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)

Opmerking verwijdernominatiesEdit

Waarom geef je al mn fotos aan als recht overtredend. user:Zaankantertje75

De reden is simpel. Jouw foto's kwamen ter zaken op de IRC dat er mogelijk auteursrechten geschonden waren. Vervolgens zijn we met een paar mensen jouw uploads nagelopen en ze bleken overeen te komen met afbeeldingen van andere sites. En zeg nou even eerlijk. Je hebt ze niet allemaal zelf gemaakt of niet? --Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRSEdit

Welcome to the OTRS team! You may wish to add {{User OTRS}} to your user page. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving filesEdit

This moving action by you was superfluous and not covered by any file moving guidelines. Please do not charge our servers with such actions. --High Contrast (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My appoligies, I thought it felt under criterium number 2. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I thank you for your work. My text above was only some kind of a hint. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

My deep thanks for moving the file "Dameportræt". Kind regards, Orf3us (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Files marked for Speedy deletionEdit

Hey there. The aerial photographs which you are marking for speedy deletion are photographs I took from a plane. They are not from Google or Bing. --Ichabod (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So where is the Exif data? --Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
If you need me to, I'll upload the original photos. I just used Paint Shop Pro to adjust the contrast. --Ichabod (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My appoligies. I reverted myself. The bing maps angle and your angelse where quite similar but now that you told me you used photoshop I noticed my mistake. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I understand the need to keep Wikipedia free of copyright images. I uploaded a version of one of the views with EXIF data for verification purposes. --Ichabod (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A thank you. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

pleaseEdit

Please delete :-). Grzegorznadolski (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only change filenames. I'm sorry but I can't help you. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay after the :-) Grzegorznadolski (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ...Edit

... for renaming my six photographs (File:Murrhardt - Walterichskapelle - Portal - Bogen rechts.jpg etc.) to the suggested useful names! Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Johan van der GalienEdit

FYI: I removed the speedy tag and added no permission. This way the file won't get speedy deleted and we'll still have an eye on it. OK? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oke,Thank you. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

From: Johan G. van der Galiën Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:56 PM To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Subject: Issue AvatarBlogLvD1.jpg Lies van Dalen Dutch wikipedia page

Dear Madam or Sir,

AvatarBlogLvD1.jpg has been first published on the internet on my own colorflags.satoconor.com website. I made this photo my self with my own camera and did retouch . I replaced later this photo on the site with another one. So I do not need permissions. It can still be in the Google cache or someone copy pasted it in to their own site, if it is still on the internet.

What kind of evidence do you want?

Kind regards,

Johan G. van der Galiën. Johan van der Galien (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oke, it's quite simpel. You need to mail the permission to WP:OTRS. If you prefere you can mail it in Dutch to info-nl@wikimedia.org or to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if you want to write your email in English. You need a singed letter by the photographer. I see that you already wrote your email. But if you know this person please take a better picture. She looks a bit ill at this picture. You need to use a official email account. So no free accounts like hotmail or Yahoo etc. I understand that you speak Dutch because ou are the author of the Dutch Wikipedia article. I'm Dutch as well so you can talk with me in Dutch if you prefere. If you really don't succeed in getting the required permission I will send a email to her. But I will only do so after the 2 weeks evaluation period of the Dutch Wikiepdia article. If the article is kept I will help you with the required permision by sending an email. Untill than you are the one who has to send the emails. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for moving File:Cabeza olmeca, Santiago Tuxtla.jpg - it's the only decent photo of this monument on Commons and hopefully this will make the photo easier to find. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark ChronicleEdit

Hallo. Why no simple geometry? Isn't it as these? --Spinoziano (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, see Commons:Threshold of originality. Some of those logo's have diffrent licenes and probadly some of them are too complex as well. The logo as a whole is quite complex. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Carli Lloyd 2012.jpgEdit

Hi, I saw the conditions, but Commons aren't commercial usage, are they?--Zorro2212 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The images are for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is released under the cc-by-sa wich allows comercial use. Non commercial images like the one you uploaded from flickr are not compatable. Non commercial is a grey area ass well. That's why commons doesn't allow such pictures. You can read about it here: Commons:Licensing --Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, you're right. I've just read info about flickr licensing. I didn't do many operations like these for today. Sorry for troubles, I've deleted my last uploads. --Zorro2212 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

UploadsEdit

Hoi Natuur12. Dank voor het uploaden van foto's via wikiportret en photosubmission. Wel even een paar dingetjes die mij opvielen:

  • Wikiportret heeft een eigen sjabloon die je gemakkelijk kunt gebruiken: {{wikiportrait}} (OTRS nr. invullen en klaar, licentie staat er al bij);
    • Nog handiger, zet deze link in je favorieten en vul het formulier dan in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?&uploadformstyle=basicwp&wpUploadDescription={{Information%0A|Description={{nl|1=}}%0A|Source=wikiportret.nl%0A|Permission=ccbysa/GFDL%0A|Date=%0A|Author=%0A}}%0A{{wikiportrait|}}
    • Iets vergelijkbaars bestaat er voor de photosubmission queue: https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Photosubmissions
  • Als je {{GFDL}} (en alleen die licentie) wilt gebruiken, doe dan {{GFDL|migration=redundant}} (anders komt ie weer in een onderhoudscategorie terecht zie o.m. hier);
  • Let op de categorieën die je toevoegt, want "Great Britain" is niet hetzelfde als "United Kingdom"[1] en sommige categorieën bestaan gewoon[2];
  • Tot slot: vergeet de OTRS tickets/nummers niet toe te voegen[4].

Hopelijk heb je weer wat aan en voel je je niet aangevallen met allerlei feitjes. ;-) Groetjes, Trijnsteltalk 20:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

    • Hi, bedankt. (Ik d8 overigens echt dat die schrijver in de categorie Groot Brittannië moest) De tot slot was ik vrees ik vergeten. Shame on me. Is er een lijstje met vasten fotografen? De reden waarom ik dat wikiportret sjabloon niet gebruik is omdat ik het op de huidige manier sneller kan doen via de uploadwizard. Die tip van {{GFDL|migration=redundant}} ga ik zeker meenemen. Dankje voor je uitleg. Ik zal de cat nog even toevoegen. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Nee, er is geen lijstje met vaste fotografen, maar eigenlijk zou die er wel moeten komen op de OTRS wiki imho... (hint hint) ;) Ik heb al jouw uploads nog even globaal langsgelopen en de belangrijkste dingen meegenomen/verbeterd. Maar dan weet je het voor de volgende keer. Face-smile.svg Groetjes, Trijnsteltalk 20:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • BTW, het handige van het wikiportret-sjabloon (naast de licentie enzo) is dat foto's automatisch in Category:Wikiportrait uploads komen. Trijnsteltalk 20:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
        • A, dan zal ik het maar gaan gebruiken ook al vind ik de manier die ik nu gebruik handiger. (hoef ik minder dingen te onthouden) --Natuur12 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • (na bwc) Oh, dat zie ik nu. Een aantal cats staan al in Category:Wikiportrait uploads (onder subcategories); anders moeten we de categorie van wikiportrait uploads gewoon toevoegen aan nieuwe categorieën van mensen die vaak uploaden. Dan is het probleem meteen opgelost en hoef je geen handmatig lijstje bij te houden. Trijnsteltalk 20:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear ReviewerEdit

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-

Hi Natuur12, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{user reviewer}} or {{user trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket #2013110810016371Edit

Hi Natuur12. I see you recently uploaded File:Melanocyte with melanin in dendrite to the left.jpg, under OTRS ticket #2013111710004642. I was wondering if any of the other uploads to English Wikipedia by this user were included in the permission on this ticket? If you could check this out I would appreciate it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the ticket should be 2013110810016371. (My bad). But the ticket only grants permission for the file File:Melanocyte with melanin in dendrite to the left.jpg I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response! I will pass this along to the interested parties. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Grigor DImitrovEdit

Have edited the source for the Dimitrov Boodles pictures in flickr. thanks for the notice. Didn't know how to put different sources for multiple uploads. Dencod16 (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for adding the proper source. It's hard to find the origginal on flicker without. Natuur12 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Enjoy! TBloemink talk 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Tim Murphy uses a M1A1 Abrams tank simulator.jpgEdit

If you can mark this image, please feel free to do so. It should be in the US public domain--I think so at least since the image is at the bottom of the source page. I am signing off now as its 1:30 AM in Canada. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, the photograph is made by an employe of the U. S. Department of Defense and is published on their website. The author is Sgt. Sara Wood so is it is most likely that this file is in the public domain. Sleep well. Natuur12 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I mark only a few license review images as I'm more familiar with flickr, picasa and panoramio. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin Lymantria once showed me how to find the link for this single set of images nd I have now updated the weblinks for this image with the wayback machine...so that they work. Perhaps you can mark this once as Lymantria marked this other one? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank You for your help. Regards,--Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Panoramio reviewEdit

If you wish to mark some images in panoramio review, feel free to go ahead. They are in China anyway with no FOP problems. I have marked 12 today but it may be better if someone else marks the rest. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I'm home. I'm at they office right now. Natuur12 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the source can now be seen. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Have a goodnight in the Netherlands this Friday night. Here in Vancouver/California time, its 10:55 AM Friday morning. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll probadly be here untill 01:00 in the morning CET. :) Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wikiEdit

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

SerdechnyEdit

User Serdechny gave sources for 5 images in this category I notice like this or this. I marked only one of them as I marked 10 panoramio images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm my collegue JurgenNL already marked those pictures. A well, there are other pictures which need a review as well :) Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank You. There are pictures in human flickr review which need a review too. I mark when I am able. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

re:TrijnstelEdit

Hi, I am sure you mean well, but saying "sweet" about a female colleague isn't that wise, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it sounded better in my native language. I meant to say "lief". Now I think about it I cannot find a correct translation. I'm sure she will forgive me :). I think highly of her and I seek her counsil often. Thanks for the advice I will rember to avoid the word sweet. Natuur12 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : If you have the time, please feel free to check and see if there are any images in this category to mark like this I marked one of this person's images two days ago so I prefer if a second person marks this person's other images. He has 2 images in this category including the image I mentioned. Thank You from Surrey, Metro Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll have a look when I'm home. Natuur12 (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : Thanks for your help. I had marked this other image by this uploader. But a second reviewer is preferable since this photo source account is not like Alan Light from flickr--that everyone knows about on Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

Christmas Belles at Crown - 11366677816.jpg Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Happy Hollidays for you ass well. Greetings from a cold, wet and stormy Holland. Natuur12 (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hello, I assure you that the file i have uploaded is not a copyright violation, i got it freely under license from this page: http://logo.al/logos/universiteti-i-tiranes-cdr/ ; so please remove the nomination for deletion you've made for this logo. Regards AceDouble (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't find where it is mentioned that it is freely licened. I added the license review tag since the source's language is not a langue which I understand. Please add the link when you upload it. That would have prevented a nomination for deletion. Kind regards. Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Carly Melin.jpg & File:D.melanogaster Female Sperm Storage.jpgEdit

If you can read the OTRS permission ticket, perhaps you could give attribution to these images two with an OTRS ticket? I don't know who got these image's OTRS tickets--hence the pd-license template problem. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Solved, the first one is a bit strange however but I trust that everything was checked properly. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your assistance here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Washington-demo.jpg & File:Clematis gouriana flower.JPGEdit

Dear Natuur12 in Holland,

The second image should be OK to mark but the first is a problem since flickr says the pd license has been retired. The uploader, Liftarn, is very reliable, however. But perhaps it was OK at upload? If not, maybe you may know an Admin to contact here on wherher to pass this image or to file a DR. I am have idea. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The public domain declarator is not support but I believe that once you release something in the public domain you cannot revoke this. Not all country's support the public domain declerator, I guess that's why they stopped using it and replaced it with the cc-zero. I marked the second one. That flickr stopped supporting public domain images doesn't mean that it can't be used elswhere of course :). Both images seem fine with me. I'll fix the first one as well. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank You Natuur12. I was a bit scared from marking the first image and I think JurgenNL was too since this image was in license review for many hours and while he marked another image, he did not mark this either. Both of us were unsure of what to do. But I thought the permission could not be revoked. Thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Warming Hut.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Happy New Year in 2014. Can I ask 2 brief questions-one on an image below and one personal?

I have seen this image above in the pd-author category for some time. If you think this image is the author's own work, please feel free to give it attribution and pass it. I made only 1 edit to it--for a better image description. I cannot tell, if it is the uploader's own work unfortunately...except that the uploader uploaded the image in the article where it is used.

Secondly, I see that you live in the Netherlands. However, there are also Dutch people in Belgium called the Flemish. Is the main difference between a Dutchman in Netherlands and a Dutchman in Belgium is that one in Holland is Protestant whereas the Dutch in Belgium are Catholic? I have always wondered if the difference was just religion and not language. I assume the Dutch in Holland and Belgium both speak...Dutch but just with different dialects.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Happy new year. The picture has no clear source. I checked the orriginal website using the Wayback Machine but they have no printscreens of the website after 2002. The pictures where not in the public domaine however, the said had as disclaimer all rights served. The orriginal uploader isnot active anymore and has a history of uploading files with no source. According to the printscreens from the wayback machine the domain has changed to www.rideacr.com/ but this does not exist anymore. Maybe we can ask an en-wiki admin to check if the source was not lost during the transfer to commons. No rights served in combination with pd-self and pd-author is a strange combination if you ask me btw. I cannot think of anyone who would put that on their website. I cannot find this file on they web elswhere with a free license. But it may also be the case that he just gave the link in the discription so that you can find more information about the subject, the Copyrighted free use tagg however should not be used when it is your own work. As long as it remains unclear if the source is or isn't lost during the transfer we cannot now for sure.
And now your personal question. The Flemish speak a different dialect indeed. There are more cultural diffrences. Flemish people where always catholic just like the southern provinces of the area we now call The Netherland. This has changed over time but some area's in The Northern parts of the Nertherlands still most of the people are Protestant and in some area's of Flanders are heavily Catholic. The dialect they speak in Flanders is called Flemish. In Flanders they are more relaxt for an instance and in The Netherlands we always seem te be in a hurry and we say what we think of people more easely. There are lots of diffrences but in they end it remains unclair what is an preconception and which is really the thruth. Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I just asked and the only source (and the only thing availeble in the discription) that was given is mtwaterman.com and there is really no reason to assume this file was indeed released into the public domain. So this file is clearly missing a source and it may be a copyrightviolation as well but that's something we cannot prove but I belive that there is a significant doubt that the licening templates are correct. Natuur12 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply on the picture and the Flemish. I will post your comment on this picture and tag it as a speedydelete. PS: I was always curious about the Dutch Flemish. Still it seems that the Flemish are more industrious than the Walloons which is why Belgium is having so many problems surviving as a state. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

file:Uppspretta.jpgEdit

Hallo Natuur12, ik heb gereageerd op het plaatsen van het Uppspretta.jpg bestand (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uppspretta.jpg). Wellicht moet de naam van de persoon die de foto heeft gemaakt (Birta Rós Sigurjónsdóttir) bij de foto worden weergegeven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.27.149 (talk • contribs)

Er is een aantal dingen aan de hand met de foto. Het betreft hier namelijk een foto van een kunstwerk. Er zijn dus minstens twee rechthebbende. Namelijk de fotograaf die de foto heeft gemaakt en de personen? die het kunstwerk hebben gemaakt. In sommige landen is dit geen probleem vanwege het concept Commons:Freedom of panorama. In ijsland heb je dit echter niet met een paar uitzonderingen daar gelaten zoals voor niet commercieel gebruik uit mijn hoofd gezegd. Deze foto kan daardoor niet zondermeer op commons gehost worden. Er is natuurlijk wel een oplossing. De kunstenaar kan zijn toestemming insturen naar commons:OTRS. Hij kan dan toestemming verlenen dat zijn kunstwerk wordt gepubliceerd onder een vrije licentie. Het is wel zo handig als dit dezelfde licentie is van de fotograaf want niet elke licentie is hetzelfde namelijk. Het is ook raadzaam wanneer de fotograaf zijn of haar toestemming instuurt op dezelfde manier aangezien de foto door een professional is gemaakt en er geen EXIF data is en het bestand gepubliceerd gaat worden in een boek. Dit even om gedoe voor te zijn dat na een tijdje kan ontstaan wanneer de vraag ja, wie was er nou eerder de kop opsteekt. Ik neem tenminste aan dat de fotograaf de foto zelf geupload heeft anders is het zeker nodig dat er toestemming ingestuurd wordt.
Alvast een kleinigheidje om mee te geven, enkel de fotograaf en de kunstenaars kunnen de foto vrijgeven. De fotograaf dus voor het gebruik van de foto en de kunstenaar voor het afbeelden van zijn werk. Dit kan niet iemand van de organisatie zijn omdat ze zeer waarschijnlijk niet de rechthebbende zijn. Ik hoop dat het lukt om de toestemming te regelen want het is een mooie foto. De mail mag in het Nederlands verstuurd worden. Voor informatie over de licenties kan je hier kijken. Als je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File rename (2013 to 2014)Edit

Thank you for fast response,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File rename (2013 to 2014)Edit

Thank you for fast response,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File rename (2013 to 2014)Edit

Thank you for fast response and help,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This imageEdit

I made a comment on this image's talkpage. Fastilly apparently asked the original contributor at Wikipedia about its status and the image was not deleted in November 2008. I don't know if this image can stay or must be deleted. If you think the uploader is OK, please feel free to credit the original named author. If not--and this image always needed COM:OTRS--perhaps a DR is needed as the uploader has left wikipedia? I cannot decide here as the original uploader at Wikipedia did not seem to have any record with copyright violations and the image was originally uploaded at Wikipedia in November 2008. Perhaps, "this image is grandfathered" now and should not be covered by newer Common's policies. I cannot say. If not, perhaps a DR is better? PS: I voted in your RfA. Regards and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and I will look at it when I'm home. Searching through website with images of guns while at they office is probadly not a good idea. Sleep well. Natuur12 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Trijnstel took care of it so it should be fine and I cannot find real evidence which proves that permission isnot granted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I could not find evidence that the permission was not granted which was why I didn't file a DR. And since a later user uploaded a higher resolution image, this indicates the image was originally on the link still in 2010. I suppose that assuming good faith here was appropriate. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear Administrator!Edit

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−


An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Natuur12, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Proficiat! Trijnsteltalk 13:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats! Nice to see you closing DRs already. INeverCry 21:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI sockmasterEdit

I noticed your warning of User:193.202.110.186. This is a sockpuppet proxy IP of globally locked sockmaster Wikje, and has now been globally blocked. This edit gives his name in the edit summary. If you see anything else from this sockmaster, block the IP right away and let a checkuser like me or Trijnstel know. Also, make sure you don't see any named people in his edit summaries; he often puts up personal info of a certain admin from en.wiki. If you see any personal info like that, be sure to hide the revision/s. INeverCry 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not him again. Thanks for the heads up. I should have recognised him since I blocked him several times at the Dutch Wikipedia. Sorry, missed it. Most time's he is shouting mush more in his eddit summary's. Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He's been socking with proxies here pretty regularly lately. Every few days. INeverCry 19:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He also spiders pages and valdalises them when someone calls his name btw. Don't know if he does that at commons but he does so at the Dutch wiki so I slightly modified your comment if you don't mind :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Here he trolls the DR notifications done by FutPerf, hits random admins and well-known users, and certain galleries, etc, often Polish. If you see another IP of his, it'll likely be an open/abused proxy/zombie, so I would suggest blocking it for a year. INeverCry 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Oke, I'll do. Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

File:David Winning3.jpgEdit

If the author who gave permission for this image is Kevin Clark, please feel free to credit him in the pd license as I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As for this image, who would you credit, the Common's uploader or the Bank of Colombia? Since there are other images of Colombian currency on Commons, I assume the image can remain here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I fixed the first one but I don't know anything about the second one. Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Logo laten staan AUBEdit

Hallo, het is nu al de 4e keer dat u het logo op de pagina VLP [5] verwijdert. Ik heb al verschillende keren gemeld dat op dit logo GEEN copyright rust. Daarnaast ben ik een vertegenwoordiger van de VLP. Graag het logo terugzetten en laten staan. Bedankt. -Woeler1 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC+1)

Zie com:OTRS voor de correcte procedure. Zodra de toestemming vastgelegd is zal het logo weer teruggeplaatst worden. Het logo is namelijk te complex om vrij te zijn van auteursrechten. Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MistakeEdit

Hi Natuur12, can you fix something that went quite wrong? A new user on nl.wp uploaded a picture on commons over an entirely different existing picture, here: [6]. The previous picture needs to be restored and his new picture needs its own place. There are more problems with his uploads, see [7], and I have advised him to get in touch with you: [8]. What he has contributed till now on nl.wp is good, so it is worth it helping him to get on the right track, I think. Thanks, --VanBuren (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you are fast! Thanks. --VanBuren (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the picture. He can reuploade it under a diffrent name with a correct licening tagg of course since it is most likely drawn by him/herself. Natuur12 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hij heeft het weer gedaan: [9]. Ik heb hem gewaarschuwd op zijn overlegpagina. Hoe kun je zo iemand bereiken? Zonde van zijn inspanningen. --VanBuren (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Waarschijnlijk leest hij zijn overlegpagina niet of mist hij de notificatie. Zal even uitleggen welke informatie er mist bij zijn andere afbeeldingen. Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mégumi Satsu ...... weer al foto geschrapt vandaagEdit

hallo,

Ik snap het echt niet! In 2011 heb ik een LP (33RPM) foto gebruikt ter illustratie van de pagina van deze zangeres : Megumi Satsu. De pagina bestaat in het Frans, Engels en Japaans. Heel snel werd deze foto geschrapt voor copyright violation redenen : dat kan ik wel begrijpen : ik beschik niet over de rechten. Ik heb dus een vriend-kennis-fotograaf gevraagd om over één van zijn foto's van Megumi Satsu te kunnen beschikken om de pagina te illustreren. Hij heeft onmiddellijk aanvaard en hij heeft schriftelijk zijn toestemming gegeven. De toestemming heb ik natuurlijk samen met de foto laten verschijnen. Dit was 2 jaar geleden. En nu, vandaag, inééns, wordt deze foto weer al geschrapt. Wanneer zal ik UITEINDELIJK een foto van Megumi Satsu kunnen plakken, aub? Dit is echt zooo vervelend, frusterend, onrecht illustraties te schrappen zonder notificatie, rechtvaardinging of controolaanvraag. Niets. Bovendien, heb ik in 3 verschillende talen moeten surfen om uiteindelijk hier te landen. (méér dan 1 uur dat ik hiermee bezig ben, ik ben niet dagelijks op Wikimedia Commons, excuseer!). En wat dan als ik geen Nederlands kon scjhijven? Frans mag niet? geen) Hartelijk dank. Ben echt kwaad en gefrustreerd hoor! Matt Kinska —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkinska (talk • contribs)

Hoi, er was een probleem met de foto. Ik ontving namelijk een bericht dat de fotograaf enkel akkoord is gegaan met vrijgave voor op Wikipedia. Wat er vermeld stond op de foto was een creative commons licentie die niet overeenkwam met wat de fotograaf schreef. Hij was in de veronderstelling dat de foto alleen vrijgegeven zou zijn voor gebruik op Wikipedia. En dat is niet toegestaan volgens het licentiebeleid. Daarnaast was er geen bewijs dat de toestemming inderdaad gegeven was. Die had opgestuurd moeten worden via com:OTRS. Aangezien de fotograaf zelf een klacht had een de toestemming ontbrak heb ik besloten het bestand te verwijderen. Overigens mag u me ook gewoon aanspreken in het Engels als u dat liever heeft., Frans spreek ik inderdaad niet. Wilt u de foto tereggeplaatst hebben zal er dus naar com:OTRS toestemming verstuurd moeten worden dat de fotograaf daadwerkelijk akkoord is gegaan met vrijgave onder een vrije licentie die voldoet aan het licentiebeleid van commons. Ik snap dat dit allemaal frustrerend is maar wanneer een fotograaf duidelijk aangeeft dat de toestemming niet in orde is, in dit geval dus niet zoals hij voor ogen had is het veiliger om dit bestand te verwijderen. Natuur12 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

pff, hartelijk dank voor de snelle reactie, maar jammer genoeg is de frustratie nog efkes gegrooid! : uw uitleg is voor mij - profaan - totaal onverstandbaar - Chinees voor mij, of méér aangepast, Japaans lol - Hoe bedoelt u "licencie van CC die niet overeekomt met wat de fotograaf schreef". Wat méér kan ik doen dan een schriftelijke toestemming te vragen en plakken samen met de foto? ... wat ik eigenlijk gedaan heb! ... Laat maar zitten ik zal deze pagina zonder foto laten of een andere oplossing vinden. Dit is allemaal te ingewikkeld en ik heb andere belangrijke dingen te doen in het leven. Ik heb geen zin om om de twee jaren tijd bestenden en verliezen voor niets. prettige dag verder

De fotograaf had toestemming gegeven voor gebruik enkel op Wikipedia maar u had de foto geplaatst onder de cc-by-sa-3.0. Deze licentie staat dus hergebruik door iedereen toe mist de naam vermeld wordt en het bestand verspreid wordt onder dezelfde voorwaarde. Dat is dus niet hetzelfde als u mag het bestand gebruiken voor op Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

... natuurlijk heeft de fotograaf een toestemming gegeven voor wikipedia, het gaat om een wikipedia-pagina! Voor wie of wat anders had ie een toestemming moeten geven? Anderzijds heb ik gewoon de (ingewikkelde) procedure gevolgd om de foto te uploaden met de gevraagde informatie, maar het zou ook kunnen dat ik iets verkeerds gedaan heb. Om eerlijk te zijn ,snap ik niet goed wat cc-by-sa-3.0 betekent... maar ja. Anyway... dit is wanhopig! Ik ben geen geek maar ook niet idioot, ik vraag me echt af hoe de andere mensen over zoveel foto's op wikipedia beschikken en hoe ze daarmee kunnen leven, want ik vind dat persoonlijk VRESELIJK. Bovendien, beschik ik over alle officiele rechten op het imago van die artiest via schriftelijke testament en het lukt mij niet een illustratie op deze pagina te beweran. Dit is echt ironisch!

De cc-by-sa-3.0 is een licentie die een aantal dingen inhoud, namelijk dat iedereen een bestand vrij mag gebruiken, vrij mag aanpassen en er commercieel gebruik van mag maken mits hij de afbeelding onder dezelfde voorwaarde vrij geeft. De fotograaf heeft aangegeven dat de foto enkel op Wikipedia gebruikt mag worden. Dit is dus niet hetzelfde. Meer mensen vinden deze licenties en de uploadformulier ingewikkeld. Dat kan. Oplossingen zijn dan de footograaf de foto in te laten sturen naar het photosubmissionadres. Dan upload iemand anders de foto. De Nederlandstalige tegenhanger is www.wikiporet.nl. Maar goed, als de fotograaf de rechten heeft overgedragen of als u aan kunt tonen dat hij alsnog akkoord is gegaan met vrijgave onder de cc-by-sa-3.0 of een andere compateble licentie kunt u het bewijs hiervan opsturen naar com:OTRS. Dat u over de rechten van het imago van de artiest bezit kan zo wezen, maar dat maakt u natuurlijk niet de rechthebbende van de foto. Dit heeft allemaal niks met ironie te maken maar met auteursrechten. Natuur12 (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

hartelijk dank. Ik heb de fotograaf nu pas gecontacteerd en hij heeft inderdaad bevestigd dat hij gisteren een beperking van de foto heeft gevraagd. Maar hij wist niet dat de foto geschapt van wikipedia zou zijn. Anyway, u hebt gelijk, mijn positie tov de artiest heeft niets te maken met auteursrechten.. ben gewoon een beetje kwaad, gefrustreerd en teleurgesteld dat het allemaal zo moeilijk is. Ik beschik ook over mijn eigen foto's van Mégumi, ze zijn natuurlijk niet zo mooi en zo professioneel maar misschien zal ik één uploaden in de toekomst, dit is zeker gemakkelijker. groetjes

Clarium Capital office interior.jpgEdit

Hi, I see you deleted an image I uploaded from Flickr. Before uploading the image I asked the photographer about dropping the non-commerical restriction and he agreed. You can see the discussion on the flickr page. Would you be willing to restore the image? edward (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm difficult question since he didnot change the license and he didnot mention an exact license. (I assume he understands that you meanth the cc-by-sa-2.0 and the he new he agreed to something when he said yes). He said sure, feel free to use it but he didnot change the license. I'll think about it for a moment and ask one of my fellow admins if this is sufficiant when I'm home. Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jcb, what do you think. Is this sufficiant? Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok. (Are you aware the talk at Flickr begins below?) - Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, never thought about that. But I restored the file and added why it is under cc-by-sa. Thanks Jcb. Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The flickr page has been updated to cc-by-sa. edward (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed it again. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Abby Martin imageEdit

22:27, 16 January 2014 Natuur12 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Abby Martin RT correspondent.png (Copyright violation: a screen capture of a copyright show) (global usage; delinker log)

Did someone ask you to delete this image? I believe it was appropriately licensed. Did you look at the licensing info? User:RedPenOfDoom removed it from Wikipedia at 22:21, and you deleted it from Commons six minutes later, which is a record of some kind. Could you explain how it is that you communicated about this image and what made you think the license was invalid? Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear back from you. In your reply, please link to the original licensing info you deleted. FYI, I've reported this incident at the ANI noticeboard on en. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This appears to have been a rush to judgment. Looking at a cached version of the image it is indicated to come from this video, which was released on YouTube under a valid free license. It may seem a bit surprising, but a screencap from this news segment is free media.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, first of all when you look at my profile page you can see that I'm from Europe so that I could be asleep. (In fact I was asleep for almost an hour since the alarm clock was about to ring 5.30 hour later.) Secondly, I have nothing to do with the en wiki administrators noticeboard when I delete a file here. Thirdly I never heard any deletions request at the IRC since I was busy cleaning up the speedy's and the file's without a source. The Devils's Advocate is right since I apperantly missed the free license. I regret that this happed but I don't think that I deserve to be threated like this. You could have just asked a collegua to restore the file and it would have be done already. You say: I discovered that the admin frequents an IRC channel used for identifying problematic images (Jouw foto's kwamen ter zaken op de IRC dat er mogelijk auteursrechten geschonden waren). It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that TheRedPenOfDoom bypassed all forms of discussion and requested deletion of an image on IRC without discussing it, and refusing to discuss it when asked. This is so not true and you refere to something I said a long time ago before I even was an administrator. You donot know the context of that case either so there is absolutely no reason to assume that your scenario is correct. I will restore the file ofcourse and admit that I made a mistake but please asume a bit of good fait here here since we are all volunteers. Natuur12 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion of Saint Mark (Venice).svgEdit

Since I can not reply there.

I created the file I nominated for deletion. It is not an older version, but a newer one. When I say that it was "made from a few parts that don't really mesh together well", it's not my taste as in how it looks, but exactly what I did to create this file. It was a request that I shouldn't have fulfilled, and was never used in an article. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone is using it at his userpage. It seemed quite harsh to me to delete it and leave his userpage with an empty spot. I see that this is a newer version but this would not have changed the outcome since it is in use If there was nonone to oppose and if there was no one who uses it to illustrate his/her userpage I might have judged diffrently. I didnot hear any arguments why this file is plain wrong. Btw, my native language is also Dutch. Natuur12 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This issueEdit

Dear Natuur12,

If you think its safe to give attribution to a bot, please feel free to give it a try here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm of course the bot should not be credited since he didnot produce the file. There are three diffrent people who have acces to the bot so I don't know who made them. Maybe you could ask one of the botowners who made this files? Natuur12 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose its unwise to give attribution to a bot. Perhaps, I should leave it as it is then or I will consider your suggestion. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Breukelen wapen.svgEdit

Hallo Natuur 12,

Zou je me een groot plezier willen doen? Ik heb vandaag File:Breukelen wapen.svg upgeload, maar dit is het wapen van Cothen, zou je misschien dit bestand voor me willen hernoemen? Het moet dus Cothen wapen zijn. Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank, MVG --Arch (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - de afbeelding heet nu File:Cothen wapen.svg. Natuur12 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Da's snel BEDANKT!!!! :-) --Arch (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Foto's: ZeroEdit

Dag Natuur12,

U heeft drie van mijn foto's verwijderd, waarvan één (Zero DS) in ieder geval terecht, ik ben nieuw op wikipedia als editor, vandaar. Maar de andere twee foto's ben ik het niet mee eens, met de tabel weet ik niet wat ik overtreed, het is namelijk informatie, geen afbeelding door iemand gemaakt, en de foto genaamd Zero heb ik zelf gemaakt in de autosalon in Brussel, waarom kan dit niet? Ik geloof dat ik deze informatie inbegrepen had in de omschrijving.

Alvast bedankt,

Buster BusterFranken (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, ik heb maar 1 foto verwijderd. Die was duidelijk een schending van auteursrechten. Ook die tabel in z'n geheel is naar aller waarschijnlijkheid gewoon beschermd. Natuurlijk mag je het cijfermateriaal gebruiken maar dat is wat anders dan de gehele tabel te copy pasten en vervolgens te uploaden onder een vrije licentie. Wel kan je een discussie hebben of deze tabel voldoet aan com:TOO maar dat ligt vrij laag in Nederland. Daarnaast zit er een verschil tussen zoiets gewoon gebruiken en hij vrijgeven onder een vrije licentie. Tevens voldoet deze tabel niet aan com:SCOPE aangezien je dit gewoon als tabel in hoort te voeren. Wel kan je naar het originele pdf-documentje verwijzen als bron natuurlijk. Je derde foto is aangevinkt als zijnde toestemming ontbreekt aangezien twee van je 3 foto's niet zijn toegestaan. Maar na de uitleg die je me hier hebt gegeven en je uitleg op NL wiki geloof ik je en heb ik de tagg verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Files of User:BobbyshabanguEdit

Hi Natuur12 (talk) , please tell me why did you delete Files of User:Bobbyshabangu without explaining the reasons behind the deletion. i mean i was using the picture on my chapter www.wikimedia.org.za but you deleted it regardless seeing this ! Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agreed by the nominator that the files which I deleted where not covered by FOP#South_Africa. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Electrolytic Amine Reduction.jpgEdit

No longer in use. And now also tagged with a factual error. DMacks (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that there is an discussion going on at the file's talkpage so I cannot delete this file. The best thing to do is to renominate the file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your prompt response (and admin work in general!). DMacks (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Logo com:TOO notatie voor File:Logo NSSV Don Quichote.jpgEdit

Beste natuur12,

Naar aanleiding van uw nominatie heb ik de bron en de toestemming voor het verspreiden van het logo toegevoegd. Wellicht bent u het logo elders vaker tegen gekomen op de website van de vereniging of op sociale media. Ook deze plaatjes zijn door mij opgesteld en dergelijke sites worden mede door mij beheert. Hopelijk voldoe ik hiermee aan de eisen voor com:TOO, mocht dit niet het geval zijn zou ik graag horen welke acties nog meer vereist worden.

Mvg,

Gijs Slotman.

Dit is het officiële logo en daarom is verificatie via com:OTRS vereist. Het is het handigst wanneer de toestemming verstuurd woord vanaf een e-mailadres horende bij de vereneging. Een andere mogelijkheid is om op de site te vermelden dat het logo beschikbaar is onder de genoemde licentie. Wanneer er bij bron een link wordt toegevoegd is het in orde. Zeg het me dan wle even als dit gebeurt is, dan kan ik hem doorstrepen. com:TOO, voluit Threashold of originality, slaat erop dat deze logo's te ingewikkeld zijn om vrij te zijn van auteursrechten. Veel van de logo's met betrekking tot Nederlands zijn namelijk te ingewikkeld om vrij te zijn van auteursrechten en worden continu geupload. Vooral door mensen die ergens lid van zijn en denken tot het wel mag, vandaar dat ik eens de bezem door die categorie gooi. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Beste natuur12,
Bedankt voor de reactie, ondertussen heeft het bestuur van de vereniging via de mail toestemming verleend voor het gebruik van het logo gestuurd. Dit is vanmiddag gebeurd en ik weet niet hoe lang ze er over doen om zoiets dergelijks te verwerken. Maar bij deze iig de bevestiging, zodra de mail is verwerkt zouden wij graag zien dat de nominatie voor verwijdering wordt weggehaald. Alvast bedankt. Mvg, Gijs Slotman.
Ik heb de logo nog niet in de inbox zien zitten maar zodra de toestemming is verstuurd kan het een paar dagen duren, zeker wanneer het om gratis emailadressen gaat zoals gmail. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of student organisations in the NetherlandsEdit

Hi,

Ik begrijp niet goed waarom ik een verzoek tot verwijdering heb ontvangen voor het logo van FVOG en hoe ik kan voorkomen dat dit gebeurt. Ter verduidelijking, ik heb dit logo vorig jaar ontworpen toen ik de functie van penningmeester bij FVOG bekleedde. --User:Daansoons

Dat staat uitgelegd bij de nominatie, toestemming kan opgestuurd worden naar com:OTRS. Aangezien het hiet om het logo van ene verenging gaat is verificatie via com:OTRS noodzakelijk. Zie ook het kopje hierboven. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:SamizambakEdit

No one was recently added photos. Why do you not understand warnings.--Samizambak (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of your uploads are copyrightviolations. I warned you for that. If you upload copyrightviolations again you will be blocked. It doesn't matter that it happes a while agoo. What does matter is that most/all of your files are so a warning seems appropriate. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can not add files that are already in a long time. Interesting to me about this topic.--Samizambak (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The files you previous uploaded are copyrightviolations. I got nothing more to add. Natuur12 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you are confusedEdit

At User talk:David Shankbone, you are complaining that "own work" is not an adequate source for File:Donatella Versace David Shankbone 2010 NYC.jpg. Why would this be any different than "own work" for any other photo that a participant in this project takes him-/herself and uploads? Certainly it is consistent with David's other contributions over a period of many years. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • In fact, here is another picture he seems to have taken that same evening: File:Lea Michele 2010 Time 100 Shankbone.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Yes thank you for telling me. I guess I really was confused and just a bit tired. I really had a long day yesterday. Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This QuestionEdit

It seems that Lymantria is away. Perhaps, you can decide which images are OK and which for Commons. They come from Belarus which has no COM:FOP. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I did a few of them but I'm not sure about the bridges and the water tower. Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. Lymantria just said on his talkpage that generic bridges can be passed but the water tower should face a DR. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo_Het_Rotterdamsch_Studenten_Gezelschap.pngEdit

Wat moet ik doen om te zorgen dat File:Logo_Het_Rotterdamsch_Studenten_Gezelschap.png niet wordt verwijderd? Bart5314 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

De rechthebbende het logo laten vrijgeven via com:OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Помнік камсамольцам. Полацк.jpg & File:ИОСИФ КОРСАК - заказчик и спонсор храмов в ГЛУБОКОМ..jpgEdit

Dear Admin Natur12,

If you think that these two images are FOP violation in Belarus which has no [[COM:FOP, please file a regular DR here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - There is no evidence that those scupltures are in the public domain. Natuur12 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. Have a good night, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit

Many thanks. :)--Avocato (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Dewey Defeats Truman.jpgEdit

I don't know but perhaps the license for this image above is PD-US Govt? Its from NARA. Anyway, I found that image from license review. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge deletion discussionsEdit

Hello. I'm a little confused by your closing of these discussions. You closed a handful of the discussions dealing with this memorial, but not others, and you didn't provide any rationale as far as I can tell. In one discussion, you pointed to a vague post by Labbattboy that doesn't refer to any of the issues under discussion. This is a complicated issue, involving a fairly lengthy prior deletion discussion, and a debate over the applicability of collective work provisions in the applicable French copyright statute. It seems odd that you would have closed a few of the discussions, yet others remain ongoing, given that the same issues apply to all of these images/discussions. It is unfortunate that Jean initiated a separate discussion for each image, instead of initiating one group discussion, and it has caused some confusion, but nonetheless the decision for all of them should be made at the same time. And, given the circumstances, the closing should address the points that have been raised. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have been quite busy and indeed those seperate DR's are a bit of a disaster especially since I normally start at the bottom. I'll write my closing argument at th last one. Two remain open if I'm correct? It appear clear to the case closings this way. Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot more than two. I think it is premature to be closing. I am still writing a response to a comment from today, about the application of 113-5 of the French statute to architectural works. For a complicated issue, where there is a past deletion discussion and an ongoing debate, I am not sure why we would close the discussion. In fact, I'd quite strongly say that closure is premature in these circumstances. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to overull me on this one. I didn't realise what a mess this actually was closing when I closed the first one. I meanth that there where two left eligible for closing today of course. (Turned out to be three). I looked at it carefully btw and didnot made any rushed discision ;). Natuur12 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to "overrule" you as you are not at fault. And I do not think you were rushed. I'm not criticizing you. This is a mess, and I asked Jean numerous times to consolidate the discussion in one place, which he seemed not to understand. I ask that you simply revert your closures on the basis that these discussions are all intimately connected, you can't decide some without the others, the discussion is still well underway, and when you are in the position of effectively overruling a previous lengthy discussion we should be allowing time for full time and for the discussion to continue. There is no rule requiring that the discussions be closed today, and our practice in fact supports the notion that we act with an abundance of caution when dealing with the more complicated discussions, especially with long histories. I have in the past "unclosed" discussions myself, where on second thought I concluded that the initial closure was premature. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okey, I will do that. Natuur12 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Part of me regrets asking you to have reconsidered, as this might be a lengthy deletion discussion, and I am already sick of it. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Flickr human reviewEdit

Dear Natuur12,

If you have some free time, please feel free to mark a few flickr images. The bot did not mark images for 3 days and now that it did there is a small backlog. You can mark 10 or 15--its up to you. I too have been busy with work sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look this afternoon. I already did a few but first I have to deal with the deletions requests at nl wiki ;). Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for any help which you can give. I have been marking some picasa images where the backlog is over 350 images (it was 650+ images once)...thanks to a bot. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clyde River at Herron's Mills.jpgEdit

Hi, it seems to me that in the first sentence of your closure of this DR, you've made the same mistake as Leoboudv did when he added a copyvio tag to the photo saying "Flickr review NOT passed: Author is using NC, ND, or all rights reserved." The photographer's "CC-BY-SA 2.0 at 240 by 180 or lower resolutions" release is still there on the Flickr page for this image; it has just been entered as a comment,[10] instead of by changing the license field on Flickr (presumably because that field does not allow the uploader to choose this particular license). Since this misunderstanding is the issue that prompted the DR in the first place, it seems to throw the whole closure into question. Would you please consider revising this part of your closure? --Avenue (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not possible to let a CC license only apply to a low resolution. If you release a work into a CC license, you release all resolutions. Jcb (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, so this is not a CC license. That and related issues made up the bulk of the DR discussion. We quickly debunked and moved on from the erroneous claim that prompted the DR, which is why repeating that claim seems to detract from the closure's credibility. --Avenue (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the closure. Jcb (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to reconsidder my closure since the license actual license on flickr is all rights served so it is not clear to me that he had the intention of releasing it. See for example this link, this link or this link. Only releasing version with a lower resolution isnot possible like Jcb says. Of course I read the statement I release this image under CC-BY-SA 2.0 at 240 by 180 or lower resolutions. but I doubt if this is a valid statement since you cannot release only one version. You cannot just add a extra restriction to a free license like Stefan4 explains. But I will rephrase my words so it becomes more clear. Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the revised version is much clearer IMO. --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Det mörknar öfver vägen - HjS 1907.jpgEdit

Hello Natuur12,

in that case the uploader actually provided the name of the author, it is Hjalmar Söderberg (1869–1941). So the image is in the PD and should not have been deleted, please restore. Sorry, perhaps I should have withdrawn the request as soon as the author's name was known. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I overlooked the name. Fixed and corrected the licening template. Natuur12 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

These 2 imagesEdit

  • Would these 2 images of more modern bridges be OK for Commons? They are in Podgorica, Montenegro which has no COM:FOP. I have asked Lymantria but he is away. Or are they OK.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the second one could be okey under DM but I'm not sure about the first one. Montenegro FoP is tricky. Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puccini.IMG 2523.jpgEdit

Hello. I have just a suggestion about this deletion request. Maybe you could check this OTRS ticket. It seems that the heir of the sculptor gave a permission to publish some picture of his works. I do not know if it is unrestrictive enough to allow this picture. Thank you for your help. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the ticket and the following images seem te be covered by the ticket:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Albert1er.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Danseuse_aŭ_cymbales.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Cardinal_mercier.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Danse_folle.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Sourire.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:L%C3%A9onlepage.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Vers_la_joie.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Vieŭtemps.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Monument_gendarmerie.JPG
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:IMGP1509_edited.JPG
I'm afraid permission was not granted for this one :(. Natuur12 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for checking it. BrightRaven (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:AssembleaMilano2009Senpai 05.JPGEdit

Hi, File:AssembleaMilano2009Senpai 05.JPG has evidently been left out when you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to Indro Montanelli (Milan). Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tnx, deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Finnish coinsEdit

Why were File:2011 Finland.png and File:2004 Finland.png deleted with a reference to that deletion request? They were not even listed there. Besides, it is very likely that {{PD-FinlandGov}} applies to the national side of Finnish euro coins, so images like this should at least get a deletion discussion instead of speedy deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The finish are probably okey. Restored them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Pro7-Logo.pngEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pro7-Logo.png 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)‎ | +/−

Fry1989 eh? 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyrights violationEdit

Lot of files has copyright violation. --AntonTalk 07:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yann already took care of it :). Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

These 6 imagesEdit

If you have time, perhaps you can mark these 6 images. Four of them were uploader by Jurgen....but I cannot read Dutch or see the license.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Those pictures uploaded by Jurgen are a interesting one. The EXIF data has a other copyrightnotice than the EXIF data of the images. He already send an email for confirmation. I probably speak him this afternoon but he is on holiday right now. I'll ask him about the email when he is online at the IRC-channel. The license mentioned at the website is the same as mentioned at the file page btw. I marked the other two. Natuur12 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Raquel4 3.jpgEdit

Hi! Above file was part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raquel Mancini, closed by you recently with deleted. Eventually you forgot to delete this file. Per source "Fue descubierta por la revista Gente cuando tenía apenas 16 años" and considering es:Raquel Mancini (1964—) most likely taken 1980+, failing - as the other files - URAA. Gunnex (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - ty. Natuur12 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London (4039996300).jpgEdit

  • "Those bliboards are in the center of the image" - no, they are in fact in the middle of the bottom half
  • "quite a large part of the image is covered by the billboards" - or more accurately, less that 25% of the horizontal and 50% of the vertical, which I would think would come to an area ratio of a lot less than a "large part"
  • "they are in a high resolution" - totally and utterly irrelevant, per COM:DM, which is policy
  • "and per Jim of course":
    • "The two billboards are the center of interest of the image" - no, the building is the centre of interest. If it was the billboards, why include the lower and upper floors too, plus the roof, and indeed all that sky? And why frame it so that a lampost is in front of one of the posters? The building was obviously the centre of interest, anyone who claims otherwise has nothing to base that on at all
    • "arguably the photo would not have been taken except to show them." - seriously? does the title and description on the Flickr page support that total speculation? It would appear not - Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London and The area of London where UK film premieres take place. With loads of cinemas. This is the Odeon West End, the second Odeon cinema in Leicester Square." makes it pretty obvious that the photographer intended to photograph the building
    • "Both billboard's categories are included in the image's cats" - so what? They were not included on the original photographers image, so again, per COM:DM, it is yet more evidence that the posters were not the intended subject

I would have liked the opportunity to point these things out in that undeletion request, but as you closed it after less than 24 hours, I'll have to make them here instead, and hope you see the error you have made and reopen it. Ultra7 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I took the file File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG. mentioned as an example in the DM police as a guideline. The copyrighted grafity was less prominent available File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg than in this case. The dm policy tells me: Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast. and there is no way to prove that this was incidental. My suggestion is that you crop out the billboards and than reupload the file. It's an interesting thought btw that Fastility, Jim and I are wrong on this one. I also read this part of DM of course: Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies. but I believe that this one is on the wrong side. Natuur12 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The proof that it was incidental is everywhere - the framing, the title, the description, the lampost in the way, the photographer's lack of tagging or indeed any discernable interest in photographing film posters. Not only is there no proof it wasn't incidental, the only proof offered up that it was not incidental was that someone else categorised the images based on the posters (which was pointless, as you quite clearly couldn't use this image at normal viewing distance as a replacement for the posters in any application - such as a T-shirt print or a Wikipedia article infobox). And let's be clear, what you can do with the image by cropping is totally irrelevant. There is no 'side' to that which images can fall on either way, it's a black and white exclusion - you judge COM:DM based on normal viewing only - it either violates at normal viewing, or it doesn't. But getting back to the incidental issue - the only way the photographer could avoid capturing these specific billboards, would be to take the photo at a different time, but then of course there would be different posters in place. And then Jim would presumably be making the same argument that obviously their intention was to photograph those posters, instead of these posters, which obviously makes no sense given the photographer never once mentioned posters at all. That's the biggest reason why being in agreement with Jim shouldn't mean much in this case. As for Fastily, I have no faith in his application of COM:DM at all - he apparently has no problem at all with deleting images based on the fact they can be cropped, such as this example, even though that is totally against policy. I have complained about that before, but he ignored me, and nobody else cared. You can ask him why he does that if you want, I'm no longer interested in banging my head against that particular wall. But I won't be cropping the image, because doing so would be acceptance that it fails COM:DM. Which I am saying it does not. Ultra7 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you start making speculations I'm done talking. Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What speculations? Ultra7 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Ultra7, You brought this to my talk page and here in the same minute without telling either of us of the other discussion. That discourtesy deserves our simply ignoring you, but I'll add that this image has been discussed at Fastily's talk page, the DR, and the UnDR as well as here and my talk page. Four highly experienced users (almost a million contributions to WMF projects between them) thought that the copyrighted billboards were not DM. Two users (also highly experienced) thought they were. That's both a better airing than the vast majority of our decisions get and a lot more experience in the group. I think this is done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Christ. These were very simple questions Jim. If you don't want to answer them, fine, but don't blame the number of venues this was raised in, or the lack of any evidence any of this was actually considered by your collectively experienced heads, on me. I'm not the one who filed an ineligible speedy. I'm not the one who makes one word DR closures in cases where it's obvious that won't suffice. I'm not the one who closes a UD less than 12 hours and after only 1 post. I only became aware of it after the DR closure, so according to your own definition, I've only posted about this issue once. I'm not obliged to cross-post to either of you about the subsequent discussions, because according to you, the process is already over, finished, done. A fair airing, as you call it. Others would clearly disagree, and like me, will be wondering why you react so evasively and aggressively, and why Natuur12 stopped responding so quickly, in the face of what were some very simple queries about your collective views of what this image supposedly showed, or what this photographer supposedly did or didn't do, and what COM:DM supposedly does or doesn't say. Ultra7 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I made my point quite clear. You made it clear that you disagree. And then Jim would presumably be making the same argument that obviously their intention was to photograph those posters, instead of these posters, which obviously makes no sense given the photographer never once mentioned posters at all is speculation. You are formalising a scenario. The creative commons license does allow us to make derative works. When quite a large part of the photograph's is in fact a copyrighted poster your ability to make derevatives is extremely limited and the scope of licening tels us: The creator of the original artwork has rights to any reproductions and derivative work. This could be an interesting thought. I already gave you the advice to crop out the poster and reupload it. You refuse. It's an easy solution to be on the safe side if you don't want to do so that's fine with me. I already gave my arguments and I have more important things to do than talking in circels. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I formulated a scenario based on the evidence - it's called a logical deduction - it is perfectly valid. The photographer took a photo of a building. He never mentioned the posters. If the photo had been taken on a different day, the posters would be different, but Jim's argument would clearly be the same. There is nothing you can say that disproves that scenario. More to the point, there is nothing Jim can say to it either. Which is why he didn't bother. As for derivative works - you are just plain wrong. The CC license is valid for any derivative that remains de minimis. There is absolutely no requirement, obligation, advice or CC criteria that says we must crop out the copyright part of an image in order to claim de minimis or license as CC-derivs allowed. If you want to give that advice, you are by definition claiming that this image is without doubt, not de minimis, and without doubt, ineligible for any CC license. So, yes, I refuse to crop out the posters, because it is absolutely not required in this case. Anyone who has a problem with that, including you, can speak to the Wikimedia Foundation, because they like me are not remotely interested in taking action to limit the availability of free media when it is not required, no matter how easy it might be to do. And before you start claiming to have better things to do than me, please consider that I've been on Commons since 2007 - the list of things I've not been able to do because of wasted days like this spent arguing with admins who simply refuse to accept they've made an error is as long as my arm. Also consider that you are one of the newest admins on the site, and your overall time on the site is a fraction of mine. Do not make the mistake many people seem to do of assuming that because my user page is a redlink, I must be a complete novice. Ultra7 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This could be an interesting thought. That's what I siad about the cc license and there is no reason to get personal. Natuur12 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Not interesting, alarming. And this is personal - your decision making is a product of your knowledge and your experience, and yours alone. It's no excuse to get a decision wrong just because Jim makes guesses and calls it subjectivity, or because Fastily ignores a policy completely. If you're going to close UD's in less than 12 hours, and after just one comment, then I do not expect to later find out that you apparently think Commons doesn't host CC images if the prospects of derivatives is limited. It makes me wonder what else you got wrong, especially when you ignore me when I ask you for explanations about the things you appear to have got wrong. Ultra7 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Again: This could be an interesting thought. so I was not saying it was correct but something to think about. Those things are not the same. And now stop laying words in my mouth. That you're pissed that you didn't get it your way okey. But please stop making attacks on admins just because somethig got deleted you wanted to keep. I read your rant at the RFA page and it seems to be that your only goal is to make a fuss about this. And yes I don't usually talk with people who twist my words and start making speculations since those discussions are going nowhere. Especially when people got the habbit of behaving like this. If you still disagree you can ask a second opinion from another admin or whatever but it is quite clear that we disagree and not going to agree either. I know understand why Fastily ignores you. I thinks this discission is done. Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
My only goal is to retrieve a wrongly deleted image. You are attributing other motives to me because you are incapable of justifying this deletion, and so you see this as an easy way out of the discussion. It's a common tactic used on Commons by poor administrators, just like Jim and Fastily. He didn't ignore me for any other reason than there is nothing he could say that justifies him deleting images as COM:DM based on the fact that they can be zoomed. He was wrong, he just didn't want to admit it, so he ignored me. Just like you are doing now. I haven't put any words in your mouth, let alone twisted them. Perhaps the issue is that you're not a native English speaker. What you call speculations, are not in fact speculation at all, but logical deductions. Yes, it's obvious we disagree - but only because you just keep saying "I disagree". What you specifically disagree about and why, I still haven't got a clue. Do you accept there is absolutely no evidence that the photographer intended to photograph the posters? Do you accept there is lots of proof that the capture was incidental? Do you accept that COM:DM is judged at normal viewing, not as a zoom/crop? Do you accept that Jim was simply guessing at the photographers motives, and doesn't have any right to compare his guesses based on no proof (which is speculation) against my evidence based deductions? Do you accept that the posters are not, in any way, a "large part" of the image? I still haven't got a clue what you think about any of those issues, because all you seem interested in talking about are these other interesting things, which then turn out to have nothing to do with the deletion. The reason you are shutting this discussion down has nothing to do with anything I've said, except for the fact that you are incapable of answering my questions. I will not ask for a second opinion, because there is no chance in hell any admin on Commons will ever criticise another admin, and no chance in hell that any admin will ever spend the time necessary to unpick the reasons why you won't answer my questions. The only thing admins on Commons have any time for, is threatening people like me for wasting their precious time. If you want to know why people rant about admins on Commons, those are the reasons. Ultra7 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And of course the proper venue to get second opinions was at COM:UD - but you made sure that that discussion didn't even occur. That's why I had to come here and waste my time talking to you. If you don't like doing that, or you find it difficult to do because of the language issues, then don't close UD reviews before they have even had a chance to come to a conclusion. It's that simple. There was nothing stopping you from simply voting oppose, and then if you wanted to ignore any follow-up questions, you could have done so. It is after all the standard way these things happen here. Jim simply turning up and offering his unfounded speculations which then must be taken as fact because he has thousands of edits, with nobody else given the chance to respond, is not, and never will be, remotely acceptable as a review process, whatever he says. Ultra7 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep talking about the error that the four of us made. There's no error here, and, really, very little to discuss. Whether something is DM or not is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. As I have said several times, four very experienced editors think the billboards are not DM. Two experienced editors think they are. There's no error on either side, simply a difference of opinion, and in this case the majority vote counts. Period, end of story.

As for the argument that if you took the image a month later, you would have different billboards, that's certainly true. If you photograph a billboard space, you will always have a copyright problem, unless you pick a moment when the billboard is being changed.

I also have to point out that this image has gotten more attention from highly experienced editors than almost any deletion we have made. The six of us have well over a million WMF contributions. How many images get that kind of attention? You can hardly complain that somehow this got short shrift when, in fact, it got far more attention than it deserves. If that's not an acceptable review process, then I suggest you leave Commons -- we delete 1,500 images a day and there is no way in the world we have the resources to do better than we did with this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you photograph a building with a billboard space, you will always get the billboards. If you claim the photographer intended to photograph the billboards, without offering up any evidence at all that this was the case, then whether you like it or not, that is an error. If you claim something is COM:DM without ever once referring to the concepts/wording in the actual policy, and more importantly while ignoring everything someone else says who disagrees who is actually referring to the policy, then whether you like it or not, that's an error. What I think you're problem is - you seem to just not realise that just because you have offered an opinion, doesn't mean that it's also not an error. Just like people can all give different opinions on how to amputate someone's leg. The correct way to figure out which one is right is not to count them, but to verify whether or not they know what they are talking about. I know you have thousands of edits, and you know what? It doesn't matter. That's not how you measure experience, for the very reasons you actually outlined - nobody is taking a blind bit of notice what happens here 99.99% of the time. I've made billions of category edits in my time here, and I can count the number of times anyone has complained about them on one hand. Does that mean you should take my word as that of a categorisation expert? Obviously not, because that would be stupid. But yes, the real tragedy of this site is that you get away with it - that 4 people who are making errors really can delete perfectly acceptable images even when 2 people who didn't make any errors, object. Some people think that's a bad thing, you clearly disagree. At the end of the day, I can't think of a better reason why the WMF shouldn't just do a complete reboot of the way Commons is run, than this post of yours. Ultra7 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, there is reason enough why "WMF shouldn't just do a complete reboot of the way Commons is run", the processes run quite well at the moment. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
You've obviously not spoken to anyone at the WMF recently. They consider Commons to be an embarrassment. Jimbo himself is urging outsiders to register and try to reform it, as he recognises the people already here have proven themselves incapable of running it properly. Ultra7 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And to be clear, misquoting users for sarcastic effect is the sort of thing they don't consider to be good practice. Ultra7 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As for "matters of fact" - it's a fact that COM:DM says in black and white, do not consider what the image looks like when cropped/zoomed when judging de minimis. One of the 4 "highly experienced" editors claiming this image failed COM:DM, did exactly that. Did you simply miss that? Or is it the case that you are fully aware if it, but for you, ignoring the black and white text of a policy falls within the boundary of a bunch of different people just giving different opinions, then counting them up at the end (of course giving this one extra weight, because the person who said it has a billion edits). Do you seriously believe there is anyone at the WMF that would ever endorse any of this as remotely good practice? On a well run WMF project, people get desysopped for repeatedly and deliberately ignoring policy. On Commons they get hailed as a backlog clearing vastly experienced super-admins. Ultra7 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 AnnouncementEdit

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This NoteEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Please feel free to mark some of the Korean images in license review if you have some free time. Like this I can only mark a few photos. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm quite busy today since I'm finishing a report. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Please feel free to mark when you are free of course. I have been busy too sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I passed this image based on the license. I am not sure if this small sculpture has any FOP issues. But if it does, please feel free to delete it since its a recent upload. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

    • Seems like a temporarely artwork to me. The picture is taken at a festival in Cyprus and there is FOP in Cyprus but only for temprarely artworks: "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public; Natuur12 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I filed a DR on it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No le entiendoEdit

Por favor puede traducirlo. Gracias --Parair (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

ping user:Jcb. I don't speak spanish. Natuur12 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, Savh already helped solving this. Natuur12 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Could this deletion request be closed as delete? It seems open long enough. It seems that the uploader has uploaded 2 other copyvios. So, Commons has a problem now unless you or Lymantria can deal with this situation. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Seems like flickr washing. Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Its a pity there are so many flickrwashes everywhere. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

These 5 imagesEdit

If you have some time, please mark these 5 images from 2009. I have marked two others but its better to have a second reviewer:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked them and the exif data is the same every tie and the uploader has many uploads of this event. Only this file has a diffrent EXIF info but it is the same brand of camera's. Seems fine by me. Natuur12 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DR resultEdit

Wasn't the result of this DR Deleted rather than Kept? |FDMS 11:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Both files where in use and exactly the same so they should have been procecced as duplicates and that is wat I did. The file was redirected. In fact it was deleted but since the link is still blue and I use a script to close them is said kept because the script doesn's work properly when I try to close DR's when the link is still blue. In short, the file was deleted and redirected ;). Natuur12 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So maybe delete this page? |FDMS 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-ArtEdit

What are you trying to fix with Template:PD-Art. Can I help? --Jarekt (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had a problem with the parameters but it was just me being clumsy again. Sorry. Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Joseph Chipolina vs. Slovakia.jpg & File:Jordan Perez vs. Slovakia.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

I marked most of the 5 images since you were not free. But if you have some time, please consider marking these two images--not by this uploader.

PS: I don't know if uploader SylviaBoBilvia's only unfree image can be saved.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done and the unfree file cannot be kept I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That is unfortunate but at least the unfree image was used on only 2 wiki pages. I don't know how many 4 or 5 year old flickr mages have still not been marked sadly on Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:ANHALAMINA.pngEdit

Here discussed this file, which has been renamed. WBR, BattlePeasant (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? When it is in use it is in scope and than it won't be deleted. First replace the file than nominated it for deletion. Simpel as that. Natuur12 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the orpahned file btw. Natuur12 (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the file that I originally proposed to remove. We're good. WBR, BattlePeasant (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organistEdit

Hello

I would like to know why did you remove the photo?? There was something wrong?? Best regards

Hi, the photograph could also be found here. Therefor we need to validate that you are the copyrightholder via com:OTRS before we can host this file. If you send evidence of permission to OTRS they will restore the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabiha Gökçen pictureEdit

What is your opinion on that one ([11])KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we need to know when the author, Yarım Ay Dergisi, died in order to keep this. But a Turkish speaker is likely to be able to find out when the photographer died. Natuur12 (talk)

File:Carroza Isla Mágica.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

If this image is OK, please feel free to pass it. All I can say is that it is a temporary installation...I think. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, the image below appears to be a derivative image with no clear source:

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

    • The first one is taken in Spain where there is no FOP for temporarely instalations amd if I read the discription via google translate it tells me the "statue"or wahtever it is moved. The second one has a non derivative-non commercial license. Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help here. I made a comment in the DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting File:Michigan Latvia 06.jpgEdit

Hello. It seems that you forgot to merge details from the smaller version. Regards, Ain92 (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops forgot to merge the cats. I added the last cat. Thank you for the notification. Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

These 3 imagesEdit

Dear Natuur12,

The uploader asked me to mark these 3 images below on my talkpage. It may be better if you mark them as you can be certain if they are OK for Commons--or if they need to be marked again in one case. Please help.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I marked them. They seem fine to me. Natuur12 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I don't know why he wanted the second image to be marked. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ticket#2014011710011973 File: Boris_Vian_-_WIKI.jpgEdit

Hello

What is it exactly you disagree about? The Cohérie Boris Vian is ready to give all permissions you wish provided you contact them at contact@borisvian.org explaining clearly why you decided to delete a photograph they OFFERED to wikimedia commons without counterpart, being well aware that Boris Vian needs no special publicity . Thank you for our answer.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I temporarely undeleted it to have a look at the EXIF data. It is often that people tell you o it's from a photobooth or my wife made it while it looks professional or my dad took it who died some years ago while it doesn't look like some photo from a photo studio or looks to recent. In this case the EXIF data told me that the picture was scanned. If you looks closely you see a somewhat purple watermark so this doesn't like something from a photobooth. Natuur12 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Btw, the OTRS-agent and administrator handeling the ticket hasn't accepted the permssion yet so your request seems premature. Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Then how do you explain that this photo is freely used by google the two deleted photo of Vian here? Since you rejected it, it is still property of archives Boris Vian, Cohérie Boris Vian. No one has a right on this photo except the heirs Boris Vian (i.e;Cohérie Boris Vian). And if the cohérie says it is photomaton, since they have the whole history of Boris Vian, you should believe them. Beside, can you explain how you can detect that it is no photobooth? It certain has been scanned before being sent to commons. The previous Boris Vian photograph, also deleted on commons Fichier:Boris Vian.jpg, is also on google. The cohérie Boris Vian says it is not from their fact. They believe there is something dishonest behind all this. Can you answer them about all this? here their adres : contact@borisvian.org .Thank you very much--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I already awnsered your question. There is a purple waterwark at the pictuture. The pose looks professional. That something shows up at google doesn't make it free to use neither does it make the the user the copyrightholder. Many images show up at google without permission from the copyrightholder. This is a basic fact. And no I'm not going to email them. The OTRS-ticket will be processed by an experienced agent. When everything sorts out he will or will not, depends on the outcome restore the file. If the picture is from a photobooth the file is in the public domain if not the photographer owns the copyright and not the family. So your statement that the family owns the copyright seems quite unlikely. If you have any further comments please place them at com:UNDEL. I didnot reject the picture but I only commented at the undeletions request and temporarely undeleted the file to have a look at the EXIF data. Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Computer monitors in B&W.jpgEdit

What lack of De minimis? The images on the computer screens are own works of the photographer (and flickr user), as you can see on the on the wall and on this similar image to the one on the computer screen open on a photo edition program. So this file must be undeleted. Tm (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would have been nice if this was mentioned in the file discription and in the DR. I can't smell that he is the copyrightholder of the deritivative works in the image. Natuur12 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, please add this to the file discription as well. Natuur12 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Two imagesEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Should the first image below be deleted as its more than 1 week now?

Secondly, if you think this image can be passed, please consider passing it. The uploader cropped it to focus on some paintings.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • If you wish to mark this image please go ahead. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    • There is FOP in Brasil so the first one should be okey if it is under a free license but the file's source doesn't match the image. The paintings are DM if you ask me. The third one should be okey since there is no numberpalte visible. Natuur12 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your all your help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Casa dos Povos da Floresta 01.jpgEdit

Hi, Natuur12.

I've fixed the image. Can you take a look? Thanks, Dornicke (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Seems okey. Thank you for fixing the source. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

KeptEdit

Can you hit the [keep] button here? INeverCry 20:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Natuur12 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Kapuzinertheater Luxemburg.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Perhaps this image is unfree but I can't find the image source from the given flckr account. Maybe you may have better success? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : Now the German uploader gives me this message but it is besides the point because while the flickr account owner has licensed many of his images freely on his flickr account for Commons, some of his Luxembourg images seems to have an 'NC' restriction while others are CC BY SA Generic and a few are ARR. It may be free but I can't find it. But I don't understand German and can't locate this image....so I cannot respond. And its 12:47 AM here so I have to sign off soon. Maybe you can help? If not, that's OK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Problem resolved. I found the source at last but it was a nightmare to find it and Google images did not help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit

Thank you very much! Leitoxx 23:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickr imagesEdit

Dear Natuur12,

If you have time, please check if there are any images which you may find it worthwhile to pass. I have marked some already but have to sign off now as its 2:42 AM here in Canada. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a few. Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File rename requestEdit

Just wanted to let you know that here comes the third invalid request: Special:Diff/119127419.    FDMS  4    10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I looked in to it and he uploaded a lot of files with as subject the Union of Utrecht. However he overwrote a already excisting image. Apperantly he is working for the national archive. Now I understand why he wants this specific filename. This explains a lot. I'll try to restore the file page which he had overwrote. Natuur12 (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
And done, restored the original file and renamed his upload. Natuur12 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, but it seems fine now. Thanks!    FDMS  4    11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This user is uploading a set of pd images form the Dutch National Archive regarding the Union of Utrecht and overwrote a file. He apperantly overwrote and existing file and thought that the rename request was valid because he uploaded the file. That's all :). Natuur12 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Santander, ColombiaEdit

What ??? in use ? WHERE ??? the two flags which I indicate for possible deletion (File:Bandera de Santander (Colombia).svg and File:Flag of Santander Department.svg) are not being used in any wikipedia, where did you get you the conclusion they are being used ? The single use is a user who put the file in his signature. --Shadowxfox (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

According to global usage both of them are used on the Spanish Wikipedia. It is allowed to upload a couple of personal files and apperantly those are used by the uploader. Therefor they are inscope and they will not be deleted. End of story. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
What is this? The DR was closed at 14:21 and you changed the flag at 20:04? I call this framing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but nothing of "end of story". The idea of ​​this request is to have a single file for this flag, no 3 duplicates. Perhaps by the policies of wikipedia that files are inside the scope, but for deletion policy dulicates should be eliminated. If this request is not discussed properly I'll have to re-request the deletion of these files; the files are not being used by the uploader but for another person.--Shadowxfox (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not framing, I forgot to change that flag in the article on 5th march ! I changed the file in almost articles except a few of them, waiting for the result of the DR.--Shadowxfox (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, since you quickly replaced the files and since you started your first mesage with quite the tone and quite the caps-lock yelling you understand that I don't really feel like talking this over with you? The coloring and the desing is diffrent, the files where in use and therefor in scope and com:NPOV applies. It is not up to you to decide which flag has to be used. Not my fault that you forgot to replace them anyhow.... I stick with my closing statement. That's all there is you need to know. Natuur12 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, then I'll re-open the deletion request, once the official government agency send me information about this flag. Not much more to say, goodbye.--Shadowxfox (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Rod Humphries and Lionel Rose 001.jpgEdit

Could you undelete this file please? We have an OTRS ticket that appears to address the "who held the camera" issue raised. -- (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:LuftschutzbauGefechtsturm(vonChrBardenhorst).jpgEdit

Did you notice what was in this file’s talk page before deleting it? If you didn’t, why not? If you did, why did you deleted it all the same? -- Tuválkin 15:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm strange. