Last modified on 28 July 2014, at 03:57

User talk:Natuur12

Return to "Natuur12" page.
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 | 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

A barnstar for you!Edit

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious, but needed admin task.

Thank you for all your hard work! -- Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :) Natuur12 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

+1: If someone would ask me... I would say (for me personal), Natuur12 is one of the best admins at the moment at Commons! Gnome3-surprise 22.png -- Perhelion (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 :) Natuur12 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Vyacheslav Lopushnoy.jpgEdit

Dear! The request to recover the File:Vyacheslav Lopushnoy.jpg removed with you. Permission is got for the photo publication in Wikipedia under the free license CC BY-SA 3.0, GFDL from the author of a photo. Tiket OTRS #2014050610002942. Excuse for my bad English. Yours faithfully, --Dogad75 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dogad75: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks!--Dogad75 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

These two imagesEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Can these two images below be deleted. It seems the original 2005 source images are ARR.

Secondly, if you can mark 10-15 images in flickr human review, it might help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Deleted the images and marked a few. Most of those London pictures seem to be okey. But wow that backlogg is huge. Natuur12 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. We have many reviewers on Commons but many mark images sporadically. PS: I thought it was strange that the 2 images were not deleted as I had tagged them more than 8 hours earlier. But thank you for dealing with them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Dear Natuur12,

Perhaps you can close this DR as keep since I have withdrawn my nomination. The problem is whether someone like you would be willing to mark this image--because if not it will remain in the picasa human review category and someone else may file a DR nomination in future. I don't know the solution here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Closed the DR. Will be at home later today. Love free wifi :) Natuur12 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK Thank you. The real question is whether the picasa image can be passed say based on the results of this DR rather than remain in limbo. You or Lymantria may know the answer. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the first 2 file uploads can be deleted? Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

    • There is no need to delete them plus it is important so safe the uploadlog. Still thinking about that other file btw. The skeleton is probably not copyrighted, the background is but is it DM and is it eligible for copyright? Natuur12 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for giving your reasons here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's uploadsEdit

Dear Natuur,

Most of this user's uploads appear to be unfree derivative images or screenshots of copyrighted images. They should all be deleted. Do you know what to do here? I am not good handling mass DR's Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominated them for deletion and listed them here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wolf8196. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I made a reply in the mass DR. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - ING - Pat Andrea - De zwarte vaas (1980).jpgEdit

Hi, you closed this with a remark to discus this at the OTRS notice board. Do I have access top that notice board? I really don't know. How can I check a OTRS ticket? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find the OTRS-Noticeboard here. You can aks questions about specific questions there. Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Human FlickrreviewEdit

Dear Natuur,

If you have some time, please try to mark say 10-14 images in flickr review. Its not good if only I mark them all the time. A second marker is preferable. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Did a few of them and nominated some of them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio reviewEdit

Can you mark just these 4 panoramio images? This uploader will tell me later if it is not marked. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I don't know why the bot doesn't pass his images but perhaps his images on panoramio are not as large as the ones on his camera. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • He modified the images and used some sort of a filter before uploading them to Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your analysis. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phil Fish at GAMMA 3D 2008.jpgEdit

It's not in use, though its original is. Also the image contains a copyvio (composite overlay in the top right corner)—you may want to take a look again. czar  16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is In use here en:Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/January and the copyrightable part is com:DM. Natuur12 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That's tautological—it's a listing of recently added files. It's not in use in an article. The image was specifically photoshopped in—it's not part of the original capture. It was added as a joke and has no educational or encyclopedic value. You're saying I need to take it to another deletion discussion? czar  16:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This statement is much more clear and proves that this file is not DM. Thank you for clarifying this. Natuur12 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Appreciate your help czar  17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolian family in front of her ger.jpgEdit

If you think this is the flickr account owner's own photo, please consider marking it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Uploader made a lot of photographs using the same Camera. Natuur12 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I couldn't be sure here and there is so much flickrwashing nowadays. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File rename of DesireOparanozie06.JPG to BibiMedoua03.JPGEdit

Hi! I had asked the renaming of the File:DesireOparanozie06.JPG to File:BibiMedoua03.JPG. However, maybe due to my insufficient explanation, the file was kept as it is. The person on the image is Bibi Medoua, and not Desire Oparanozie as I mistakenly titled. Pls rename it or delete it so I can re-upload correctly. Thanks and sorry for the inconvienence. --CeeGee (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, nominating a file for deletion is not the standard practice to correct the name. You can find more information about how to request for a namechange here. I renamed the file for you but in the future you can simply ask for a rename instead of nominating it for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts and for your further info. I see that the renamed file "BibiMedoua03.JPG.jpg " has now two extensions. I am afraid this can cause some problem. --CeeGee (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it :) Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Natuur12. Thanks for the license review on File:Mistsnihd6.png. When you have the time, could you please also confirm the following set? (File:Ucidlhd24.png, File:Ucidlhd15.png, File:Ucidlhd18.png, File:Ucidlhd17.png, File:Ucidlhd21.png, File:Ucidlhd22.png, File:Ucidlhd25.png, File:Ucidlhd27.png, File:Ucidlhd29.png, File:Ucidlhd28.png, File:Ucidlhd30.png, File:Ucidlhd1.png, File:Ucidlhd5.png, File:Ucidlhd9.png, File:Ucidlhd5a.png, File:Ucidlhd12.png). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, hope this helps :) Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

University of Waterloo Stratford CampusEdit

Hi Natuur 12. I am incredibly frustrated. Both myself and other users have repeatedly tried to put images on the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page and these images are constantly being removed even though all the licensing and attributions have been done correctly. I just saw that you recently removed two images. I truly do not understand you did this and encourage you to put them back up. Stko123 (talk)

Images from Zoologische MededelingenEdit

Hello Natuur12, you nominated two images I uploaded from a paper published on Zoologische Mededelingen, claiming there is no proof they are licenced under cc-by-3.0. For proof, please see: [1] (the bottom of the page). Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to contact me, please leave a message on English wikipedia, I only visit commons on occasion when I want to upload an image. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and sorry for nominating them. I coudln't find any evidence that the files where free in the actual document. Natuur12 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nobusuke Kishi 01.jpgEdit

Dear Sir, I ask about your measures for this request.Commons:Licensing provides as follows here from 2008."Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."And it is deleted like these by User:Fastily in the past. Commons:Deletion requests/File:TonDucThang1948.jpg,Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imelda Marcos in 1954.jpgBy the reason of URAA. I think that you have a duty to answer this contradiction as a manager. Plese let me know. --Y.haruo (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't have a duty to awnser to any question of course but since those nominations a lot has changed. For some more background you can read Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)I read about an argument, but the conclusion did not seem to be given.I am the Japanese who is weak in English, but I am not awnser.--Y.haruo (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The conclusion is for now " YES. URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}". Some admins agree with it and others not. The follow up discussion took place here. Some admins delete them, other admins delte them, some undelete them and others start a wheel war about the undeletion etc. Nasty discussion so I'm not deleting or undeleting anything ;) But lately there have been none deletions because of the URAA. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for answering my question.I wish victims like me do not increase.I hope for further development of Wikimedia.--Y.haruo (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Murals by Diego Rivera in the Palacio de Bellas ArtesEdit

What about other pictures? File:PBA Man at the Crossroads full view from above.JPG should be kept. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide me a link to the exact DR? I cleaned up most of the back logg today so I don't rememer every specific DR. Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:CarnVidaMex4BADF.JPG, but it's of a different file. Well, I didn't put in every specific file except one (or two). --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you really need to nominate the specific files and sort out which are okey and whcih aren't. They should be listed in the DR since we cannot keep track of it if their not. Those files will be okey one day and if they are not listed in a DR we are not abel to undelte them than. So feel free to nominte all files which are not okey. You can use visual change to easely nominate them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

University of Waterloo Stratford CampusEdit

Hi Natuur 12. I am incredibly frustrated. Both myself and other users have repeatedly tried to put images on the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page and these images are constantly being removed even though all the licensing and attributions have been done correctly. I just saw that you recently removed two images. I truly do not understand you did this and encourage you to put them back up. Stko123 (talk)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The uploader is talking about this image. I failed a second one but let you mark this one. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. At least the uploader got a flickr unfree note. Goodnight from Vancouver where its 1:40 AM. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Put the photo of Larry Alan Burns back on his page. The jpg. is not copyrighted and it's inclusion on the page doesn't violate any rules. Also, quite meddling.

It could very well be copyrighted so unless you can provide evidence that this file is in the public domain I won't restore this file. It is possible since this file is PD since the subject is a federal judge. There was no source given, only a false claim of ownership. I am willing to help but you have to provide sufficiant evidence instead of demanding stuff which I cannot do. Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

source for imageEdit

Hi Natuur12: I bet the source of this image is contained in the text I can't read well. Can you help? I'm slowly working my way through images without source, trying to fix as many as I can, but this one is "over my head." Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it but I'm not sure if the currect licensing tagg is correct. This text could be copyrighted. Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have seen letters said to be non-copyright and others that were. I'm totally confused on that issue for this letter, but at least it has a source. Thank you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludwik Marian Kaźmierczak in the uniform of Haller's Army with fiancée Margarethe.jpgEdit

I have a quick question about this, I am not sure how is it PD in the US ? If, as stated in the DR it was first published in 2013 then (according to Commons:Hirtle chart) it would be in copyright in the US for either "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author or if author is unkown 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first" so as the author is unknown that would be 2039. Or have I missed something ? LGA talkedits 00:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a long discussion with some good arguments and some false arguments. We have no evidence that the first publioation date is indeed 2013. Maybe it was published sometimes before. If we really want to be this strict we have to delete a lot of other historical images. The author is anomymous so it is highly unlikely that the copyrightclaims is valid. If there actual is a copyright it lies with a unknown person or it's unknown heirs who could never be tracked. So worst case scenario we have a copyright that can never be enforced. Where did the newspaper found this image? I believe that it is very unlikely that this file is never pusblished before and all of a sudden a newspaper finds an old family photograph. I can only conclude that it must be made available to the public somehow so PD-1996 could easely fit. Natuur12 (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This uploader's imagesEdit

Dear Natuur,

This uploader's images appear to be copyright violations and he has 2 copy vios notices on his talkpage. If you agree, perhaps you should tag them for speedy deletion as I don't see any free license for them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

They where already tagged by LGA so I deleted them. Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pleaseEdit

Hi Natuur12! I have received an odd email, but the emailer said I could put it on my talk page. Could you please take a look; it's currently the one on the bottom. The correspondent is ordering me to go through and groom his image licenses and sources. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's past midnight here so I will have a look at it after I had some sleep :) Natuur12 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Roberto JacopucciEdit

See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Roberto Jacopucci. Delete this files or tell me who is this man!

See this and this link. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The point is: is not an European Member of Parlament (so the file sould be renamed for sure). The link show that is a Cavaliere al Merito della Repubblica Italiana (see [2]) and is not sufficient to be notable (you see that 127654 people got this medal) and for this reason (not notable) the file should be deleted. -- 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Who are we to judge? Natuur12 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Marian Mudder.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Marian Mudder.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Paulbe (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Already discussedEdit

Could you please have a quick look at this - thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look later because this will take some time. Natuur12 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Tsja, dat is een zeker vanuit een kalm iemand als mij, een heftige kop. Ik ben heel boos, en ik denk ook dat ik een mijn bijdragen aan Wikipedia ga opschorten. Toch, respecteer ik dat je net als ik je best heb gedaan hier. Jij hebt ook principes, ik heb ook principes, maar die komen kennelijk niet overeen. --Paulbe (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tja wanneer je mijn commentaar niet goed doorleest kan ik er ook weinig aan doen. Wanneer je goed leest zie je dat ik aangeef dat het bestand verwijderd dient te worden tenzij de fotograaf het een en ander kan verduidelijken. Het enige wat ik vraag is of je aan de fotograaf wilt vragen en bericht naar OTRS te sturen. Dit bestand verwijderen lost de situatie namelijk niet op. Men blijft dan zitten met een fotograaf wiens foto gebruikt is zonder dat hij weet wat er gebeurt is. In plaats van mij gewoon de vertrouwen ga je in deze uit van kwade wil maar dan ook echt op een manier die deze richtlijn op grove wijze schend. Zou ik in het OTRS-team zitten, verkozen zijn als admin op 2 projecten en op 1 nog eens voor de arbcom als ik niet te vertrouwen was? Dat het al in je opkomt dat ik eventueel met bewijs zou manipuleren is hoogst kwalijk te noemen. Ik heb nota bene uitgelegd dat er meerdere mogelijkheden zijn en dat dit bestand niet per se een auteursrechtenschending dient te zijn en tot ik dat wil uitzoeken. Een grotere versie van z'n bestand zegt dan niks wat we niet weten.
Z'n OTRS-ticket verwerken kost een hoop tijd en het is dan voor OTRS-mensen erg vervelend wanneer bestanden met een vaag statement genomineerd worden voor verwijdering. Dan kan men namelijk niet proberen alsnog toestemming voor de foto krijgen. Je had ik deze kunnen zien dat ik de uploader was en eerst een bericht op mijn overlegpagina kunnen achter laten wanneer je het OTRS-noticeboard niet kon vinden.
Dat jouw principe kennelijk is om een bestand verwijderd te krijgen zonder mee te willen werken aan het verkrijgen van een correcte toestemming of om mee te willen werken aan een manier om de fotograaf een correcte, heldere uitleg te geven van wat er gebeurt is vind ik eigenlijk vrij stuitend. Alles wat ik vraag is of je de fotograaf contact op wilt laten nemen met OTRS zodat de foto hopelijk behouden kan blijven. (Wat was er nou niet duidelijk aan die vraag)
Alles wat we nu hebben is een foto met een onzekere auteursrechtelijke status. En ja het gebeurt dat mensen foto's opsturen die niet van hem zijn, en ja meestal kan je zoiets achterhalen maar in dit geval was het niet mogelijk. Je moet wel een knappe appel zijn om een wettelijk bindend verklaring op te sturen dat je de rechthebbende bent terwijl je dit niet bent. (Al gebeurt dat natuurlijk zo nu en dan). Enige wat ik vraag is of je een beetje mee wilt werken om dit op te lossen in plaats van niet relevante betogen af te steken. Die hebben namelijk niks te maken met de auteursrechtelijke status van deze afbeelding. Bedenk wel dat ik enkel de persoon bent die de toestemming heb verwerkt dus waar ik het uitgaan van dusdanige kwade wil aan verdient heb is mij een raadsel. Natuur12 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Gedeeltelijke verwijderingEdit

Beste Natuur12, je hebt een foto verwijderd die genomineerd staat op de pagina Commons:Deletion requests/File:HamdeenSabahi.jpg. Echter was dit een bewerkte versie van een andere foto die hier ook op Commons staat en die er nu nog steeds staat, namelijk deze: File:حمدين صباحى.jpg. Het lijkt me beter dat je die dan ook verwijdert, als daar blijkbaar auteursrechten mee geschonden worden. Met vriendelijke groet, Ymnes (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nog een vraagje, weet jij of deze foto auteursrechtelijk beschermd is? Ik ben namelijk bezig op de Nederlandse Wikipedia om een artikel over hem te schrijven en deze foto zou een mooie toevoeging zijn. Ymnes (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Die foto van beeld en geluidenwiki is waarschijnlijk oké. Dit sjabloon kan gebruikt worden om aan te geven dat het bestand van beeld en geluid afkomstig is. Verder heb ik de andere foto ook verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Bedankt voor je actie en antwoord. Dan zal ik de foto van Jos Cleber gaan uploaden. Ymnes (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nockebybanan mapsEdit

I think you overlooked my comment at the end. Tomiwoj has been working to replace the files with content from Open Streetmap, and as far as I can tell, all of these files had been replaced, so only revision deletion would have been needed. I believe the same goes for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tvärbanan maps except File:Norra Ulvsunda.jpg, File:Tvärbanan main location map.jpg and File:Vreten.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I indeed overlooked your comment. I restored the files except for three. Those where not recplaced yet. I kept the older versions deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! LX (talk, contribs) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 0411.jpg, etc.Edit

You closed the DR on this and other images without discussion. Can you explain where File:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 0411.jpg this image would be useful in a Wikimedia project?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Apperantly here. Natuur12 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As an admin at that Wiki, they're gone. It's likely the page they were on will be gone in short order, too. Had you mentioned that at the DR, I could have done that then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You could have seen that they are in use and that they where kept before. Natuur12 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe that a file in use at a project doesnt automatically qualify the image for keeping if the usage is entirely inappropriate and is removed without comment. if anyone at the project using this image wanted to argue for continuing to use it, then we could speedy keep until that debate is concluded.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it does make the file automaticly in scope. Commons doesn't decide which files are appropriate to use at a local project. Natuur12 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been referred toEdit

…at Lx 121's talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Two imagesEdit

Dear Natuur,

Please consider marking and passing or failing these two images:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the first one is okey after a quick google search but the second could or could not be okey. I'm pretty sure that the accountholder isnot the copyrightholder but the file could be PD due to it's age. I nominated it for deletion since the copyrightstatus remains unclear. Natuur12 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I didn't know what to do with the second image either. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Aircraft at Nuremberg Airport (9629420549).jpgEdit

Hi there. I noticed you closed the debate on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aircraft at Nuremberg Airport (9629420549).jpg. Did you take into consideration that a major supporter to keep that file--User talk: a blocked spammer? Thanks, Magnolia677 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I ignored the IP-adresses since those are obviously sockpuppet- or meatpuppets. However, there where also three other users plus the uploader who voted keep. Even without those IP-adresses there was no clear consensus to delete the file. Did you notice this btw? Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what I noticed was that none of the editors on the Flughafen Nürnberg article have deleted it yet. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Chuck Marean filesEdit

you kept a bunch of files uploaded by this editor, including Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiscal conservatives.jpg, but you gave no rationale for keeping, and my specific deletion arguments were never addressed by anyone commenting. This is NOT the same as the mass deletion from time past. I don't think this was a proper keep decision, and would like them to be relisted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You nominated a lot of files where most of them where in use while Commons often has a lot of backlog when it comes to DR's. Instead of doing your homework properly you just nominated them. Admins are not here to sort out you mess. Shame on you. If you looked properly at the file, you can see that the licensing tag is wrong. You should have nominated it for not having a valid licensing tagg and you could still do so. Natuur12 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

File:SunRail Church Street arrival.webmEdit

Dear Natuur,

If you are comfortable here, please consider marking this single video file. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Natuur, Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can, please mark and fail this single image. I failed other uploads by this uploader...but perhaps an Admin should mark this single image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Someone else marked it. Thank You anyway, Natuur. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SchwikiEdit

Hi, Could you please explain why you have deleted these images??? All these images are shoot by the uploader Schwiki.

  • File:Rajasthan-27.jpg
  • File:Rajasthan-25.jpg
  • File:Rajasthan-22.jpg
  • File:Rajasthan-21.jpg
  • File:Jodhpur-inside fort 05.jpg
  • File:Jodhpur-inside fort 01.jpg
  • File:Jodhpur-inside fort 02.jpg

Other images we are going to OTRS.Jayantanth (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, when most of the images where not okey. The uploader didnot tell which files where okey and which wheren't. That leaves all of them with an unclear copyrightstatus so they get deleted. But those works are derivative works and evidence of the pd status of the paintings was missing etc. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The images which I stated above was clear and simple shoot by uploader. And other images about KJ seal, we are going through with OTRS. So could you please recover those images?? The users is new, not familiar with all rules so he can mistakes in the licensing section during uploading. Thanks.Jayantanth (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read com:DW. They where photographs of artworks etc which may or may not be protected by copyrightlaw but there was no evidence provided that those artworks are out of copyright. Since those works are 2D and the photographs itself are not taken in a public place it is unlikely that those are covered by FOP. The uplaoder has to provide evidence that the artworks are out of copyright. Untill than I wont resotre those files since they have an unclear copyrighstatus. Natuur12 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your effortsEdit

…to keep Wikimedia working, vis-a-vis all images fine; being an Admin here is job I would never wish. Not exactly sure if, or why, we ended up at odds at the Lx matter, but I look forward to possibility of collegial interactions in future. Feel free to glance at Russavia's Talk page for my final word to him as well. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This uploaders imagesEdit

Almost all of these uploaders images are sourced to a website whose images are 'All Rights Reserved'/Tous droits réservés. They could be speedily deleted. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Natuur12 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not make problematic rename, I am correcting Serbian names [3] see here. --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you are changing transliterated names back to it's orgiginal Serbian name. No need to do that. This is the third time that the right has been revoked Kolega.... Natuur12 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

INC's quick return messageEdit

Dag - i was overjoyed seeing his return and missed out the Cmd. Thx for your repair. --Maxxl2 - talk 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A well, things like this happen :). Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rudolf HeinischEdit

Hi Natuur12, you may have overlooked that for the 2 deleted entries User:Yellowcard had added a valid OTRS-ticket yesterday, though he didn't notify that in the DR. So, I am going to undelete these 2. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okey. I would have kept them if I didn't overlooked the OTRS-ticket :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Maslov Mikhail Evgenievich.jpgEdit

I have no problem with the decision that File:Maslov Mikhail Evgenievich.jpg should be kept as presumably PD, but wouldn't you agree that makes the date, the claim of authorship, and the CC license totally bogus, so they should be removed (and an approximate date added, as well as author unknown)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the upload. 08:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I didn't want to do that without checking with you. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File you deleted was uploaded againEdit

Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:LoriSwansonProfile.gif and deleting the copyright violation.

Unfortunately, the uploader has done so again under a new file name. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:LoriSwansonImage.jpg.

