Last modified on 28 May 2015, at 11:07

User talk:Natuur12

Gray wolf (Canis Lupis).jpg

Natuur12 is taking a wikibreak
Time to take a break. Don't worry, I'll be around but my focus lies elswhere. There has been enough drama lately.

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Natuur12!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


User talk:Natuur12/Archive 1

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FIFA World Cup trophyEdit

I have cropped File:Germany and Argentina face off in the final of the World Cup 2014 -2014-07-13 (13).jpg can you please delet the prior versions. LGA talkedits 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

re: "No reason to delete the file"Edit

Can you clarify please? I see you have OTRS access and can see the email. Is a request by a subject in the picture not enough justification to delete? The image is not in use in any article and was the sole image uploaded by the user. I figured it would be uncontroversial to delete this if someone in the picture kindly requests it. Perhaps there's a deletion policy I missed? -- OlEnglish (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the ticket since it is not in the proper queue. I have acces to all Commons-related queue's but I cannot read this ticket. In that case I have to follow the statements made in the DR. Fo0r courtesy deletions like this the motivation is extremely important. I want the images gone is not a valid reason when the person for higly ranked military personal at public events where you have a great change that you will be photographed. Secondly he posed for the image. And my last reason is that this is one of the better images of the subject on the right. Policy says very little about courtesy deletions. I have a question for you, do you have acces to the permission-queue's at OTRS? I see that you don't have an OTRS flag. Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah I understand. Makes sense that the image also containing a more notable subject would be a good reason to keep it around. The ticket was in the info-en queue as the subject also requested deletion of a draft article on him in enwiki on the same ticket. Hmm, I don't know why I don't have an OTRS flag.. I've been inactive on OTRS for over a year though, so it's possible they've removed me from the user list? However I do still have an account on the system and have recently been active again. I do have access to the permissions queues including permissions-commons and permissions-en. I've already closed the ticket, but I can still move it to permissions if you wish? -- OlEnglish (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not needed but it I will request the OTRS-flag for you since you will trigger a certain filter if you add a ticket to a file-page. Natuur12 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:ATV.svgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:ATV.svg. 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Dutch inauguration attendees, 2013.jpg & File:Swearing in of Willem-Alexander.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

These two flickr images are flickrwashes from the metadata which says they were stolen from another website. Can this uploaders July 24 & July 25 images be deleted? Secondly do you know what to do about the source flickr account? Is it a problem since it is licensing other people's high profile images on its account? W Bayer is not J Lampen in the metadata. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I tagged this image since the metadata said it was a '2013 Getty image' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes those files should ne deleted since the ANP is the copyrightholder and they normally don't transfer their copyright. It is a real pitty since those files are very valuable. I will list them for DR. Natuur12 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help in the DR and my sympathies to your people in the Netherlands in this difficult time. Justice for the MH-17 plane tragedy will be difficult I think since Putin will try to create 'plausible deniability' even if no one believes that he didn't armed the rebels with the BUK anti-aircraft missilies. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It is sad that this happened :(. Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Jetsun Pema in India.jpgEdit

I added something in the licensing section. I tried to create a template.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found an image for another article but I am unsure what to do with it. The image is here and the disclaimer is here. Note that it does say that everything on the site is public.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When I read their copyrightstatement here it tells me: . The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. which is a non derivative license and those are not allowed at Commons. I am not entirely sure about the statement of your second image so maybe it is better to ask an opinion from someone else but I would say that the permission listed at their website doesn't include making modification or using it commercially. Natuur12 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Also the template Template:Government India that you, @Hipposcrashed created is incorret. The site does not mention a Creative Commons license, therefore the file is not licensed under a Creative Commons License. A license is a contract. You cant say a licensor agreed to a contract if he not explicitely did this, and did not sign that contract. At they offer you a different license, the conditions of that license not fulfill Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. We already have a template for this: Template:Attribution-PIB-India redirects to speedy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's July uploadsEdit

This user uploaded several July images but I cannot tell if they are free or what is the exact source for them except for one...which I tagged as a copyvio. Maybe you have better luck? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • This notice by INC before he left Commons does not help inspire confidence in this uploader. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Most of them where com:LL. Blocked the uploader, blacklisted his flickr stream and took care of most his uploads. Natuur12 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply and investigation. I will vote in the DR here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Can you check the above file, I belive it may be Recreation of content previously deleted by yourself following Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Bar.svg. LGA talkedits 22:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The file is quite similar but slightly different. A regular DR might be the best solution here. I was just about to go to bed so I will look in to it later today. Natuur12 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Natuur,

With regards to a DR I noticed the result was deletion. On further inspection of the matter solely on the DR justification, which was "duplicate", I can't exactly follow the DR nominator. The deleted file in question was uploaded on 4 October 2008, and the other picture on 9 October 2008. The deleted picture was the original file, not the other way around (see the description which mentions: "This image is a derivative work of the following images: [...]"). Furthermore I can't see that it is a duplicate, cf. colours. I would appreciate your input on the matter. Thanks in advance.

Best regards, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail //

Yes, those files where not exactly the same. The one deleted was really overexposed and redundant. The newer upload is in a way better quality. Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The deleted file was after all the original one, not a duplicate. If the derivative looks better, would be a subjective assessment. Surely both of the pictures ought to remain. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Overexposed isnot subjective in this case and it is allowed to delete redundant files, see here. If you don't agree you can go to com:UNDEL but redundant pictures are deleted daily so I see no reason to start a discussion about this specific file. Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Степан Анастасович Микоян.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

I don't know if this is a picasawash but if it a derivative image placed on picasa, perhaps it should be deleted? I don't know who owns the rights to this image but maybe you do. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to mark this image if you think it is OK. Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I hope this second image is OK as this uploader doesn't seem to know image licenses. I failed all of his other uploads and tagged a few as copyvios...just to have a record on his talkpage. I think only one other image he uploaded passed flickr review in the past...though this image may be OK if you think it is as an experienced Admin. If not, Lymantria may have to look at it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The second image is okay. The first one requires somone who speaks Russian so maybe @Russavia: can help you out with that one. Natuur12 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Rus confirmed that the image is okey so I marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help on the first image. On the second image, its good to know that one other image by this uploader passed review. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, re: deletion please restore.Edit

Hi there Natuur, I've come across you on a different board now and need to clear the air. It was you that started some nonsense with one of your deletions, you've restored others can you please restore these items in the commons?

They are art only in the sense that they are creative; rather they are designs that I would like to protect for the future of humanity, each one is on a different and new format, and needs the protection of the creative commons. These are educational in the life skills that people need to have, and are utilized all over in places where folks are trying to live without capitalism. I have been working on some like the rocket stove for over two years now, and would feel terrible if it got a copyright on it from some company to make money and oppress those who wouldn't. There's a strength together, and having these files proves my case if it were to come up. Each is original work and open intellectual property, but no one may copyright the designs thereof to prevent others from doing them. Isn't this the ideology of the Wikimedia Commons?

Furthermore, after reviewing feedback from the town pump, I don't think any of these match the qualifications for ; and fit all of the requirements under I've done my homework, and am really worried about getting a copyright stolen out from under me. Please, end the insanity; let's go.

No and you already filed a undeletions request which was rejected so you understand that I am not going to waste my time with discussing this for a third time? I would like to give you some advice though. If you want the protection of a cc-license you could also upload your files to flicr. You can even choose a non commercial license there. Natuur12 (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Send me the files, please. No bullshit on this, man. You give the commons a bad name. Recommend cutting your deletions down by about a half, and that damn bird BrightRaven got zapped by a lightning-bolt. This is exactly the type of material that needs to be on the Commons; well now another way gets them.EM Che (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that this last comment got you blocked. And no, after this comment, don't expect any help from me. Natuur12 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

License review requestEdit

Could you pleas perform the license check on these two uploads

Thanks in advance,
--RussianTrooper (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - confirmed the license. Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Hamadania arena.jpgEdit

If this image can be passed, please feel free to pass it. Syria has no FOP so I don't know what is the solution here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a picture of the skyline and there are not many copyrightable parts visible so I think that this one is okay. But like always cases like this are a bit subjective. Marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help here. FOP can be a problem. Please feel free to make a reply to this DR if you wish. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for your reply here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless Wikimedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality.

Please keep up your good work! Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and will do :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Post Danmark logo.svg.pngEdit

Did you notice that User:Marcus Cyron failed to follow COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? §4? You only deleted the redirect. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnot notice. Deleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpgEdit

Russavia reverted the deletion because I went on IRC to ask for help and he happened to be online.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, deleted it again. Russavia can go to com:UNDEL just like everyone else. Natuur12 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Some imagesEdit

Dear Natuur,

If you have some time, please consider marking the first image I uploaded here and consider marking (passing or failing) the second and third flickr images below which have derivative images or graffiti in them.

If you have a bit more time, please consider marking just a few images in panoramio human review--if you wish. I marked many flickr images today since I had a bit of time. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Marked the first, failed the second and marked the third since mister Chad is covered FOP in my opinion. The subject is mister Chad and you cannot avoid the grafiti if you want to take a photograph which makes me think that it is DM. But like always in cases involving DM, someone might disagree. ~~
  • Thanks for all your help on the first and second images. It is appreciated. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Macaque photo deletionEdit

You have been very quick at closing the discussion without allowing any further debate. I understand very well that this picture has seen trouble before, but it was nominated for a different reason. I am nominating it for deletion because this is clearly not the original picture that is alleged (not determined) to be in the public domain in the US, but a different picture, edited from the original, sourced from a media outlet with no clear statement as to permissibility of re-use.

The prudent thing to do is to discuss the issue on those terms. After all, it's not as if the image was of particular value to the Wikimedia project: there are plenty of other macaque snaps with non-controversial licensing.

I am undoing your edit. Please respect my concern for the fair and lawful use of the image in question and do not re-close without letting some discussion occur. If discussion on the terms of violation that I allege do go astray, then I agree that closing may be re-considered.

Do allow me to point out that "someone read the story in the newspaper" is hardly a valid argument to suppress discussion.

No, this has been discussed to death. No need to to start this all over again. Natuur12 (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Full protectionEdit

Hi Natuur12, I see that you have protected File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg. Would you in that case please unprotect its talk page? I don't think it's an acceptable situation in a wiki to have both a file page and its talk page fully protected. darkweasel94 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Changed the protection so semi. I see that the file is renominated. Why is it so hard for people to wait untill the media-soap is over. So more drama incoming anyway. Natuur12 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dzhokhar Dudayev, President of the Chechen Republic 1991-1996.jpgEdit

Mister Administrator (and ... ?)

This is communist traditional censorship. Good soviet (and polish) communist tradition. Congratulation Mister Administrator (and Censor of Wikimedia, new function?). Very good tradition, very good. Yours faithfully. Z Zetpe0202 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zetpe0202: I think the reason for deletion is clear and this has nothing to do with communist traditional censorship. JurgenNL (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

These 5 imagesEdit

Dear Admin Natuur,

Would you know how to mark these 5 images below? Four appear to be WWII images but are posted on a private flickr account while the fifth image has a poster of Superman.

Thank You and Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

    • The images are certainly not the account holders own work. However the British Royal Air Force is listed as the author so they might be PD but I am not really familiar with the English copyright laws. Natuur12 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you consider marking (passing or failing) the last image--the Superman image. Its your decision of course. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nominated for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your decision here. I wasn't 100% sure here about this image since wearing a costume of Superman was OK but this is a 2D image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Ljubljana - Poštna hranilnica (Cankarjeva 18) - figura dajanja (Ivan Jurkovič, 1927-30).jpgEdit

Hi, Natuur12, what do you mean with this 'File has no source' tag?[1] The source is clearly stated in the description: it's a Flickr stream. --Eleassar (t/p) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I get a 404 error when I follow the link. Natuur12 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This means that the Flickr stream has been taken down since the image was uploaded to Commons, but it's no different than File:Ljubljana - Poštna hranilnica (Cankarjeva 18) - figura varčevanja (Ivan Jurkovič, 1927-30).jpg, which has been reviewed and confirmed as ok - it's just a crop of this one. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Please add this info the the file discription since this is indeed sufficiant eveidence that the file was available under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've added it. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Two imagesEdit

Dear Natuur, If you have time, please consider marking these 2 images as an experienced Admin.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Marked the first since it looks pretty old and nominated the second for deletion. We need more info to know of that file is okay under UK-fop. Natuur12 (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree but someone also created this category of similar images. I will vote in your DR and sign off as its very late here. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • If the result of the DR is delete than I will nominate the other images. Natuur12 (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank you very much. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting dates?Edit

In these couple cases of cleanup, you erased the (misplaced, but correct) date info. Are you aware of it? I semi-automaticly fixed most (all but these few) of these issues caused by my abuse of the Vicuña upload form, immediately after upload. Anyway, thanks for the License Reviews. (Also, Yann said I should apply to be a reviewer. What do you think?) -- Tuválkin 06:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. That might have happened in a few more cases. And I agree with Yann. You will make a good license reviewer. Natuur12 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I went through my reviews and corrected it. Natuur12 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These images belowEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Would you mind passing (or failing) these 2 images below as an Admin?

Originally, I had failed them as speedy delete I think since there were few images on the source flickr account but the uploader typed this message here and it may be that he sought the photographer's permission for the images. I failed them long ago...but maybe I was hasty and they should be passed by an experienced Admin like you. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally, if this shirt is OK, please mark it. That's all. Nothing more, thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

    • For the first two I would just ask the user. And for the third image, this is not really my subject so I am not sure. Sorry for the late responce, was busy with some other stuff. Natuur12 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply here Natuur. Don't worry about the response time as we are all volunteers here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


I uploaded this image on wikipedia but it says I still need rationale. File:Emblem of Queen Jetsun Pema of Bhutan.jpg.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And also I have this image Crown of the Queen of Bhutan.jpg which is my own.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what do you want from me? That's not stated in your mesage. Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WMF uploadsEdit

I saw your comments at the DR, and was hoping that you would be able to offer input on the following:

  • File:Multimedia Vision 2016.pdf, a related .pdf file, which also displays the copyrighted image. I have not bothered to nominate this one yet because Peteforsyth is already on my ass about perceived "personal attacks". By the way, FrescoBot borked the file links back in May.
  • File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia.pdf, which contains a fair use image. I pointed out that the fair use file is still present in the newer upload, which was Peteforsyth's cue to accuse me of personal attacks for stating that WMF staff and affiliated people should know better than to do this. It is my opinion that "they should know better" is not a "personal attack". The only reason I even mentioned it is because there are (at least) four WMF presentation files present on Commons that do not comply with policy. It seems they should indeed know better.

Many thanks for any help you can give. I won't be able to follow up on this, and I expect to be blocked for bringing this up. Peteforsyth complained of my "veil of anonymity", but I am not a registered user, and I don't care to register, quite frankly. 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't complain about your choice not to use an account, that's no problem at all. But I do think it's distasteful for those who choose not to identify themselves, to comment on the professional capabilities of those who do identify themselves. I agree with your comment on my talk page that I was wrong to use the term "personal attack." But I stand by my belief that there is no need to question the professional qualifications of these individuals, and that it's especially problematic for you to do it if you don't identify yourself, and put your own qualifications up for public scrutiny. Just a matter of basic fairness, as I see it. -Pete F (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not say "personal attack" at all. (I was surprised to find this comment, and thought I must have done something rash.) I said "attack." I do not think an attack is necessarily bad; attacking somebody's professional qualifications is often appropriate, and is not at all a personal attack. So if you take offense, I'm sorry -- but none was intended.
I stand by my statement. I think there is no point in talking about whether these guys should "know better," and I think it's especially distasteful for somebody who chooses not to identify him or herself to do so.
You are, of course, free to disagree. I just want to be sure to state my position clearly. -Pete F (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cx = ĈEdit

This is why I hate Mediawiki’s misguided unhelpful “esperanto magic” gadget. (And I do use the x-convention in Esperanto when/where I cannot use the proper signs, that’s not the issue.) Anyway, I fixed it, but you may want to avoid this kind of issues in the future in your edits. -- Tuválkin 03:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The picture Robin_Williams_2.jpgEdit

The picture mentioned above was deleted at 15:02, 14 August 2014 due to a Copyright violation. can you please tell me who uploaded it so I can contact him/her and ask if I can get and use it on a private memorial internet wall for Robin Williams ?, Yar (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the uploader is Chris Fiebelkorn. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yar (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Children of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King accept the Congressional Gold Medal on their parents behalf..pngEdit

Do you know how you would mark this image...or if it is a US Federal government photo? It is from the photostream of US House Speaker John Boehner. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

nominated it for deletion. This is not a work of the US gov. Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your analysis here. I will vote in the DR. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vabadussõja mälestussammas Tallinna õpetajatele ja õpilastele.JPGEdit

I marked File:Vabadussõja mälestussammas Tallinna õpetajatele ja õpilastele.JPG with fair use delete template, but currently this file is not uploaded to Estonian Wikipedia by bot. Doesn't the fair use upload bot function any more, or why isn't this and some other files transferred to Estonian Wikipedia? --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That is strange. However, the bot might be down. Do you want to transfer them by hand? Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for handling the request. I noticed that you didn't restore this file,"The Green Lake" by Czeslaw Znamierowski, 145 x 250 cm, 1955.jpg. Was it a duplicate of one of the files I've requested or was there another reason for not restoring it? Thanks, Mike VTalk 18:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored it but INC deleted it again since I forgot to remove the copyright violation tagg. However, I doubt that this ticket is valid after having a closer look. It remains uclear how became the copyrightholder instead of the photographer and/or the artist. You might want to do some follow-up on this ticket. I undeleted the file again so that you can do your work more easely but the current ticket is not sufficient. Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In earlier threads of the ticket, the photographer stated that he took the photos on behalf of the Tamoikin Art Fund (also note his signature in the earlier emails). The Tamokin Art Fund then transferred the copyright back to the photographer, which was confirmed in the most recent thread. Mike VTalk 18:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but he is likely not the photographer of this file and what about the artists copyright? The pictures of those paintings are derivative works. Natuur12 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see the point you raised. I'll work further with the ticket to sort out those issues. Best, Mike VTalk 19:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Move this imageEdit

This image cannot be used on the English Wikipedia. [2]. I tried to used the image in the infobox of princess lalla salma's page but I can't.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This file has been uploaded to a local Wikipedia and not to the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons so you can't use the file there unless someone transfers the file to Commons. However, the file is taken from a website and I can't find if the file is releared under a proper license or not. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you find out if that image is freely licensed and I have suspicions about it because it says that it's freely licensed but if it is, then it should be on the Wikimedia Commons. I think that the uploader may have tried to use a sort of loophole by uploading it onto a foreign language Wikipedia as there are less users on other wikis so they may not be caught. It has happened before as I have taken a freely licensed image from a foreign language Wikipedia and uploaded it onto the English language wiki and almost as soon as I uploaded it, it was flagged as a copyright violation. :If it is freely licensed can you move it to Wikimedia Commons?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the site claims: "Copyright 2008 ©". I can't find any information about a free license so I don't think that this file can be uploaded at Commons. I found another picture at flickr but that one was com:LL. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I found two video's at youtibe and made some printscreens, they are in the cat Category:Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco. They are not great but at least it's something. Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Can this image be moved to Wikimedia Commons? It was created by this cooperation project. The image isn't on the source anymore although it was there when I uploaded it. The creator of the portrait Fanny Hjelm has a page on the Swedish Wikipedia. This linkmay be helpful although the image is already deleted. The image is also public domain because it is a photograph of an out of copyright work.

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And these images [3]

[4] [5] --Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the first image is okay since the source is missing and it may be PD-art but the frame is not free. So if you crop out the frame it shuould be okay. The second one is not okay. The original photograph is freely licened but it is a crop focussed on a derivative work. Third image depends, if the medals are PD than yes, otherwise likely not. Last image, same story. Natuur12 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear Natuur12,

Can this uploader be banned for uploading copyright violations and the source flickr account for this image be put on a blacklist? I passed this image here but now I see it is a copy vio from an account with 14 images. This uploader has uploaded many copy vios was banned for 1 week...and yet he continues his behavior. Soon someone else will pass his images if I didn't notice this. And please delete this image above which I passed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Blocked him indef, deleted the file and blacklisted the account. Therse is no excuse for uploading copyrightviolatations to your own flickrstream so you can upload them to Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I almost missed this upload from this person. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Alex1961 provoking war of editorsEdit

This editor Alex1961provoking war of editors. He ignores all the above data from reliable sources that confirm the update on this map. But when he edits this map he use not correct source but other editors also recognize that it not reliable and its findings refute a variety of sources. But it ignores all the arguments of other editors and continues its illegal actions, thus provoking war editors. Look at the discussion page and you will see that my updates and editor Metrancya was made based on specific data from reliable sources but he ignored them.--Hanibal911 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have found the file's talk page. Warned Alex1961 to stop the editwar. Please refrain from editwarring yourself as well. If you can't solve this problem you can ask for help at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Imho, the best solution would be to upload two versions of the map so that the local projects can decide which version they want to use. Natuur12 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

More David BealsEdit

User:Rosa Birdfire - please delete the fan upload and block. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting scan of a contract?Edit

Hi Natuur12, it seems you've recently deleted File:Cooperation contract between Armenian Encyclopedia & IT School signed on 30.09.2011.pdf which is scanned version of contract stating, among other points that over dozen of encyclopedias were released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 by their copyright holder. There are lots of media files here, which referred to that contract, to prove that media is free. Can you please clarify the reasons? Contracts and other legal agreements are not subject to copyright to the best of my knowledge. --Xelgen (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I need a citation to prove that contracts are okay in the source country and the US. This source tells me that contracts are not per definition free of copyright. This is exactly why stuff like this is mailed to OTRS instead of the document being uploaded. However, I see that this file was not listed in the original DR. Someone screwed up the DR's lay-out but that doesn't make the file okay. I can see how this can cause trouble on the short term but I am still not sure about the legal status but I have an idea to solve this. I will undelete the file temporarely and I am asking you to send this to OTRS with an explenation. I can't do this myself since I don;t speak the language. Does this sound like a solution to you? You can link to the OTRS-ticket and a special licensing template can be made. Natuur12 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
For Armenia (source country) contracts are clearly not subject of copyright (See Article 4, point 1 " Non-Protected Works: official documents: legal acts, treaties and the official translations thereof;" original Armenian version is even more clear, having word "contract" in Armenian). My quick search on US laws didn't provide any clear answer in law if they are or they aren't subject of copyright, though.
The specific of this paper is, that it releases free not only past works, but all future works 2 years past publications. That's why it seemed a better idea just to put it here so it can be referred to in future, plus a signed and stamped contract has more legal force and trust (at least in Armenia) compared to E-mail. I'd appreciate if you can recover this file and File:Армянский вопрос энциклопедия (Armenian question encyclopedia in Russian).djvu which was deleted together with contract and I'll get intouch with OTRS team to verify this and about 20 other files, which were uploaded here based on this paper. If contracts/legal statements are copyrightable themselves in US, it may mean there's no way to have this contract here, without additional statement from all parties, and I may have to move this paper somewhere else online, and rerequest deletion later. Thanks --Xelgen (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Did so and thanks for this helpfull link to the Armenian copyrightlaw. Natuur12 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What about maps, and other artworks and Photographs. this file for example contain maps. Geagea (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that maps are covered. Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
According to agreement text whole content of encyclopedias is released under free license. For this specific file and maps, I'd say I believe they are also free, as there are about dozen names of author of maps, and that usually says that those authors were working directly for publisher who released those right. --Xelgen (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It is more likely that the encyclopedia receive permission to use artwork (for educational purposes for instance). The OTRS permission must clarify who owns the rights and do they have the right to release the file to republication and distribution, allowing publication of derivative work and allowing commercial use of the work. Geagea (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This categoryEdit

Dear Admin Natuur,

Please consider filing a DR on which images in this category violate US FOP. I filed a DR on only one of them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

it seems that Stefan4 found out about this images as well and he already nominated them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for telling me. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Newsanna changing the license to standardEdit

Thank you for turning my attention to this matter. I checked their Youtube channel: [6], they are saying that the channel "was restored" implying that something happened to its content before... Looks like it was restored on a standard Youtube license instead of Creative Commons. Since there is a bunch of images from newsanna, how about I will write to them asking to restore CC-BY on them? Previously, I burdened «icorpus» with such a request and they obliged me, so, let's see what happen, I will share the results in 3-5 days. Regards! --Nabak (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea and sorry for the late responce. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Multimedia project deletionsEdit

Hello. With regards:

In the first case, I believe that the file was successfully removed from the PDF by blanking it and then flattening the PDF. There have been some comments about how this method still leaves a file that's extractable in Acrobat, but no-one seems to be able to give the steps to do this so I'm not convinced this is possible. (If it is, then there is another technical solution I could use to delete the images from the PDF, by replacing the slide with a new JPEG edited to remove the file). In the second case, I offered to remove the unattributed file from the PDF, but you closed the discussion before I could do so (and before I could retrieve a copy of the PDF to do this).

I guess the best venue for this would be undeletion requests, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to revise your closures first given the above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you how to reveal the image in inscape, see this and this printscreen. It is really easy, just open the PDF and you can move the square around. I can't tell you how to do such a thing in Acrobat though but imho that pdf is not okay and I will not just undelete it. And for the second one, if you blank that image the same way as you did in File:Multimedia vision 2016.pfd it will still not be okay imho. And they could/should have know, especially with the first DR that the image is not okay. I appriciate the effort you put into this but the uploader should do his/her homework more properly, than stuff like this doesn't happen. Natuur12 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That's the kind of feedback that's really useful, as it makes it easy to test the problem and the possible solutions. I think the other solution I mentioned has worked properly now. Please could you have a look at [7] to confirm that the copyrighted image has now been deleted from the PDF? If so, would you be willing to undelete both of these files temporarily so that I can replace them with redacted ones, then could you delete the old versions again afterwards? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've written up the solution I think works, at User:Mike Peel/PDF redaction. In general, I agree that the uploader should do their homework properly, but I think we as a community are shooting ourselves in the foot if we simply delete problematic files like these rather than figuring out a solution that means we can keep them. That's particularly the case here, since these slides both describe/brainstorm what is to come for the Wikimedia projects, and also they will be useful for looking back at the history of the projects in a decade's time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It worked so I undeleted the files. Thanks for fixing WMF's uploads. Please let me know when you are done. Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Both files should now be fixed in their latest versions (I got the slide order wrong in File:Multimedia Project Slides.pdf initially, hence the second upload that should be correct). Please could you now delete the old versions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's very rare that I award barnstars, but your responses and actions here definitely warrant one (see below). Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome and thanks for the Barnstar :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Eylem 2010.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

Is this image the flickr account owner's own work or a flickrwash? I cannot tell. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked 6 images from her flicr-account and they don't appear elswhere before the upload date. I agree that this file looks suspicious but I marked it since there is no clear evidence that this file is flickrwashing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I forgot to check the Blacklist so I guess that they are scans or manipulated. I nominated it for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your check up here. The picture appeared very artificial and taken from another web site...but its hard to know where. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for being willing to listen and revise your admin decisions based on new information. Commons needs more admins like you - keep up the good work! Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tim Cone In 2013.jpg & File:Tim Cone In 2014.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

Should these 2 images be deleted as copy vios? They come from a flickr account with few images and appear to be derivative images. Perhaps the flickr account is a flickrwashing account....but Tim Cone is in the Phillipines. I don't know. Secondly the uploader has 9 copy vio notices on his talk page. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • There is also this third image where I just gave the source. Apparently the flickr account owner is the uploader--but I don't know if it is own work or a flickrwash. My question is if the uploader is in Quezon City, Phillipines, how can he take this recent Boston Celtics photos? He made this edit which shows the subject is with the Boston Celtics. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a flickrwashing, the images are taken from the web. I nominated the images for deletion, blacklisted the account and blocked the uploader since he used his own Flickr Account to wash the images. They have the same name. Natuur12 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You Natuur for your investigation. The images appeared suspicious since they appeared to be scanned from a website photo and the source flickr account has few images. I will vote in the DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Foto verwijderd van pagina Marcel Dufour MarcelDufour1984.jpgEdit

Het wordt nu steeds gekker!! De foto waarvan ik de rechten heb omdat ik die zelf genomen heb is verwijderd vanwege wat????SHOWJUMPING (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Beste, u heeft op dit account en op uw andere een groot aantal foto's geupload waarvan u niet de rechthebbende bent terwijl u wel verklaard heeft dat u de rechthebbende/ de fotograaf bent. In meerdere gevallen is dit niet waar gebleken en daarom bent u niet meer op uw woord te vertrouwen. Deze foto paste perfect in de serie foto's die geupload waren met valse informatie over auteur en rechthebbende en daarom zijn deze verwijderd. Er kan niet zonder gerede twijfel gezegd worden dat u hier eigen werk upload gezien het merendeel van uw uploads gewoonweg eigen werk waren. Het wordt niet gekker, u moet gewoon eens de handleiding lezen. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Beste, ik weet dat ik in het begin de fout heb gemaakt door niet de juiste vakjes aan te klikken. Wijt dat aan beginnersfoutjes maar niet éénmaal heb ik daarna beweerd de maker en rechthebbende te zijn van de desbetreffende foto's. Van deze foto beweer ik dat wel want die foto heb ik persoonlijk in 1984 geschoten van Marcel Dufour in zijn stal in Kortenhoef. En nu?SHOWJUMPING (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Zelfde procedure, bewijs dat u de rechthebbende bent opsturen naar com:OTRS. En dit gaat allemaal wel wat verder dan een paar beginnersfoutjes en het aanklikken van de verkeerde vakjes. Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hoe kan ik dat bewijzen dan behalve dat ik hier nu meerdere malen expliciet stel dat ik persoonlijk de maker ben van desbetreffende foto? Dat heb ik van geen van de andere foto's beweerd! SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Simpel, de standaardverklaring opsturen met OTRS, ondertekenen met uw echte naam (niet uw gebruikersnaam, aangeven of u met uw gebruikersnaam of met uw echte naam aangeduid wilt worden als auteur is wel zo handig overigens) en woonplaats. De email dient afkomstig te zijn van een wat deftiger e-mailadres, dus niet of iets in die trant. Men moet het e-mailadres aan u kunnen koppelen. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Zo'n 'deftig' e-mailadres heb ik niet dus ik zou niet weten hoe ik dat moet doen. De foto marceldufour1984.jpg is door mij persoonlijk gemaakt en geschoten. Maar ik zal wel een andere uploaden want van Marcel Dufour heb ik tientallen foto's zelf geschoten en van allen behoren de rechten dus bij mij en overtreed ik geen enkele Wikipedia regel, ondanks dat deze door u op louter vermoedens is verwijderd.SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Heeft u nu de handleiding nu nog niet gelezen? En dit is Wikimedia Commons, niet Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ik heb de handleiding gelezen en heb alles precies ingevuld naar waarheid bij het uploaden van de foto. Dat ik bij de andere foto's uit onwetendheid de verkeerde vakjes heb ingevuld gaat niet op voor deze foto. De vraag die ik heb is dan ook welke indicatie heeft u dat deze foto niet door mij geschoten is? Van geen van de andere foto's heb ik achteraf die bewering gedaan, alleen van deze.SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Met als titel "SelfieMPD"? Volgens mij belazerd u de boel. Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Volgens mij belazerd u de boel". Dat zei Wikiklaas ook en ook die moest die woorden terugnemen en excuses maken. In uw geval gaat dat niet anders zijn, ongeacht de titel die ik heb gegeven aan die foto. Indien nodig kan ik u nog tientallen foto's van mijn man (Marcel Dufour)uploaden en van allen zal ik dan beweren dat ik de maker ben. Dan kunt u weer gaan zeggen dat u denkt dat ik de boel belazer en zal ik daarover een officiële klacht indienen die u dan weer als lid van de klachtencommissie zelf kunt behandelen. Zullen we kijken wie uiteindelijk de leugenaar is cq de boel belazerd want ik heb er schoon genoeg van om door jullie Wikipedia of Commons medewerkers onterecht voor leugenaar uitgemaakt te worden. SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Er is geen "klachtencommissie", Wikimedia Commons heeft niet zoiets als een Arbitragecommissie. U heeft alle mogelijke uitleg gehad maar of u begrijpt het beleid hier niet, of u heeft het beleid niet doorgelezen of u wilt het niet snappen. Natuur12 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ik begrijp het inmiddels heel goed, vandaar dat ik alleen foto's upload waarvan ik de rechten heb. Dat is voor u blijkbaar nog steeds niet goed genoeg want zelfs dan beweert u gewoon doodleuk dat ik de boel belazer. Ik heb alle vragen die me gesteld werden bij het uploaden naar waarheid ingevuld, heb toestemming gegeven om de foto vrij te laten gebruiken door eenieder die dat wenst. Daarmee heb ik voldaan aan de eisen en is het nu aan u te bewijzen dat ik de boel belazer zoals u stelt aangezien we nog steeds in een rechtstaat leven waarbij het gebruikelijk is dat degene die beschuldigt daar ook het bewijs voor aandraagt. Degene die beschuldigd wordt hoeft in Nederland nooit onschuld te bewijzen. Daar hebben we ons mooie grondrecht voor. Ongeacht wat bedrijven of sites in hun bepalingen opnemen, de Nederlandse wet zal altijd het laatste woord hebben in dat soort gevallen. Het zou voorwaar geen slechte zaak zijn als dat ooit een keer aangekaart zou worden want dit riekt naar machtsmisbruik.SHOWJUMPING (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Nee, en ook het vriendelijke verzoek om dit soort betogen niet hier neer te gooien. U begrijpt nu dat u daadwerkelijk de fotograaf moet zijn om iets te uploaded maar alsnog zitten er tegenstrijdigheden in uw verhaal. Op Commons worden er pak hem beet 1600 bestanden verwijderd per dag en de verwijderingen van deze foto's waren vrij routine aangezien er door de tegenstrijdigheden in uw verhaal gerede twijfel is of deze bestanden wel geupload mogen worden op Commons. Wat gerede twijfel op Commons is, dat is een lastig begrip maar in dit geval zal het merendeel van de admins het er waarschijnlijk wel mee eens zijn dat er bij uw uploads sprake is van gerede twijfel. De Nederlandse grondwet en alles is niet echt relevant aangezien Commons gebaseerd is op het beleid vanuit de WMF en op het rechtssysteem uit de VS. Wanneer u het beleid dan oneerlijk vindt, dan is dat jammer maar het is wel de enige manier om de stroom van 10.000 foto's te managen die dagelijks geupload worden. Wanneer daar tegenover zet dat het meeste werk door 15 a 20 admins gedaan wordt zal u hopelijk ook wel begrijpen dat er niet altijd bewijs van juridisch kaliber hoeft te zijn om aan te voelen dat er te veel twijfel is ovr een bepaalde foto waardoor deze beter niet gehandhaafd kan blijven op Wikimedia Commons. En laat ik u wel waarschuwen dat het niet echt gewaardeerd wordt op Wikimedia Commons wanneer mensen woorden zoals machtsmisbruik in de mond gaan nemen of hele betogen beginnen af te steken over de grondwet in hun eigen land. Lees de reeds gegeven uitleg nog eens goed door en volg ook gewoon de procedure via OTRS voor uw afbeeldingen. Als eenmaal gevalideerd is wie u bent en dat alles in orde is, dan is er al een heel hoop opgelost. Wanneer het management van een artiest bijvoorbeeld een foto upload dient het management ook eerst te bewijzen dat zij de rechthebbende zijn. Dit is allemaal niks persoonlijk maar dit is hoe de dingen hier werken. U maakt het echter elke keer nodeloos persoonlijk omdat u niet mellow blijft zoals dat op Commons genoemd wordt. Ik heb u nu al meer hulp en uitleg gegeven dan normaal gesproken het geval is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • In het geval een site gericht is op Nederland (wat onweerlegbaar bewezen kan worden in het geval Commons/Wikipedia) dan geldt voor die site de Nederlandse wet. Het komt regelmatig voor dat sites huisregels dan wel algemene bepalingen opnemen die door de rechter naderhand ongeldig worden bevonden omdat die niet stroken met de Nederlandse wetgeving. Ik deel u dit alleen mede omdat u blijk geeft te denken dat omdat het een Amerikaans bedrijf betreft deze daarmee ook onder de Amerikaanse wet valt. Dit is zeer zeker niet het geval.

Nu ga ik u eens opsommen wat er hier voorgevallen is de laatste dagen en waardoor mijn idee van machtsmisbruik/hetze zeker een grond heeft.
Het begon met een pagina die ik maakte Marcel Dufour. Al vrij vlug werd er toen gevraagd om een bron voor de resultaten die daar werden opgesomd. Dat kon ik goed begrijpen want iedereen kan wel van alles opschrijven dus heb ik gezocht naar linkjes die dat konden aantonen maar omdat het al te lang geleden was zijn die (nog) niet te vinden in de archieven. Om toch aan te kunnen tonen dat alles correct was heb ik scans gemaakt van krantenartikelen die dat bewezen. Dat waren er nogal wat omdat ik bij bijna iedere prestatie een ander artikel moest scannen. Dat ik daarmee ook het copyright overtrad had ik geen benul van en is mij later uitgelegd. Maar het was ondanks die overtreding wel genoeg bewijs voor de moderator om het als bewezen te achten en een bron verzoek verder achterwege te laten. Zo ver niets aan de hand, ik had geleerd dat ook scans van krantenartikelen onder dat copyright vallen en plaatste die dus niet meer. Probleem opgelost zou je zeggen.
Daarna was de volgende die ik plaatste aan de beurt. Henk van de Pol kreeg als mededeling dat het hier propaganda dan wel reclame betrof en er werd gevraagd waarom een lijst van beste prestaties werd weergegeven. Dat vond ik een hele rare vraag aangezien juist bij sporters een ere-lijst (palmares) zeer gangbaar is op Wikipedia. Ook in dat geval heb ik wederom aangegeven waarom die lijst daar stond waarop ik als antwoord kreeg dat ik niet naar andere pagina's op Wikipedia moest kijken want dat waren dan pagina's die niet opgevallen waren maar desalniettemin ook niet toegestaan. Dit blijf ik verwonderlijk vinden maar die pagina is nog in behandeling of deze op Wikipedia hoort of niet. Daarna kwam de pagina van Carry Huis in 't Veld in zicht en werd een heel stuk tekst verwijderd omdat deze niet volgens de regels van Wikipedia zou zijn opgesteld. Ik was het daar niet mee eens maar heb de verandering zo gelaten omdat ik het verder onbelangrijk vond of die door mij geplaatste tekst er wel of niet bij mocht staan. Daarna was het de Bianca Schoenmakers pagina waaraan werd getwijfeld of die wel thuis hoorde op Wikipedia aangezien het een 'beginnend' amazone betrof, aldus de moderator van dienst. Dit sloeg nergens op omdat Bianca al jarenlang een van de beste amazones van Nederland is. Toen ik dat als antwoord gaf werd gesteld dat dat maar een mening was, hierbij volledig voorbijgaand aan het gegeven dat ze al jaren een van de meest winnende amazones is en die prestaties op zich al genoeg zijn om haar bij de besten te scharen. Zo werkt dat nu eenmaal in de sport, wie het meeste wint is de beste. De volgende fase was de profielfoto's, die werden allen verwijderd Marcel Dufour, Carry Huis in 't Veld, Henk van de Pol en Bianca Schoenmakers. De reden werd me op den duur duidelijk en die was dat van twee van die foto's de rechten bij anderen lagen en ik dat niet juist had ingevuld bij het uploaden. Mijn fout die ik erkend heb en ben toen andere foto's gaan plaatsen waarvan ik wist dat die rechten wel bij mij waren of bij de persoon wie het betrof. In het geval Bianca Schoenmakers werd me toen gemeld dat ik een leugenaar was en dat Bianca die foto niet zelf gemaakt had. Naderhand bleek dat toch wel het geval te zijn. Vervolgens bij de foto van Marcel Dufour hetzelfde verhaal terwijl ik die nota bene zelf heb geschoten. Daarvan werd gezegd dat ik de 'boel belazerde'.
Inmiddels heeft Bianca per mail al laten weten dat de door haar gemaakte selfie beschikbaar is voor het publieke domein. Maar ook bij Carry wordt me sinds vanavond wederom gevraagd met bronnen te komen voor de resultaten die er staan opgesomd op haar pagina. Ook daar heb ik wederom aan voldaan en nu op een wijze zonder scans maar een link naar de database van de overkoepelende hippische sportbond. Toen me klip en klaar was wat wel/niet verstaan wordt onder copyright heb ik tot tweemaal een foto van Marcel Dufour geupload, heb alles naar waarheid ingevuld maar word dan toch beschuldigd van het belazeren van de boel. Dat zijn beschuldigingen die ik niet pik daar het hier gaat om open schrijfsels die voor eenieder te lezen zijn en ik niet valselijk wens te worden beticht van de boel te belazeren of te liegen over de makers van foto's.
Ondanks dat alles dat ik uitgelegd heb, na de uitleg over wat precies het copyright betreft en hoe strikt Commons/Wikipedia daarmee omgaat, waarheid bleek te zijn wordt wederom gevraagd om bronvermelding. Ik ben dus wat pagina's afgegaan en constateerde dat bij die pagina;s niet werd getwijfeld aan het waarheidsgehalte en er niet om bronnen werd gevraagd. Bij mij de eerste keer nog te begrijpen maar na de overduidelijke bewijzen dat alles klopte die eerste keer ( Marcel Dufour ) ontgaat me de reden waarom daar nu bij Carry Huis in 't Veld wederom om gevraagd werd. Dit kan nooit als reden hebben dat eerdere resultaten van andere pagina's niet waar zijn gebleken want juist het tegendeel was het geval. Gaat dit nu standaard worden bij alle pagina's die ik nog ga maken over ruiters en amazones wiens prestaties niet meer terug te vinden zijn in online archieven omdat die (nog) niet zo ver teruggaan in de tijd? Ik hoop dat u nu begrijpt waarom ik langzamerhand op dezelfde toon reageer als die tegen mij wordt aangeslagen door de medewerkers van Wikipedia, zoals leugenaar en de boel belazeren.SHOWJUMPING (talk)

Dit is denk ik waar het mis gaat. Dat u een conflict heeft op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is vervelend maar daar heb ik volgens mij niks mee te maken gehad en dat conflict is dan ook iets waar ik me niet in verdiept is. Commons is een ander project dan de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia. Ik heb hier enkel gekeken naar de auteursrechtelijke status van de afbeelding. Dat staat dus los van wat er op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia gebeurt. Nu spreek ik toevallig Nederlands ben ook de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia actief maar voor hetzelfde geld waren die foto's verwijderd door een Australiër of een Duitser om maar even twee voorbeelden te noemen. Het is dan ook niet helemaal fair om te impliceren dat ik mijn macht zou misbruiken terwijl ik gewoon mijn taken uitvoer op een project wat niets met de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia te maken heeft. Dit conflict zal u dan ook daar op moeten lossen en dit conflict moet al helemaal niet naar Commons geïmporteerd worden want dit hoort hier niet. Het enige wat er hier toe doet is de auteursrechtelijke status van die afbeeldingen. En ja, Commons werkt heel anders dan de normale gang van zaken in Nederland. Wat de boel belazeren betreft, die foto is of eigen werk of een selfie en niet uw eigen werk. Iets klopt er dus niet en dat is mijn inziens ook een vorm van de boel belazeren. Want selfie + eigen werk zoals de foto nu impliceert is niet het geval. Dit is bijvoorbeeld vervelend wanneer het om zaken gaat zoals portretrecht.
Commons is overigens geen op Nederland gerichte website en een rechter heeft weinig tot niks te maken over welke foto's niet toegelaten worden. Gezien u nog steeds het beleid op Commons niet lijkt te begrijpen of niet lijkt te willen accepteren lijkt discussiëren hierover me dan ook vrij zinloos want u haalt twee dingen door elkaar.
Voor nu volstaat het denk ik dat u uw conflicten weer mee terugneemt naar de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia, waar deze begonnen zijn. Ik hoop dat ze dan daar ook opgelost kunnen worden maar ik wil u nu toch met klem verzoeken mij buiten dit conflict te houden. Ik ben hier geen onderdeel van, nog wil ik dat worden. En conflicten op een ander project zijn nooit een excuus om hier een dergelijke toon aan te gaan lopen slaan. Ik hoop dat het nu duidelijk is dat u hier twee zaken met elkaar verbindt die niks met elkaar te maken hebben, enerzijds het conflict op nl-wiki en anderzijds de auteursrechtelijke status van de afbeeldingen hier. Natuur12 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Should these images be kept or deleted? Its a difficult issue but if you are willing...feel free to vote to keep or delete in this DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a difficult DR but I am not familiar with the law in Ecuador to close this one but I tend to agree with Russavia. Maybe the DR should be left open a litle longer so more people can give their opinion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. I have followed your suggestion and asked that the DR be kept open longer for more input by others. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Another probable TekkenJinKazama sockEdit

Natuur12, I've been dealing with TJK and his socks on the en wikipedia for a while and apologize that it's now impacting commons. You blocked a bunch of his socks (and also helped me confirm one on the en side). He's on a different sock now, பிரதீக் (talk · contribs) that categorized on en as a sock of a different user (who is actually a sock of Jin, I'm working on getting that corrected). They've just uploaded an image with an OTRS number (File:Feature_poster_of_Mumbai_125kms_3D.jpg). Jin has used false OTRS claims in the past and I'm questioning this one. Would you mind taking a look? Sadly, Jin would be a highly productive editor in an area that can use them but they don't care about things like copyright, consensus and working with others. Jin does as they want and the rest be damned. My apologies for any trouble that has been pushed over here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. The OTRS-ticket was fake so I deleted the image and I blocked the account. I asked a checkuser to take a look at this latest sock. I also nominated some of his uploads for deletion since those are likely not his own work. Thanks for letting me know and it is always sad to see when people who could be useful contributors do not respect copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire:, Gamer Singh and Boss Of America are puppets as well. After consulting a checkuser she gave me the names of those two puppets. Natuur12 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the heads up! Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Got a new one for ya. Karanvir Bohra (talk · contribs) created Bohra Karanvir K (talk · contribs) who promptly uploaded the same movie poster. Between that and the new socks contributions on the english Wikipedia, it's an easy match. Joy - I thought Jin had slowed down their socking of late. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. If we keep blocking him and keep deleting his uploads without paying attention to him he will quit eventually. Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Ik zag dat je daarjuist het logo van De Sims 3 verwijderde, vanwege com:TOO. Daarom vroeg ik mij af of dit logo wel gebruikt mag worden:

Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Mag ook niet gebruikt worden. Dit logo is dusdanig ingewikkeld dat het auteursrechtelijk beschermd is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Maar ik veronderstel dat deze wel mogen?:

Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

De kans is in ieder geval al een stuk groter al ben ik vrij zeker dat nummer 3 niet oké is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Dus het ligt eigenlijk aan het diamantje (het tekeningetje vooraan)? In dat geval vraag ik me af of zoiets als hier mag: Enkel het eerste deel, het tweede hoort er niet bij? Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Twijfelachtig maar ik zou zeggen dat het kleurpatroon in de 3 te ingewikkeld is maar ongetwijfeld denkt een ander hier anders over. Dit soort dingen zijn vrij subjectief. Natuur12 (talk)
Oke, heel erg bedankt voor de uitleg. Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Uitnodiging prijsuitreiking Wiki Loves Earth op zondag 5 oktober in NaturalisEdit

Geachte meneer/mevrouw,

Hierbij nodig ik u namens Wikimedia Nederland u graag uit voor de prijsuitreiking van Wiki Loves Earth op zondag 5 oktober in Naturalis. Deze wedstrijd leverde maar liefst 1.395 foto’s en geluidfragmenten op, allemaal gemaakt in de Nederlandse Nationale Parken. Verder zal Wikimedia Nederland informatie geven over het ‘Project Natuur’. De komende jaren willen we de informatie over de natuur op Wikipedia aanvullen en verbeteren.

Het programma voor de dag
  • 15:00 - 15:15 Ontvangst
  • 15:30 - 16:20 Museum bezoek
  • 16:30 - 17:00 Prijsuitreiking Wiki Loves Earth en informatie over het Project Natuur
  • 17:00 - 17:30 Afsluitend drankje
Adres Naturalis
  • Pesthuislaan 7, Leiden
  • Telefoonnummer: 071 568 76 00

Vindt u het leuk om deze prijsuitreiking bij te wonen? Dan kunt u zich hier inschrijven! Deelname is gratis. Plaatsen voor deze prijsuitreiking zijn beperkt, geen inschrijving en bevestiging betekent geen toegang tot het museum!

Als u vragen heeft, kunt u deze e-mailen naar

Alvast bedankt en wij kijken ernaar uit u te ontmoeten op zondag 5 oktober in Naturalis.

Met vriendelijke groet, Namens het Project Natuur team,

JurgenNL (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ethan Coe, I cancelli dell'Eden.jpegEdit

Hello, the file in the subject has been deleted due to missing permission. I sent the message with the permission from the publisher to on July 31, and forwarded to on September 2nd: could you please double check? Thanks, Pietro (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ones OTRS has processed your email the file will be undeleted, OTRS has some backlog so it can take some time before someone answers your email. Files with OTRS-send will be deleted if the ticket is not processed within 30 days and that is what happened. Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance pleaseEdit

You recently deleted File:David Kieth pins a medal on Darcy Overbey.jpg -- an image I recently uploaded.

My recollection is that this was a clearly PD image.

No robot or quality control volunteer left a warning on my talk page, so should I assume that the description was vandalized, and you didn't notice; that I made an ordinary human error in applying the appropriate license, and I didn't notice, and that the robot or quality control volunteer who flagged it for deletion is one who doesn't leave uploaders a heads-up?

I request you take another look at the image. If my recollection is correct that it is a clearly PD image, I request you undelete it. If you don't believe it is clearly PD I request you email me the last version of the {{information}} template.

Thank you Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The image doesn't appear at the given source. That's why it is deleted. However, if you think that you can fix this I will undelete the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ба-Арманьяк Шато д'Эсперанс.pngEdit

Просьба восстановть файл! Разрешение на использование файла получено тикет #2014082210006395. Спасибо! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinyaev (talk • contribs)

Checked the ticket you mentioned, undeleted the file and added the ticket to the file discription. Natuur12 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete MY photo?Edit

You deleted my photo of Michel van Oostrum at the FC Emmen page in Dutch. Why? You say I violated copyrights. How? It is my OWN PICTURE, you idiot! You seem to have found it on some blog and concluded I took it from that blog. Did it occur to you the writer of that blog may have taken it from Wikipedia AFTER I uploaded it there? I will upload it again soon and I expect you will not delete this photo taken by ME again. Thank you. 08:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

GLAM Wiki toolsetEdit


I am going tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock Finnish time to a GLAM wiki toolset training arranged by Wikimedia Suomi (Finland). For that we were asked to contact some bureaucrat in order to get added to GLWtoolset user group (beta). Is this possible by leaving this message here? --Urjanhai (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Urjanhai: That's possible but you will have to create an account at beta. If there are more people who need this right that have already created an account feel free to leave a list of names. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am only one participant of this training and I do not have any list of the others, and if it is someones duty or right to leave some list of the participants somewhere, I guess it is not my duty or right as a participant but of those who are arranging the course. I am new to this whole and only got an advice to "contact some of the following (...) bureacrats (...) in order to be added to GWToolset user group" without knowing more exactly what this means, because the very idea to take part to the course was to learn what GW toolset is all about. (There was another training about commons yesterday, but because I have been using commons for 4 years already, I did not travel there and therefore may have missed some initial information about the GLAM Wiki toolset that was given beside the training on commons.
But now, however, I created an account there.--Urjanhai (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I granted you the "GW toolset right" at beta. Good luck with your training. I'm off for now. Natuur12 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kolorowo 32.jpgEdit

Hi, why this image isn't eligible for speedy deletion? --ThePolish 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

See reason number 7 here. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

License review requestEdit

Could you please do the license check for the following files:
Thanks a lot in advance and best regards --RussianTrooper (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

License review requestEdit

Could you please do the license check for the following files: ?
Thanks in advance for your help --RussianTrooper (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Daniel Edlen creates art on the artifacts of creativity, photo by Zane Ewton, 2010 2014-07-08 15-53.jpgEdit

I sent in a permissions letter for and hope it's smoothly undeleted. Can you take a look and help me through the process? Thank you!Dedlen (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that's fine. I responded to the email. Natuur12 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The photographer has sent a permissions letter with the ticket number. Hopefully this will resolve the issue? Thank you!Dedlen (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this solves the issue :). I undeleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor Niele provoking war of editorsEdit

Editor Niele provoking to the war of editors. He absolutely ignores the arguments of the other editors that he was wrong and continues to revert of edits other editors. You can that something doing with this editor that violates the rules.--Hanibal911 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor today the five times revert the updates that were the made by another editor on this map.2014 Russo-ukrainian-conflict map--Hanibal911 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
For now I protected the file. There is not much I can do here since I already dealth with this users POV-pusing at another project. Natuur12 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
You can to again install the protection for this map 2014 Russo-ukrainian-conflict map because the editor Niele again harms to this map he making not substantiated changes on based the not reliable sources. Maybe it would be better for a little while for this editor put to ban for editing of articles about the military conflict in Ukraine. So now another administrator has blocked it on for 3 days but at the expiration of this period, he again continue make harm of the map.--Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lalla Salma's pageEdit

File:PrincessLallasalmainamsterdam.jpg was uploaded recently, but on a google search I found several just like it. The only reason I'm suspicious is because she rarely appears in public. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of it. This one is a copyrightviolation. It is hard to find actual free images of her :(. Thanks for the notice. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Dag, Natuur12, hier een oude bekende. (Ik.) Zou je File:Julianvanberchum123.jpg kunnen deleten als dat nog niet gebeurd is. Gebruikt voor privacyschending op nlwiki, het Twitteradres bestaat niet, maar je kan niet zomaar afbeeldingen van Twitter plukken, nog afgezien van portretrecht. Dank en groet, ErikvanB (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Afbeelding verwijderd, persoon gewaarschuwd. Dank voor de melding. Natuur12 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Vriendelijk dank. ErikvanB (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

License reviewEdit

Dear Natuur12, I have collected a bunch of Youtube-CC-BY images over time, could you please take a look at them at your spare time, I'll be much obliged.

