en staat trouwens ook op wikipedia dat de biljetten van 20 en 50 niet zijn uitgegeven door de nationale bank en dus nu waardeloos zijn omdat ze niet kunnen ingewisseld worden aldaar. De biljetten werden uitgegeven door de schatkist (de munt) zelf. Daarom vallen ze totaal niet onder de bescherming van de NB en heeft de NB geen rechten op deze biljetten. Gelieve in de toekomst juiste en correcte argumenten te gebruiken. Vdkdaan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
En dan zit er geen auteursrecht op omdat? Dit betekent enkel dat de schatkist de rechthebbende is en niet de nationale bank tenzij je bewijs hebt dat de 20 en 50 Frank in het publieke domein vallen. In dit geval heb ik enkel naar het beleid op Commmons verwezen en dat in die samenvatting staat dat afbeeldingen van franken niet toelaatbaar zijn op Commons en dat er in het beleid op Commons niks terug te vinden is over of afbeeldingen van deze Franken PD zijn dus totdat je dat bewijst is het simpel, dan verplicht het com:PCP admins er vanuit te gaan dat zoiets niet oké is. Wat jij denkt dat ik allemaal van Franken weet is in deze niet ter zake doende gezien je zelf niet aan het beleid voldoet met jouw uploads. Natuur12 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the flickrbot has not marked this image, please consider marking it as an Admin. The bot did not mark this photo in 2 days strangely. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your revision to an entry on Wiktionary, which drew my attention to this file. The title contains a typo -- clearly, this is a map of countries, i.e. nation-states, and not counties, i.e. administrative or geographical subdivisions of a nation-state. Could you fix the filename? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig23:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zouden mijn foto's hersteld kunnen worden? Op deze foto's rust geen copyright, ik heb de foto's zelf gemaakt, vrienden van mij of ik krijg ze opgestuurd van de schaatsers zelf. Ik heb veel zitten in die pagina's en ze zien er met foto veel beter uit.
Hoi Natuur12, zou jij even kunnen kijken naar deze foto's van NinaAlice, de foto's zijn wel vrijgegeven maar met naamsvermelding. NinaAlice heeft alle foto's als eigen foto's geplaatst, wat niet correct is. Bij alle foto's staat op de pagina's vermeld dat de foto's zijn vrijgegeven voor alle gebruik. Ik vermoed zo dat de licentie dus ook niet helemaal correct is. Als je op deze pagina zoekt naar "jongenshuis" dan krijg je de meeste foto's te zien. Mocht je meer hulp willen... ik ben na 18:30 hopelijk thuis. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helaas wil mij browser de plaatjes niet laden van het archief :(. Je zal het zelf moeten doen vrees ik. Misschien kan je Bas nog wel strikken om dit op te lossen ;). Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain to me why this book cover is PD? Evidence that this cover is PD is still missing. I would love to restore this file but without a clear motivation why the cover is PD I cannot. Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be disrespectful, but can you, my dear colleague, explain to me, why did you deleted my files? Your colleague flagged those two files one hour before you deleted them so I had no time to make necessary edits. Futhermore I would appreciate to be enlightened which crucial information about my files were missing? I upload them with wiki Upload Wizard, I filled all columns, I stated that I created this media, no alert appeared. So how can I tell that something is wrong? Thanks for reply. --Tarenor (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the name mentioned as author differs from your username. That's why they are deleted. Or did you perhaps use your real name when you filed the author-field? Natuur12 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I used real name. Why would I use nicname when I am making a legal act? It seemed to me more appripriate. And this is the reason to delete any file without a hesitation? --Tarenor (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a map and no there is no evidence provided that the base map is free and the secnd image appears elswhere on they web so we need evidence of permission via OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I have to state the very same information, I wrote before by sending an e-mail? Or do you want to send a link to the other picture on the Internet or should I send the same image you just deleted as an attachment?
Secondly which kind of evidence do you need to validate that I have the right to publish the map with all containing map layers?
About base map: there is description [2] of base map by its publisher, Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre, unfortunately in Czech. There are also metadata [3] in English. When we had a discussion with employees at Open data Seminary they stated, that this map (along with cadastre map) is a) free b) cannot be protected by copyright (at least by Czech law) because those map are not created by definition a product of creative work (those map has to be same no matter who creates them) c) base maps are used at daily basis as a layer in our web projects and unlike the ortophotos by same source we are not obliged to mention them at web applicatons or at printed outputs. When we try to make an official request to confirm that we can make map with boudaries of Czech Republic and put it on Wikipedie, I think we would be laughed by them. --Tarenor (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one other layer, the one which is reason why the file is created, and that is based on research of our Institution. --Tarenor (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted files I uploaded - do I need to upload them again?[edit]
You deleted the files Thirteen_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg, Olympia_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg and Barflies_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg because "no evidence of permission since 16 January 2015". I know for a fact that the copyright owner (George Chakravarthi) sent permission shortly after the images were uploaded, and again around 16 January. Two other images uploaded with the same copyright owner seem to have been accepted.RichardSkelding (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to upload the images again and ask George Chakravarthi to send his permission again?
We have a bit of a backlog at OTRS and it can take up to more than 30 days before someone answers an email but I looked up the specific email and restored the files. I need some extra information for one of the files since it is a derivative of possibly copyright protected content. Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which information you need more information about and what that information is. None of the work is derivative in the sense that all of the work is George Chakravarthi's and he supplied them to me. They are either reproductions of his still work, stills of video work or photos of his work at exhibitions (which he took himself). His official website is www.georgechakravarthi.co.uk and his email is george@chakra7.demon.co.uk (you will find this email address on his website) RichardSkelding (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a photograph of a painting, it is a still from a video. The reclined person is George Chakravarthi, who produced the video, provided me with the still and emailed Commons with his permission (he is very much alive). I am sure he will take it as a compliment that you thought it was a painting, it was his intention that the video looked like a painting with movement!!RichardSkelding (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. The video work was inspired by Manet's 'Olympia', hence the name, but plays with the gender and race of the characters. I hope you will have a look at the 'George Chakravarthi' wiki article when it is made live. RichardSkelding (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there,
This file was marked deleted by you on the DR], but I think it was missed because it was listed by someone else there. I listed it for speedy deletion because I remember at one point it was standard to do so if a file was missed but another admin removed the SD template. I can't delete it myself or else I would. Thanks, The Haztalk17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The file wasn't listed clearly so that would indeed the reason why I missed that. In the meantime Yann kept the file, probably as DM. Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You deleted this file because OTRS had not received permission for it. But I checked with the owner who confirmed that permission was sent on 1/25/15. Is it possible that the permission was just not processed in time? Should I upload again and have them resend the permission? Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OOTRS has quite a back log so the permission was not proccessed but I looked up the ticket, checked the details and restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Revi dealth with the OTRS-ticket in the meantime. OTRS has a back log of several weeks so it may take some time till emails are awnsered. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur12, Ref. the following file File:Sgarbi Macellari.png , yesterday an Admin has delated the file, than I wrote to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org sending copy of analogic negative of the photo deleted and a declaration about the copyright. Than tonight 00:14 you restored the file (thanks for that) than today 15:24 you deleted the file. Please let me know what the problem is, so that I can try to correct it. Thanks for your time. --Ercomar (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur12, thank you for your reply. I'll talk to the photographer asking him if he can give me permission to publish the photo. In this case, I'll write again to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your time. --Ercomar (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS loopt een beetje achter met de mails en daarom worden toestemmingen soms wat laat bevestigd met als gevolg dat bestanden verwijderd worden. Ik heb het bijbehorende ticket opgezocht, de bestanden teruggeplaatst en de toestemming bevestigd. Natuur12 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O wacht, er zijn twee mails verstuurd. In dat geval ben ik inderdaad vergeten deze te bevestigen tijdens de eerste mail waarvoor excuus. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hartelijk dank! Ik ben blij dat alles goed verlopen is. Vanwege de verwijdering heeft de auteur de tweede mail opgestuurd. He ga je goed, --Wikiwal (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ik schrijf het hier omdat de on-verwijder pagina geen reacties toe laat.
"Wikimedia Commons generally only enforces copyright restrictions, for these reasons:
Almost anything can be trademarked, and it wouldn't make sense to forbid everything.
Trademarks and industrial designs restrictions are pertinent to industrial reproduction, but photographs of such items can otherwise be freely reproduced." Als mijn afbeeldingen van andere copyright materiaal komt, ¿waarom kan deze dan wel maar mijn afbeeldingen niet? ¿wat is het verschil? Hoogachtend, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er zit auteursrecht op de logo's die op het scherm afgebeeld worden gezien deze complex zijn. Het merendeel van de afbeelding bestaat uit auteursrechtelijk beschermd materiaal en daarom is dat niet toegestaan. De "afbeelding" (volgens mij is rendering van de software de term die ik zoek) op het scherm van de foto die u hier aanhaalt is onscherp, een stuk simpeler en daarom waarschijnlijk com:DM of zelf beneden com:TOO. Ik heb niet naar het merkenrecht gekeken in deze. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
¿Kan ik de afbeelding dan niet wijzigen zoals deze gebruiker hun [afbeelding heeft gewijzigd door de logo's te vervagen? Dezelfde Facebook afbeelding komt er in voor (ik heb het nú over de Microsoft Lumia 535 foto die ik van Flickr af ik heb gehaald, sinds er geen reactie onder stond ga ik ervan uit dat ge de reactie onder de W.P.7 foto's ziet als de reactie op deze, persoonlijk hoef ik het eigen werk niet, ik vindt wel een open afbeelding die bruikbaar is, maar ik zie niet dat deze afbeelding vage logo's bezit anders dan die van Google één die niet op de mijne staat.) --Namlong618 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
deze afbeelding is geüpload door RaviC, een redelijk belangrijke persoon in de Nokiasfeer en Microsoft Mobile Oysfeer van Wikipedia, hij is geüpload met hetzelfde licentie (Yahoo! Flickr), en zelfs van dezelfde auteur (Kārlis Dambrāns), maar deze afbeelding staat er al sinds 2013 en is vertrouwd, ik zie niet hoe ik andere auteursrechten schendt die hij niet schendt. Hoogachtend, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to mark this image? Some of the sources given are NC, one has been deleted....and I don't know which apply to this image. Perhaps you know whether it is safe to pass or fail it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one should not be passed since many of the images have a NC-restriction but a DR is more apropropriate than simpply failing the LR since the NC images could be removed. Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you deleted an image I uploaded from my personal WW2 Holocaust collection?
I collect WW2 material for over 20 years and find this very offensive.
Please plain.
I fail to see how a question mark is a valid closing summary for a DR. Unless you are willing to explain properly why you have kept a file for an image that never existed, I shall renominate. Fry1989eh?16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You had almost two weeks to solve this. If there are no updates DR's will be closed eventually. We cannot host copyrightviolations forever just because someone is sorting it out. Some time is pretty vague. Those files can always be restored if permission comes in via OTRS but given the currect backlogg this could take weeks, even months. How long do you need to arrange the last details? Natuur12 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know exactly when. Activists are now negotiating with the Museum of Communism in Prague, which probably are the copyright owner of using image.--Trydence (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I want to add a new version of the photo File:PTN KhYLO.jpg, where elements which can not extend my copyright will be retouched. Can I add a new version to a remote file or I need to add as a new article?--Trydence (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Trydence: I undeleted both files. Please let me know when you downloaded File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg. After you are done I will delete the file again. And please let me know when evidence of permission is send to OTRS. That way I can validate the permission and all can be arranged a lot quicker that way. Natuur12 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I needed to respond in English but the file is marked as confirmed. This is probably the fastest way to deal with this situation. THe OTRS-agent who dealth with the previous ticket already checked all the details so we don't need to go through that procedure again. I deleted the other file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Hij heeft de verklaring opgestuurd op 5-1-15 en nog eens op 10-2-15. Heeft dat met de achterstand te maken van die boven sprake was? Hartelijk dank en vriendelijke groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiwal, dat heeft inderdaad met de achterstand te maken. Zelf ben ik deze dagen een beetje druk en vrij moe dus heb weinig tijd voor OTRS vrees ik :(. Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says some guy on Flickr is using it, claiming it is his, but it is 100%, without a doubt, not his. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a long time, and this deletion happened while I was gone. But I would like a link to whoever is claiming he owns the image, because he is absolutely lying. I personally took the picture while visiting Atlanta and the Buckhead area with my wife. We specifically went to the house to view it since it related to the case and I am the original author of the "Black Mafia Family" article. Jlcoving (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the file was uploaded at Flickr before it was uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. Policy requires that evidence of permission is send to com:OTRS if that's the case. It would also help if the Flickr accountholder deletes the image. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to this Flickr account so I can contact him directly and contact Flickr about him using the image without my permission? I had previously posted the picture on the SomethingAwful.com forums in a post about BMF, on Reddit, and on a Facebook group about them as early as March 2006. Jlcoving (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you. You can find the Flickr account here. I take a carefull look at the Flickr account and it seems like it that they grap random images from they internet. I will place the account on the blacklist and after your explenation I believe that it is safe to restore the file :). Natuur12 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You recently uploaded a lot of images to the landscapes category, most of which clearly do not belong there. Images of mountains, clouds, streets etc are clearly not landscapes by any definition. As the page itself notes, "especially buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category". Landscapes is not a dustbin category for anything that can't be placed elsewhere. The category constantly becomes overcrowded by editors using it that way, and it takes a lot of editors a lot of work to keep it useable and uncrowded. It would be appreciated if you could assist us in cleaning up your mess. thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something went wrong with a batch upload and it will be cleaned but but since we are talking about more than 1.7k files originally it can take a few days before everything is placed in the proper cats. Natuur12 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your very words: "so I would like to ask for a second opinion". By voting against undeletion on File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg you did not allow a second opinion. You showed not to be impartial, I'm sorry to say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have to be impartial since everyone may give his or her opinion. It will be a problem when I close the requests of DR's which I closed of course but thats not the case. The instructions at com:UNDEL for administrators are very clear: The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. Please take a look at the archive and you'll see that this is not uncommon. At the Dutch Wikipedia where you are also active works exactly the same when it comes to undeletion request so it is really not uncommon. That I asked for a second opinion in a set up where I overlooked something is a different case since I am the one that asks a second opinion, not you. Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My request for undeletion of File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg is in fact a request for a second opinion. Since you deleted the file, it is not proper to interfere (you are allowed your opinion but it is improper to vote) with the undeletion request, which User:Fastily closed very quickly "per Natuur12". The whole point of the undeletion request is to have others have their say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undeletions requests are not votes and even the instruction page allows me to interfere. (I'm only not allowed to close it as notdone) If you don't agree with that, bad luck for you but don't waste my time. You got your second opinion from Fastily so I suggest that you leave it be or discuss the timespan of the closing with Fastily. If you want to change standard practice go ahead but this is not the place to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to react anymore but now I have to. The source of these images says; All photos can be downloaded for publication free of copyright. That is all, these images needed not be deleted. Punt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Natuur12, dank dat je mij (geheel onverwachts) de status 'file mover' hebt verleend. Dat zou nog best eens van pas kunnen komen. Ik heb hierbij wel een vraagje. Wat is de normale gang van zaken bij verzoeken om bestandshernoeming? Komen die in een lijst of een categorie, of lopen movers meestal de recente wijzigingen na? Dergelijke verzoeken worden vaak snel ingewilligd, dus het lijkt op dat laatste. Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb onlangs inderdaad wat geëxperimenteerd. Zie Order of the Sinai Star medal.jpg. Waarschijnlijk is dat wel goed gegaan (zo niet, dan hoor ik het graag). Wel nog een vraagje. Ik heb gemerkt dat er een standaardmanier is om de verwijderreden te formuleren, met criteriumnummer én aanduiding van het criterium. Dat heb ik nu gedaan met kopieer- en plakwerk vanuit Commons:File renaming. Maar kan het wellicht ook op een makkelijker manier? Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De rename ziet er goed uit. Geen idee hoe dit simpeler kan, zelf zet ik meestal criteria 5 of iets dergelijks in de samenvatting. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of this file per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BCP-mikeu-3.JPG appears to have missed that the file was in use on en.wikiversity, at least, and was apparently uploaded to Commons for that purpose. Deletion of files in actual use, for quality reasons, is generally inappropriate, because the decision is made out of context. Please undelete. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that. I wanted to keep this one just like all the other ancient out of scope noms since they at least need a new DR. The files has been undeleted and the bot has been reverted. In case you wonder, it's probably C. vernus but it is really out of focus so SiGarb seems to be correct. Natuur12 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is an issue where files are in use that they may have been uploaded long ago by someone no longer active. They may be in wide use. But nobody who used them is notified that they are under deletion request. So always usage should be checked. There is no procedure for notifying affected wikis, and this means that those who might care don't know until CommonsDelinker shows up and removes the link. Because we are so often hit by this on Wikiversity, we are considering discouraging sole upload to Commons; rather encouraging that files will be locally uploaded and not deleted if transferred to Commons. In many cases, local files have been deleted "because transferred to Commons," and then years later, were deleted from commons. We can claim fair use, Commons cannot.
I just saw another deletion because it's the most recent on Wikiversity: File:Crystal_Clear_app_aim.png. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crystal Clear app aim.png The claim was "Obvious derivative work." That is not a deletion reason, to my knowledge, if the original work is free. This still exists: File:Crystal_Clear_app_aim3.png. Once a page is deleted, the reason is not "obvious"! Requiring that the deletion discussion be complete, and taking special care when files are in use, could avoid wasted work.
I also could not find a notification of the uploader for that deletion, in spite of some searching. That should be checked as well! (But maybe I missed it.) --Abd (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not an admins job to look after notifications and Commons doesn't have enough admin to do so. I will restore the other file as well since the license seems to be okay. Problem with those old DR's is that they are a mess. Script hick ups etc and it is tough to determine if deletion is justified. In this case it clearly wasn't. When it comes to informing local projects I have an idea. How about a global bot that posts a list of files nominated for deletion in the local village pumps? (Or any other place) Community's can opt in, opt out or whatever they want. I understand the problem that Commons is some kind of ivory tower who decides which files local projects may use but a real solution? I have none. Natuur12 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll handle the en.wikiversity restorals of links. I haven't looked globally. Yes, some good ideas. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please check if this category (and Category:Furcipus rectirostris) are intentionally blank and uncategorized? You created them and they were blanked by some other user the following day. If so, please nominate them for (speedy) deletion or set a category redirect. Herzliche Grüße, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion by you of File:"Farinde_Esther.jpg" on March 10th 2015[edit]
Hi Natuur12,
I wonder if you could help me with some guidance. My file was deleted by you with a note that: (Removing "Farinde_Esther.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Natuur12 because: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source since 2 March 2015 - Using).
It seems I have missed what is required because the file did feature the note generated by me electing to publish under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I also sent a confirmation email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 2nd March 2015 as follows:
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Ivan Brown
Copyright Holder
2nd March 2015
Is there something else that I should have done that I haven't done?
Perhaps but evidence is missing and it is not up to the closing admin to collect the evidence so a file can be kept. That's a job for the persons who want to keep those files. At the moment I deleted those images the copyrightstatus was questionable and than we can't hoste those files. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand your principle and it's not like I will file undeletion for those files. It bothered me that the uploader didn't mean to do harm, but our policies have a steep learning curve, and mass deletion is frequently perceived as a hostility from the new user's viewpoint. (I'm not saying that it actually is so, but that it appears to be.) More users from under-represented countries need to come in to the project and I hope we can ease the bump for inexperienced users as we go along. Cheers. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because you gave uploader requested as the reason and you are not the uploader. That's the mere reason. It is rather impossible to find out why if the reason is incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for closing this deletion request. Your decision on this request was "Deleted: but kept one as below TOO". However, I noticed that you only deleted 2 out of 16 files in question. and the one you kept, File:XJTU name.png, as explained in the discussion, is clearly not below TOO according to COM:TOO#China (PRC) and other past deletion requests mentioned in the discussion. Would you take another look on this file as well as the others that are not deleted? Thanks again. --Wcam (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the second part of the DR and therefor the links to the pervious DR's. (That happens really quickly when you use two headings in one DR) This all together is convincing enough to delete it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beste Natuur12, zou jij ~Miguel~2000~Teirlinck~ een waarschuwingssjabloontje kunnen geven als je het ermee eens bent, want hij blijft zaken uploaden als eigen werk of met verkeerde licenties en ik blijf er erachteraan hollen. Ik weet niet hoe dat moet.
Overigens ben ik het oneens met deze beslissing (is dat een moderator?), want ook dit logo is natuurlijk geen "eigen werk", maar hij zet er wel zelf een vrijgave-licentie op. Een andere moderator heeft andere logo's om die reden wél verwijderd, zie hier en hier. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Als de hierboven gelinkte User:Amitie 10g een moderator is, die vindt dat je hier bestanden als eigen werk mag presenteren terwijl het je eigen werk niet is, dan is dat toch absurd? Het gaat er niet eens om of de afbeelding de "threshold of originality" haalt, het gaat erom dat hij valsheid in geschrifte goedkeurt. ErikvanB (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Erik, waarschuwingssjabloon geplaatst. Amitie 10g is geen admin. Technisch gezien is het aan de uploader om de juiste gegevens en de juiste licentie te vermelden. Ik snap je punt alleen is dit iets wat vrij vaak gebeurt ben ik bang. Mensen zijn nogal terughoudend met het wijzigen van andermans licenties. Stel dat dit een account aangemaakt door het bedrijf is, in dat geval zou de licentie geldig zijn maar kunnen we het alleen niet controleren. Natuurlijk is dit allemaal niet heel erg zorgvuldig maar dit is hoe de dingen op Commons in de loop der jaren gegroeid zijn ben ik bang. Het hangt erom of dit logo wel of niet de originaliteitsdrempel behaald maar het logo is out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
. Het is toch wat. Ik heb het antwoord gelezen en het advies van Woody lijkt me verstandig. Commons is een jungle vol gevaarlijke roofdieren, verouderde wetboeken, half geïnterpreteerde rechtelijke uitspraken, onterechte generalisaties, gemene admins and mijzelf. :p. Waarschijnlijk blijven die logo's wel behouden maar ik twijfel of dit wel overeenkomt met de jurisprudentie in Nederlandse arresten. Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you make a number of more or less identical DRs such as these, it is much easier for you, the uploader, and all of us who might comment on or close the DRs if you do them all on one DR using VFC. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I used VFC for one of the DR's but after I was done I kept finding files that where not okay and it turned out that there where more files than I thought. Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You protected File:The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg. Please see the request at [6]. I probably should have asked you to handle this first. It's straightforward, please either make the edit that has consensus, or unprotect; because of translations, the page should probably just be unprotected, revert warring is now unlikely, but if it does happen, consensus is clear and disruption will be clearly identifiable, unlike before. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks. Several of these users are touchy, easily offended, and, because of old history elsewhere, ready to start attacking each other at the drop of any misunderstanding. However, I seem to have engaged them and have built some respect. They did agree, all but one, and that one has said he is out of there. I don't know if he will stay out, but we did have clear consensus, so I do know what to do if something goes awry. I'm inviting him to help with translations. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I temporarely moved the ticket to the permission-commons queue. Please let me know when you are done so I can move it back. It is confusing if I respond with a different mailadress. Natuur12 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that I misled Tom Frost in any way back in 2009 is demonstrably false, and I intend to do my very best to ensure that any implication that I behaved incorrectly in this matter is refuted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say you misled him? Apperantly he didn't know what he signed. That's not the same as you misleading him. This happens from time to time and that's something we can't do anything about. Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Tom Frost is saying or implying that I misled him. Is it possible for me to see a copy of his recent letter about this? Cullen328 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation is that Mr. Frost, who may not deal with free licenses very often, simply forgot some of the details about that communication from 5 years ago. I very much doubt that he is making an accusation of deception, either directly or by implication. -Pete F (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing this discussion, I commented in the DR, specifically assuring Cullen that there is no sign of any accusation of "misleading" Frost in what has been written. "I was not fully aware" is not a claim that "I was misled." The issue in the DR is not Cullen. At all. --Abd (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Abd. This is the first time I have experienced anything like this, and I apologize to all concerned if my disappointment and surprise colored my initial comments. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen, I understand. Here is what is now possible. It does not make sense that Aurora would want low-res images taken down if those images point to Aurora. What would make sense, in fact, is that Aurora releases low-res images to Commons for free re-use under a license that requires attribution. I'm not familiar with the range of possibilities on Commons, but a possible outcome, if this is handled well, is that Aurora actually releases all their extensive material, as low-res, this way. In other words, a treasure trove for our purposes, and no harm to them, and probable benefit to them. Effectively, free advertising. Those images should be decent enough resolution to be usable in encyclopedia articles. As it is, if the images are important to the article, they could now be used under fair use anyway. But they would have to be uploaded to each project, a nuisance for us. Maybe this won't work, but I think we should try!
We don't yet know if there was an actual exclusive transfer of rights to Aurora, and we don't know if that was recorded with the U.S. Copyright office. For win-win-win, though, it doesn't matter! Aurora now apparently can release, and probably has that right with other photographers. The fly in the ointment could be if Aurora wants to obtain royalties from even low-res copies. That will be their choice. My suspicion, though, is that that particular market is small.
On English Wikipedia, very few of these photos would meet our non-free content policy, except perhaps possibly portraits of people who are now dead, such as John Salathe and Henry Kendall. That project does not allow non-free portraits of living people, or non-free photos of sporting event, unless the photo itself, not what it portrays, is the subject of critical commentary. My understanding is that German Wikipedia is far more restrictive. The loss of the portrait of Kendall, a Nobel laureate in physics, would be a genuine loss to Wikipedias in approximately 59 languages, I believe. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Lithurgus tibialis Mounted specimen - Side view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Hi Natuur12, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to grant me rollback permissions on commons? It's not a huge deal, as I can always revert vandalism the ghetto way, but it just makes things a little bit quicker. I've got 5 years and 500+ edits on commons and 10 years and 20,000+ edits on en.wiki with a clean block log. I've had rollback on en.wiki for 5 years now without any issues, so I know how to use it and not abuse it. Thanks for your consideration! TDL (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Rietveldse Toren - back view (a Rijksmonument). If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Hierodula patellifera (Giant Asian Mantis) - side view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Agrotis ipsilon (Black Cutworm) caterpillar - Mounted specimen - Side view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Anoplolepis gracilipes (yellow crazy ant) - Mounted specimen - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Anticarsia gemmatalis Caterpillar (Velvetbean Caterpilla) - Mounted specimen - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Alocandrena porteri - Mounted specimen - Female - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Given the white stripes at the back segment and the position of the visible antenna (if you look really close you can see one) I would say that it is female but don't pin me on this one. Natuur12 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Agrotis ipsilon (Black Cutworm) - Mounted specimen - Eggs. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Caupolicana electa - Mounted specimen - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Tetragnatha laboriosa (Silver Longjawed Orbwea). If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Phaulula macilenta (Green Bush-Cricket). If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Hi Natuur, just to let you know that I understand your concerns about my "background". However, if such background is so important, and provided that I just want to help in an understaffed area such as permissions-commons-es, wouldn't your concerns apply also to my reviewer flag? I mean, my reason to apply is that I've noticed that many times I'm labeled files as 'no permission' and received a notification of the uploader about the sending of an OTRS authorization without the possibility to verify it. That's what I want to help with (verifying permissions). However, I equally verify permissions with my reviewer flag without any problem (I guess). Well, I was just thinking out loud. In fact, it helps me to understand how the community actually assess my work here. Best regards --Discastotalk21:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Via OTRS you can acces private data, including pasports (yes some people are stupid enough to send a copy), real names of editors, phonenumbers etc. As a LR-er you don't have acces to private data. Plus, Commons is broken already and OTRS isn't ;). Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Antivaleria viridimacula - Dorsal view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Brahmaea japonica (Japanese Owl Moth) - Dorsal view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Bibasis aquilina - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
I read it, thanks. What does has to do with a picture where the one in focus is unknown and the only with interest is completely blurry? I see no "educational purpuse" in this. Obviusly the question was retoric, and your summary does not follow any policy or explains about the points in dispute. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that you deleted both images, instead of only the smaller duplicate (meanwhile transformed into a redirect). Should I file an UdR? -- Tuválkin✉✇19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Sympetrum risi risi - Male. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Deuterocopus albipunctatus - Dorsal view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment Very beautiful image, very good specimen. But the legend of photography is nonexistent. An image that has no caption has no value. Must be given: the scientific name of the species its common name, place of shooting.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Brachyhesma sulphurella (Australian Minute Bee) - Mounted specimen - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Spirama retorta (Indian Owlet-moth) - Female - Dorsal view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Useful - The location could be written in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2015
(UTC)
Hoi Natuur12, ticket:2015021010018403. Schijnbaar geen afb door zijn grootvader, maar van zijn grootvader. In andere woorden, hij heeft denk ik niet de rechten. Ik heb hem een antwoord gestuurd. Laat me weten wat je denkt. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oke, maar het is alles behalve een persoonlijke aanval. Dit is gewoon het standaard naampje dat visual change aan de DR geeft wanneer je meerdere bestanden van dezelfde auteur voor verwijdering nomineert. Natuur12 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur12. I would like to thank you for your excellent block of Akrben and for your fast action in recognising and stopping cyber bullying. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Hi, my bad. At first sight the crop appears to be slightly different because of the different sizes but after taking a really close look I have to admit that you are correct :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you threaten me! I have every right to renominate files for deletion and especially in this instance where the closing admin has explicitly told me I can on their talk page and I have two previous examples of them improperly closing DRs forcing me to renominate ([7] and [8]). Fry1989eh?19:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you don't have any rights. You have privileges. Secondly, nobody forces you. You renominate them out of free will. Thirdly, if you had motivated those DR's properly you wouldn't be in this situation. Based on your poor motivation I would say that the closings are corect. And last but not least, no shouting at my talk page please. You can't blame others for your sloppiness Fry. You should know that by know. Btw, I see no post about this DR, the one I speedy closed at the closing admins talk page? Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to word my DRs the way I do for a reason, I choose not to directly link the duplicate file in this DR because I have had more than once a problem with closing admins accidentally deleting the SVG as well and the Commons Delinker removes it from all projects and then we have a real problem on our hands putting it back on all those pages. And even if you feel that I should link the SVG, it's still improper to close the DR without allowing the nominator the chance to answer the question of "what file?", forcing me to re-nominate. So don't you dare try and call me sloppy and blame me when it's your sloppy colleagues that make such mistakes as well. I don't give a damn what you think about me and I'd be happy never to have any interaction with you of any sort ever again, but when you bring threats into this you have crossed a line. Fry1989eh?19:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ask the closing admin to reconsidder after you provided him a link to the duplicate. Yet again nobody forces you. And yes everyone makes mistakes but I don't see my fellow admins blaming others for those mistakes. Do you? And no swaering at my talk page please. Really Fry, you make Commons sound like the world of ignorance is strenght. Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You blame me calling me sloppy, acting like it's all my fault, and then excuse away very valid reasons I might have for wording my DRs the way I do. Tell me, what takes more effort: Commenting in a DR asking for a link to the duplicate file giving the nominator time to respond and then closing the DR accordingly, or having to put an accidentally deleted image back on hundreds of project pages? I think we both know what the answer is. So don't call me sloppy when you have no idea what I do things the way I do. Fry1989eh?19:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beste Natuur12, hartelijk dank voor het nomineren van deze afbeeldingen, want ik zat ermee in mijn maag maar was eerst even gaan eten. Na mijn terugkomst bleken ze genomineerd. Deze plaatjes komen de kwaliteit van Wikipedia bepaald niet ten goede. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Tetraschalis arachnodes - Female- Mounted specimen - Dorsal view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
zou jij mij eens even willen helpen als je een keer tijd hebt? Er is iets waar ik niet uit kom. Ik ben niet zo handig. Ik heb zojuist een nieuwe categorie aangemaakt: Category:Den Treek-Henschoten. Dat is een landgoed dat deel uitmaakt van het Nationaal Park Utrechtse Heuvelrug. Daarin heb ik inmiddels een paar van mijn eigen (vandaag gemaakte) foto's gestopt.
Ik heb deze categorie netjes ingevuld als deelcategorie van Category:Utrechtse_Heuvelrug_(national_park).
Nu dacht ik: dan ga ik de foto's die elders op commons nog rondhangen van dit gebied ook onder deze cat rangschikken.
Bijvoorbeeld: File:Den_Treek_Henschoten,_12_Bomen.JPG. Die foto is gemaakt vorig jaar tijdens de WLE-wedstrijd.
Aan die foto hangt ook de categorie "Utrechtse Heuvelrug (national park)", en die wil ik er dus eigenlijk afhebben, i.v.m. de "hiërarchie" in de categorieën. Maar dat lukt me dus niet. Blijkbaar is die categorie "automatisch" aangemaakt door het sjabloon van WLE ofzoiets. Ik wil natuurlijk dat sjabloon niet veranderen. Maar ik wil wel dat die foto uit de categorie Utrechts Heuvelrug (national park) verdwijnt.
Ik vraag dit nu even aan je, omdat dit voor veel meer foto's geldt die het vorig jaar in NP Utrechtse Heuvelrug zijn gemaakt. Zoals je misschien weet ben ik bezig om een projectje op te tuigen om meer aan NPUH te gaan doen. Dat gaat dan vooral over het verbeteren en uitbreiden van de info over deelgebieden van het NP. Bijvoorbeeld Den Treek-Henschoten, dus. Vandaar.
Misschien weet jij een oplossing. Dat zou mooi zijn. Dan kan ik verder gaan met het "rubriceren" van de foto's van de Utrechtse Heuvelrug.
Het is wel mogelijk maar die manier waarop is een beetje omslachtig. Eerst dient het sjabloon ge-"substituted" worden. (Geen idee wat de vertaling van dat woord is). Dat kan door {{Wiki Loves Earth Netherlands|NP-UtrechtseHeuvelrug|landschap}} te vervangen door {{subst:Wiki Loves Earth Netherlands|NP-UtrechtseHeuvelrug|landschap}} Vervolgens moet de overtollige code weggehaald worden. Hierna is de categorie als goed is weg. Een andere oplossing is er helaas niet. Handig leerpunt om mee te nemen voor de volgende wiki loves earth :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thanks for your help in that irritating situation regarding the other two users. I am about to let it go but would you please first go to the quality image candidates page and take a look at My Himeji Castle image from may 12th? The user with the name “Livioandronico2013” is signing his statement with the name “Jebulon” and down voting me. That is at least how I read this. Two comments from the same person with two user accounts, both voting me down? What do you think?
Also, Jebulon has not only falsely claimed on that picture that I “reworked” the sky but has also left an annotation on my other picture also falsely claiming the same thing.
This is what I mean by attack and this kind of behaviour is what made me react in the (stupid) way I did. The claims are clearly false. Even if somebody believed that I had done something to the images they could ask “Did you do something to the sky? It seems artificial to me”. Instead you have well established members of the commons using these absolute statements to do what (to me) seems to be at least borderline badmouthing. Thanks in advance. --Nubero (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just re-read that comment by Livioandronico2013. I think he might be talking to Jebulon after all? It’s a strangely written comment… --Nubero (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to lose the overview at the QI page because it lay-out is confusing. They are probably having a conversation. QI and featured pictures are often the places where fights starts and revenge votes are uncommon. I don't know if that's the case here plus it is really hard to prove. The only advice I can give is to ask other regular reviewers for a second opinion. I believe that there is a special section for that at the bottom of the quality images nomination page. If some people are over cirtic specificly at your images it will become clear really easely after more people voice their opinion. QI is quite subjective btw and the criteria are not well defined. Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Natuur, as I can't read French I haven't followed the arguments provided. Just to enhance my management of future DR, would you mind explaining why this image was kept? Many thanks into advance --Discastotalk15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, of course. This file has been laying around in the uploaders personal archives and was originally a promotional image in the US. The odds that they renewed the copyright of this widely spreaded image is really small. Perhaps BrightRaven can double check that I interperted the discussion here correctly? Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur12. This file appears to be copyrighted; it was taken from a closed access paper (a "Premium Material") published by Taylor & Francis [9]. For this reason, the file was previously deleted from English Wikipedia by an admin, but was later undeleted by another user. However, the publisher Taylor & Francis explicitly indicates on its Terms and Conditions that [10]:
"We are the owner or the licensee of all copyright, trademarks, design rights, database rights, confidential information, or any other intellectual property rights (together the "Intellectual Property") in the Site, the content and the Materials. The Materials are protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved. Your right to access and use the Site and the Materials is strictly limited to that set out below and, where applicable, in any accompanying license agreement between you and Us[...] In addition to the terms set out above, your use of any Premium Materials is subject to an additional license, the nature and content of which will vary according to the type of Premium Materials purchased and whether you are purchasing as an individual or on behalf of an organization."
Taylor & Francis instead only offers its Open Access Materials, which this Premium Material is not, under a Creative Commons Attribution License. Please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not familiar enough with en-wiki policy to assist you in this case. Some rules differ from the rules at Commons when it comes to copyright. If this file would have been uploaded to Commons I would call this one above TOO under UK law but under TOO under US law because there is not much creativity. Every work has to be creative and if File:Best Western logo.svg is okay under US-law a simple table should be as well if they took the "numbers etc" from a public non copyrighted source. The second licensing tagg is bogus of course. Vialating a websites term of use is a non copyright restriction and Commons (don't know about EN-wiki) states that such breaches are between the uploader and the party who's term of use are breached. It is certainly not wise to just copy this table. Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a minute, please consider marking or deleting this image. I don't know if the costumed image is copyrightable. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you closed this, you seem to have overlooked that a user renamed the file. Please also delete the file, not only the redirect. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Natuur12, would you be so kind as to take a look at this user's contributions? Janmangelschots1979 is most probably not Erik Mangelschots (1953) (I guess he's the son) but he uploaded nearly 50 pictures of work by Erik Mangelschots, tagging them as "own work". I warned him on his Dutch talk page already but I guess he will need some help of an experienced user to get this right, and if he doesn't get it right, the problem will have to be addressed by an administrator. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Natuur12. Vanmiddag zette ik er nog eentje van Wesseling bij. Ik heb antwoord van de directeur, dat de link naar permissions-nl niet werkte en ik heb hem een nieuwe gestuurd. Hopelijk reageert hij maandag. Hij stuurde me drie foto's uit bedrijfsarchief. Ik wist niet hoe ik zo specifiek mogelijk kon zijn over welke afbeeldingen het betrof, zonder ze eerst hier neer te zetten. Groet, Sander1453 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sander, het is prima om de afbeeldingen eerst te uploaden. We hebben zelfs een speciaal sjabloon om aan te geven dat er een mail naar OTRS gestuurd wordt: {{OTRS pending}}. Laat het me even weten wanneer de mail verstuurd is. Dan kijk ik er gelijk even naar. Mvg. Natuur12 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the connection between your Wiki name and OTRS name - kudos on all the work you've done recently, it's nice to see the backlog heading south Sphilbrick (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've saw you've check the OTRS ticket for the photos of Joerg Seyler, but you've not change for this photo. I don't know if Joerg had forgot it in his mail or you've forget to change it. Could you please check? It's the ticket 2015062110003534 Thank you in advance, good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you very much to have check it fastly. If you've two minutes, could you please check if you've received a mail from René Beauchamp and Gianpaolo (if necessary, send me a mail). Good day.--Lev. Anthony (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not falimiar enough with that countries copyright to be sure of the work is anonymous or not so I would recomend com:UNDEL. When I am not sure I rather not restore files myself. Natuur12 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI.. you'd deleted the file page as 'no file present' a while back... the server drama apparently sorted itself, and the file reappeared as a zombie, so I undeleted the information page. Hopefully my understanding of the situation (that the file was itself fine, with OTRS) is correct... if it actually needs to be gone, revert away. Revent (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for cases like this. Please make your request there. Anyways, when someone says somehting he/she shouldn't have because he/she is harrased by an anonymous IP it is best to give it a rest. I certainly not aprove that edit summary but I can understand why someone gets frustrated like that. A formal warning wouldn't have added anything to the situation. Natuur12 (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A number of your recent uploads have not been uploaded fully and have left faulty files. Please upload them again and check the image has been fully uploaded before moving on to the next thing. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done I didin't move on btw, I just went to bed after finishing the uploads ;). Normally I check the files the other day or during the clean-up session. Natuur12 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dag Natuur12, ik krijg foutmeldingen in de Flickr-foto's die ik in de nieuwe Category:Andavadoaka heb geplaatst. Ik heb de bronnen er nu bijgezet, zoals ik al had gedaan op File:Children at Andavadoaka.jpg, maar die heeft ook een foutmelding gekregen. Kun jij zien wat ik fout heb gedaan? De licentie op commons is gewoon 2.0. Alvast bedankt! heinnlein''10:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beste Heinonlein, dat komt omdat de licentie op Flickr "CC BY-NC-ND 2.0" is. Deze licentie voldoet helaas niet aan het beleid. Alleen cc-zero, cc-by-2.0 en cc-by-sa-2.0 zijn toegestaan. Er zijn nog wat uitzonderingen hierop maar die zijn voor dit verhaal wat minder interessant. Als je wilt kan ik de Flickr-gebruiker een mailtje sturen met de vraag om de licentie te veranderen. Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, ik wist niet dat er meer dan drie 2.0-licenties bestonden... Als je dat zou willen doen, heel graag! 't Zijn prachtige foto's. heinnlein''11:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dankje! Had daarna nog 'n paar foto's op Commons gezet en dacht dat ik 't nu wél goed gedaan had... Afijn, al doende leert men... heinnlein''18:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Heinonlein: ik heb alle bestanden afkomstig van de Flickr stream van Dennis Tang teruggeplaatst. Nu zag ik dat je er ook een tweetal van een andere Flickrstream hebt gehaald. Zal ik daar ook nog een mailtje achteraan sturen? Overigens heeft Dennis Tang alle bestanden op zijn stream herliceerd. Zodra alle bestanden een license review hebben ondergaan koppel ik dit even terug. Als hij inderdaad alles wil vrijgeven is dat bijzonder mooi. Je zal de verwijderde afbeeldingen alleen wel zelf moeten terugzetten in de artikelen ;). Natuur12 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Superbedankt! Ik heb nog op twee andere artikelen de afbeeldingen teruggeplaatst. Ik had die andere afbeeldingen van flickr geüpload omdat die van Dennis Tang niet konden. Deze hadden een iets andere licentie, maar waren dus ook niet oké. Ik ben nu dus dik tevreden, niet alleen over het feit dat ik m'n mooie plaatjes weer beschikbaar heb, maar ook om je fijne service. Nogmaals bedankt! Ik ga binnenkort eens op flickr kijken naar die andere foto's en 't ditmaal wél goed doen! heinnlein''22:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dag, Natuur12. Ik ontdekte net dit bericht van je. Lees dit even. Ik denk dat we toch wel kunnen stellen dat we te maken hebben met een grappenmaker/vandaal als we de bestanden beluisteren. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afgehandeld. Nu moet hij een andere hobby zoeken. Misschien is er plaats op YouTube voor dit soort fratsen. Heeft hij over een jaartje een eigen artikel wat hij dan kan inspreken ;). Natuur12 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Je hebt het kennelijk bij de juiste persoon gemeld, beste Erik. Iemand die soms iets te snel verwijdert (heb ik persoonlijk nare ervaring mee. maar vergeven - niet vergeten - mede door dit soort ijzersterke moderatoracties). Ook bona fide collegae als ik (zei de gek) worden soms slachtoffer van deze drieste 'verwijderdrift'. Klaas `Z4␟` V: 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.... kijk dan eens naar dit. We hebben hem vorig jaar beiden gewaarschuwd en hij heeft van mij toen een laatste waarschuwing gekregen, maar volgens mij snapt hij het nog steeds niet. Ik heb nu even niet de tijd om er in te duiken, maar jij misschien wel? Ciell (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Ciell, het ging in totaal om twee bestanden. Ik heb ze voor verwijdering genomineerd. Een blokkade of een andere maatregel gaat niet veel zin hebben want hij heeft op Commons 1 maand niet bewerkt en op en-wiki al twee maanden niet. Natuur12 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
recent undelete images rnieders prior OTRS ticket:2015010210007101 Tijuana cross-border terminal[edit]
Hello Natuur12, thank you for undeleting the images requested by Hjmitchell, I received your message "@Rnieders: if you send this email to com:OTRS and provide me with the ticket number I will give this case top priority. Natuur12 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)" could not find the archives on com:OTRS. The California Department of Transportation send a letter to the Wikimedia legal that should clarify my copyright on most of the other deleted images, how can I send you a PDF of that letter which also included the Caltrans Journal which published my images in April, 2001? Thank you for your help Rnieders (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Natuury12, yes, the letter and attachments are in PDF, as a government agency, the California Department of Transportation required over four months to respond as several departments were involved and most of the people I worked with in 2000-1 have retired or moved to other agencies. How could I send it to you, I am still trying to learn how to navigate Wikimedia/commons. Thank you Rnieders (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rnieders: - if you send the documents to permissions-commonswikimedia.org I will be able to validate them but perhaps we should wait for Mdennis her reply. Natuur12 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Natuur12, I can do whatever you suggest, I just wrote Jeevan Jose on his page as I do not know where to direct my correspondence and would like to keep everyone in the loop. I explained to him that the request to Caltrans was made more than four months ago but I could find no physical address to where a letter/document from a formal government agency (Caltrans) could be sent other than Wikimedia legal, there are also issues of confidentiality and that is why I also contacted them, they in turn have written me and said they have nothing to do with the actions of Wiki Commons. It seems there is no permanent individual or formal depository for legal documents or correspondence which makes requesting information or clarification from government agencies for Wiki issues almost impossible, requests as well as destinations have to be verified. I sent the Caltrans letter as well a many other documents such as the Mexicana letter of intent and original City of San Diego TwinPorts concept photo all in PDF format, to Hjmitchell, but he has spent eight months helping resolve this, and like yourself, he is a volunteer, has his own projects and life and there comes a time when people have to take a Wikibreak, all this becomes too overwhelming. I spent 18 years creating this project, I even worked with people in Holland in the 1990s, i.e. Martinair, Luis Ramos the son of Rodolfo Ramos represented them in Mexico City and Cancun after his father died, and as mentioned to Wikimedia legal in San Francisco, I spent perhaps 20 hours writing the article but over 300 hours trying to defend my work. A simply project took 25 years to build because it was made complicated by the politics. To keep things simple, I would like to ask for your guidance and would be more than happy to wait and talk to m:User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Rnieders. I appreciate your patience and work, all the best Rnieders (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: and @Rnieders: I restored the files. I received the document from Maggie and this document is pretty much bullet proof. I really want to thank you for your patience and higly valuable content Rnieders. My apologies that it was such a hard fight to add your content. Natuur12 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Natuur12, thank you for your work and consideration, it seems odd working with people and never knowing who they are, a half dozen individuals helped in this process and without them, this would not have been impossible. I would appreciate being able to thank you one day, all the best Rnieders (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are taking a Wiki break but I have not been able to find how to upload a public domain image from the City of San Diego used in the San Diego/Mexico negotiations. I have an original copy given to me by Councilman Ron Roberts who was the main proponent back in 1991 and would like to add it to the article and was told that images created by local and state governments in the U.S. are public domain but on the upload Wizard, there seems to be no category for such images. The image can be seen on http://tijuanacrossborderterminal.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/1/5/49152021/5277350_orig.jpg could you direct me to the proper upload procedure? Thank you Rnieders (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rnieders: ony images created by someone of the federal gov during his official duties are PD. Some states like California follow the same principle but local govs never do. Natuur12 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got a response to the required template {{PD-CAGov}} it seems California is a unique state. As it involved proposing a new airport, both FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and California state funds were used during the TwinPorts process to cover studies and promotional materials. Before making a mistake, can I upload using the Template:PD-CAGov as State funds and officials were ["involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer.] Before making a mistake, can I upload using the Template:PD-CAGov??? I would appreciate your interpretation since I have no background in the Commons' protocol. Thank youRnieders (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Rnieders (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rnieders: Well, this is not a simpel question. It would depend on who created the file. Was this person working for the Federal Aviation Administration you can use {{PD-USGov-DOT-FAA}} but I would say that {{PD-CAGov}} seems to be a good match since this is Ron Roberts. However, I am not an expert on Californian law and you have to motivate clearly in the file discription why this file is PD. Please be afware that someone might disagree with my interpertation. Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast response. I know Ron Roberts fairly well, worked with him on TwinPorts for almost three years (1991-3), and still run into him at events. He is the one who distributed the TwinPorts rendering and gave a copy to Rodolfo Ramos and another to me. I will try to upload it. A lot was written about TwinPorts and the FAA spent over a half-million dollars on a study showing it could be technically done, but politics on both sides of the border killed it. It would be educational for people to see the actual rendering. All the best Rnieders (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would again point out that Rnieders doesn't seem to understand the concept of copyright here; as "who distributed the... rendering" is not the same as "who created it". The PD-CAGov template would not be correct; these materials were made by private people not an employee of the state of California. A county supervisor is not actually an "employee" of the state, but an elected official. On the uploaded image he's listed as a City Councilman. Neither role is an "employee." I think this is a case of personal project promotion gone wild; Rneiders if you didn't create the actual images and/or if you don't have a COM:OTRS from whoever actually did, the image has no place on Commons. Fishing around various administrators isn't going to change the base message, please read and assimilate COM:L. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked prior to uploading the image, the image was not the personal property of Ron Roberts, it was created by the City of San Diego with public money. I will call Ron Roberts who was the City of San Diego Councilman who promoted this project and it became directly associated with him. He is the one who physically distributed the images and by profession, he is an architect. I do not want to irritate you, which I obviously have. I did not create the image and stated such, the image was used in government to government negotiations, i.e. Mexico and San Diego, and it was James Woodward who mentioned that an image produced by the a City, i.e. San Diego, is public domain. Again, I will call Ron Roberts when I return to San Diego on the 15th, please tell me what document you need from him and the City of San Diego so that I can get them. RespectfullyRnieders (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This morning I submitted the letter from Ron Roberts to permissions-wikicommons Ticket#2015081810019539. The letter signed by Ron Roberts and sent through an official government email account clearly states that the image is public domain. I would like to ask that the deletion request be withdrawn and the discussion page closed. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Natuur12. Ik heb jouw foto van het Sint Joris Gasthuis beoordeeld. Ik las de titel en ik dacht terug aan mijn jeugd in Maassluis. Is dit niet het voor mij bekende "gekkenhuis" waar de mensen om mij heen zo spottend over spraken? Inderdaad, maar ik had geen idee hoe het er uit zag. Maar nu de foto want daar gaat het uiteindelijk om. Ik vind het perspectief niet mooi en mijn automatische lens correctie van Lightroom is zeker geen verbetering. De f-waarde is goed ingesteld, maar ik had het gebouw liever wat meer naar links op de foto gezet om de diepte aan de rechterkant te accentueren. Ik denk dat deze foto wat scherper had mogen zijn door de focus beter in te stellen of de camera stabieler vast te houden. Is deze foto wel in RAW gemaakt en eventueel verscherpt met een bewerkingsprogramma? Misschien zeur ik gewoon een beetje, maar ik geef gewoon mijn mening en je moet maar zien wat je er mee doet. Misschien vinden andere beoordelaars het perspectief wel Q1-waardig! Groeten, --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beste Michielverbeek,
Bedankt voor de feedback, ik zal kijken wat ik kan doen. Ik heb ook een RAW-file van deze foto dus in theorie zou ik er nog wat aan kunnen doen. Of het gaat lukken hangt van mijn fotobewerkskills af maar ik ga het proberen. Het Sint Joris Gasthuis is volgens mij inderdaad het beruchte gekkenhuis. Nu zit er een klein museumpje. Het perspectief is een beetje jammer want er stond een boom in de weg :(. In het najaar is het me wel eens gelukt om met de camera die ik toen had een foto recht van voren te maken. Overigens heb ik niet z'n hele vaste hand wat er dus inderdaad voor zorgt dat een foto soms wat minder scherp is dan gehoopt. Maar al proberende leert men :). Natuur12 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michielverbeek: ik heb een poging gedaan de foto te verbeteren. Hopelijk is het voldoende en zo niet, zowel het gebouw als mijn camera lopen niet weg dus er is altijd nog poging 2. Natuur12 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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!
@Nyttend: the RFA's are not as brutal as at en-wiki. Of course I cannot tell for sure if you will pass but I think you have a good change. You can always take a peek at past RFA's if wou want to have an impression of what they are like. Natuur12 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that suggestion and Natuur's encouragement, mostly the RFAs seem reasonably polite. You'll see the same names exhibiting their own flavours of behavior. Someone will go through all your contributions and try to nominate one or more. You might get extra email; but it's really not that scary. I think I'm the first female to make it through the flaming hoop, and no one even used that against me! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they're not as brutal at en:wp as here, I'm definitely not interested in going through the process. Or was that a typo? If you mean that they're not as brutal here as they are there, i.e. people are gentler here, I'm willing to go through it. Sorry for the delayed response, but I wasn't notified due to the typo in the template. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Sorry, that was a typo. Your second interpretation of my statement is correct. I clarified my comment. I will prepare a statement for the nomination in the next couple of days and I will let you read it first before I start the RFA. Natuur12 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification; I feel more comfortable now. How does this work, anyway? At en:wp, when you nominate someone else, the nomination basically sits there until the subject of the nomination accepts it, and the official starting time for the discussion and voting begins when the subject accepts it. What about here: will the discussion start as soon as you create it (i.e. I need to accept quickly), or do things only start when I accept the nomination? I ask because the en:wp RFA doesn't really start until it's accepted, so it doesn't matter if the subject waits hours or days before doing something. This is particularly relevant right now: I recently interviewed for a job and expect to be learn within the next few days whether I'll be moving soon, so as far as I'm concerned, the best situations are that the discussion and voting either start as soon as possible, or that they wait several days. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: It is quite informal at Commons. It starts as soon as I create it but I usually prepare a RFA in my own name space and only move it to the correct name space if the person being nominated is satisfied with the statement. As soon as I move it the RFA starts but I can also keep it in my own name space until you wrote down your own statement. There is no hurry so you can choose whatever option you prefer ;). Doog luck with the interview. I hope the outcome is positive. I will be off for the next 12 hours since it is almost three in the morning over here. Natuur12 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep well :-) What if you write up the page, I write the statement, etc., but I move it to the correct namespace when I'm ready? And thanks for the good wishes on the job process. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get it when I can. Just learnt that I didn't get the job, so I guess I'll not have anything preventing me from going through the process pretty quickly here. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the page, and I don't have any changes to request. Is there anything that I need to do, beyond adding "I accept. ~~~~" below your signature? Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I thought I'd left you another note, so I was waiting for your reply, but apparently I never left it. I've now added a statement, and I'm ready for the nomination to go "live", but I wasn't sure what the result would be if I simply moved the page, since it's currently supposed to conclude -2 days from now. Would you be willing to take care of the rest of the process? Sorry for the extra work. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pteromalus_cf._albipennis 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!
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Lasioglossum ruidosense - Mounted specimen -- Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Excellent. But you could put a title to your pictures. Your scope is very good you can use it title. Removes the change if you do not find it to your taste. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Lasioglossum michiganense - Mounted specimen - Lateral view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Excellent. But you could put a title to your pictures. Your scope is very good you can use it title. Removes the change if you do not find it to your taste. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saint John the Baptist Cathedral, Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help[edit]
I believe you made a mistake when you deleted the files "Saint John the Baptist Cathedral - Fresno" and "Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help - Rapid City, SD". I uploaded it and had placed the OTRS parameter in it. A few days later it was accepted by the Wiki editors after they had received a "Declaration of consent" email from the owners of the picture. You need to go back to the archives to find the acceptance from the editors. If you have any questions, contact me.
Roberto221 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS will take a look at your email eventually but this can take some time. They will undelete the file if the permission turns out to be okay. Natuur12 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, the post above was made on my mobile phone, and I'm not that good at things like copy/paste on it. The original discussion was regarding a set of 4 images related en:Ayers Rock (band), which you will find here. The file is ticket:2015071610013273. Hamish found your original emails sent 16.07.2015, and replied to each one with reasons why he is authorised to sign the permissions statements. If you have any questions, feel free to ask Hamish or myself. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:San Diego TwinPorts airport proposal 1991.jpg[edit]
Dear Natuur12, the File commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Diego_TwinPorts_airport_proposal_1991L.jpg which was restored on July 20th, still comes up with a disclaimer stating that the image "has been nominated for deletion since December 1, 2014." How can this disclaimer be removed? This is not the color rendering of TwinPorts, it was part of a group of images restored July 20th via this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=166357791&oldid=166357123. Also as you warned, when I uploaded the color rendering of TwinPorts under the California Public Domain wiki template, it was immediately selected by Ellin Beltz for deletion, I will not comment on her comments. When I returned to San Diego on August 15, the next day I spoke with Ron Roberts. That day he wrote a letter (August 16) which I sent to permissions-commons, but then as recommended by Jeevan Jose, to maintain transparency, I asked that it be directly sent from the office of Ron Roberts to permissions-commons. It clearly stated that the color rendering of TwinPorts created by his office in 1991, was Public Domain and to avoid any confusion, his email was sent through a government server and on his letter a copy of the color rendering was attached plus a separate attachment of the actual rendering was also sent. On the black and white File:San Diego TwinPorts airport proposal 1991.jpg restored on July 20th, could you please remove the disclaimer stating that the image "has been nominated for deletion since December 1, 2014." The other image selected by Ellin Beltz with the submission of Ron Roberts letter, I have asked that the discussion be closed, but there is no response. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the template. I did contact Ellin Beltz and told her that the letter from Ron Roberts was sent by him on August 20, with ticket #2015010210007101 in the subject bar and he received a confirmation email from permissions-commons stating "If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015082010023931]" Carl Lindberg voted to keep the image and gave a lengthy explanation. I asked that the deletion page on File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg be closed because the document Ellin Beltz requested has been sent to OTRS. Ellin Beltz wrote back and stated "I'm not on the OTRS team, you would need someone with OTRS permissions to do that. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)". I wrote back to her "Thank you, will follow-up with them.Rnieders (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)" I wrote to OTRS. Would simply like to close this case and not waste any more of your or any one else's time. Thank you for your patience Rnieders (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No time would have been wasted at all had all these images had proper sources in the first place. You were told of the correct process when you uploaded copyrighted images on Wikipedia months ago. We assume good faith at all times. I would however point out that the problem was caused by you claiming "own work" on images which were not yours, repeatedly uploading images of either the same one or with the same file names and writing long rambling letters when I asked you simple questions, such as "who made this image?" I don't really need to know that you were best buddies with the supreme potentate of Mixidifilly for twenty years or that your dad shared a napkin with the Emperor of Godzillaland in 1952, or any other personal details of your life. What we need to know for images uploaded to Commons is - who made them and what license they have. That is all. You have raised a huge unnecessary mountain from a process which is so simple that 99% of our users manage to use it with no problems at all. We have had to chase around after the truth of these images for months now - please consider all that time which would have been avoided had you told the truth in the first place and not tried to pass off other people's work as your own. I also do not like this tittle-tattle run from one admin to another seeking the best help. It's unnecessary - like so much else of this situation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur, can you re-add the OTRS permission ticket using "Permission.js"? I cropped the above image from File:Preyasophon Sirivudh Chakrapong Ranariddh.jpg, which I like to use for the English Wikipedia. Otherwise there is the tag of "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member", which I am concerned that other reviewers may pick issues with at a later stage.
On September 2nd, you erroneously deleted the above image. You failed to read the deletion talk and the information contained within. As a freelance contributor of The Creative Shop(TM), I can assure you that the JuliusDobos2010.jpg file IS IN FACT FREE. It is free to use, distribute and publicly display. I have received confirmation from The Creative Shop, Inc. which has been claimed to own the rights to this photo, that the company IN FACT provides it to the media and to the public for FREE of any copyrights or licenses. You can verify that by directly emailing The Creative Shop, Inc. at contact@thecreativeshop.com.
The deletion of the image violates the Wikimedia rule about providing equal opportunity for all registered users to upload FREE of copyright images. Please revert your action as it may be indirectly causing damage to The Creative Shop.
- tatsiana_n
This deletion was certainly not done in error. You failed to provide evidence via OTRS that the file is indeed free or you failed to mention clearly at the file page that you send evidence of permission to OTRS. There is no such rule as "providing equal opportunity for all registered users to upload FREE of copyright images" and given the fact that you are talking about the image being "free of copyright" without evidence when you made a licensing deal with them ( assumption based upon the information you provided) makes me wonder if you read Commons policy. They didn't wave all rights or at least you didn't provide sufficiant evidence that they did. The statement at the bottom of the page is nog free enough either. Last but not least you provided false authorship information which in fact is a violation of copyright law almost everywhere. Before you start accusing me of violating non excisting rules and making deletions in error, while you do me one favour? Namely reading com:L and related policy's. Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nartuur12,
> This deletion was certainly not done in error.
It was. read below for previously stated facts you missed.
> There is no such rule as "providing equal opportunity for all registered users to upload FREE of copyright images"
Most certainly there is. As long as the image is FREE of copyright as defined in the Commons:Licensing rules. Please do not question the definition of free since it's clearly outlined there. As for the "equal opportunity" in public online spaces - in the United States this is a given right, so is, I believe, is in the democratic Netherlands.
>You failed to provide evidence via OTRS that the file is indeed free(...)
>you provided false authorship information
You are incorrect: if you look at the original file, you will see that it stated that the image was "my own work". This is a true fact, as I personally took the photo when interviewing Mr. Dobos in 2010. This was a sufficient statement for the image to be qualified as "my own work", and provide it for public use. After the copyright of the image was questioned by user "Ahecht", who found the image on the composer's official website, the user erroneously stated that it was the source of the image, therefore a copyright violation. The image is on the website is because the Creative Shop (owner of the site) was gifted the right to use said image by its creator: me. Because of user's false assumption, I had explained in the deletion talk that the image was subsequently provided to the media and the public for free use by The Creative Shop - this is the actual file that I had obtained from a Press Kit, then uploaded to Wikimedia (to avoid sharing my high-resolution original). Therefore:
While the relationship between the copyright facts surrounding the file in question might have not been obvious, you failed to put together the two pieces of information about the status change (form my work, later, The Creative Shop's CC4.0 license) of the image, and jumped to conclusions such as "false authorship". Before you start accusing a professional reviewer and photographer of lying, and blindly following assumptions made by other users (without reading the uploader's justification), will you do me one favor? Namely, understanding the rights background of this asset and correcting the deletion mistake. Even better, you can contact The Creative Shop and verify the above facts. I did and confirmed.
The error did not lie in you not following the rules, rather, in you not obtaining sufficient information to make a well-informed judgment (and rather drastic action).
You are changing your story. This statement contradicts what you wrote here. or maybe your story there is just incomplete. You still haven't read the relevant pages and there is no such thing as equal rights on internet projects. The only right you have at Wikimedia projects is to leave. Everything else is a priveledge. The file has been published elswhere so we need to validate your story via com:OTRS. And if I may give you one piece of advice: lose the attitude. Your first post already made me reluctant to help but after your second post, don't expect any. Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the information I provide has been ignored. I was not telling you a story, especially not a conflicting one. I was simply sharing facts, with the hope that those facts would be read, and based on them, erroneous actions would be corrected.
Again: 1. the original photo was taken by me at the time of an interview. 2. The copyright was transferred/gifted by me to The Creative Shop, inc. 3. Said company decided to use the images in its press kit and on one of its artist websites, after making minor edits to the image. 4. Respecting the minor edits made, I did not use my original photo, but the version edited by the company, which I obtained from their press kit. The press kit states copyright-free use - I confirmed this by contacting The Creative Shop. Does this make sense? Original creator: me. Licensor: the company. Current license: free for public use.
More importantly, these are verifiable facts, indeed. Responding to my email of September 6, 2015 to The Creative Shop, inc., Ms. Sylvia Nori kindly pointed me to this page, listing image files available for media- and public use, including the edited version of the photo in question. The page is clearly maintained by The Creative Shop. On the same page, you will find information describing the CC BY-SA 4.0 license of shared images. A simple google search reveals that the exact same images have been used by printed press and online media.
Thank you for your advice, however, accepting and/or defending facts have nothing to do with attitude. Ignoring facts and robbing time from a writer who contributed free content to Wikimedia does. And to set the record straight, I did not ask for your help. I only -naively- excepted the mistake to be corrected based on facts, and an incorrect judgement be acknowledged.
If you truly care about acting based on verifiable information (see above), I suggest the undeletion of the erroneously removed image, for the sake of supporting the practice of fair and legal contributions to these pages.
Once more, no error was made. The file was listed on an external website with a copyright notice. Only a handfull of volunteers delete around 1500 - 2000 files a day. There is not enough manpower to do a deep background check on every image. This is how the system works. Than you for finally providing a straight story. However, copyright free use, cc-by-sa-4.0 and public use are not the same and those statements conflict. Therefor I would like to ask you to file undeletion at com:UNDEL so people can take a closer look. Natuur12 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Natuur12, since you kept the aforementioned file als old enough I would like to make you aware that this image has been published on the Internet in 2010 by the NDR with a copyright notice: Politisches Archiv AA / Lepsius-Archiv. Depending on your browser you may have to look it up in the sourcecode. Sincerely, --Assayer (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Assayer,
Archives often claim copyright while they are not the copyright owner. In this case it was motivated why the file is out of copyright in Germany. If it is a company work it is pd, if it is anonymous it is PD. Both are possible. Yes someone could always argue that this is not enough evidence that the file is anonymous but I believe it is in this case. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments provided in that discussion/mudfight where convincing enough to close the DR as delete. I can repeat their arguments if you want but I dont think that they can convince you. Natuur12 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I am Eliad Bar and I own the copyrights for the picture Eliad_Bar_portrait.jpg
You are welcome to visit my official website at www.eliadbar.com and also email me to eliadbarart@gmail.com , as you can see in my website, it's my official email address
Please bring it back,
Thank you,
Eliad
Please follow the instructions at com:OTRS. Please be aware that the statement needs to come from the copyright holder and this person is often the photographer and nog the subject. Natuur12 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nt is correct. The descriptions in our image-bank are usually based on the (written) descriptions on the back of image. I think the change started there. I will change the description in the orginal record
Those files are drawings probably created by the uploader and based on the blazon. The blazon isn't copyrightable but the indenvidual renderings are. The file I deleted wasn't the work of the uploader but a low quality scan of someone else his/her work. Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen photos that were removed to send still active. Why?. If I do not want the pictures follow increases in wikimedia happens ?. It should delete photos you do not want to be the author.--El hobbit Guisen (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El hobbit Guisen,
Could you please give me the name of the files (or a link to the files) you are referring to? Otherwise I won't be able to assist you. Natuur12 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These photos I have recently uploaded to wikimedia because they are my property . But now I do not want them because I do not want to follow in wikimedia . See : Click, Click, Click, Click.
Also let you know that most of the photos that make up some time this singer wikipedia stolen photos found on the internet and that the author is not the one who uploaded the photos , see: Click.
If I understand corretly you are asking me to delete your uploads? I am sorry but I am not allowed to do that because it is against policy. Natuur12 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you just kept a wrong recording because it was still in use. The only reason it was in use was because of the bots that kept re-adding it! Peter238 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't decide what files local projects can and may use. How it is in use is not our problem. Can you imagine the consequenses when Commons starts deciding if the use of a certain file is legit and if local projects can use the file or not? Natuur12 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was about the file itself and the fact that the pronunciation was incorrect, not how the file was used. I was removing it from every place possible because it wasn't a correct pronunciation. Either way, I managed to find a suitable file licensed with CC 3.0, so I replaced that recording. Peter238 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I got that. (use of a certain file is legit) And thanks for replacing it. Commons policy just doesn't allow me to delete files as out of scope when they are used. No matter how wrong they are. Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!
Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.
Het is me eerder al opgevallen dat Wasily onvoldoende kennis van het auteursrecht heeft om dergelijke uitspraken te kunnen doen. Ik neem aan dat de auteur Herman Maelwael de oom is van Jan Maelwael? In ieder geval is de afbeeldingen eeuwen oud, is de afbeelding eerder gepubliceerd geweest en levert het scannen van een afbeelding geen nieuwe auteursrecht op. (Een foto maken van een twee dimensionaal is wat meer een grijs gebied maar ook dat staan we toe) De licentie die genoemd wordt op bestandspagina zou vervangen kunnen worden door {{PD-scan}}. Dit bestand kan gewoon op NL-wiki gebruikt worden. De enige die auteursrechtenschendingen loopt te plaatsen is Wasily zelf. Natuur12 (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to understand a FOP in Costa Rica case[edit]
I know that this happened a VERY VERY long time ago, but since you are the admin that "kept" Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museo del Oro Entrada.JPG I was wanting to understand FOP better. A few of my images have unintentionally run into FOP issues. I have always just let them be deleted without augment, as I don't understand where the line is drawn when it comes to building? When dose a building not have "enough originality" to not be copyrightable and kept, like in this case. I've attempted to understand this issue by reading commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Photographs_of_buildings and other parts of that page, but I'm just more confused. Sometimes I think you need to be a lawyer to understand these pages.
For example: I once had an image of a LDS temple located in French Polynesia (if french FOP) that look just like this one in the US, where FOP isn't an issue for building. Why is a building like this copyrightable, but not Museo del Oro Entrada.JPG. Dose it make any difference that this is the same style of most of hte "Small" temples in the LDS Church?--ARTEST4ECHOtalk19:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ARTEST4ECHO: You are absolutely correct about the FOP-part and the file was indeed kept because it is not original enough. It is hard to tell if something is creative enough and the threashold varies per country. There is no clear line and DR-closings regarding this subject are always a bit subjective. In this case I do believe that there are no creative elements visible. All choises where purely technical. This designe was the only logical outcome because the structure of the building would not uphold otherwise etc and there are no decorations or strange structures. Technical aspects are not always copyrighted while cosmetic aspects often are. This is my interpertation of copyright law and it is a terrible generalisation but this is the best I can do when it comes to giving a general explenation. French FOP is really tricky. @Yann: should be able to tell you more about French FOP since it differs from most FOP-provisions. Or mayby the French section is just more complete than most FOP-sections.
Regarding your example. "Columbia South Carolina": is shows a sculpture on top of the building and a lot of the choises are cosmetic and not merely technical. "Museo del Oro Entrada" is mostly technical. Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natuur, I have uploaded a party logo image, which is a clearer picture from File:FUNCINPEC logo 1992-2006.jpg. I had submitted an OTRS request back in July on the images that were approved by FUNCINPEC HQ, ticket number #2015070410012911. Would be grateful if you can help to certify the above image, and I have placed an OTRS pending status. Thank you! Mr Tan (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could you please explain the status of this deleted image. Logs show that you restored it on April 21st. You refered to ticket sent on February 19th. Now the uploader has pasted this ticket here. It seems like a proper permission. Yet, the image was deleted again. Why? 90.191.109.917:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 90.191.109.9,
The permission statement is fine but I did send the client a follow up question regarding the copyright status of the image. The client never responded to my email. The deletion seems to be correct. It is standard to delete files if the situation is not resolved within 30 days. Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. In this case it would be appreciated if you could again explain the situation to the uploader on his talk page. His reaction implys that he missed your question in April. --90.191.109.918:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
Comment: I have marked those images but can you or another Admin or trusted user please mark this image below as Commons has no good image of Jose Pekerman of Argentina.
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Done - you're arguments are convinsing and based on this arguments I would have kept those files. Natuur12 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
INeverCry 19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
. Het is toch wat. Ik heb het antwoord gelezen en het advies van Woody lijkt me verstandig. Commons is een jungle vol gevaarlijke roofdieren, verouderde wetboeken, half geïnterpreteerde rechtelijke uitspraken, onterechte generalisaties, gemene admins and mijzelf. :p. Waarschijnlijk blijven die logo's wel behouden maar ik twijfel of dit wel overeenkomt met de jurisprudentie in Nederlandse arresten. Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(15335749960).jpg)
,_side_2014-06-04-19.42.51_ZS_PMax_(15752867389).jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
_(15324604727).jpg)
.jpg)
_(8627229338).jpg)
_(15215660420).jpg)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC).jpg)
_(15522493265).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
nlein'' 10:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
hein
wikimedia.org I will be able to validate them but perhaps we should wait for Mdennis her reply. Natuur12 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
_pupae_lateral_view.jpg)
Thank you for the deletion of NoFoP file.--Tokorokoko (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![98 Deletion by you of File:"Farinde_Esther.jpg" on March 10th 2015](#Deletion_by_you_of_File:"Farinde_Esther.jpg"_on_March_10th_2015){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15443383605).jpg){kind=link}
_2_(15443231242).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Amyloid_fibril_formation_and_classic_facial_features_of_AL_amyloidosis.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amyloid_fibril_formation_and_classic_facial_features_of_AL_amyloidosis.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natuur12/Archive_3#c-Idtenti-2015-03-11T17:30:00.000Z-Deletion_by_you_of_File:"Farinde_Esther.jpg"_on_March_10th_2015){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&oldid=154560475#File:The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15335749960).jpg){kind=link}
,_side_2014-06-04-19.42.51_ZS_PMax_(15752867389).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15324604727).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8627229338).jpg){kind=link}
_(15215660420).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15522493265).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Escudo_de_la_República_Dominicana.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_syrian_kurdistan.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15443383605).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15443383605).jpg){kind=link}
_2_(15443231242).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2_(15443231242).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