-- Jonathunder (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave the uploader some explenation. Natuur12 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user's recent uploadsEdit

Dear Natuur,

This user forgot to ask a flickrreview for his recent uploads--and he typed in the wrong license. If you have time, perhaps you can type a few flickrreviews for his recent images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit busy today. I got an exam tomorrow. Natuur12 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Burns, larry.jpg vs File:Judge Larry A. Burns.jpgEdit

Natuur12 can you see if File:Judge Larry A. Burns.jpg is a recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus of File:Burns, larry.jpg ? LGA talkedits 09:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is so I deleted it again. Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CarnVidaMex4BADF.JPGEdit

Since closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Diego Rivera was revised, I wonder if you can undelete the file that I nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can. :). Natuur12 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Amelia Earhart as "Lady Lindi".jpgEdit

I don't know who own the rights to this image or if it is in the public domain. The flickr source said it was taken from another website.

  • As an aside, if you want, please consider marking this other image where I made a comment in the image talkpage. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Marked the second and nominated the first for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Carolyn Jarvis, Chief Correspondent for Global News' 16x9.jpgEdit

I believe that there was an OTRS ticket on this. I have been in contact with Samantha Simic who is with the publicity department of en:Shaw Media and has been in contact with me by her Shaw Media email. Also, I have been in touch with en:Carolyn Jarvis who agrees that Simic has the authority. Per Simic's conversation is that this was uploaded on a OTRS ticket. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carolyn Jarvis, Chief Correspondent for Global News' 16x9.jpg Cheers en:user talk:Jim1138 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no OTRS-ticket metioned at the file page. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I asked Simic to redo the OTRS. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UNEdit

I don't understand your close of the above DR, if you also read the discussion at the template talk page, I think there is broad consensus the deprecation of template and then a review of the individual files, would that not be a better close than keeping the template ? LGA talkedits 20:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what I suggested when I closed it so that the template can be deleted after thoses files are reviewd. If I delete the template now we end up with 1300 files wihout a license so I would rather delete it after the review. Natuur12 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
O, wait. I see wat you mean. Yes. I still had to ask someone to change the licensing template since I tried to do it myself but it didnot work. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@LGA: After a second attempt and after breaking the template it is done. Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12, if you have a moment, could you please delete the following subpages of Template:PD-UN:

Those pages are all translations of the old, deprecated, version of PD-UN that are now obsolete. They get in the way of adding translations for the "deprecation warning" content. I could blank these pages, but deleting them is cleaner. —RP88 07:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. —RP88 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

File:West Midlands Police Museum (13176634224).jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

Can Commons keep this image of an old British police trophy? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How about these 2 images:

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The trophy could be PD but the other two are not okey. Natuur12 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Pigsonthewing was working on categorizing the museum uploads. It would make sense for him to apply speedy deletions to obvious problem cases based on discussion, hopefully avoiding a DR.
The museum sign (13175361163) would have been created by the museum and the IP rests with the museum. As the museum has issued the free release (Pigsonthewing can confirm the status of the Flickr account, this seems based on his editathon with the museum), there would seem no issue of copyright to be concerned about in that case. A similar rationale can probably be put forward for the trophy inscription, though age might be sufficient. Thanks -- (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the best solution is to let Pigsonthewing deal with it ;). Natuur12 (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, Thank you. I will file a DR on the ticket image only. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi! Please decide something about that file. You closed the request. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Sorry for the late response. I was in a meeting. Natuur12 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caiman skull.jpgEdit

Sorry, I don’t understand that. I nominated this pic for deletion due to its obviously bad quality. I listed four (repeat: four!) insufficiencies clearly qualifying that pic as a really bad photograph. And then there are two users (one of them being the uploader) who simply say “it’s usable”, but give not a single valid reason why it’s is usable. Yes, you are right, there was no consensus but there was even no real discussion! So I conclude that if I would upload dozens of blurry, coarse-grained and much too dark pics and someone says “hey, your pics are useless they sould be deleted, they atually should never have been uploaded”, the only thing I have to do in order to avoid deletion is to say “no, it’s usable”, despite its obvious uselessness?! --Gretarsson (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, my awnser can be very short, there was no consensus to delete this file as out of scope and you didnot provided links to better alternatives. Natuur12 (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The first point you’ve already pointed out, and I answered yes, there was no consensus but there was no discussion either (in the sense of interchange of arguments – my “opponents” simply said “it’s usable” without saying why). Btw, I never claimed that pic to be out of the project’s scope. Indeed it is potentially usable but in fact it is not due to its strong blurryness, coarse-grainedness, and so on.
To paraphrase the second point: a photograph that no one ever will implement in an WP article due to its bad quality is better than no photo at all. OK, I surrender to this “brilliant” logic and I urgently recommend you to read this article... Cheers! --Gretarsson (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC), last edited --Gretarsson (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You really expect a awnser when you are going ad hominem? Natuur12 (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Sorry, you already got your chance. The only thing I expected was to be taken seriously. You failed, so I don't expect anything from you anymore. Cheers! --Gretarsson (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Andrea Cardona en Los Alpes en 2014.jpgEdit

There is only image on this flickr account? Do you wish to pass it? --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As an aside, thanks for your reply on this DR. For a second there I thought it was a 'simple FIFA ticket.' Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • PS: Its strange but suddenly there are many flickr images to be human reviewed. I reviewed 25-30 images tonight but must sign off now. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The file is already marked but I think that the file is okey. Cannot be found elswhere and is probably made by the person who manages her personal website. I don't know why there are so many file in the ca for human reviewing. Maybe it has something to do with that flickr to commons tool? Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 :) Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Transformers.pngEdit

Hello, I see you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Transformers.png as a keep with the rationale that US copyright law does not protect fonts. I believe your rationale is either in error, or at least should be clarified to address the rationale I made when nominating the file. I understand that simple fonts are not protected, but that was not the reason I nominated the file. I argued that this is not merely a font, but that there is a non-de minimis texture on the font. As a for-instance, consider the situation if I were to upload an image containing text, but the font vector were used as a mask for another image. That image would plainly not be merely a font. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, de minimis is not very relevant in this case. My closing was not in error, deciding if a logo is com:TOO is very subjective and not an exact science. However, we have a casebook at the com:TOO page and looked at the following two cases which show similarity's, here and here. It does not matter how complicated a font is, they are not protected in the US. The texture looks pretty basic to me. But it is a borderline case so another admin might have judged differently. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hm, fair enough. I don't agree that the texture is simple enough to fall below the TOO (as compared to the gradients in the other examples, though then again those other examples have stylistic elements that are probably at least as creative as the included texture). The reason I cite de minimis is because I suspect that if the texture used on the text were uploaded on its own with the claim that it didn't pass the TOO, we'd have seen a different result. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to ask for more opinions. That is always a good thing with borderline cases. Natuur12 (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

These imagesEdit

Can you launch a mass DR on the images mentioned here? Another Admin agreed that these images cannot be kept since the French artist died in 1960. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that those files are not okey. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument aŭ Mères Françaises. Natuur12 (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have replied in the DR now. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Newsbeuter.jpgEdit

This image is redundant, not educationally useful, and should be deleted because:

  • The interface is unreadable
  • JPEG is not an appropriate file type for screenshots
  • The file's awkward dimensions make it impossible to use in an article and it is too small to be cropped
  • It is not used and will never be, because there is a better image that doesn't have these problems: File:Newsbeuter.png

Iketsi (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, your last point is what you should have mentioned in the DR, where the better quality image can be found. Admins are genarally not going to look for it. Natuur12 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you. —Iketsi (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Permission to use my photo of Sandra MaasEdit

Sent to: I give my permission to host the photo SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin.jpg at Wikimedia Commons under CC 3.0 with credit given to me as the photographer. It came from my website at: Phil Konstantin wikipedia & wikimedia user Philkon ============

Philkon (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Philkon: - Thank you so much! I send you a quick reply via OTRS :). You can find the file here. Natuur12 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

She is welcome to use any of the photos I have taken of her. I just ask that I be notified first. Phil Philkon (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Philkon: Okey, I renamed the file for you btw, SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin was already taken so I renamed it to file:SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin2.jpg. If you prefer another filename please let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Whina Cooper in Hamilton.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur,

I guess this image is OK and has a OTRS permission ticket somewhere. Image has been here since 2010. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As an aside, this image has now been marked for 2 days. Please consider passing or failing it as it shows some product logos. It may be de minimis but I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Finally, if you have a bit of time, just look at this DR I filed. I don't know if I am correct here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I took a looks. Sorry that I didnot respond earlier. Was busy with RL stuff. Natuur12 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Török Ferenc.jpgEdit

Hello Natuur12. Thanks for processing the deletions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Török Ferenc.jpg. I wanted to let you know that while you deleted the other files in this request, it looks like you forgot to delete File:Török Ferenc.jpg itself. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A, I forgot the first image again. Thanks for the message. Deleted it. Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris May 2012 - Parc André Citroën (3).jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

If you have time, please decide if you can mark this image in a park in France above. Secondly, if possible, please try to mark a few of this person's images in panoramio review He uploads high quality images but the bot never passes them. I mark a few of them but he uploaded 7 more images for panoramio review today...and I think the panoramio bot will place them in panoramio human review again. I've been marking more flickr photos. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I've noticed that he's forgotten to type the {{cc-by-3.0}} license for some of his images and its a nuisance sometimes. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Marked the first since I think that the building is to simpel to have a copyright. I will look at the other files later today when I get back from work. Natuur12 (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Please feel free to mark some images if you are free. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I wanted to mark some tonight but my father turned 53 so I was busy partying ;). I will have a look at it after I have some sleep. Natuur12 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I took a look but they where already done except for one. Natuur12 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catalogue 1933 Portieŭ.jpgEdit

Dear Sir,

You have chosen to delete a file I had loaded under the pretense "dubious own work": commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catalogue 1933 Portieux.jpg

It would have been appropriate, had you any doubts that you ask the "loader" about it. Therefore, please specifically describe how you came to this deletion decision so that we can get it back in place, as this file is clearly & definitely our own work.


Chaanara (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Chaanara: - Well, no it would not have been apropriate to ask this at your talk page since the files where nominated for deletion. You had the change to explain this in the DR. Those works where from 1933 and therefor it is unlikely that those works are own work. This file could be in the public domain but you need to provide some evidence for that. Natuur12 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

fictieve wapensEdit

De eerste fictieve wapens zijn behouden hoor.... één keer raden wie de afhandelend moderator is... Dqfn13 (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tja, aannamen dat een wapen getekend door Prummel correct is is hoe dan ook een beetje dubieus natuurlijk zeker gezien de bronnen ontbreken maar je kan op deze toch ook het fictional COA-sjabloon plakken? Overigens is de afhandeling technisch gezien wel correct. Is er geen consensus om iets als out of scope te verwijderen blijft het meestal behouden. Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons dondert daarmee wel naar beneden in vertrouwen bij mij... Blijkbaar mogen volledig bij elkaar gefantaseerde wapens (en dus ook andere dingen) gemaakt en geplaatst worden als ware het officiële afbeeldingen. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Dat lijkt me niet de bedoeling natuurlijk maar helemaal out of scope zijn ze ook weer niet. Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Voor die wapens is geen concreet bewijs te vinden en toch wordt het behouden. Er staat zelfs bij dat het officiële wapens zijn! Of in ieder geval suggereren de titels het. Maar goed, jij kan er ook niks aan doen, ik zal mijn frustratie wel ergens anders op proberen te koelen. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ik weet het. Er is echter ook deze richtlijn en mijn inziens vallen fictieve wapens waar geen bronnen voor zijn er ook onder maar niet iedereen deelt die mening. Natuur12 (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Tja... en met tegenstanders als Fry en zijn hulpjes... dan kan je het bij de heraldiek en banestiek wel schudden. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Signatura d'un acord d'adhesio al programa Municipi Cooperatiu impulsat per la federacio de Cooperatives de Treball de Catalunya.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12, Can my upload in this image please be deleted? Something went wrong and the image was distorted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maryam-Al-Khawaja.jpgEdit

Hi. You recently deleted this file. I think that all images owned by Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (and mainly hosted on their website: were released under a free license. I'm not sure if #2011053010010714 is the correct OTRS ticket, but there should be one there. If you have any questions, could you reach me or notify me on my English Wikipedia user page? Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS-ticket was not present at the file page but after a good look I found the correct ticket ticket:2011071810007122 so I will undelete the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Locals walk the streets of Madison Square near the Flatiron Building in New York City.jpg‎Edit

Hi! You stated that no reason was given for my deletion request of File:Locals walk the streets of Madison Square near the Flatiron Building in New York City.jpg‎. However, I mentioned File:Flatiron building 1918.jpg as the reason, since the images are duplicates, and we don't need both. Maybe a misunderstanding has occurred? --Jonund (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that is exactly the problem. You didnot motivate it correctly but please use template:duplicate for this case. Safes a lot of work. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen deletion requests being motivated the way I proceeded, and to me it seems as an intelligible motivation. It's easier to use the "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox than to edit the file page manually. --Jonund (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
For you it might be easier but not for the admins dealing with backlogs. You have to delete the file first and than you have to redirect them to get the same result. Those files can be used via InstantCommons so if you just delete them you can break something somewhere else. And I have not seen DR's motivated this way. I have seen DR's been motivated with duplicate of. If you are motiving it in such way that the closing admin has to do someone else his homework the DR is not motivated correctly. You have to look what is going and in the same time you could have dealth with 2/3 clear to the cut cases. Natuur12 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isaac_Arnault,_Saint-Barth_~1.JPGEdit

Hi dear natuur12, You stated that the person has notoriety for my deletion request of File:Isaac_Arnault,_Saint-Barth_~1.JPG. I must precise that this Isaac Arnault, which is contemporary, must not be confused with Isaac Arnault, seigneur de Corbeville (1566-1617). This person has no elective functions, no politic functions, no diplomatic functions and is really unknown in France. His contributions seams to be something like personnal branding. --gpesenti (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all there was no motivation why this person is not notable and he has his own cat which you also nominated for deletion. And no I didnot confused him with Isaac Arnault, seigneur de Corbeville (1566-1617). This person shows up at a lot of important events and he meets with a lot of very notable and important people so I would concidder him relevant enough for Commons. He is not a total nobody. And please keep in mind Commons != Wikipedia. He might even be notable on some smaller wiki's ;). Natuur12 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually, on wikipedia projects, it's the contributor to motivate on the subject notability, not the inverse. It's difficult to me to motivate on something that doesn't exist. His think tank "Ambitions et Emergences" doesn't exist. His society States Lab Inc doesn't exist. His society MVNDVS (he write an article on french about it, which has been delete) does'nt exist. He his not employed as a french diplomat as he assert previously. He mentionned a commission named "Europe et harmonisation vertueuse" that has no existance. I find nothing verifiable about his notability. --gpesenti (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a Wikipedia-project. See com:NOT. I am not going to do your homework when I am closing DR's. Simpel as that. Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:German stamps review deleteEdit

Hey Natuur12, thanks for closing this DR. Two questions and a comment:

  1. You closed the request by concluding "Deleted except for the files mentioned by Yellowcard". I, however, was not at all sure about the DPB stamps (meaning all the files starting with "DPB ..."). The drawings seem very old and I think at least a part of them are in the PD, so another discussion about them can be helpful. Have you reviewed these stamps and come to the conclusion to delete or have you deleted them accidently?
  2. I mentioned three stamps that will be in the PD soon, one of them by January 1, 2015. In de.wp we have a wiki page listing up all files that can be restored soon, is there any comparable on Commons? Or shall I add to the DR page although it affects one single file only?
  3. Can you have a look to File:DBP 1963 392 Flora Schachbrettblume.jpg? Obviously technical issues after deletion: File is gone but description page is still visible, link is blue. Undeleting and re-deleting might help. Thanks again, cheers Yellowcard (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I reviewd most of the files. Those DPD files are less than 70 years old accroding to the stamps so at least they are not okey according to the com:PCP. We cannot asume that those files are PD of course. There was a date on every stamp and the stamps looked beyond com:TOO. Maybe you can indeed add the undelete cat and add a note that only those files can be undeleted. And I took care of the last file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The SockEdit

Hiya Natuur! Saw you edit Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neue Wache Berlin.png here and I just have to ask, how can this be his own work when he's in it? All his photos have him front and center or off to side like this, but there's no way he can also push the button to take them. Just asking because as here, he's quite a distance away from a camera; in some of the beach scenes that were deleted because of his sockpuppetry he was dozens of meters from the camera. I have cable releases and I have infrared triggers for cameras, but I don't think what he's doing is self-work - I think his buddy is the actual shooter and the "it's not really my own work" comment in the PDF linked to the ANI discussion at Wikipedia points out that he's thumbing his nose at our process here; this image is just one more. It's most likely not his own work due to him being in the frame and quite a ways from the camera. Especially his images pretending psychological diseases, there was no possible way they were his own photos from the angle and that you could see both hands in the image. I really wish you'd reconsider this situation; he's a sock, we have a pile of unsure licenses from him and PRP strongly urges that we take this one out as well. This statue is by Käthe Kollwitz (1867 – 1945). Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

PS Also please notice small image size, furry nature of statue and sharpness on the guy. There's no camera metadata, we have no way to know if this is a photocomposite or not. Please see the pictures File:Berlin,_Neue_Wache,_interior_view,_2005.jpg, File:Berlin-Mitte,_the_New_Guard_House,_pietá_by_Käthe_Kollwitz.JPG, and Category:Neue Wache - Interior for more images of this statue. The second one is only a few degrees off from the image that Horwitz is claiming as "own work." There is no shortage of images of this statue on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, based on this arguments. I would have deleted the file however I got the feeling that Rus won't agree with a deletion so do you agree with a renomination? Natuur12 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


There is no content dispute as you incorrectly categorised it as, it is a dispute regarding facts. There are zero sources that Montserrat has a defaced red ensign, and therefore I have removed it's usage on Wikipedia. It will not be allowed to be used unless a source can be provided per policy, which means that your closure "in use so automatically in scope" is invalid. The uploader did not provide a source when they uploaded it, nor have they joined the DR to defend the image. All available sources indicate this image does not exist and is a fake. I would appreciate if you would re-open the DR for further discussion. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it again linking to this statement. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jan Lodewijk van der WeydenEdit

Dag Natuur 12,

Ik zag dat jij informatie over voornoemde BBO-agent op Wiki hebt geplaatst. Weet jij waar en wanneer Van der Weyden is overleden?

Dank en groet, Jelle


Nothing DanielTom said towards me would justify a block, or even an apology, really. The worst he said was "just another baseless attack on me", and while I obviously don't agree with that sentiment, it's not harassment or a personal attack. As for what he said about Cirt, that is grey area. I would have ignored it and let him either realize he wasn't going to get any traction and leave, or continue to dig himself a hole so that a block would be harder to contest. DainelTom needs to drop the stick when it comes to Cirt, but I'm not sure he's done anything to trigger a block since I gave him the warning last night. I don't have any desire to spend any more time on the issue; I don't believe that DanielTom is ever going to change - he's had plenty of chances to and has chosen not to - so I feel trying to talk/guide him through this issue won't work. Whether you unblock or shorten the block or leave it as is, that's up to you. Just wanted to leave my two cents. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

He was not blocked for the comment thowards you but for making a new attack on Cirt of course. And he made a new attack on him. He was warned so he can only blame himself. Natuur12 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sven Manguard here. Reopening of that AN/U thread is not a big reason to block one. Insead, it gives the feel that we are very intolerant to customer complaints. [4] shows he had been unblocked quickly by AFBorchert. It was a very past issue and no relevance now. So that discussion should have died without such speedy closes and blocks. Please let people to make their frustrations at boards like AN, AN/U; they are the only places they can do it. :) Jee 03:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, he agreed to drop the stick so there is no reason to keep him blocked. I hoped that he would nuance his original statement but that is not a reason to keep him blocked. And now I hope that this is they end of this long lasting soap. Natuur12 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pierre LemaitreEdit

You restored those files; but didn't reopened that DR. I think it need to run a week again. Otherwise those messages need to removed from the files. Jee 13:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you are right. Something urgent came in between. I removed the templates. If someone feels the need to reopen the DR he/she is free to do so but I think that the change that those files will be deleted again is very small. Natuur12 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

At the UnDR, you said, "Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. so imho it is allowed to do a courtesy deletion when the subject wants the images gone."

I stand corrected on the policy or not issue -- there is a valid policy. I apologize for that. I also note that you closed the discussion and restored the images. For the future, though, I think it is a long stretch to take a policy that allows courtesy deletions of uploaders' mistakes and use it to allow the subject of an image to have it deleted. That is the opposite of a goodwill gesture to our uploader. We owe little to the subjects of our images and much to our photographers. If a notable person doesn't like his Commons images, let him furnish freely licensed replacements -- then we might consider deleting the ones he doesn't like. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Portieux catalogsEdit

Dear Sir,

I am quite unfamiliar with the Wikipedia way as to answer a deletion request, reason why I am answering here to your post of June 30th. You ask for some kind of evidence that the deleted files would be "own work". Now what would that be? Would you like to come to Portieux (France) to see if it is indeed? Do you have any knowledge about the legal rights of this catalog? I suppose that both answers will be NO, so please stop abusing the little power you have and reinstate those files. You could also call the factory (by phone, it's listed) to check that out.

regards Chaanara (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, please see com:licensing, com:EVIDENCE and com:MELLOW. If you are quite unfamiliar with Wikimedia you should not accuse people of abusing their power. Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

Moin! I am not sure about this category move request: Category:Paleis Koninklijke Moeder Could you please have a peek? Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: It seems that we have two cats about the same palace so im my opinion it should be merged with Category:Paleis Lange Voorhout. Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty, off we go! :) Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shimabara O-mon West.JPGEdit

Did you think File:Sumiya Shimabara-boad02.JPG was copyrightable? I just wanted to check, because, sorry if it was not clearer, but my vote rather meant to say "keep" for the text in the subject being {{PD-text}} (unlike the other two listed). whym (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a borderline case but I would consider the element at the top of the sing com:TOO. Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. If you used such judgment, that's ok for me. I personally have a bit higher threshold, but I understand your (and the nominator/uploader's) view. whym (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)