Best, --Nabak (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I marked all of them except for File:Self defense of Donbass flag.jpg since I am not familiar enough with Ukrainian Copyrightlaw to be sure if this one is okay or not. Natuur12 (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled ✔Edit

Thanks for a lovely surprise! :-) - Aiko (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tim Leiweke in LA.png -- Deleted?Edit


I uploaded the files 'Tim Leiweke in LA.png'. I noticed that you had it removed due to a copyright violation. I checked the copyright information on Flickr, and see no problem. Could you please explain to me why it was deleted.



01:42, 28 September 2014 (EST)

Hi, the image is released under a non commercial license and non commercial licenses are not allowed at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SucharitSuda and King Vajiravudh (Rama VI).jpgEdit

Why do you think that this apparetly is OK? As far as I can see, no one was able to prove that the picture was published before 1923 (as required by the template) or that the template provides copyright information about both the United States and the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Grmbl. Missed that. Sorry. Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't knowEdit

I don't know what Baylee Romero vandalized.

Amsterdamse tramEdit

Dag Natuur12,

ik zag dat u mijn verwijderingsverzoeken voor oude bestanden van de Amsterdamse tram niet hebt gehonoreerd, met als reden dat ze nog in gebruik zouden zijn. Behalve bij het bestand AmsterdamTram+Metro zie ik niet dat deze bestanden nog op andere pagina's worden gebruikt, of zie ik iets over het hoofd?

Ik hoor graag van u. Vriendelijke groet,

Alargule (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Eigenlijk heb ik maar bij die ene DR een reden opgegeven. Voor de rest ben ik zelf vrij terughoudend (behalve met vlaggen en logo's) om redundant files te verwijderen. Deze kunnen namelijk ook gewoon door re-users gebruikt worden. En deze re-users hebben misschien wel de voorkeur voor een jpeg of png. Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, nog even File:Schilderij, zelfportret van Jacob Por - Utrecht - 20428314 - RCE.jpgEdit

Beste Natuur12,

Ik begrijp de verwijdering nog niet helemaal. De erfgenamen Por (familie) hadden dit beeld geschonken aan de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed voor opname in de publieke beeldbank van de RCE, waar iedereen het kan downloaden onder CC-BY-SA-3.0. Dus het auteursrecht is in Nederland geregeld. Maar in VS niet? Groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Er van uit gaande dat de licentie alleen voor de foto geld en niet het schilderij wat vrij vaak gebeurt behoort dit schilderij in Nederland niet tot het publieke domein. In de VS misschien maar om dat was te stellen heb ik nu te weinig informatie over het schilderij. Indien de nabestaande het auteursrecht hebben kunnen zij toestemming geven om het schilderij vrij te geven onder een cc-licentie. Wel hebben we daarvoor een expliciet bewijs nodig via com:OTRS aangezien de ervaring leert dat mensen en organisaties van alles vrij geven onder een cc-licentie zonder na te denken over of het werk op de foto wel in het publieke domein valt. Voor dit soort cases hebben we eigenlijk het Precautionary principle. Er kunnen dusdanig veel vraagtekens bij deze foto gesteld worden dat er gerede twijfel bestaat dat dit bestand niet oké is. Er is dus bewijs nodig dat zowel de fotograaf als de nabestaanden akkoord gaan met een vrijgave onder een cc-licentie. Indien de nabestaande hier afspraken over gemaakt hebben is het vast niet lastig om het document waarin dit alles geregeld is op te sturen naar OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
RCE-beeldbank fotograaf en rijksambtenaar is in 2009 langs geweest bij erfgenamen, mondelinge toestemming was voldoende. De Nederlandse overheid garandeert rechtenvrije beelden op de beeldbankwebsite. Maar dat is blijkbaar niet genoeg voor wikimedia ;-) Hansmuller (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Aquarel, portret van Jacob Por, vervaardigd door H.W. Rosema in 1910 - Unknown - 20428316 - RCE.jpg ligt iets anders, de erfgenamen Por schonken dit op dezelfde manier enz. waarbij er vanuit gegaan werd dat zij de rechten hadden op de aquarel door Rosema. Hansmuller (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
De tweede afbeelding is waarschijnlijk niet oké. Maar wat is er nu precies afgesproken? En rechtenvrij is nogal een dubieuze term gezien er niet afgedaan wordt aan het auteursrecht wanneer een afbeelding wordt vrijgegeven onder en vrije licentie. En Commons is streng, dat klopt, maar dat is niet zo verwonderlijk. Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

could you restore my article pictureEdit

Hello Natuur12,

On september 14th, you deleted the picture "Jean-Pierre Fragnière.jpg" that I uploaded for the article "Jean-Pierre Fragnière". This picture was sent to me by Jean-Pierre Fragnière who took it himself a long time ago. I might have made a mistake, since this was my very first contribution on Wikipedia, but I would like the picture to be back.

What kind of proof do you need and where can I explicitly mention that the picture is free of use?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Vel2014 LHi, we need permission from the copyrightholder to hoste this image under a free license. Please make hin send evidence of permisison to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Dear Natuur12,

Do you know how to E-mail Zhuyifei1999 to tell him that his flickr review bot has stopped marking images since Sept 30 and that the flickr backlog is over 4,000 images. He has been away from Commons for a few days now. He would know how to restart the bot. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried Special:EmailUser/Zhuyifei1999? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Restarted --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems solved, thanks everyone. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I was hoping other users can mark some images once the bot is fixed as I am free likely on weekends only. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

License review requestEdit

Could you please do the license check for the following files:  ?
Thanks in advance
Best regards --RussianTrooper (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I have marked those images but can you or another Admin or trusted user please mark this image below as Commons has no good image of Jose Pekerman of Argentina.
  • File:Jose N. Pekerman (September 2013).jpg

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Marked the last one. Natuur12 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Can you reply to this DR. Its clearly a derivative but the uploader is new and doesn't know the rules. Unfortunately, I have to sign off now and go to bed. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a reply. Natuur12 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. It is helpful and may educate the new uploader. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictures deleted in Electrical Muscle StimulationEdit

Hi Natuur12, I noticed that the pictures I had loaded for [8] have been deleted for lack of copyright permission. I probably did something in my filling out the copyright procedure, but I don't understand what it is. Since this happened to me in the past, and you seem to have a good grasp of the copyright matter, would you mind explaining it to me, so that I can correct the situation?--Gciriani (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gciriani, In this case it is really simpel. You overwrote a file some time ago so I had to split the file history. All you have do do is inclcuding a license tag like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and the problem is solved. After you have added this template or another valid licensing template you may remove the no license tag. Natuur12 (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I overwrote it. Somebody else changed the extension, because it was not loading correctly. It was something like changing from jpeg to JPG, or similar to that when the pictures went into OTRS (a process I don't really understand). If I go to where the pictures where supposed to be they are not there. What shall I do?

Also it sees that the Wikipedia automatic e-mailing system for the watchlist seems to be malfunctioning. Did it happen to you too. Where do I address this problem?--Gciriani (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, that responce was written for something else. Please ignore it.If you send evidence of permission to OTRS there is nothing that you need to de except watching your email in case you receive an email from OTRS. If everyting is validated an OTRS-agent will restore those files. If you didnot have send evidence of permission please do so, for more info about this subject see OTRS. You can enable the email at the tab preferences. Natuur12 12:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The pictures had been OTRS validated. See the edit and comment by Kylie Tastic: "Fixed images - just a slight file name issue - User:Gciriani pointed me towards the OTRS validated images". Could you please let me know what else needs to be done? Is it the case of an extension spelled differently like JPG instead of JPEG or of different capitalization? --Gciriani (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You just deleted a candidate of a picture of the year and favorate picture in astronomyEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Please review the full discussion regarding the copyright before deleting


Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PS.: And File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg had already an deletion discussion around this topic...

Well, I did review the discussion before I deleted the images (except for the talk pages) but I restored the files for now so that commonsdelinker won't remove the files from the articles while the discussion is ongoing however I don't understand, you are the one who nominated them for speedy deletion. Could you please explain since this is something I really don't understand. Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I have choosen the unconventional way in order to raise some attention here.
If a well respected organization publishes an image under cc-by-3.0 in a comprehensible way, it shouldn't be a matter of doubt to delete the image.
At least not in speedy way.
That happens to File:Opo0210b.tif - contradicting the discussion in File_talk:M101_hires_STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg. I've tried to link this together with prominent examples.
ESO is a major source for wikimedia, for me it is important to know for future contribution, wether i can believe their copyright assignment. In fact if we do not believe, a large pile of images has to be deleted.
A third thread is forming under Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_remnant_of_the_supernova_SN_1006_seen_at_many_different_wavelengths.tiff. Do you see a better way to resolve this issue?
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean another solution than blocking you for vandalisme and whacking myself with a trout for not noticing it? A discussion in the village pump perhaps? Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Can you review these images from Flickr ?

Full book trucks ready and waiting to be shelved..PNG
Denmark's anointing throne.PNG

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One was already marked and I marked the other. Natuur12 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
And this one?
Mascot of the Spanish Legion.PNG
--Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

File:US Navy Landing Craft Utility 1665 delivers personnel and hardware as the amphibious transport dock ship USS Cleveland (LPD-7).jpg‎Edit

It works in Commons, but not in Wikipedia

Hello Natuur12! I know, the rename reason is not exactly listed, but since the photo is not possible to see anymore in the article in Wikipedia since the last renaming. Please have a look at de:Cristo Rei (Dili). Maybe you have an idea to solve the problem. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

OW dear, this is an onorthodox problem. I renamed the file for you but their may be a whole set with disfuctioning filenames since it was renamed before under criteria 5. Should be fixed in a few minutes. Natuur12 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It works now. ;-) --JPF (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Natuur12, there is a discussion at AN/U that mention you too. :)

BTW, could you confirm whether there was an active DR notice on the top of the file page when you deleted it? Or there was no such notice after first DR was closed? It will help as to find whether it was a negligence from the TFA team at EN. Jee 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, calling it negligence on my part (and by inference my part alone) is rather harsh. There are lots of fingers that can be pointed in different directions - I'm not having them all pointing at me. Bencherlite (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jee, Thanks for the notice. There was an deletion template with the following text: {{delete|reason=Invalid closure. A file can't be kept under a claim that the image is anonymous unless it can be shown that it is anonymous. Such evidence could for example be evidence that the photographer wasn't credited in the original publication (which typically means that the photographer is anonymous). However, such evidence has not been provided here, and it doesn't say how to check the original publication to confirm whether the photographer is credited or not. The only source which has been provided is a link to a contemporary website, which provides absolutely zero invormation about whether the photographer was credited in the original publication or not.|subpage=File:Chadwick.jpg|year=2014|month=October|day=7}}. This notice has been there since seven October. I didnot know that it was used un the main page since a) the file was not protected b) nobody mentiones it and c) what are the odds that someone uses an image nominated for deletion at the main page?. So it is a pitty that this happened, if I would have know I would have left it open untill it was removed from the main page. @Bencherlite, nobody is poiting all the fingers at you. All you could have done wrong is missing a deletions template (I understand that you are the one that put it on the main page?) and stuff like that does happen. Believe me, nobody is pointing all the fingers at you but I can understand that it feels this way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Natuur12 for the clarification. Jee 09:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I, for one, would rather avoid copyvio on the main page, so would say it being on the main page was a good reason to panic and get it off, not to wait. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Err, re your point (a): although it wasn't on the en main page at the time of deletion, it was still protected at that time - see this page which shows that it had full cascading protection at Commons at the time of its deletion. Not that it particularly matters now, but I was worried when you said it wasn't protected - if it wasn't, then we would have had another Commons protection failure in the space of less than a week (see here for the previous problem). Bencherlite (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, cascade protection and I are not friends and we will never be friends either ;). But luckly it was protected anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

License reviewEdit

Deer Natuur12, many thanks for checking the batch of stills in September, but here comes another one! Could you please take a look in your spare time:

Thank you in advance, --Nabak (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass DREdit

Dear Admin Natuur12,

Could you file a mass DR on these images here? They fail French FOP since this building was built in 2006. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, nominated the files for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Dear Natuur12,

If you can determine if this image is the flickr account owner's own work, then please close the DR as keep. If not, consider deleting it as the other Admins don't seem to want to deal with this problematic image. Or don't make a decision. Its up to you here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I closed it as deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You for determining that it is a copyright violation. Perhaps this account should be put on a blacklist, if necessary. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your intervention! I'm new to this place and the intense reception by a very eager editor was a bit too much. I'm really trying to learn the ropes, and I appreciate the guidance. Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, however it is most of the time not an good ending when somebody gets blocked. You might find Commons:Talk page guidelines usefull to read btw. You did nothing wrong of course when you removed the warning tags but some people can get a bit irritated if you do so. I saw that some of your uploads are deleted as copyrightviolations. If you are the copyrightholder you might want to concider mailing evidence of permission to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Natuur12. Thanks for all your good faith work around here; much appreciated! Can you perhaps spare a few moments and verify the licenses on several newer uploads (viz. File:Qasnabiamhd1.png, File:Osmmohdufhd1.png, File:Osmmohdufhd7.png, File:Somdjibminhd1.png, File:Somdjibminhd21.png, File:Faisalhawhd5.png, File:Faisalhawhd6.png, File:Faisalhawhd7.png, File:Faisalhawhd3.png, File:Faisalhawhd10.png, File:Somohralhd1a.png, File:Jawarimohd6.png, File:Jawarimohd1.png, File:Jawarimohd11.png, File:Somdjibminhd17.png ,File:Somdjibminhd4.png, File:Somdjibminhd7.png, File:Somdjibminhd12.png, File:Somdjibminhd11.png, File:Somdjibminhd14.png, File:Somdjibminhd10.png)? JurgenNL seems to be busy at the moment, so they've been backlogged for a while. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I marked them as confirmed. I'm a bit busy myself as well so I can't do something about the backlog :(. Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Fernando Collor 2014.jpgEdit

Please feel free to mark this image if you know what license to give it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed the licensing info since the given license was not available at the source. I marked the image as confirmed. Natuur12 (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Peter Calandra in the studio, PeterCalandraPortrait.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

This is the only image on this flickr account and I do not know if it is own work. If you think it is own work, please consider passing it. If it is a flickrwash, please delete it. The uploader appears to be new. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the file for deletion since this not a clear to the cut case. Natuur12 (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. By the way. there is a Michael Howard account with some derivative images like this and this.

An uploader has uploaded several images from this account like these two...and several more (maybe 3 more):

If they are all flickrwashes, please consider deleting them or filing a DR. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I got the feeling that those images are scans or printscreens. They don't look like "own work" but I can't find them elswhere. Either way, more opinions on those two are welcome so I nominated them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I was busy with work. Thanks for your help and reply. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucher Schörling AG Logo.jpgEdit

Dag! Did you see this question? The file is in use only in the German graphics workshop's archive where the SVG version was created. In my opinion, the JPG may be deleted. -- 09:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, that changes things. I got the impression that the JPG was used to illustrate a discussion but since that's not the case I will reclose the DR as delete. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. -- 11:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Geen bronEdit

Dit plaatje File:Rollator, to help with walking.JPG staat zonder bron in de Delftse Post van vandaag. Bij "Attribution" staat: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". Wat betekent die laatste zin? Als ik het zo lees kun je het lezen dat wanneer de "author" niets specificeert dan mag de foto zonder meer door eenieder gebruikt worden. Klopt dat? Er staan trouwens zoveel "licenses" dat niet duidelijk is welke je moet gebruiken. --VanBuren (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Beste VanBuren, het duurde even voordat het krantje binnen was bij mij. In dit geval zal JohannesJ dus als auteur genoemd moeten worden samen met de licentie. De auteur mag dus kiezen hoe hij/zij aangeduid wil worden. Bij mijn foto's is dat als Natuur12 maar ik zou er bijvoorbeeld ook voor kunnen kiezen om aan te geven dat ik J. Flipse als credit wil of www.natuur12foto' om maar wat voorbeelden te noemen. En dit dient dan ook als credit gegeven te worden. Daarnaast dient natuurlijk de licentie genoemd te worden. Bij deze licenties dient er altijd een auteur genoemd te worden, de licentie eist namelijk dat er een auteur genoemd wordt. op Commons worden foto's onder een cc-licentie verwijderd wanneer er geen auteur genoemd wordt maar dit is een beetje een grijs gebied.
Wat betreft de licenties, is het bestand vrijgegeven onder meerdere licenties mag de gebruiker kiezen welke hij wilt volgen. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Dag Natuur12, de regel: "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" suggereert dat niet de naam van de auteur genoemd moet worden (in dit geval "Author JohannesJ") maar dat de auteur feitelijk een specifieke beschrijving moet geven die overgenomen moet worden door een gebruiker van de foto. De onduidelijkheid kan ik ook verwoorden als: "Attribution ... in the manner specified by the author" is iets anders dan: "Attribution ... by specifying the name of the author". Als de persoon die het plaatje gebruikt geen specificatie kan vinden van hoe de auteur zichzelf vermeld wil zien dan hoeft dat blijkbaar niet. Kun je me volgen?
En wat betreft de licenties: er staat nu een licentie naar versie 1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 2.5 en 3.0. Er wordt steeds verwezen naar de laatste, dat maakt de oudere blijkbaar overbodig en/of ongeldig. Om verwarring te voorkomen zouden die dan toch beter verwijderd kunnen worden? Groet. --VanBuren (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Beste vanburen, wat het eerste punt betreft, we zijn het geloof ik redelijk met elkaar eens enkel twijfel ik of geen auteur opgeven wel kan. Ik heb gezocht maar kan hier nergens duidelijk uitsluitsel over vinden helaas.
Wat betreft de versienummers, elke versie heeft een net wat andere licentievoorwaarde. Alle versies zijn geldig en die horen ook te blijven staan omdat deze licenties niet in te trekken zijn. Het verschil is marginaal maar het is er wel. De oude versies zijn ook nog geldig. Die oude versienummers zijn inderdaad een beetje overbodig maar weghalen mag ook niet en zo kan iedereen de licentie kiezen die hij/zij wilt gebruiken. Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@VanBuren: - volgen mij heb ik bewijs gevonden dat jij gelijk hebt met dat indien er geen auteur vermeld wordt, deze ook niet genoemd hoeft te worden. Kwam het toevallig tegen, weet ik nu eindelijk zelf ook hoe het zit :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for license reviewEdit

Deer Natuur12, many thanks for checking the recent batch of uploaded stills, but I've collected more during passed time! Could you please take a look in your spare time at:

Thank you in advance! --Nabak (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Marked them. Natuur12 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Should a deleted image mention here be restored if it preserves metadata naming the flickr account owner...Kirk Stauffer? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked the deleting admin if he is willing to undelete the file based on this new evidence. Natuur12 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Another requestEdit

Deer Natuur12, as always many thanks for checking the stills! I looked at the old ones and to my surprise discovered that some of them are already being heavily used in different projects, that means that our time was not wasted away in vain! I am asking you to kindly look at another batch: this time I have noted the exact minute of every still placement in the source:

Thank you in advance! --Nabak (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the exact time, that makes it easier to mark them. All done. Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/PNG versions of EFF-IA National Security LettersEdit

I restored the files. We never delete files just because they are available in other formats - unless each and every usage has been replaced or can be replaced. In this case commons delinker bot can't replace them, and at least one usage at de-WP can't be replaced by links to the pdf file due to format limits. --h-stt !? 11:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We also don't undo adminactions ourself because we don't agree with them, we file a request or discuss it with the admin who did the specific action. If something goes wrong when the file is beiing replaced, what does happen every now and than, just recplace it yourself or go to com:UNDEL but don't misuse your tools. Plus your second statement is false, we do actually delete them if somebody just put the file somewhere to prevent deletion for example. Natuur12 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Dear Natuur12,

Can you mark (pass or fail) this image? It appears to come from a fickrwashing account but may be too simple to be copyrighted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: Do you or Lymantria mark video files like this example? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that it is better if an Arab speaking reviewer looks at the first image,I'm not sure of this one is okay or not. Yann marked the video. Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

File:John S. Dunne, C.S.C..JPGEdit

Dear Natuur,

Do you or Lymantria know how to mark this image? It does not appear to be a picasa image but the permission is given on the image link. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Secondly, I told this new user on 6:19 on his talkpage that a few of his uploads were not free. Now, after 6:19 he deliberately uploads images with no verifiable online source...and I cannot find the source. He must be deliberately doing this and his unsourced images should be a minimum since he was told what was a free license here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I don;t have a google plus account so I can;t validate the source. Theere is something strange going on with that new user, his images are used here en this looks fishy. Added the no permission template to the image without the proper source information.
I will be away the next two weeks, first I'm in London for a few days and the next week I'm in an area called Veluwe so I won't be able to check my talk page often. Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply and the message. Best Wishes on your trip, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


avoids a double-archival. Sorry for having written your username incompletely in the edit summary. --Leyo 12:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and NP. I got cought up by something so I forgot about removing the archive post. Natuur12 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

DR noteEdit

Just a quick note: the image in Commons:Deletion requests/File:MooddisorderMooddisorderinspanish.jpg is an upload by LTA sockmaster Albianmoonlight. I've blocked the new sock, but since you kept the image, I figured it'd be better to let you decide whether to let the keep stand or not. I'll leave a quick note for Turelio too. INeverCry 01:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: File:Iamsad.jpg is another copy of the same image uploaded by another AM sock, and File:MooddisorderMooddisorderbrazil.jpg is another copy uploaded by yet another sock. I'm going to delete all three since this is now some obvious sock gaming. INeverCry 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, that's fine with me. Don't those sockmasters have anything better to do.... Natuur12 (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Grawp and a few others have been at it for about 10 years. Jermboy27 has been on Commons for atleast 6 or 7, and has done atleast 250000 edits here, all on roadsign images and cats. We have 2 sockmasters that I know of with 10000+ socks each... INeverCry 08:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

New requestEdit

Deer Natuur12, thank you for checking the previous uploads! To turn your mind away from all these scheming sockmasters and their ever-multiplying socks (my sock drawer is full of guys missing their mates, so now I know where to look for them), I decided to ask you to kindly check these images, the exact minute of every still placement is noted:

Thank you in advance! --Nabak (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Marked them :). Natuur12 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete requestEdit

I got it from Flickr but at the bottom it says credits to another site.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Please delete these two files. They are my own work- low quality vector images based on non-free images.
Arms of Chief Herald of Canada.svg
--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
As you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blanca Padilla J. Mendel SS 15 Show.jpgEdit

Hello. Please restore a deleted image file was deleted by mistake. The file that you want to be removed was removed about a week ago, this is the right file again loaded me with the correct license and faithful description, just the name of both files are the same. Apparently page remove the red link again turned blue after downloading :) JukoFF (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. I restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Senk :) JukoFF (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Please stop deleting the Table4five images. Ok, explanation. 1) The files are not overseen yet. As you can see at the bottom, I've been going through them as there indeed are useful files amidst the many, many personal ones. No other editor has mentioned going through them either. I am not yet ready with the files from " to J. I have not seen any of them. 2) There has not been much discussion. Consensus has not been reached. No one has commented on my comments as per what files are useful, and there has not been enough time either. Some of the files are such that my current knowledge is not enough to determine if they can be kept. 3) You are welcome to delete the commented-on Spaceship Earth files and all files without comments from "Spartys" to the end and from "H" to "Some of these". Those are good to go (unless you have something to say). --Pitke (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just just checked a few of them and deleted because they really are out of scope so don't worry. Natuur12 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for shortening the list! I was getting a bit paranoid because I worried someone was going full-automatic. --Pitke (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ginza Sony building.jpgEdit

It may be premature to delete this file as the topic is still under discussion at

I'm sorry but it's not premature. This file is a clear copyrightviolation and that discussion is already over, only you refuse to accept the outcome. Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Pripyat; We live in the land of Lenin.jpgEdit

If this 2D art image can be passed, please consider marking it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, an uploader uploaded this image and many other images from this flickr account but I don't know if this account is OK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominated the first one for deletion and marked the second since I cannot find other versions of this file on they internet but nontheles, the file looks a bit suspicious. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Consultas de borradoEdit

I not speak english. Hola. He quité las imágenes del artículo en donde se las usaba, ¿cómo hacer para retomar las consultas de borrado? --DLeandroc (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12 no sabe español y me pidió a ayudar en eso. Lo que hay que hacer es simplemente nominar los archivos de neuvo. Puedes nominarles con como razón (incluido una traducción en inglés): 'mapa contiene error, ya no en uso / map contains error, no longer in use' - Jcb (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Vale, gracias. --DLeandroc (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This MessageEdit

Dear Natuur12, Can all the campaign poster on Commons mention in the above message be deleted--as clear copyright violations?

I don't know why they are here on Commons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Leoboudv,
Some of those posters are likely copyrightviolations but we have permission from the copyrightholder for others. Some are PD and some are below TOO. It really depends on the poster. Not all of the posters can be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. On the poster where I filed a copyvio notice there was a picture of the candidate so it was likely unfree. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arena Corinthians Logo.jpgEdit

Hi Natuur12. I noticed the above discussion was closed as delete, but the image was not deleted. I think this was an oversight? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I deleted the file. Likely the script I use tpp close those DR's had a hitch up again. Natuur12 10:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at DREdit

Hello Natuur12, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Land and Sea Breezes in Day and Night.gif and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Distribution of Local Winds over the globe.gif. Could you kindly refrain from making snide closing commentaries like "Gaming the System"? The exchange with de-watermarked images was agreed upon with the initial uploader, the DR was made in good faith to remove a duplicate file. If I made an error (where exactly?), a simple correction pointing out the correct handling would have sufficed. GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didnot remove them because of Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images. Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood, and my request wasn't clear enough. The watermark was removed voluntarily by the copyright owner himself, not by me. There was no infringement on the copyright owner's rights of any kind - the linked draft does not include removal of own watermarks. As a new uploader, he just wasn't aware, he could overwrite the old version and uploaded the de-watermarked version under a new filename. Sorry for the confusion. But please do not imply bad intent on my actions, I usually try to follow current procedures - as far as I understand them :). GermanJoe (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the gaming the system comment was not okay. Sorry. But feel free to renominate the files with clearer statement. Natuur12 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - all OK. I have renominated the files with a hopefully clearer description of the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
All done now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Please delete this file.

Coat of Arms of Queen Sylvia of Sweden.PNG

It is my own work and I have created a more accurate vector version(based on this).

I'm sorry but this file is in use so I can't do a courtesy deletion plus the file has been on the Common for more than 7 days so the file needs to face a regular DR. If you remove the image from the article, it is quite likely that an admin will delete the file if you nominate it but there are no quaranties. Natuur12 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio afbeedingenEdit

Moi Natuur12, Volgens mij heeft de gebruiker [[User:Richard Drost] diverse afbeeldingen van het internet geplukt en hierheen geupload. Ik had er een genomineerd en zit nu de rest te kijken. Met al die watermerken geloof ik er niets van dat deze foto's (of in ieder geval de recente) eigen werk zijn. Zou je hier naar kunnen kijken? --Meerdervoort (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Moi Meerdervoort, ik heb ze op twee na allemaal genomineerd. Twee foto's uit 2012 kunnen best eigen werk zijn maar de rest zeer waarschijnlijk niet. Bij een van de printscreens stond de cursor van de muis zelfs in beeld. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dankjewel voor het uitzoeken en het starten van de massanominatie. --Meerdervoort (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Moi, Ik heb inmiddels weer drie nieuwe afbeeldingen van deze gebruiker ter verwijdering aangedragen. Ik heb niet het idee dat hij wat uit doet op de berichten op zijn overlegpagina. Misschien dat er wat andere stappen moeten volgen? --Meerdervoort (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Moi, ik heb de gebruiker voor de duur van 2 weken geblokkeerd. Hij is niet regelmatig actief (vandaar ook deze lengte) maar hopelijk ziet hij dit en komt hij tot inkeer. Natuur12 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:マクドナルド渋谷東映プラザ店 in Oct 2014 (15487887158).jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

Could you consider passing or failing this image? I don't know if it can be copyrighted but I thought it has this problem. The image is a recent upload. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Secondly, if possible perhaps this DR can be closed as delete now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I nominated the image for deletion, DW of a poster and McDonalds likely owns the copyright and not the Flickr account holder and I closed the DR. Natuur12 (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for both your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Dekorationstallrik från Gustavsberg gjord 1914 - Hallwylska museet - 93919.tifEdit

Hi, I don't know if you saw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dekorationstallrik från Rörstrand dekorerad med Landsstormen 1914 - Hallwylska museet - 93904.tif. I think we have enough info to keep this image. Would you restore it? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I restored the file. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of various works of art in Pori, FinlandEdit

Hi! I just wanted to notify that File:F. A. Juseliuksen muistoreliefi.JPG remains not deleted even though you stated all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Images of various works of art in Pori, Finland as deleted. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I deleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeat itEdit

please delete it File:Río Táchira Forntera Colombia -Venezuela.PNG now on jpg as File:Río Táchira, frontera Colombia - Venezuela.JPG and File:Frontera Colombia-Venezuela.PNG Thanks in advance.--EEIM (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please look againEdit

A while ago, I nominated File:QuattroElementi.png for deletion. The image had then and has now no source. It's fairly obviously copied from a book or a poster. Would you be so kind as to either find a source for the image and get it out of images without source or reconsider your closure? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you're problem and my closure seems to be a bot strange, however, reconsiddering my closure is not the outcome I preferre. I would rather see a new nomination based on the no source argument since the DR was about "scope". Natuur12 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo S.H.I.E.L.D..svgEdit

¿Porqué eliminaron mi diseño? ¡si es una creación mía! --EnekoEnekonis (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a derivative of a non free logo. Natuur12 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo MetroparkW.png and otherEdit

I'm sorry, but the image File:Logo FerserviziW.png was removed for copyright, also being the logo is registered as a user to release a picture with creative commons because it does not have rights? --ZioNicco (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Those logo's may or may not be below com:TOO but more important, the files where imported from Flickr and the account at Flickr seems to be the copyrightholder. It could be a com:LL account of course but I found no evidence of that. You can release a trademark under a cc-license but there could be some consequences. We ignore trademarklaw but you can add the {{trademark}} template to the file pages if you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's GreetingsEdit

Wikipe-tan holding sign Season's Greetings.png Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
Best wishes for the season and the New Year. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |}
Thanks! And the best wishes to you as well! Natuur12 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GmhofmannEdit

Hello Natuur12,

I just noticed this DR. While many of the files are certainly derivative works of packaging, I ask you to reconsider the deletion of File:Freikartensperre-Cinemaxx.jpg and File:Freikartensperre Cinemaxx.jpg (two files, once with hyphen, once without). There is no drawing etc. to consider here, and the text is very basic and formulaic. It essentially says that it is not possible to attend screenings of these particular films with complimentary tickets because the film distribution company requested this. So the text is below the threshold of originality. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - you're arguments are convinsing and based on this arguments I would have kept those files. Natuur12 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


Is that the best argument you can come up with for protecting ANU? "Trolling"? I'm not trolling.

I'm not breaking any rules. I'm not evading any blocks. There is no rule that says I must login to my account to leave messages. I simply don't wish to get in the sights of the people who took out Fred simply for defending him. He's done me a few favors and I like him as a person, and believe he's been unfairly treated. So your response is to deny me access and censor what I have to say? You wouldn't happen to be a right-wing voter would you, they enjoy the curtailing of people's free expression and reducing their right to privacy. Or are you just pissed that your blocking of a dynamic IP didn't work? -- 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You're violating Meta:No open proxies. INeverCry 01:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No I'm not violating any policy or rule. Perhaps you should read the link you gave, specifically the second half of the very first sentence? I'm not using Tor, and it says that users are free to use proxies until they are blocked. There was no vandalism, no rule breaking and there was no reason to block the Czech IP address. We have such a low quality set of admins these days. No wonder the project is going downhill. You block productive (but mouthy) editors and you welcome copyright violaters and perverts <smh>.
Are you really sure you should have returned if you can't even get something simple like this right? Also, I'm not using an "open" proxy, I'm using a closed one. Try and connect through it if you can. So please carry on doing what is easy rather than what is right.
Oh, and BTW Natuur12, Steinsplitter is German and is active on FYI, sort of makes your comments look a bit silly now eh? -- 10:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Since when is Tyrol part of Germany? Natuur12 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm an American who has no particular interest in Europe. He speaks German, is active on so whether he is Austrian or German makes no difference to me, to me they are pretty much the same thing.-- 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Fred the Oyster, please understand that saying anti-FtO (predominantly German) cartel is at least personal attack for admins speaks German. As a matter a fact you were, according to you rational, under international cartel - German, Israeli, Russian, French and others that support you indef block. But in fact you blocked because of your behavior which include personal attacks, bad wording against other users etc. And even that you were already blocked for three month after discussion were some users support your indef block, you still don't understand the problems in your behavior. Not even thinking for apologize. So if you dont have nothing else to do beside trolling go ahad. you will be one among others. And you dont full nobody by calling Fred the Oyster him. -- Geagea (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have no proof whatsoever that I'm FtO so you are making unfounded allegations. Not that this is unexpected from you. Your history demonstrates your non-neutral bias against certain users. Why do you think I'm staying anonymous? It's because of unethical and deficient admins like you and their petty politicking. Incidentally, it's "fool noone" and "dont" has an apostrophe in it because it's a contraction. I think I made it clear from my report of the email conversation I had with FtO that he doesn't care about coming back, therefore he doesn't care about the block being lengthened. He is quite comfortable with openclipart. I understand why he doesn't want anything to do with the toxic atmosphere that is so prevalent at Commons. I can't say I blame him. This is quite apparent by the lack of action against Freud for his unsolicited attack on FtO. Without that, none of this would have happened. But because it was against someone like FtO the perpetrator gets off scott free. Just another example of the corruption and double standards in this cesspit. FtO has nothing to apologise for, he was the one who was attacked. If you can't see that then you are very much a part of the problem here. -- 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg INeverCry 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your tacit admission that you serve no useful purpose in this discussion, and that you are prepared to lie on a block log about your reaons for blocking an IP range. There has been no spam or abuse from that IP range. It seems my views on the current state of adminship on Commons is quite correct. -- 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"Views" is plural, so you should've used "are quite correct" not "is quite correct"... Now go find another page to drone on with your tedious bullshit. I need to up my protection stats anyways. Face-tongue.svg INeverCry 19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Tell me that you're not a sockpuppet of the now-blocked IP range. DLindsley Need something? 19:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Belgisch geldEdit

Blijkbaar hen je niet zo veel van Belgische Franken. Het is algemene kennis en staat trouwens ook op wikipedia dat de biljetten van 20 en 50 niet zijn uitgegeven door de nationale bank en dus nu waardeloos zijn omdat ze niet kunnen ingewisseld worden aldaar. De biljetten werden uitgegeven door de schatkist (de munt) zelf. Daarom vallen ze totaal niet onder de bescherming van de NB en heeft de NB geen rechten op deze biljetten. Gelieve in de toekomst juiste en correcte argumenten te gebruiken. Vdkdaan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

En dan zit er geen auteursrecht op omdat? Dit betekent enkel dat de schatkist de rechthebbende is en niet de nationale bank tenzij je bewijs hebt dat de 20 en 50 Frank in het publieke domein vallen. In dit geval heb ik enkel naar het beleid op Commmons verwezen en dat in die samenvatting staat dat afbeeldingen van franken niet toelaatbaar zijn op Commons en dat er in het beleid op Commons niks terug te vinden is over of afbeeldingen van deze Franken PD zijn dus totdat je dat bewijst is het simpel, dan verplicht het com:PCP admins er vanuit te gaan dat zoiets niet oké is. Wat jij denkt dat ik allemaal van Franken weet is in deze niet ter zake doende gezien je zelf niet aan het beleid voldoet met jouw uploads. Natuur12 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:HaHa, Running Man Bros US Tour 2014, Dallas, December 14.jpgEdit

If the flickrbot has not marked this image, please consider marking it as an Admin. The bot did not mark this photo in 2 days strangely. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Romaine beat me to it. And a happy new year btw. Natuur12 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Natuur and Romaine. Happy 2015 too. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


I noticed your revision to an entry on Wiktionary, which drew my attention to this file. The title contains a typo -- clearly, this is a map of countries, i.e. nation-states, and not counties, i.e. administrative or geographical subdivisions of a nation-state. Could you fix the filename? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be fixed by now, could you please let me know if this title is okay? Natuur12 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

mijn foto'sEdit

Beste Natuur12

Zouden mijn foto's hersteld kunnen worden? Op deze foto's rust geen copyright, ik heb de foto's zelf gemaakt, vrienden van mij of ik krijg ze opgestuurd van de schaatsers zelf. Ik heb veel zitten in die pagina's en ze zien er met foto veel beter uit.

