Arie m den toom

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Arie m den toom!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

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.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Pont de saint Nicolas.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Air.wav edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Hervormde Kerk Bolnes - 1905.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Arie, je hebt bij deze leuke kaart van Bolnes gezet dat je zelf de auteur bent, maar dit is een scan van een oude ansichtkaart dus dat kan niet. Ik heb de licentie even voor je aangepast en de naam van het bestand duidelijker gemaakt. Groet, Joris (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Hervormde Kerk Bolnes - 1905.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hervormde Kerk Bolnes - 1905.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Hervormde Kerk Bolnes - 1905.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Edoderoo (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Misidentified image File:Alpensedum 1.jpg identified edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Arie m den toom,

I just moved your nice photograph to Category:Saxifraga aizoides and corrected the description. Please check, because I do not speak any Dutch.

With best regards, --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: I just saw that you wrote your wrong ID (Sedum montanum) into the photograph. Could you possibly replace the photograph by a version without this misleading name? Renaming the file would be also necessary. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Image without license edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:View of the factory in Moordrecht Holland, 1925.jpg edit

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful 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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 07:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Afbeeldingen Groote Stoom Enschede edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dag, Arie m den toom. Ik zag uw uploads van twee variaties van het zelfde schilderij met de Groote Stoom te Enschede, maar geen van beide plaatjes lijkt op de afbeelding die is opgenomen in de scriptie die u als bron opgeeft. Het lijkt mij onmogelijk dat die scriptie de bron is, dus ik zou graag weten wat wel de bron is. Ik vraag het, omdat de kleuren nogal afwijken en ook de verhoudingen niet overeen lijken te komen. Graag hoor ik dus wat uw bron is. Eissink (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC).Reply

Laat ik het, na nog iets nauwkeuriger te hebben gekeken, anders zeggen: de bron die u opgeeft is niet de bron van de geüploade afbeelding, en de twee afbeeldingen zijn afkomstig van een andere bron. Uw eerste upload is een opgeblazen en verkleurde versie van deze afbeelding (of misschien deze), en uw tweede upload is een opgeblazen en verkleurde versie van deze afbeelding.

Laat ik helder zijn: dit soort beeldmanipulatie kan u een blokkade voor onbepaalde tijd opleveren. Ik en vele anderen zijn er absoluut niet van gediend dat integere afbeeldingen van originele kunstwerken worden gemanipuleerd door personen die het origineel nog nooit hebben gezien. U verandert de verhouding van het origineel, u verkleurt het op verschrikkelijke wijze, en doet desondanks voorkomen dat het uit een bron komt die niet eens de werkelijke bron blijkt te zijn.

Inmiddels heb ik uw antwoord op mijn overlegpagina (had hier gegeven moeten worden) gelezen.

Het is zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat een afbeelding van enkele dagen oud plots niet meer te vinden is, en ik geloof dan ook eigenlijk geen biet van uw verhaal. Laat ik u wijzen op een kwestie die wellicht de ernst van dit soort manipulaties illustreert: deze zaak is inmiddels exemplarisch, en een stuk jurisprudentie aangaande beeldmanipulatie: het wordt niet getolereerd en manipulators kunnen een OT Block tegemoetzien.

Ik zal de vervalsingen vervangen door de originele reproducties. Als ik u nogmaals betrap op gesjoemel met bronnen en afbeeldingen, dan weet u hoe laat het is. Eissink (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC).Reply

Waarde Eissink, uw standpunt is helder. In ieder geval onze dank voor het beschikbaar stellen van de originele reproducties. m.v.g. Arie M. den Toom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arie m den toom (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Er rust geen auteursrecht meer op de schildering, dus ook de reproducties zijn voor iedereen beschikbaar. Als iemand toegang heeft tot zo'n oud schilderij en zo vriendelijk is daarvan een getrouwe reproductie te geven, dan kan iedereen daarvan gebruikmaken. Om zo'n relatief schaarse afbeelding te misvormen en verkleuren wordt op Commons echter een doodzonde geacht, en terecht: het doel van Wikimedia Commons is onder meer kennis te delen, en anderen een rad voor ogen draaien met een vervalsing valt daar niet onder. Zo simpel is het. Eissink (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC).Reply

File tagging File:Adn tractor met dog motor 1950.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Adn tractor met dog motor 1950.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Adn tractor met dog motor 1950.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Eissink (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

De foto is afkomstig uit het handboek (1950??) behorend bij de de antieke trekker zie https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forges_et_aciéries_du_Nord_et_de_l%27Est Volgens mij bestaat de firma niet meer, ik heb geen idee of dit wel of niet mag. Arie M. den Toom (talk)

File tagging File:Dordrecht trinitatiskapel Marie Elisabeth Monsees.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dordrecht trinitatiskapel Marie Elisabeth Monsees.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dordrecht trinitatiskapel Marie Elisabeth Monsees.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:De Telegraaf 19-02-1957.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content.

We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.

In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files.

Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.

Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ Nederlands ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ русский ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Waarde Patrick, een file zoals File:De Telegraaf 19-02-1957.jpg een kopie van een krantenbericht, kan dat niet of wel en hoe dan? Arie M. den Toom (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Copyright edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Dag, Arie m den toom. Ik zie dat nu meermaals enkele van uw uploads verwijderd moeten worden omdat ze niet vrij van rechten zijn. Misschien is het goed om aan te houden, dat werken waarvan de auteur/fotograaf niet bekend is, in elk geval NIET vrij te gebruiken zijn als ze van 1950 of later dateren (tenzij de bron uitdrukkelijk anders vermeldt natuurlijk) – anoniem werk is namelijk pas bruikbaar na zeventig jaar en dan pas vanaf 1 januari van het volgende kalenderjaar. Dat voorkomt wellicht overbodig werk voor u en anderen. Met vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Zo zou dus de verwijderde foto "Adn tractor met dog motor 1950" wellicht per 1 januari 2021 te gebruiken zijn, als het tenminste om een uitgave van bijvoorbeeld binnen de Europese Unie ging, want elders gelden weer andere termijnen. Eissink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Waarde Eissink, een file zoals File:De Telegraaf 19-02-1957.jpg een kopie van een krantenbericht, kan dat niet of wel?? Arie M. den Toom (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nee, 1957 is te jong. Anno 2020 is alles vóór 1950 doorgaans wel toegestaan (als de fotograaf/auteur onbekend is).

Het probleem met dat knipsel is 1.) de foto, waarop auteursrechten rusten, ook al is onbekend wie de fotograaf is, en 2.) ook op de tekst rust auteursrecht. Eissink (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Ik neem aan dat het vooral om de afbeelding ging, dus ik zal eens kijken of ik een te gebruiken foto van Monsees kan vinden. Eissink (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Tot nu toe tevergeefs. Op deze foto staat ze in Zierikzee, zo herken ik aan de preekstoel, maar hoewel ze daar voorging 1942-1946, ging ze ook later nog regelmatig terug – de foto heeft wel een jaren veertig-uitstraling, maar ik weet het niet zeker. Helaas. Ik laat het hier voorlopig bij. Groet, Eissink (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

File tagging File:National Monuments Service Record Number WA040-008005.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:National Monuments Service Record Number WA040-008005.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:National Monuments Service Record Number WA040-008005.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ytoyoda (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Desvres musee de ceramique, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Desvres musee de ceramique, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ytoyoda (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Desvres musee de ceramique, brasserie leon nortier, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Desvres musee de ceramique, brasserie leon nortier, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ytoyoda (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Licenties edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dag, Arie m den toom. Ik zie dat je nu tegen licentieproblemen aanloopt (ik had je overlegpagina nog op mijn volglijst staan). De toegestane licenties staan vrij duidelijk beschreven in het overzichtje op deze pagina: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/nl. Juist de NC- en de ND-licenties zijn niet toegestaan. Bruikbaar zijn alleen CC BY en CC BY-SA en CCO (meestal herkenbaar door het woordje 'deed' [daad]; de PD 'mark' [merk / aanmerking] is nu juist niet bruikbaar). Hopelijk ben je hier iets mee geholpen. Vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Bijgaande foto vond ik op Flickr, CC BY, dus te gebruiken. Eissink (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Desvres musee de ceramique, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Desvres musee de ceramique, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Elisfkc (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Desvres musee de ceramique, brasserie leon nortier, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Desvres musee de ceramique, brasserie leon nortier, abac077, 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Elisfkc (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Waarde Eisink Hartelijk dank voor uw hulp, ik vind het wel heel erg ingewikkeld door wikicommons wordt genoemd Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 2.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 2.0) en Flickr vermeld Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Inhoudelijk lijkt het mij hetzelfde maar klaarblijkelijk niet. Wel jammer van mijn bijdrage van 15 euro, hopelijk kunnen we dit jaar zoals gebruikelijk naar Boulogne sur Mer meestal gaan we ook wel een dag naar Desvres ik zal dan zelf een foto maken.

met hartelijke groet Arie M. den Toom (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:Ewoldt.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

DMacks (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Waarde De foto is in 1946 gemaakt door een onbekend gemeentelid, waarschijnlijk de heer Joen (die maakte wel meer foto's) die in 1946 is overleden. De foto werd door de plaatselijke fotograaf afgedrukt en ingelijst en hangt net als portretten van alle predikanten in de kerkenraadskamer. Ik ben archivaris van de Boezemkerk en inventariseer alles ondermeer voor Kerkcollectie digitaal van het Catharine Convent. https://kerkcollectie.catharijneconvent.nl Arie M. den Toom (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geachte Arie m den toom, degenen die een afbeelding voor verwijdering nomineren, zullen vaak niet de volgpagina van de uploader volgen, dus uw boodschap wordt waarschijnlijk niet gelezen (daarbij: de voertaal op deze internationale site is Engels, tenzij twee gebruikers onderling op eigen overlegpagina's de taal delen). Op de pagina van de genomineerde afbeelding is een rood sjabloon geplaatst, met een link 'hier' naar de pagina waar de discussie over de afbeelding plaatsheeft en dat is dus de plek om eventueel bezwaar te maken. Ik neem van u aan dat de foto in 1946 is gemaakt en dat de fotograaf onbekend is, wat betekent dat de foto wel kan worden gebruikt, maar er zal dan een andere licentie aan moeten worden gegeven, want u bent niet gemachtigd om er een copyright-licentie aan te hangen, omdat u niet de copyrighthouder bent. Ik zal de licentie veranderen (die wordt PD-anon-70-EU. oftewel Publiek Domein in de EU omdat de foto ouder is dan 70 jaar en de niet te achterhalen maker anoniem) en mij op de discussiepagina vervoegen. Voor elke beginner is het lastig om de weg te vinden in het juridische woud omtrent te gebruiken afbeeldingen, dat was voor mij niet anders, maar gaandeweg leert men wel. Mocht u vragen, schroom niet om mij te vragen, maar u kunt ook altijd terecht in de wel Nederlandstalige Kroeg: Commons:De Kroeg.

Wat betreft de NC- en ND-licenties: die zijn niet verenigbaar met Commons, omdat Commons alle afbeeldingen óók beschikbaar stelt voor commercieel gebruik en voor afgeleid werk, dus dat zou dan indruisen tegen de wens van de copyright-houder. Tot zover, met vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Nogmaals hartelijk dank, ik heb het aldaar omschreven Arie M. den Toom (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Paris Musées edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Ik had al uitvoerig geantwoord, maar iemand had je bijdrage naar onderaan de overlegpagina verplaatst, omdat dat gebruikelijk is op overlegpagina's (nieuwe bijdragen onderaan) en ik vond het niet nodig dat terug te plaatsen. Ik zal mijn eerdere antwoorden hiernaartoe kopiëren, dan kan het overleg hier eventueel gaan. (Misschien is het voor het overzicht handig om oudere, afgehandelde berichten op de eigen pagina te verwijderen.) Eissink (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

(Verplaatst van overlegpagina Eissink:)

Dag, Arie M. den Toom. Misschien kan deze vraag beter in de Kroeg worden gesteld, want ik voel me niet geheel vertrouwd met de Franse taal. De gegeven voorbeelden betreft werken van een kunstenaar die meer dan zeventig jaar geleden is overleden en zijn vrij van auteursrecht (dat geldt ook in Frankrijk, zie ook hier), maar Paris Musées lijkt zich het recht op de eigen reproducties toch voor te willen behouden, als ik de rechtenpagina goed begrijp (of ze dat wel mógen doen, dat is een ander verhaal: het gebeurt helaas vaak dat rechtenvrij werk toch achter een watermerk wordt gepresenteerd, dit bijvoorbeeld). Het CC0-symbool zie ik op de pagina niet, terwijl men dat bij de voorbeeldgevallen dan wel zou verwachten. In beginsel zou ik me over werk van deze 70+ jaar geleden overleden kunstenaars niet druk maken en het wel gebruiken, zeker de lage resolutie-foto, met een licentie PD-old-70 (nóóit een CC-licentie gebruiken als die niet expliciet is gegeven! ook niet de CC0). Het is dan wel zo netjes om goed te vermelden uit welke collectie het komt, met link naar de vindplaats, want die credits komen de musea toe, maar dat spreekt hopelijk welhaast voor zich. Maar vraag dus voor meer zekerheid ook nog even in De Kroeg, daar reageren ook vaak wel gebruikers met een betere kennis van het Frans. Velen weten meer dan een. Ik zal de komende tijd hoe dan ook wel even je uploads in de gaten houden en bijspringen waar nodig. Groet, Eissink (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

P.S. wat mij ook wel eens helpt, is kijken hoe anderen het hebben gedaan. In dit geval dus bijvoorbeeld zoeken op 'parismuseescollections' (een deel van de url) en dan vergelijkbare afbeeldingen bekijken en zien welke licentie is gebruikt etc. Dat is wel leerzaam.

Aanvullend, Arie M. den Toom: bij de voorbeelden ontbreekt de download/télécharger-knop, wat wel aangeeft dat ze die afbeelding liever niet gedownload zien, want elders is zo'n knop wel aanwezig (voorbeeld). Dat vraagt om enige voorzichtigheid, maar zoals eerder gezegd is maar de vraag of Paris Muséés zulke claims kan maken (mijn indruk uit de discussies is dat ze dat niet mogen, ook al is er geïnvesteerd in de opname, want het blijft een werk waarop geen auteursrecht meer rust en de foto zelf is geen origineel werk). Eissink (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cornelis van Beveren edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ik zie dat File:Balen cornelis van beveren.jpg wordt gebruikt in het artikel van een latere naamgenoot van Cornelis van Beveren, dat kan niet de bedoeling zijn. Het geboorte- en het sterfjaar staan nota bene op de afbeelding vermeld. Zie ook https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Beveren_(geslacht). Ik kan de Nederlandse Wikipedia niet bewerken, dus mijn verzoek om die afbeelding weer weg te halen, want dit kan natuurlijk niet in een serieuze encyclopedie. Eissink (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

is verwijderd, dank Arie M. den Toom (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Orden uw bestand AUB edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ik sluit me aan bij de algemene tendens van mijn collega's hierboven, wees aub veel nauwkeuriger. Ik heb deze afbeelding moeten corrigeren qua categorie. Doe dit aub volgende keer zelf met bijhorende nauwkeurigheid, anders zijn uw bestanden nooit terug te vinden. bedankt --Carolus (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bis Remarks edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Ram, vaas, Frits van Besst, vervalsing.jpg:

Please stop putting your own personal value or judgement in the discription of an artwork. This information should be given in the article.
Please upload an image with the goal of using it on all Wikis not only NL: commons is not a department of the NL:WIKI.
I realy doubt if your level of English is enough to communicate in a basic written level or to categorise your images in an acceptable way.

--Carolus (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bronnen edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beste Arie m den Toom, u plaatst met regelmaat nieuwe afbeeldingen op Wikimedia Commons; dat is op zich plezierig. Zou u wel beter bij de 'Source (bron)' veld van het uploadformulier de precieze bron vermelden waar u de afbeelding vandaan heeft? Dit kan het beste gebeuren met een url waar de afbeelding online te vinden is. Indien u afbeeldingen of teksten uit bijvoorbeeld Delpher knipt kunt u ook het beste de precieze url van de Delpher-pagina vermelden Ik zie namelijk een paar afbeeldingen langskomen waarvan ik twijfel aan de auteursrechtelijke status. Indien u de url vermeld heeft, dan kan ik u eenvoudig(er) helpen met het vaststellen van de auteursrechtelijke status, zodat bepaald kan worden of het geüploade beeld wel in het publieke domein is. Met vriendelijke groet, Ecritures (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Portret van een vrouw ans luttge deetman.jpg edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Portret van een vrouw ans luttge deetman.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Portret van een vrouw ans luttge deetman.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Agora (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Stilleven met boeket en fruitschaal ans luttge deetman.jpg edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Stilleven met boeket en fruitschaal ans luttge deetman.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Stilleven met boeket en fruitschaal ans luttge deetman.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Agora (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Bloeiende fruitgaard ans luttge deetman.jpg edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bloeiende fruitgaard ans luttge deetman.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Bloeiende fruitgaard ans luttge deetman.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Agora (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

Affected:

File:Hafez orakelkaartje 05.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Hanooz 23:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Ships of Stoomboot-Reederij Fop Smit & Co edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ik kon bij de schepen alleen van 1 schip de werf terugvinden, van de overige alleen de plaats van de werf. Maar daar zijn meer werven (geweest). Heb jij wel zicht op welke werf of werven de schepen bouwde? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Van alle schepen wordt in de publicatie van Boot de eigenaar, de opdrachtgever, de werf en een korte historie vermeld. (Boot, W.J.J. en Sandberg, A. Maas en Merwe : geschiedenis van de Stoomboot Reederij Fop Smit & Co. 1847-1878-1950) gr.Arie M. den Toom (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re-uploading files edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, just so you know: you can overwrite previous uploads if you found an error in the first upload. If you upload the correction as a new file, you'll create a duplicate and people will not which file is outdated/superseded. Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

Affected:

File:Donzenac saintmartin 03.jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Gil Blas, Philadelphia 02-11-1895.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Copyright status: File:Gil Blas, Philadelphia 02-11-1895.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gil Blas, Philadelphia 02-11-1895.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, Yann (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

kan verwijderd worden. Arie M. den Toom (talk) Arie M. den Toom (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic