Last modified on 29 August 2014, at 21:55

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)

ArchivesEdit

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)

SetEdit

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. --5.157.117.166 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)

IntegriteitEdit

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:178.7.237.121--is 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)
Yeah, shame on me. the images are completely out of scope, and you ignore that. go ahead, ignore the purpose of the commons. maybe i dont know a lot about licensing tags. i do know when an ignorant editor uploads out of scope files, and they are kept by admins following some lame rule w/o making any effort to understand why they are out of scope. This is why i dont want to be an admin.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:03, 26 August 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)
@Pigsonthewing:
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)

File:Webcam-toy-foto135.jpgEdit

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: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org 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: http://americanindian.net/kusi/jackiecollins/photo28.html 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.

regards

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: bahrainrights.org) 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 Category:Undelete in 2015 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)

File:Redensignmonserrat.jpgEdit

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

DanielTomEdit

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 (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). 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 wbayer.com 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 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright 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 pib.nic.in did not sign that contract. At http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright 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)

File:CGF.svgEdit

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)

FileEdit

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?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_EM_Che

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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_policy ; and fit all of the requirements under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope. 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) ed.che@riseup.net.
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
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak103_by_crimsonfalke.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak74_by_crimsonfalke.png
 ?

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?[5] 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)

ImageEdit

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. 172.56.9.221 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

Hello,
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)

UndeletionEdit

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 http://www.tamoikin.com/ 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. [6]. 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 © www.faroukmisr.net". 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 [7]

[8] [9] --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)

File:Pekerman.pngEdit

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: [10], 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 [11] 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 randomdude9@gmail.com 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)

Edit

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)