User talk:Paul Hermans

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Paul Hermans!

Hallo Donderwolk! Ich schreibe mal auf Deutsch. Ich glaube es ist beim Hochladen der Bilder etwas schief gelaufen. Versuche die Bilder einfach noch einmal unter dem gleichen Namen hochzuladen. Gruß von --W.wolny 16:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi - several of the images you uploaded are listed on Commons:Untagged_images#D, because they have no license info. Please add the appropriate Commons:Copyright tags to the images description pages, as images without license info will have to be deleted. Please also add the author, source and date of creation if applicable. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 13:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  Esperanto  français  galego  italiano  lietuvių  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Ελληνικά  македонски  русский  українська  հայերեն  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  فارسی  +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, problem resolved. Donderwolk 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  Esperanto  français  galego  italiano  lietuvių  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Ελληνικά  македонски  русский  українська  հայերեն  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  فارسی  +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, once more: problem resolved Donderwolk 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hernoemen

[edit]

Hoi Paul, wil je ook hier je gebruikersnaam gewijzigd zien? Groet, Siebrand 11:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zie hier. Vergeet niet gebruikerspagina en overlegpagina te hernoemen. Siebrand 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steun?

[edit]

Steun?

[edit]

Beste Paul, een buitenlandse gebruiker zonder kennis dreigt alles op commons ivm België zomaar dooreen te gooien. Kan ik op je steun rekenen op Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/07/30#Category:Flemish_Region om deze onzinnige en vooral onhandelbare opsplitsing te verwijderen? --Teeceematiek 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Paul (Donderwolk I presume),

Er zijn al vele discussies geweest betreffende diepere (sub-)categories in België (vooral rond kerken en kastelen). Er is al gepoogd per provincie, per regio en per communiteit (taal) te klasseren. Er is een soort van consensus gegroeid:

  • een uniform twee niveau systeem (land en gemeente/stad) is de standaard manier om iets te adresseren (met de post bijvoorbeeld) en dus door iedereen gekend met een minimum aan fouten
  • voor buitenlanders vraagt het systeem een minimum aan lokale kennis en kunnen ze dus gemakkelijker klasseren (probeer maar even te klasseren in Frankrijk: tegen dat je het juiste departement en/of district gevonden hebt ben je al heel wat tijd kwijt)
  • een systeem waar sommige items op twee niveaus (vb scholen, gemeentehuizen) en andere met bijkomende niveaus (vb kastelen per regio (Vlaams/Waals + Brussel), kerken per provincie, scholen/dichters per communiteit) geklasseerd worden schept vooral verwarring en conflicten. Bovendien zijn er veel items die zich uitstrekken over verschillende regios/provincies (kanalen, rivieren, domeinen, wegen, ...), hetgeen de zaak nog compliceert.
  • en misschien het belangrijkste element: iedere verdere subcategorie exporteert onze Belgisch problemen en complexiteit naar de wiki

Het is waar dat sommige categoriën wat overvol zitten, maar een splitsing in regios (factor 3) of provincies (factor 10) lost het probleem niet echt definitief op. Aan de snelheid waarop de foto's binnenkomen zal iedere opsplitsing hoedanook op relatief korte termijn weer overlopen. Dit is een globaal probleem voor de wiki, en ik denk dat sommige wikilayouts daarvoor moeten aangepast worden.

Eerlijk gezegd ben ik aangenaam verrast dat wij nog zo weinig Vlaams/Brussels/Waals problemen gehad hebben en ik sta niet meteen te springen om mijn tijd daarme te verliezen. Ik hoop dus dat je ons daarin volgt.

Beste groet. --Foroa 08:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beste medewikipedianen, het is helemaal niet mijn bedoeling om hier onrust te stoken of de boel op stelten te zetten. Ik zag gewoon dat er cats op lager niveau bestonden en heb daarom de kastelen in de bestaande weliswaar lege categorie ondergebracht in de overtuiging dat ik daarmee goed werk leverde. Ik volg de discussies hier niet. Als de gemeenschap niet wil dat die categorieën gebruikt worden, waarom deze niet verwijderen of kan dat technisch niet? Graag antwoord op mijn overlegpagina hoe we de dingen oplossen Paul Hermans 08:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt Paul, het is ook een beetje onze fout om die redirected categorie te laten rondslingeren. Maar deletion is hier niet altijd eenvoudig. Normaal gezien gaat een bot dit de komende dagen terug rechtzetten. Beste groet. --Foroa 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK :-), no hard feelings... Paul Hermans 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


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

Brbbl (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

Brbbl (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

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


Hello, Paul Hermans!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- categories added Paul Hermans (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgisch erfgoed en historie

[edit]

Dag Paul Hermans, gezien je interesse in Belgisch erfgoed en geschiedenis, mag ik je ook even een vraagje stellen omtrent wat gedoe op de Nederlandstalige wikipedia ??

Het gaat over artikelen over twee scholen. Eentje nl:Ter Poorten uit Lissewege met een een stuk dorpsgeschiedenis sinds 1828, en waarvan de onderwijzerswoning ook enige tijd voormalig gemeentehuis was. En eentje in Roeselare nl:Stedelijke Basisschool 1 Roeselare, eveneens > 100 jaar oud, en in 1995 nog opengesteld op de Open Monumentendag.

Toch vinden enkelen het blijkbaar nodig oogkleppen op te zetten, en deze dingen te nomineren voor verwijdering nl:Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20090406#Toegevoegd_06.2F04:_Deel_3b_-_onderwijs. Waarom, omdat het niet in Nederland ligt? Vooringenomenheid? Niet verstandelijk in staat de artikelen te lezen ? Als jaar en dag staan historische bouwwerken in wikipedia, zelfs niet-historische prullen, zoals dit hollandse nl:Gemaal Van Sasse zijn zonder nadenken OK? Nochtans hebben vele artikelen , zoals dat laatste, zoveel minder om het lijf, en je hoeft het heus niet ver te zoeken tussen de artikelen met hollandse bouwwerken. Maar 2 historische Belgische gebouwen en scholen zouden dat niet zijn ? Dat gaat er bij mij niet in alleszins. Gezien je sterke interesse over onze lokale dorps- en stadsgeschiedenissen : Mocht je er aldaar een idee over hebben, je vindt de weg wel zeker naar de nl-talige wikipedia voor opmerkingen ? ;-) Groeten --LimoWreck (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohja, nu we toch bezig zijn, op nl:Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_sjablonen/Toegevoegd_2009_week_13#Toegevoegd_woensdag_25.2F03.2C_te_verwijderen_vanaf_08.2F04 zijn er nog een paar hollanders die een Belgisch sjabloontje denken te moeten verwijderen - terwijl Nederlandse voormalige gemeenten eveneens hun eigen sjabloon hebben (dat is blijkbaar weer geen probleem). (verwijdering is niet eens nodig, mocht de gemeenschap het willen, kan men gewoon het sjabloon intern aanpassen) Mocht je daar nog geïnteresseerd zijn in een ruggensteuntje, je ziet maar ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Limowreck, ik begrijp je redenering en ook je standpunt en ik ben het met je eens dat beide artikels hun plaats hebben op wikipedia als je hun kwaliteit afweegt tegen die van vele andere artikels die hier niet verwijderd worden. Maar op zichzelf vind ik dat niet voldoende. Ik wil over die dingen zelfs niet meer nadenken omdat je in deze gemeenschap van wikipedianen met totaal verschillende attitude al vlug verzeilt in een discussie van hij/zij tegen mij of zij tegen ons en waarbij een meerderheid met soms, naar mijn idee, een slechter standpunt, gelijk krijgt. Ik kom hier zelden of nooit mensen tegen die van mening kunnen veranderen (kan ik dat zelf wel en ben ik ook niet iemand die graag gelijk krijgt?) en dus, mijn motto indachtig, hou ik me liever afzijdig. Groet Paul Hermans (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schelderomolen 14-04-2009 16-51-18.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--AngMoKio 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schachtbokkenhouthalen 20-03-2009 16-41-30.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schelderomolen 14-04-2009 16-49-35.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --Mbdortmund 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Paul,

Deze foto is duidelijk niet van een Erica multiflora, maar van een Erica terminalis. Vergelijk met File:Erica terminalis000.jpg - momenteel bloeiend in mijn tuin - die ik juist opgeloaded heb.