Nee dat kan niet. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Foto's van Delfts archiefEdit

Hoi Natuur12, zou jij even kunnen kijken naar deze foto's van NinaAlice, de foto's zijn wel vrijgegeven maar met naamsvermelding. NinaAlice heeft alle foto's als eigen foto's geplaatst, wat niet correct is. Bij alle foto's staat op de pagina's vermeld dat de foto's zijn vrijgegeven voor alle gebruik. Ik vermoed zo dat de licentie dus ook niet helemaal correct is. Als je op deze pagina zoekt naar "jongenshuis" dan krijg je de meeste foto's te zien. Mocht je meer hulp willen... ik ben na 18:30 hopelijk thuis. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Mogelijk zijn ze niet vrijgegeven, de boodschappen op de individuele pagina's zijn tegenstrijdig: foto op archief en deze pagina heb ik wel alvast voorgedragen, die foto's is sowieso te recent. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Helaas wil mij browser de plaatjes niet laden van het archief :(. Je zal het zelf moeten doen vrees ik. Misschien kan je Bas nog wel strikken om dit op te lossen ;). Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ik kan ze helaas in drie verschillende browsers niet bekijken. Ik denk dat mijn laptop Java gedeeltelijk blokkeert. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LiveUSB gamyba Windows sistemoje.webmEdit

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

About File:Vandrare omslag i 3d.pngEdit

License permission sent to OTRS January 21, 2015 as promised in discussion. Can you plz undelete!? Deryni (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Deryni,
I'm afraid that I can't find the related OTRS-ticket. Too which email address did you send your email?. Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Natuur12:I follow the recommendations at Commons:OTRS and mailed to the address Kind regards Deryni (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Sefer Masaot Benjamin MiTudela Hebrew cover.jpgEdit

Please restore File:Sefer Masaot Benjamin MiTudela Hebrew cover.jpg. The book is in public domain and the cover page is needed in he.wikisource. Thanks! 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC) (s:he:User:Nahum)

Could you please explain to me why this book cover is PD? Evidence that this cover is PD is still missing. I would love to restore this file but without a clear motivation why the cover is PD I cannot. Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:GAEC_2.png and File:Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpgEdit

I don't want to be disrespectful, but can you, my dear colleague, explain to me, why did you deleted my files? Your colleague flagged those two files one hour before you deleted them so I had no time to make necessary edits. Futhermore I would appreciate to be enlightened which crucial information about my files were missing? I upload them with wiki Upload Wizard, I filled all columns, I stated that I created this media, no alert appeared. So how can I tell that something is wrong? Thanks for reply. --Tarenor (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the name mentioned as author differs from your username. That's why they are deleted. Or did you perhaps use your real name when you filed the author-field? Natuur12 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Of course I used real name. Why would I use nicname when I am making a legal act? It seemed to me more appripriate. And this is the reason to delete any file without a hesitation? --Tarenor (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The first one is a map and no there is no evidence provided that the base map is free and the secnd image appears elswhere on they web so we need evidence of permission via OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
        • So I have to state the very same information, I wrote before by sending an e-mail? Or do you want to send a link to the other picture on the Internet or should I send the same image you just deleted as an attachment?
        • Secondly which kind of evidence do you need to validate that I have the right to publish the map with all containing map layers?
        • Thanks for reply. --Tarenor (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Just fill in the standard statement and send it to OTRS. For the map, a source confirming the PD-status would be a good start. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
          • About base map: there is description [9] of base map by its publisher, Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre, unfortunately in Czech. There are also metadata [10] in English. When we had a discussion with employees at Open data Seminary they stated, that this map (along with cadastre map) is a) free b) cannot be protected by copyright (at least by Czech law) because those map are not created by definition a product of creative work (those map has to be same no matter who creates them) c) base maps are used at daily basis as a layer in our web projects and unlike the ortophotos by same source we are not obliged to mention them at web applicatons or at printed outputs. When we try to make an official request to confirm that we can make map with boudaries of Czech Republic and put it on Wikipedie, I think we would be laughed by them. --Tarenor (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
            • And possible other layers you used? Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
              • There is only one other layer, the one which is reason why the file is created, and that is based on research of our Institution. --Tarenor (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
                • OTRS restored your files so I believe that everything is done now. Natuur12 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You deleted files I uploaded - do I need to upload them again?Edit

You deleted the files Thirteen_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg, Olympia_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg and Barflies_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg because "no evidence of permission since 16 January 2015". I know for a fact that the copyright owner (George Chakravarthi) sent permission shortly after the images were uploaded, and again around 16 January. Two other images uploaded with the same copyright owner seem to have been accepted.RichardSkelding (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to upload the images again and ask George Chakravarthi to send his permission again?

We have a bit of a backlog at OTRS and it can take up to more than 30 days before someone answers an email but I looked up the specific email and restored the files. I need some extra information for one of the files since it is a derivative of possibly copyright protected content. Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me which information you need more information about and what that information is. None of the work is derivative in the sense that all of the work is George Chakravarthi's and he supplied them to me. They are either reproductions of his still work, stills of video work or photos of his work at exhibitions (which he took himself). His official website is and his email is (you will find this email address on his website) RichardSkelding (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I need to know who the artist is of file:Olympia by George Chakravarthi.jpg, when he died and where the painting was "published" for the first time. Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is NOT a photograph of a painting, it is a still from a video. The reclined person is George Chakravarthi, who produced the video, provided me with the still and emailed Commons with his permission (he is very much alive). I am sure he will take it as a compliment that you thought it was a painting, it was his intention that the video looked like a painting with movement!!RichardSkelding (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I received further clarification via email and I accepted the permission. Btw, there actually are paintings named "Olympia". Natuur12 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The video work was inspired by Manet's 'Olympia', hence the name, but plays with the gender and race of the characters. I hope you will have a look at the 'George Chakravarthi' wiki article when it is made live. RichardSkelding (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:La Chambre de la Reine et lart contemporain (Versailles).jpgEdit

Hey there, This file was marked deleted by you on the DR], but I think it was missed because it was listed by someone else there. I listed it for speedy deletion because I remember at one point it was standard to do so if a file was missed but another admin removed the SD template. I can't delete it myself or else I would. Thanks, The Haz talk 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The file wasn't listed clearly so that would indeed the reason why I missed that. In the meantime Yann kept the file, probably as DM. Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification. The Haz talk 21:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Shimer Class Chicago.PNGEdit

Hi. You deleted this file because OTRS had not received permission for it. But I checked with the owner who confirmed that permission was sent on 1/25/15. Is it possible that the permission was just not processed in time? Should I upload again and have them resend the permission? Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OOTRS has quite a back log so the permission was not proccessed but I looked up the ticket, checked the details and restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


The details supporting the release of this image were provided by ORTS. Why did you delete it?


James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS does not appear to answer their emails. James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway uploaded it locally on En Wikipedia. [12] If you wish to see the emails would be happy to share them. James Heilman, MD (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Revi dealth with the OTRS-ticket in the meantime. OTRS has a back log of several weeks so it may take some time till emails are awnsered. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Sgarbi Macellari.pngEdit

Hi Natuur12, Ref. the following file File:Sgarbi Macellari.png , yesterday an Admin has delated the file, than I wrote to sending copy of analogic negative of the photo deleted and a declaration about the copyright. Than tonight 00:14 you restored the file (thanks for that) than today 15:24 you deleted the file. Please let me know what the problem is, so that I can try to correct it. Thanks for your time. --Ercomar (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We need permission from the photographer, not the cameraowner. Natuur12 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Natuur12, thank you for your reply. I'll talk to the photographer asking him if he can give me permission to publish the photo. In this case, I'll write again to Thank you for your time. --Ercomar (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Evangelische Kirche LaunsbachEdit

Hoi Natuur12, jij hebt op 17 december 2014 via OTRS een aantal foto's van Launsbach bevestigd. Helaas zijn vijf verwijdert:

Hebt je die misschien over het hoofd gezien of zijn er andere redenen? Vriendelijk bedankt, --Wikiwal (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS loopt een beetje achter met de mails en daarom worden toestemmingen soms wat laat bevestigd met als gevolg dat bestanden verwijderd worden. Ik heb het bijbehorende ticket opgezocht, de bestanden teruggeplaatst en de toestemming bevestigd. Natuur12 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
O wacht, er zijn twee mails verstuurd. In dat geval ben ik inderdaad vergeten deze te bevestigen tijdens de eerste mail waarvoor excuus. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank! Ik ben blij dat alles goed verlopen is. Vanwege de verwijdering heeft de auteur de tweede mail opgestuurd. He ga je goed, --Wikiwal (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 Foto'sEdit

Ik schrijf het hier omdat de on-verwijder pagina geen reacties toe laat.

"Wikimedia Commons generally only enforces copyright restrictions, for these reasons:

Almost anything can be trademarked, and it wouldn't make sense to forbid everything. Trademarks and industrial designs restrictions are pertinent to industrial reproduction, but photographs of such items can otherwise be freely reproduced." Als mijn afbeeldingen van andere copyright materiaal komt, ¿waarom kan deze dan wel maar mijn afbeeldingen niet? ¿wat is het verschil? Hoogachtend, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Er zit auteursrecht op de logo's die op het scherm afgebeeld worden gezien deze complex zijn. Het merendeel van de afbeelding bestaat uit auteursrechtelijk beschermd materiaal en daarom is dat niet toegestaan. De "afbeelding" (volgens mij is rendering van de software de term die ik zoek) op het scherm van de foto die u hier aanhaalt is onscherp, een stuk simpeler en daarom waarschijnlijk com:DM of zelf beneden com:TOO. Ik heb niet naar het merkenrecht gekeken in deze. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
¿Kan ik de afbeelding dan niet wijzigen zoals deze gebruiker hun [afbeelding heeft gewijzigd door de logo's te vervagen? Dezelfde Facebook afbeelding komt er in voor (ik heb het nú over de Microsoft Lumia 535 foto die ik van Flickr af ik heb gehaald, sinds er geen reactie onder stond ga ik ervan uit dat ge de reactie onder de W.P.7 foto's ziet als de reactie op deze, persoonlijk hoef ik het eigen werk niet, ik vindt wel een open afbeelding die bruikbaar is, maar ik zie niet dat deze afbeelding vage logo's bezit anders dan die van Google één die niet op de mijne staat.) --Namlong618 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Twijfelgeval maar de kans is dan in ieder geval een stuk groter dat de afbeelding kan blijven. Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
deze afbeelding is geüpload door RaviC, een redelijk belangrijke persoon in de Nokiasfeer en Microsoft Mobile Oysfeer van Wikipedia, hij is geüpload met hetzelfde licentie (Yahoo! Flickr), en zelfs van dezelfde auteur (Kārlis Dambrāns), maar deze afbeelding staat er al sinds 2013 en is vertrouwd, ik zie niet hoe ik andere auteursrechten schendt die hij niet schendt. Hoogachtend, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Heel simpel, die is waarschijnlijk ook niet oke. Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

File:ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟೀವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್(Creative Commons) - ಏನು, ಹೇಗೆ, ಏಕೆ?.pdfEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Do you know how to mark this image? Some of the sources given are NC, one has been deleted....and I don't know which apply to this image. Perhaps you know whether it is safe to pass or fail it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This one should not be passed since many of the images have a NC-restriction but a DR is more apropropriate than simpply failing the LR since the NC images could be removed. Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Someone else has now marked it. Thank you for your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa.jpgEdit


May I ask why you deleted an image I uploaded from my personal WW2 Holocaust collection? I collect WW2 material for over 20 years and find this very offensive. Please plain.

Thanks, Neil --Huddyhuddy (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The images contained copyrighted material. See the discussion at the DR for more info. Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this - 1940 issued visa by consul Sugihara in Lithuania, showing a journey taken through the Soviet Union, Tsuruga, and Curaçao. Might be qualify as {{PD-Japan}}. -- Geagea (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point. To bad it wasn't mentioned in the DR. Perhaps an UNDEL request is the next logical step? Natuur12 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa.jpg. -- Geagea (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tnx :). Natuur12 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fix Grand Union Flag.svg.pngEdit

I fail to see how a question mark is a valid closing summary for a DR. Unless you are willing to explain properly why you have kept a file for an image that never existed, I shall renominate. Fry1989 eh? 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Script hick up. I wil ad the reason. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:VidsichEdit

I asked to wait the issue is in the process of solving.--Trydence (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You had almost two weeks to solve this. If there are no updates DR's will be closed eventually. We cannot host copyrightviolations forever just because someone is sorting it out. Some time is pretty vague. Those files can always be restored if permission comes in via OTRS but given the currect backlogg this could take weeks, even months. How long do you need to arrange the last details? Natuur12 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am willing to help you with this one but I need to know a when. Natuur12 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not know exactly when. Activists are now negotiating with the Museum of Communism in Prague, which probably are the copyright owner of using image.--Trydence (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand and that surely doesn't go well if the images are deleted. I guess that we can leave the DR open a little longer. Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I want to add a new version of the photo File:PTN KhYLO.jpg, where elements which can not extend my copyright will be retouched. Can I add a new version to a remote file or I need to add as a new article?--Trydence (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure. That is possible. You probably need to add it as a new file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Demonstrations and protests by Vidsich in UkraineEdit

File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg - I am in discussion proved that this photo free. Please give me the original of this photos: File:Флешмоб пам'яті жертв Голодомору Львів 2011.jpg, File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg--Trydence (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trydence: I undeleted both files. Please let me know when you downloaded File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg. After you are done I will delete the file again. And please let me know when evidence of permission is send to OTRS. That way I can validate the permission and all can be arranged a lot quicker that way. Natuur12 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Vidsich now sent to OTRS ( permissions of the photo File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg. Information from the files I kept.--Trydence (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I needed to respond in English but the file is marked as confirmed. This is probably the fastest way to deal with this situation. THe OTRS-agent who dealth with the previous ticket already checked all the details so we don't need to go through that procedure again. I deleted the other file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


@Fry1989: still has problems. --58inejohns (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fry's edit seems to be correct. So what's the problem? Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Replicas of the Statue of LibertyEdit

Check out: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Replicas of the Statue of Liberty

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I really appriciate that. Natuur12 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Teresa Cheung.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Teresa Cheung.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Алый Король (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Orgel foto'sEdit

Hoi Natuur12, de auteur van deze foto's heeft nog steeds geen bevestiging van OTRS ontvangen: File:Bad Langensalza Marktkirche Orgel.jpg File:Eisenach Georgenkirche Positiv.jpg File:Eisenach Georgenkirche Orgel.jpg File:Mühlhausen Divi Blasii Orgel.jpg File:Mühlhausen Divi Blasii Orgel 2.jpg File:Nordhausen Dom Orgel.jpg File:Nordhausen Dom Orgel 2.jpg File:Aabenraa Nicolai Orgel.jpg File:Aabenraa Nicolai Orgel 2.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 1.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 2.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 3.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 4.jpg File:Holmens Kirke Orgel.jpg File:Holmens Kirke Innen.jpg File:Kopenhagen St. Albans Orgel.jpg File:Kopenhagen St. Albans Orgel 2.jpg File:Kopenhagen St. Albans Orgel 3.jpg File:Løgumkloster Kirke Orgel.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel 2.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel 3.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel 4.jpg

Hij heeft de verklaring opgestuurd op 5-1-15 en nog eens op 10-2-15. Heeft dat met de achterstand te maken van die boven sprake was? Hartelijk dank en vriendelijke groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwal, dat heeft inderdaad met de achterstand te maken. Zelf ben ik deze dagen een beetje druk en vrij moe dus heb weinig tijd voor OTRS vrees ik :(. Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Dank je wel voor de informatie en succes met de verkiezing! Groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I am curious as to why you deleted the below image:

It says some guy on Flickr is using it, claiming it is his, but it is 100%, without a doubt, not his. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a long time, and this deletion happened while I was gone. But I would like a link to whoever is claiming he owns the image, because he is absolutely lying. I personally took the picture while visiting Atlanta and the Buckhead area with my wife. We specifically went to the house to view it since it related to the case and I am the original author of the "Black Mafia Family" article. Jlcoving (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the file was uploaded at Flickr before it was uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. Policy requires that evidence of permission is send to com:OTRS if that's the case. It would also help if the Flickr accountholder deletes the image. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you link to this Flickr account so I can contact him directly and contact Flickr about him using the image without my permission? I had previously posted the picture on the forums in a post about BMF, on Reddit, and on a Facebook group about them as early as March 2006. Jlcoving (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe you. You can find the Flickr account here. I take a carefull look at the Flickr account and it seems like it that they grap random images from they internet. I will place the account on the blacklist and after your explenation I believe that it is safe to restore the file :). Natuur12 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Landscapes is not a wastebasket categoryEdit

You recently uploaded a lot of images to the landscapes category, most of which clearly do not belong there. Images of mountains, clouds, streets etc are clearly not landscapes by any definition. As the page itself notes, "especially buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category". Landscapes is not a dustbin category for anything that can't be placed elsewhere. The category constantly becomes overcrowded by editors using it that way, and it takes a lot of editors a lot of work to keep it useable and uncrowded. It would be appreciated if you could assist us in cleaning up your mess. thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

He is already doing clean up. Damn, take a look at the contributions first. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Something went wrong with a batch upload and it will be cleaned but but since we are talking about more than 1.7k files originally it can take a few days before everything is placed in the proper cats. Natuur12 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Paloma de Paz Blanca.gifEdit

Hi! Thx for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Percy Meza where you deleted above file but I mentioned also the svg-version File:Paloma de Paz Blanca.svg which was derivated from File:Paloma de Paz Blanca.gif. Could you "treat" this file as well? Gunnex (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Your very words: "so I would like to ask for a second opinion". By voting against undeletion on File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg you did not allow a second opinion. You showed not to be impartial, I'm sorry to say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont have to be impartial since everyone may give his or her opinion. It will be a problem when I close the requests of DR's which I closed of course but thats not the case. The instructions at com:UNDEL for administrators are very clear: The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{udelh}} above the header and the template {{udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. Please take a look at the archive and you'll see that this is not uncommon. At the Dutch Wikipedia where you are also active works exactly the same when it comes to undeletion request so it is really not uncommon. That I asked for a second opinion in a set up where I overlooked something is a different case since I am the one that asks a second opinion, not you. Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
My request for undeletion of File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg is in fact a request for a second opinion. Since you deleted the file, it is not proper to interfere (you are allowed your opinion but it is improper to vote) with the undeletion request, which User:Fastily closed very quickly "per Natuur12". The whole point of the undeletion request is to have others have their say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Undeletions requests are not votes and even the instruction page allows me to interfere. (I'm only not allowed to close it as notdone) If you don't agree with that, bad luck for you but don't waste my time. You got your second opinion from Fastily so I suggest that you leave it be or discuss the timespan of the closing with Fastily. If you want to change standard practice go ahead but this is not the place to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Natuur12's deletion of File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg, plain and simple. Jan Arkesteijn, the fact that I do not agree with you does not invalidate my input as a 'second opinion'. -FASTILY 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to react anymore but now I have to. The source of these images says; All photos can be downloaded for publication free of copyright. That is all, these images needed not be deleted. Punt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Not before 1960+70=2030!--Antemister (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaving that case open for someone else. Or are you referring to a certain DR I closed? Natuur12 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes the categories of nigerian coins and banknotes!--Antemister (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait, of course. Nigeria didn't excist before that date. Do you have a link to the DR's? Than I'll take care of it. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Banknotes of Nigeria, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Coins of Nigeria - those cats contain only rather new banknotes.--Antemister (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
See here and here. I will delete the cats if the files in it are deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ik mag dus movenEdit

Hoi Natuur12, dank dat je mij (geheel onverwachts) de status 'file mover' hebt verleend. Dat zou nog best eens van pas kunnen komen. Ik heb hierbij wel een vraagje. Wat is de normale gang van zaken bij verzoeken om bestandshernoeming? Komen die in een lijst of een categorie, of lopen movers meestal de recente wijzigingen na? Dergelijke verzoeken worden vaak snel ingewilligd, dus het lijkt op dat laatste. Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoi, graag gedaan! De verzoeken komen in Category:Media requiring renaming terecht en bestanden mogen alleen hernoemd worden wanneer er aan het beleid voldaan wordt. Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, inderdaad een categorie dus. Bedankt voor je antwoord. Misschien iets om een keer uit te proberen. Groet, Apdency (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Ik heb onlangs inderdaad wat geëxperimenteerd. Zie Order of the Sinai Star medal.jpg. Waarschijnlijk is dat wel goed gegaan (zo niet, dan hoor ik het graag). Wel nog een vraagje. Ik heb gemerkt dat er een standaardmanier is om de verwijderreden te formuleren, met criteriumnummer én aanduiding van het criterium. Dat heb ik nu gedaan met kopieer- en plakwerk vanuit Commons:File renaming. Maar kan het wellicht ook op een makkelijker manier? Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
De rename ziet er goed uit. Geen idee hoe dit simpeler kan, zelf zet ik meestal criteria 5 of iets dergelijks in de samenvatting. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, wederom dank voor het antwoorden. Apdency (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Your deletion of this file per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BCP-mikeu-3.JPG appears to have missed that the file was in use on en.wikiversity, at least, and was apparently uploaded to Commons for that purpose. Deletion of files in actual use, for quality reasons, is generally inappropriate, because the decision is made out of context. Please undelete. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I wanted to keep this one just like all the other ancient out of scope noms since they at least need a new DR. The files has been undeleted and the bot has been reverted. In case you wonder, it's probably C. vernus but it is really out of focus so SiGarb seems to be correct. Natuur12 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I decided to work on that page a little and invoked your comment as a confirmation.... --Abd (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There is an issue where files are in use that they may have been uploaded long ago by someone no longer active. They may be in wide use. But nobody who used them is notified that they are under deletion request. So always usage should be checked. There is no procedure for notifying affected wikis, and this means that those who might care don't know until CommonsDelinker shows up and removes the link. Because we are so often hit by this on Wikiversity, we are considering discouraging sole upload to Commons; rather encouraging that files will be locally uploaded and not deleted if transferred to Commons. In many cases, local files have been deleted "because transferred to Commons," and then years later, were deleted from commons. We can claim fair use, Commons cannot.
I just saw another deletion because it's the most recent on Wikiversity: File:Crystal_Clear_app_aim.png. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crystal Clear app aim.png The claim was "Obvious derivative work." That is not a deletion reason, to my knowledge, if the original work is free. This still exists: File:Crystal_Clear_app_aim3.png. Once a page is deleted, the reason is not "obvious"! Requiring that the deletion discussion be complete, and taking special care when files are in use, could avoid wasted work.
I also could not find a notification of the uploader for that deletion, in spite of some searching. That should be checked as well! (But maybe I missed it.) --Abd (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's not an admins job to look after notifications and Commons doesn't have enough admin to do so. I will restore the other file as well since the license seems to be okay. Problem with those old DR's is that they are a mess. Script hick ups etc and it is tough to determine if deletion is justified. In this case it clearly wasn't. When it comes to informing local projects I have an idea. How about a global bot that posts a list of files nominated for deletion in the local village pumps? (Or any other place) Community's can opt in, opt out or whatever they want. I understand the problem that Commons is some kind of ivory tower who decides which files local projects may use but a real solution? I have none. Natuur12 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll handle the en.wikiversity restorals of links. I haven't looked globally. Yes, some good ideas. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

License review requestEdit

Could you please do the license check for the following file - ?
Thanks in advance --RussianTrooper (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, could you please check if this category (and Category:Furcipus rectirostris) are intentionally blank and uncategorized? You created them and they were blanked by some other user the following day. If so, please nominate them for (speedy) deletion or set a category redirect. Herzliche Grüße, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that the scientific names are synonyms. I redirected the cats. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion by you of File:"Farinde_Esther.jpg" on March 10th 2015Edit

Hi Natuur12,

I wonder if you could help me with some guidance. My file was deleted by you with a note that: (Removing "Farinde_Esther.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Natuur12 because: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source since 2 March 2015 - Using).

It seems I have missed what is required because the file did feature the note generated by me electing to publish under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I also sent a confirmation email to: on 2nd March 2015 as follows:

I hereby affirm that I, Ivan Brown of Idtenti, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work Farinde_Esther.jpeg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Ivan Brown

Copyright Holder

2nd March 2015

Is there something else that I should have done that I haven't done?

Please advise,

Kind regards,

Ivan Brown

Idtenti (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

An OTRS-agent will check out your email soon and if everything is sorted out he/she will restore the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian photographsEdit

I was about to make a comment when I edit conflicted with you regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Free Syrian 200. Some photos could have used closer inspection. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps but evidence is missing and it is not up to the closing admin to collect the evidence so a file can be kept. That's a job for the persons who want to keep those files. At the moment I deleted those images the copyrightstatus was questionable and than we can't hoste those files. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand your principle and it's not like I will file undeletion for those files. It bothered me that the uploader didn't mean to do harm, but our policies have a steep learning curve, and mass deletion is frequently perceived as a hostility from the new user's viewpoint. (I'm not saying that it actually is so, but that it appears to be.) More users from under-represented countries need to come in to the project and I hope we can ease the bump for inexperienced users as we go along. Cheers. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

en:Draft:Sarah DeRemerEdit

Looks like they're in use for a draft bio article on the artist at en:Draft:Sarah DeRemer. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :). I don't know if she is notable but it was fun to read. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming fileEdit

Helloǃ Why you don't renamed file File:USSR stamp Memories of cosmonauts 1971 4k.jpg? I harmonizing the file names of a set of images File:USSR stamp Memories of cosmonauts 1971 4k.jpg, File:The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4060 stamp (Cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev).jpg and File:The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4060 stamp (Cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev).png. --Matsievsky (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because you gave uploader requested as the reason and you are not the uploader. That's the mere reason. It is rather impossible to find out why if the reason is incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
How I can to renaming the file correctly? --Matsievsky (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
O, there is mistake in new requested robot... --Matsievsky (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for closing this deletion request. Your decision on this request was "Deleted: but kept one as below TOO". However, I noticed that you only deleted 2 out of 16 files in question. and the one you kept, File:XJTU name.png, as explained in the discussion, is clearly not below TOO according to COM:TOO#China (PRC) and other past deletion requests mentioned in the discussion. Would you take another look on this file as well as the others that are not deleted? Thanks again. --Wcam (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I missed the second part of the DR and therefor the links to the pervious DR's. (That happens really quickly when you use two headings in one DR) This all together is convincing enough to delete it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Beste Natuur12, zou jij ~Miguel~2000~Teirlinck~ een waarschuwingssjabloontje kunnen geven als je het ermee eens bent, want hij blijft zaken uploaden als eigen werk of met verkeerde licenties en ik blijf er erachteraan hollen. Ik weet niet hoe dat moet.

Overigens ben ik het oneens met deze beslissing (is dat een moderator?), want ook dit logo is natuurlijk geen "eigen werk", maar hij zet er wel zelf een vrijgave-licentie op. Een andere moderator heeft andere logo's om die reden wél verwijderd, zie hier en hier. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • PS: Als de hierboven gelinkte User:Amitie 10g een moderator is, die vindt dat je hier bestanden als eigen werk mag presenteren terwijl het je eigen werk niet is, dan is dat toch absurd? Het gaat er niet eens om of de afbeelding de "threshold of originality" haalt, het gaat erom dat hij valsheid in geschrifte goedkeurt. ErikvanB (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hoi Erik, waarschuwingssjabloon geplaatst. Amitie 10g is geen admin. Technisch gezien is het aan de uploader om de juiste gegevens en de juiste licentie te vermelden. Ik snap je punt alleen is dit iets wat vrij vaak gebeurt ben ik bang. Mensen zijn nogal terughoudend met het wijzigen van andermans licenties. Stel dat dit een account aangemaakt door het bedrijf is, in dat geval zou de licentie geldig zijn maar kunnen we het alleen niet controleren. Natuurlijk is dit allemaal niet heel erg zorgvuldig maar dit is hoe de dingen op Commons in de loop der jaren gegroeid zijn ben ik bang. Het hangt erom of dit logo wel of niet de originaliteitsdrempel behaald maar het logo is out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Top. Bedankt voor je prima antwoord, de waarschuwing en de "out of scope". Heel tevreden over. Hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Update: Het is hopeloos. Weer een nominatie. En zie dit overleg bij de vorige. Misschien is het ook wel geestig om Woodcutterty's antwoord te lezen. :) Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Smile. Het is toch wat. Ik heb het antwoord gelezen en het advies van Woody lijkt me verstandig. Commons is een jungle vol gevaarlijke roofdieren, verouderde wetboeken, half geïnterpreteerde rechtelijke uitspraken, onterechte generalisaties, gemene admins and mijzelf. :p. Waarschijnlijk blijven die logo's wel behouden maar ik twijfel of dit wel overeenkomt met de jurisprudentie in Nederlandse arresten. Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Hahaha. Yep. Mooi antwoord. ;-) ErikvanB (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman Ultimate Flight SFGA.jpg et alEdit

When you make a number of more or less identical DRs such as these, it is much easier for you, the uploader, and all of us who might comment on or close the DRs if you do them all on one DR using VFC. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I used VFC for one of the DR's but after I was done I kept finding files that where not okay and it turned out that there where more files than I thought. Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

page unprotectionEdit

You protected File:The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg. Please see the request at [13]. I probably should have asked you to handle this first. It's straightforward, please either make the edit that has consensus, or unprotect; because of translations, the page should probably just be unprotected, revert warring is now unlikely, but if it does happen, consensus is clear and disruption will be clearly identifiable, unlike before. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - Let's hope the edit warring doesn't start again. Natuur12 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And thanks. Several of these users are touchy, easily offended, and, because of old history elsewhere, ready to start attacking each other at the drop of any misunderstanding. However, I seem to have engaged them and have built some respect. They did agree, all but one, and that one has said he is out of there. I don't know if he will stay out, but we did have clear consensus, so I do know what to do if something goes awry. I'm inviting him to help with translations. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom Frost photosEdit

Hi, thank you for the carefully prepared DR on Tom Frost's photos. I am trying to read up on the issues, but it seems my OTRS account does not have access to the appropriate queue to read the letter from Aurora. Do you have the ability to add that queue for me, and if so, would you be willing to do so? -Pete F (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I temporarely moved the ticket to the permission-commons queue. Please let me know when you are done so I can move it back. It is confusing if I respond with a different mailadress. Natuur12 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have what I need now. Commenting on the DR shortly. -Pete F (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I moved it back. Natuur12 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The notion that I misled Tom Frost in any way back in 2009 is demonstrably false, and I intend to do my very best to ensure that any implication that I behaved incorrectly in this matter is refuted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Where did I say you misled him? Apperantly he didn't know what he signed. That's not the same as you misleading him. This happens from time to time and that's something we can't do anything about. Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Tom Frost is saying or implying that I misled him. Is it possible for me to see a copy of his recent letter about this? Cullen328 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No he's not and no it's not. I cant give you documents stored in the OTRS-system. Natuur12 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation is that Mr. Frost, who may not deal with free licenses very often, simply forgot some of the details about that communication from 5 years ago. I very much doubt that he is making an accusation of deception, either directly or by implication. -Pete F (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Seeing this discussion, I commented in the DR, specifically assuring Cullen that there is no sign of any accusation of "misleading" Frost in what has been written. "I was not fully aware" is not a claim that "I was misled." The issue in the DR is not Cullen. At all. --Abd (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Abd. This is the first time I have experienced anything like this, and I apologize to all concerned if my disappointment and surprise colored my initial comments. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cullen, I understand. Here is what is now possible. It does not make sense that Aurora would want low-res images taken down if those images point to Aurora. What would make sense, in fact, is that Aurora releases low-res images to Commons for free re-use under a license that requires attribution. I'm not familiar with the range of possibilities on Commons, but a possible outcome, if this is handled well, is that Aurora actually releases all their extensive material, as low-res, this way. In other words, a treasure trove for our purposes, and no harm to them, and probable benefit to them. Effectively, free advertising. Those images should be decent enough resolution to be usable in encyclopedia articles. As it is, if the images are important to the article, they could now be used under fair use anyway. But they would have to be uploaded to each project, a nuisance for us. Maybe this won't work, but I think we should try!
  • We don't yet know if there was an actual exclusive transfer of rights to Aurora, and we don't know if that was recorded with the U.S. Copyright office. For win-win-win, though, it doesn't matter! Aurora now apparently can release, and probably has that right with other photographers. The fly in the ointment could be if Aurora wants to obtain royalties from even low-res copies. That will be their choice. My suspicion, though, is that that particular market is small.
  • On English Wikipedia, very few of these photos would meet our non-free content policy, except perhaps possibly portraits of people who are now dead, such as John Salathe and Henry Kendall. That project does not allow non-free portraits of living people, or non-free photos of sporting event, unless the photo itself, not what it portrays, is the subject of critical commentary. My understanding is that German Wikipedia is far more restrictive. The loss of the portrait of Kendall, a Nobel laureate in physics, would be a genuine loss to Wikipedias in approximately 59 languages, I believe. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Lithurgus tibialis, M, Side, Greece, Aegean Islands, Lesvos, Moria 2015-03-06-12.21.48 ZS PMax (16838889276).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lithurgus tibialis Mounted specimen - Side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Rollback requestEdit

Hi Natuur12, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to grant me rollback permissions on commons? It's not a huge deal, as I can always revert vandalism the ghetto way, but it just makes things a little bit quicker. I've got 5 years and 500+ edits on commons and 10 years and 20,000+ edits on with a clean block log. I've had rollback on for 5 years now without any issues, so I know how to use it and not abuse it. Thanks for your consideration! TDL (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - indeed rollback is not a huge deal ;). Also granted the patroller flag. Natuur12 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! TDL (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Rietveldse Toren-1.JPG
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rietveldse Toren - back view (a Rijksmonument).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Giant Asian Mantis (Hierodula patellifera) (15335749960).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hierodula patellifera (Giant Asian Mantis) - side view .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm), side 2014-06-04-19.42.51 ZS PMax (15752867389).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Agrotis ipsilon (Black Cutworm) caterpillar - Mounted specimen - Side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

FP PromotionEdit

Black cutworm pupae.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Black cutworm pupae.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black cutworm pupae.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Anoplolepis gracilipes lateral view queen.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Anoplolepis gracilipes (yellow crazy ant) - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Velvetbean caterpillar, side 2014-06-04-19.10.53 ZS PMax (15319617473).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Anticarsia gemmatalis Caterpillar (Velvetbean Caterpilla) - Mounted specimen - Lateral view .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Private info?Edit

Hiya: I'm confused! I didn't leave any private info on INC's page... :) Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, someone who made a comment before you did. Natuur12 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Alocandrena porteri, f, side, peru 2014-07-26-14.55.39 ZS PMax (16019319701).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Alocandrena porteri - Mounted specimen - Female - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Black cutworm, eggs 2014-06-06-10.14.24 ZS PMax (15937022311).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Agrotis ipsilon (Black Cutworm) - Mounted specimen - Eggs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Caupolicana electa - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Tetragnatha laboriosa.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tetragnatha laboriosa (Silver Longjawed Orbwea).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
ヒメクダマキモドキ (Phaulula macilenta) (15324604727).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Phaulula macilenta (Green Bush-Cricket).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.


Hi Natuur, just to let you know that I understand your concerns about my "background". However, if such background is so important, and provided that I just want to help in an understaffed area such as permissions-commons-es, wouldn't your concerns apply also to my reviewer flag? I mean, my reason to apply is that I've noticed that many times I'm labeled files as 'no permission' and received a notification of the uploader about the sending of an OTRS authorization without the possibility to verify it. That's what I want to help with (verifying permissions). However, I equally verify permissions with my reviewer flag without any problem (I guess). Well, I was just thinking out loud. In fact, it helps me to understand how the community actually assess my work here. Best regards --Discasto talk 21:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Via OTRS you can acces private data, including pasports (yes some people are stupid enough to send a copy), real names of editors, phonenumbers etc. As a LR-er you don't have acces to private data. Plus, Commons is broken already and OTRS isn't ;). Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Antivaleria viridimacula (15616192197).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Antivaleria viridimacula - Dorsal view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Ibotaga(Brahmaea japonica Butler) (8627229338).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brahmaea japonica (Japanese Owl Moth) - Dorsal view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
キバネセセリ (Bibasis aquilina) (15215660420).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bibasis aquilina - Lateral view .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.


Hi. I'm sorry but I don´t understand what you mean with "Read the manual". Could you be so nice to explain? Thanks--Ganímedes (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was a suggestion that you read com:SCOPE before asking people. Natuur12 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I read it, thanks. What does has to do with a picture where the one in focus is unknown and the only with interest is completely blurry? I see no "educational purpuse" in this. Obviusly the question was retoric, and your summary does not follow any policy or explains about the points in dispute. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sè Lisboa (1).jpgEdit

Seems that you deleted both images, instead of only the smaller duplicate (meanwhile transformed into a redirect). Should I file an UdR? -- Tuválkin 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No need, I corrected it. Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Great! Face-smile.svg -- Tuválkin 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Church noticeboard, Praia da Luz, Portugal, 2010.jpgEdit

Hi Natuur, can you say what the problem is with this image? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a derivative of copyrighted works. Natuur12 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Sympetrum risi risi (10927125983).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sympetrum risi risi - Male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Plume Moth (Deuterocopus albipunctatus) (15522493265).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Deuterocopus albipunctatus - Dorsal view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Brachyhesma sulphurella, australia, back 2014-11-22-13.11.01 ZS PMax (15858835351).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brachyhesma sulphurella (Australian Minute Bee) - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Spirama retorta, female (9653310471).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Spirama retorta (Indian Owlet-moth) - Female - Dorsal view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

FP PromotionEdit

Velvetbean caterpillar, eggs 2014-06-06-14.48.01 ZS PMax (15753693807).jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Velvetbean caterpillar, eggs 2014-06-06-14.48.01 ZS PMax (15753693807).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Velvetbean caterpillar, eggs 2014-06-06-14.48.01 ZS PMax (15753693807).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please seeEdit

As closing admin of at least one of the prior requests, please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celeblawyersnyc. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and I wonder if we should lock the account. Natuur12 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Hoi Natuur12, ticket:2015021010018403. Schijnbaar geen afb door zijn grootvader, maar van zijn grootvader. In andere woorden, hij heeft denk ik niet de rechten. Ik heb hem een antwoord gestuurd. Laat me weten wat je denkt. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nee, hij heeft idd niet de rechten. Als hij niet met een bevredigend antwoord komt moeten de foto's helaas weer weg. Natuur12 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

This is to inform you about a deletion request. I consider the original file name of Commons:Deletion requests/Objects with design by Corneille as inappropriate, therefore I renamed the page to this title and submitted the original page for deletion. Elly (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oke, maar het is alles behalve een persoonlijke aanval. Dit is gewoon het standaard naampje dat visual change aan de DR geeft wanneer je meerdere bestanden van dezelfde auteur voor verwijdering nomineert. Natuur12 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Hi Natuur12. I would like to thank you for your excellent block of Akrben and for your fast action in recognising and stopping cyber bullying. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome :). Natuur12 (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Triepeolus monardae, F, Side, GA, Baker County 2015-02-03-12.05.11 ZS PMax (17209687452) (2).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Triepeolus monardae - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Ashmeadiella xenomastax, ca, santa barbara, side 2015-04-20-12.02.39 ZS PMax (17213060282) (2).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ashmeadiella xenomastax - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Ceratina arizonensis, side2, ca, santa barbara 2015-04-20-12.16.53 ZS PMax (17029525739) (2).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ceratina arizonensis - Mounted specimen - Lateral view .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Osmia rufohirta, M, Side, Greece, Aegean Islands, Lesvos, Mytilene 2015-02-12-13.43.45 ZS PMax (17077265610) (2).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Osmia rufohirta - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Megachile montenegrensis, M, Side, Greece, Aegean Islands, Lesvos, Mytilene 2015-02-12-14.37.26 ZS PMax (17070419409) (2).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Megachile montenegrensis - Mounted specimen - Lateral view .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

File:Cunard logos2.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cunard logos2.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Edoderoo (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi. You might be interested in commenting at User_talk:Tiptoety#File:Grabstein.2C_Ottenheimer_Louis_1840-1912.2C_J.C3.BCdischer_Friedhof_.28Heilbronn.29.jpg. You have more history and knowledge of this sockpuppeteer than I do. Best, Tiptoety talk 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, Messina is asking people to complain about the deletions on his/her behalve. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello Natuur12, why it isn´t scaled-down? Regards --Jean11 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, my bad. At first sight the crop appears to be slightly different because of the different sizes but after taking a really close look I have to admit that you are correct :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Real Life Barnstar.jpg The Real Life Barnstar
ساعطيك الحياة Ridouan al hannachi (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

T-shirt barnstarEdit

Dear Natuur12, I have nominated you for a T-shirt. Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia! Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Tnx :). Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Don't you threaten me! I have every right to renominate files for deletion and especially in this instance where the closing admin has explicitly told me I can on their talk page and I have two previous examples of them improperly closing DRs forcing me to renominate ([14] and [15]). Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have any rights. You have privileges. Secondly, nobody forces you. You renominate them out of free will. Thirdly, if you had motivated those DR's properly you wouldn't be in this situation. Based on your poor motivation I would say that the closings are corect. And last but not least, no shouting at my talk page please. You can't blame others for your sloppiness Fry. You should know that by know. Btw, I see no post about this DR, the one I speedy closed at the closing admins talk page? Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I choose to word my DRs the way I do for a reason, I choose not to directly link the duplicate file in this DR because I have had more than once a problem with closing admins accidentally deleting the SVG as well and the Commons Delinker removes it from all projects and then we have a real problem on our hands putting it back on all those pages. And even if you feel that I should link the SVG, it's still improper to close the DR without allowing the nominator the chance to answer the question of "what file?", forcing me to re-nominate. So don't you dare try and call me sloppy and blame me when it's your sloppy colleagues that make such mistakes as well. I don't give a damn what you think about me and I'd be happy never to have any interaction with you of any sort ever again, but when you bring threats into this you have crossed a line. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You could also ask the closing admin to reconsidder after you provided him a link to the duplicate. Yet again nobody forces you. And yes everyone makes mistakes but I don't see my fellow admins blaming others for those mistakes. Do you? And no swaering at my talk page please. Really Fry, you make Commons sound like the world of ignorance is strenght. Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You blame me calling me sloppy, acting like it's all my fault, and then excuse away very valid reasons I might have for wording my DRs the way I do. Tell me, what takes more effort: Commenting in a DR asking for a link to the duplicate file giving the nominator time to respond and then closing the DR accordingly, or having to put an accidentally deleted image back on hundreds of project pages? I think we both know what the answer is. So don't call me sloppy when you have no idea what I do things the way I do. Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Beste Natuur12, hartelijk dank voor het nomineren van deze afbeeldingen, want ik zat ermee in mijn maag maar was eerst even gaan eten. Na mijn terugkomst bleken ze genomineerd. Deze plaatjes komen de kwaliteit van Wikipedia bepaald niet ten goede. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Graag gedaan, geen idee waar hij ze deze keer gejat zijn overigens. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Tetraschalis arachnodes (16970355161).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tetraschalis arachnodes - Female- Mounted specimen - Dorsal view .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Utrechtse HeuvelrugEdit

Dag Natuur12,

zou jij mij eens even willen helpen als je een keer tijd hebt? Er is iets waar ik niet uit kom. Ik ben niet zo handig. Ik heb zojuist een nieuwe categorie aangemaakt: Category:Den Treek-Henschoten. Dat is een landgoed dat deel uitmaakt van het Nationaal Park Utrechtse Heuvelrug. Daarin heb ik inmiddels een paar van mijn eigen (vandaag gemaakte) foto's gestopt. Ik heb deze categorie netjes ingevuld als deelcategorie van Category:Utrechtse_Heuvelrug_(national_park).

Nu dacht ik: dan ga ik de foto's die elders op commons nog rondhangen van dit gebied ook onder deze cat rangschikken. Bijvoorbeeld: File:Den_Treek_Henschoten,_12_Bomen.JPG. Die foto is gemaakt vorig jaar tijdens de WLE-wedstrijd. Aan die foto hangt ook de categorie "Utrechtse Heuvelrug (national park)", en die wil ik er dus eigenlijk afhebben, i.v.m. de "hiërarchie" in de categorieën. Maar dat lukt me dus niet. Blijkbaar is die categorie "automatisch" aangemaakt door het sjabloon van WLE ofzoiets. Ik wil natuurlijk dat sjabloon niet veranderen. Maar ik wil wel dat die foto uit de categorie Utrechts Heuvelrug (national park) verdwijnt.

Ik vraag dit nu even aan je, omdat dit voor veel meer foto's geldt die het vorig jaar in NP Utrechtse Heuvelrug zijn gemaakt. Zoals je misschien weet ben ik bezig om een projectje op te tuigen om meer aan NPUH te gaan doen. Dat gaat dan vooral over het verbeteren en uitbreiden van de info over deelgebieden van het NP. Bijvoorbeeld Den Treek-Henschoten, dus. Vandaar.

Misschien weet jij een oplossing. Dat zou mooi zijn. Dan kan ik verder gaan met het "rubriceren" van de foto's van de Utrechtse Heuvelrug.

Hartelijke groet, 19:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC). Oeps. Ik zie dat ik ineens ben uitgelogd. Foutje. Nu dus weer ingelogd. Dick Bos (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Beste Dick Bos,
Het is wel mogelijk maar die manier waarop is een beetje omslachtig. Eerst dient het sjabloon ge-"substituted" worden. (Geen idee wat de vertaling van dat woord is). Dat kan door {{Wiki Loves Earth Netherlands|NP-UtrechtseHeuvelrug|landschap}} te vervangen door {{subst:Wiki Loves Earth Netherlands|NP-UtrechtseHeuvelrug|landschap}} Vervolgens moet de overtollige code weggehaald worden. Hierna is de categorie als goed is weg. Een andere oplossing is er helaas niet. Handig leerpunt om mee te nemen voor de volgende wiki loves earth :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

re-nominate deletion for File:Lambert-av-saint-eglise-jeanne-d-arc-6-2-images.jpgEdit

Hi !

File:Lambert-av-saint-eglise-jeanne-d-arc-6-2-images.jpg is the work of two main architects. Louis Castel (dead during World War I)and Jacques Droz. Jacques Droz is dead only on 1955, witch did not allow us to use photography of his works (by french laws). Miniwark (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A renomination is fine. The closing was rather procedural because the nomination seemed to be striked through. 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your HelpEdit

Thanks for your help in that irritating situation regarding the other two users. I am about to let it go but would you please first go to the quality image candidates page and take a look at My Himeji Castle image from may 12th? The user with the name “Livioandronico2013” is signing his statement with the name “Jebulon” and down voting me. That is at least how I read this. Two comments from the same person with two user accounts, both voting me down? What do you think?
Also, Jebulon has not only falsely claimed on that picture that I “reworked” the sky but has also left an annotation on my other picture also falsely claiming the same thing.
This is what I mean by attack and this kind of behaviour is what made me react in the (stupid) way I did. The claims are clearly false. Even if somebody believed that I had done something to the images they could ask “Did you do something to the sky? It seems artificial to me”. Instead you have well established members of the commons using these absolute statements to do what (to me) seems to be at least borderline badmouthing. Thanks in advance. --Nubero (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Addendum: I just re-read that comment by Livioandronico2013. I think he might be talking to Jebulon after all? It’s a strangely written comment… --Nubero (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It is easy to lose the overview at the QI page because it lay-out is confusing. They are probably having a conversation. QI and featured pictures are often the places where fights starts and revenge votes are uncommon. I don't know if that's the case here plus it is really hard to prove. The only advice I can give is to ask other regular reviewers for a second opinion. I believe that there is a special section for that at the bottom of the quality images nomination page. If some people are over cirtic specificly at your images it will become clear really easely after more people voice their opinion. QI is quite subjective btw and the criteria are not well defined. Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raoul Paoli-Cinéma - The Coward - 1927.jpgEdit

Hi, Natuur, as I can't read French I haven't followed the arguments provided. Just to enhance my management of future DR, would you mind explaining why this image was kept? Many thanks into advance --Discasto talk 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, of course. This file has been laying around in the uploaders personal archives and was originally a promotional image in the US. The odds that they renewed the copyright of this widely spreaded image is really small. Perhaps BrightRaven can double check that I interperted the discussion here correctly? Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, these promotional images does not have a copyright notice, were published before 1977 in the US and were kept as {{PD-US-no notice}}. BrightRaven (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Natuur12. This file appears to be copyrighted; it was taken from a closed access paper (a "Premium Material") published by Taylor & Francis [16]. For this reason, the file was previously deleted from English Wikipedia by an admin, but was later undeleted by another user. However, the publisher Taylor & Francis explicitly indicates on its Terms and Conditions that [17]:

"We are the owner or the licensee of all copyright, trademarks, design rights, database rights, confidential information, or any other intellectual property rights (together the "Intellectual Property") in the Site, the content and the Materials. The Materials are protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved. Your right to access and use the Site and the Materials is strictly limited to that set out below and, where applicable, in any accompanying license agreement between you and Us[...] In addition to the terms set out above, your use of any Premium Materials is subject to an additional license, the nature and content of which will vary according to the type of Premium Materials purchased and whether you are purchasing as an individual or on behalf of an organization."

Taylor & Francis instead only offers its Open Access Materials, which this Premium Material is not, under a Creative Commons Attribution License. Please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am not familiar enough with en-wiki policy to assist you in this case. Some rules differ from the rules at Commons when it comes to copyright. If this file would have been uploaded to Commons I would call this one above TOO under UK law but under TOO under US law because there is not much creativity. Every work has to be creative and if File:Best Western logo.svg is okay under US-law a simple table should be as well if they took the "numbers etc" from a public non copyrighted source. The second licensing tagg is bogus of course. Vialating a websites term of use is a non copyright restriction and Commons (don't know about EN-wiki) states that such breaches are between the uploader and the party who's term of use are breached. It is certainly not wise to just copy this table. Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's sorta what I had thought. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:GARIGARIKUN (1825920674).jpgEdit

If you have a minute, please consider marking or deleting this image. I don't know if the costumed image is copyrightable. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks or nominating! Natuur12 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phoenix.pngEdit

When you closed this, you seem to have overlooked that a user renamed the file. Please also delete the file, not only the redirect. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - sorry. Natuur12 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to go through Category:Deletion requests March 2015 to find other errors like this. All deletion requests from March seem to have been closed, but the category contains plenty of files. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Will do, I'll try to clean up the cat. Natuur12 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Entire cat is cleaned up. Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler.jpgEdit

Yes, I forgot. Thanks for the reminder. Ankry (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Works by Erik MangelschotsEdit

Natuur12, would you be so kind as to take a look at this user's contributions? Janmangelschots1979 is most probably not Erik Mangelschots (1953) (I guess he's the son) but he uploaded nearly 50 pictures of work by Erik Mangelschots, tagging them as "own work". I warned him on his Dutch talk page already but I guess he will need some help of an experienced user to get this right, and if he doesn't get it right, the problem will have to be addressed by an administrator. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wikiklaas, I'll leave a message at his talk page when I am at home and explain the OTRs-process to him. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Natuur12".