Erica multiflora, heeft klokvormige bloemen met uitstekende meeldraden op lange stelen.

Beste groeten, --Réginald (To reply) 09:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests

[edit]

Hello. I found two deletion requests of yours where you said you would upload better photos - for File:Onbekend 21-04-2009 12-01-32.JPG and File:Onbekend 21-04-2009 12-00-57.JPG. Did you upload replacements? Can you mention those on the deletion pages? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 20:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Vlaams Mijnmuseum

[edit]

Hi Paul, I need your assistance regarding some images you uploaded in Category:Beringen. Could you please tell me which of your images (Steenkoolmijnberingen...jpg) actually belong to the Vlaams Mijnmuseum? I'm asking because this museum is an anchor point of the European Route of Industrial Heritage I'm working on. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo - ik zag dat je een "betere" versie over een oude foto van User:Walter had geladen, was hier een bepaalde reden voor? Het lijkt me dat beide fotos waarde hebben. Ook een vraagje waarom een kleinere versie over de grote versie was gezet? Hoe groter hoe beter lijkt me :) Alvast bedankt. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses - Ik zie nu pas dat het orginele bestand een transwiki van nl: was, gedaan door Walter, maar het bestand was gemaakt door uzelf. Desalniettemin nog steeds de vraag of het niet beter is het oude bestand te behouden als aparte afbeelding, want het is toch de moeite waard. Met vriendelijke groeten, -- Deadstar (msg) 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CS3

[edit]

Hallo Paul, Photoshop CS3 ist auf jeden Fall super (ich selber habe nur CS2) und wenn du Raw-Bilder verwendest, dann hast du ja noch viel Spielraum für veränderungen. Ich kann ja nicht beurteilen, wie gut du dich damit auskennst, aber falls du noch wenig erfahrung im Schärfen von Bildern hast: einfach mal "sharpening cs3" googeln. Es gibt sehr viele verschiedene Techniken, manche versuchen viele kleine Details hervorzuheben (Gefahr: zu viel macht das Bild "körnig"), andere betonen besonders Konturen (z.B. http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/sharpen-an-image/photo-sharpening.html) (Gefahr: zu viel gibt dem Bild leuchtende Konturen). Auf jeden Fall solltest du immer in 100% Ansicht Vorher und Nachher genaustens vergleichen, um zu sehen, welche Technik beim jeweiligen Bild am besten passt. Allerdings muss man ehrlicherweise sagen, dass "richtiges" Schärfen letztlich Ansichtssache ist, allen kann man es selten recht machnen... Gruß und viel Erfolg! Nikopol (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Paul, ich wollte dir noch kurz etwas zum Unterschied von Tiefenschärfe und Schärfen in Fotoshop schreiben. Falls du das schon weißt, dann ignoriere es einfach ;). Du hast bei der neuen Version von deinem Bild geschrieben, du hättest die Tiefenschärfe (DOF) verbessert. Statt dessen hatte ich den Eindruck, du hättest das Bild geschärft (ich denke, man kann nach der Aufname die Tiefenschärfe gar nicht mehr verändern, auch mit Raw nicht). Auch hast du einmal gemeint "The aperture f9, already sharpens the picture" (tut sie nicht wirklich, sie vergrößert nur den Bereich im Raum, der auf dem Foto scharf abgebildet wird, also die Tiefenschärfe). Verstehst du den unterschied zu "Schärfen"? Beim Schärfen verstärkt Photoshop die Kontraste zwischen hellen und dunklen Stellen, wodurch ein Foto scharf erscheint. Die Tiefenschärfe verändert sich dadurch aber nicht mehr. Du kannst bei zu geringer Tiefenschärfe zwar versuchen, mittels Schärfen den Eindruck größerer Tiefenschärfe zu erzielen. Das ist aber sehr schwierig bzw. unmöglich:
  • 1) Du kannst dazu nicht einfach in Fotoshop einen Schärfen-Filter benutzen, der das ganze Bild bearbeitet, weil du ja einen Pixelbereich (Radius) definieren musst. Wenn du hier einen kleinen Bereich wählst, dann werden die scharfen Bereiche im Fokus weiter geschärft, die unscharfen bereiche hingegen sind zu weiträumig und werden nicht mehr ganz erfasst (statt dessen wird das Bild körnig). Wenn du hingegen einen großen Radius wählst, dann werden die unscharfen Bereiche erfasst und geschärft (und auch das nur in Grenzen! Unscharf ist eben unscharf). Dafür ist der Radius dann für die scharfen Bereiche aber zu groß und das Bild wird in diesem Bereich unansehlich. Du müsstest also selektiv schärfen (für scharfe Bereiche mit kleinem Radius, für unscharfe mit großem Radius), was schon anspruchsvollere Bildbearbeitung ist.
  • 2) Bildinformation die nicht da ist kommt auch durch Schärfen nicht zurück. Im unscharfen Bereich fehlt die Information.
  • Das Schärfen braucht generell nahezu jedes Foto (auch mit großem DOF), falls die Kamera es nicht automatisch getan hat. Im Forum wird dir aber jeder raten, die kamerainterne Schärfung gering zu halten und das lieber selbst in Fotoshop zu erledigen, denn so bekommst du meist bessere Ergebnisse. Als Faustregel kannst du nehmen: Schärfen in Fotoshop perfektionniert scharf fokussierte Bilder, unscharfe Bilder sind nicht zu retten. Deshalb ist es am besten, von jedem Motiv immer mehrere Aufnamen zu machen und die schlechten anschließend zu löschen. Ich hoffe ich habe dir jetzt nicht nur bereits Bekanntes geschrieben, aber auf jeden Fall noch viel Erfolg! Nikopol (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Paul ! J'ai modifié la mention de la localisation de cette croix. Elle s'élève en fait sur le terroir de la commune d'fr:Estrées-lès-Crécy et non à Crécy-en-Ponthieu même. J'ai eu confirmation de cela :

Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cistercian abbeys

[edit]

Hoi Paul, there's a short reply. --:bdk: 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kmska_Henry_Van_de_Velde_(1863-1957)_-_Vrouw_bij_het_raam_(1889)_-_28-02-2010_13-12-23.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

FA2010 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wknight94 talk 14:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caudipteryx_28-12-2007_15-03-03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ignacio_Zuloaga_Zabaleta_(1870-1945)_-_Zicht_op_Toledo_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-54-27.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely PierreSelim (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernando Álvarez de Sotomayor (1875-1960) - Huwellijksmaal - Madrid Bellas Artes 21-03-2010 11-51-38.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

File:Kopie van Le goûter van Jean Metzinger, geschilderd door Paul Hermans (wikipediagebruiker) 4-01-2010 13-30-53.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken je die plant nog?

[edit]

Dag Paul,

Ken je die plant nog? Momenteel is die weer in bloei in mijn tuin, waar ze op de wortels van een hazelaar woekert.
Hieronder foto's die ik er vandaag van genomen heb.

Beste botanische groeten, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dedriegapers 10-03-2009 17-36-38.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

BrightRaven (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

BrightRaven (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlbertND 28-09-2008 13-15-08.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

82.124.24.47 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A.Savin 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:Théophile Lybaert (1848-1927) Biddende vrouw (studie) MSK Gent 22-11-2015 12-18-25.JPG seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية  Deutsch  English  español  français  日本語  മലയാളം  polski  português  slovenščina  svenska  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: Why shall the painting be in the public domain in the United States? Please provide the year the painting has been released in Belgium. Has it been released before 1923? Then Template:PD-old-auto-1923 would be right. Template:PD-old-auto-1996 is not possible, because the artist hasn't died before 1926.

Bjarlin (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copied to my own Dutch talk page Paul Hermans (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Opdracht van Jezus in de tempel" door Goswin van der Weyden (1465-1538), kleinzoon van Rogier van der Weyden, in het Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga te Lissabon

[edit]

Hello!

I'am interested to use in a publish the imagem that You taken to the painting: "Opdracht van Jezus in de tempel" door Goswin van der Weyden (1465-1538), kleinzoon van Rogier van der Weyden, in het Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga te Lissabon.

Do You authorizing teh use?

Best regards, José Loureiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauces2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 09 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello José, it is not for me to decide whether you may or may not reuse the image. The terms and conditions are mentioned on the page itself. A translation (if you are Portuguese) in your native language is surely available as well. The image is published on Wikipedia and no longer in my possession. Does this help? Paul Hermans (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Independence Rock 14-9-2014 12-24-22.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

JuTa 03:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

JuTa 03:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File renaming template

[edit]

The renaming template is: {{rename|new name|number of renaming Criterion|verbal explanation|user=}}, for example: {{rename|File:Isabella van Spanje portrait.jpg|2|wrong ID|user=Paul Hermans}}
It is better not to use dots in names: they can case technical problems in old systems. Number of Criterion you can find on the Commons:File_renaming site. When you are an uploader, the best is Criterion #1, uploaders have special favours ;-)
Good luck! Wieralee (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Ignacio Zuloaga Zabaleta (1870-1945) - Zicht op Toledo - Madrid Bellas Artes 21-03-2010 11-54-27.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

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

Yours sincerely, Discasto talk 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Paul Hermans, wil je Willaerts eens doornemen en de nodige rechtzettingen aanbrengen hier? Ik meen ook dat de afbeelding van Adam Willaerts aan het lemma mag worden toegevoegd. Wat denk je? Lotje (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lotje, ik heb de afbeelding van het gulden cabinet toegevoegd op zijn pagina. Wat betreft de onduidelijkheid over toegekend aan of onbekend durf ik me niet uitspreken. Is het van Willaerts als het alleen maar aan hem is toegekend? Mischien best dat je dat aan een van de moderatoren vraagt op commons. Groet Paul Hermans (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt Paul Hermans, ik vrag het meteen @Natuur12: . Misschien heeft hij de oplossing klaarliggen. Lotje (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beste Lotje, ik zou het ook niet weten. Natuur12 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Natuur12: jammer Lotje (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Xperia ZL

[edit]

Beste Paul, deze foto heb jij met een Sony Xperia ZL genomen. Het artikel over die telefoon is nog niet geïllustreerd met een afbeelding. Als je nog een andere camera hebt, kan je dan een foto'tje van je telefoon uploaden? Let op: dat wat wordt afgebeeld op de telefoon als wallpaper kan auteursrechtelijk beschermd zijn. Je bent safe als je Wikipedia opent in een browser. Alvast bedankt. --Vera (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ik heb het voor het ogenblik te druk... het zal voor over twee weken zijn. Groet Paul Hermans (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Het heeft geen haast Vera (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:FOMU Antwerpen 1-5-2017 14-42-52.JPG. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative work of a non-free work, please explain why on the file's talk page.

čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  polski  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  ไทย  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−

Vera (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kopie van Maagd en Kind van Claus van de Werve - Collegiale Sint-Hippolytus Poligny 5-09-2017 10-32-18.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Labattblueboy (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clamecy - Aux flotteurs 29-10-2016 10-39-52.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Benoît Prieur (d) 05:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

[edit]

Housekeeping: I tagged Category:2014 Works in Belgium by year for speedy deletion because Category:2014 works in Belgium is the right category. - Alexis Jazz 02:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes thanks for cleaning up the mess I made :) Paul Hermans (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Maison Losseau à Mons

[edit]

Bonjour Paul :) !

Je suis Anne, nous nous sommes rencontrés lors de l'édit-à-thon qui a eu lieu à la représentation permanente de la Suède à Bruxelles le 8 mars dernier.

Je te contacte parce que tu fais partie des contributeurs habitant en Belgique tout en étant également francophone. En collaboration avec Wikimédia Belgique, la maison Losseau de Mons va organiser des ateliers photo au mois d'octobre, pour importer sur Commons des images de leur patrimoine immobilier (il s'agit d'une maison dont l'architecture est de style art nouveau) comme mobilier (pièces, médailles, photo, archives, ouvrages...). Ces ateliers seront étalés sur le mois d'octobre : samedi 6 octobre pour la visite guidée de la maison Losseau, et samedis 13 et 20 octobre en après-midi pour les ateliers couplant photographie et Commons. Le public sera peu nombreux (une dizaine de personnes, sur inscription ouverte durant le mois de septembre) et composé de photographes débutants et amateurs, qui seront invités à téléverser leurs images sur Commons pour participer au concours Wiki Loves Heritage).

Pour animer ces ateliers avec moi et notamment la partie photo, je recherche un ou plusieurs bénévoles pour former et/ou encadrer nos participant(e)s. Pour ma part, je serai présente aux deux ateliers et je devrais assurer la partie Commons avec l'introduction aux licences libres et aux droits d'auteurs.

Si tu es intéressé pour donner un coup de main, n'hésite pas à me contacter via ma page de discussion ou par mail ! De même si tu as des questions à propos de ces ateliers ou que tu connais quelqu'un qui serait spécialisé dans la photographie muséale et qui pourrait nous aider :)

Bonne journée ! .Anja. (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Réponse par mail à .Anja. Paul Hermans (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Frans Walravens (1928) Brede heupen - Klein Begijnhof Mechelen 13-09-2018.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Frans Walravens (1928) Brede heupen - Klein Begijnhof Mechelen 13-09-2018.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

corrected, P instead of p :) Paul Hermans (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Imre Varga (1923) Béla Bartók (Brussel) 22-09-2018.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Imre Varga (1923) Béla Bartók (Brussel) 22-09-2018.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Herman De Somer (1923-2008) Sopeter Vlekkem 5-10-2018 14-45-32.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Herman De Somer (1923-2008) Sopeter Vlekkem 5-10-2018 14-45-32.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Herman De Somer (1923-2008) Sopeter Vlekkem 5-10-2018 14-45-45.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Herman De Somer (1923-2008) Sopeter Vlekkem 5-10-2018 14-45-45.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interview Wiki Loves Heritage contributions for FARO magazine

[edit]

Dear Paul, My name is Sam Donvil and for my organisation PACKED vzw Center of Expertise for Digital Heritage I am co-organising Wiki Loves Heritage 2018. As I've noticed that many of the contributions are yours and since I'm currently writing an article for FARO magazine about the contest, I was wondering if I could briefly call in order to ask you a couple of questions about your motivation to contribute to Wikimedia platforms. You can reach me at sam@packed.be aswell as on +32 (0)2 217 14 05. thank you very much for your time and consideration! --Sam.Donvil (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Lord Belbury (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Henri Puvrez (1893-1971) Constant Permeke Jabbeke 27-10-2019.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Henri Puvrez (1893-1971) Constant Permeke Jabbeke 27-10-2019.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sainte-Marie-de-Campan Eugène Christophe 8-10-2019.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

4ing (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bozar 29-01-2019 13-44-06.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

M0tty (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Paul Hermans, zou te achterhalen zijn of dit zusters van Willy Schlobach zijn? Qua datum zou het wel kunnen. Thanks. Lotje (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volgens de titel van het schilderij wel. Groet Paul Hermans (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you add a license template covering the photograph. The object itself sure is in the public domain. Your photograph can be copyrighted depicting a 3D frame. Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thx for letting me know. Done. Paul Hermans (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Hermans: de beschrijving bij deze afbeelding omschrijft het als La Purificación de la Virgen. Voor wat het waard is. :-) Lotje (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Heritage Belgium 2021

[edit]

Beste vriend van Wikimedia België, De jury heeft beslist, de prijzen zijn bekend. U bent bij de 10 winnaars. Gelieve het juryrapport te lezen. Van harte gefeliciteerd. Geert Van Pamel (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dikke proficiat Lotje (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je wel Lotje! Paul Hermans (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, your original upload from 2007 had, contrary to our rules, been overwritten in 2018 by a newer photo of the same chapel. As a user on :de preferred to use the older photo, I've split history and restored your original image under the above mentioned filename. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thx for your help Túrelio!

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category

[edit]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Wall painting in Bredene. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Jmabel, very helpfull. Paul Hermans (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Used a photo of yours, thanks for sharing!

[edit]

I contribute mainly to Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål, and have been updating the article about the Battle of the Bulge, in it I used one of your pictures in a gallery of memorials (see link below):

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenneroffensiven#Minnesteder_og_krigskirkeg%C3%A5rder

Thank you for sharing & your good work! Kind regards from Oslo, Norway, Ulflarsen (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much, dear Ulflarsen. Keep up the good work yourself! Hope not to see this happen again in Europe. Kind regards from Belgium. Paul Hermans (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]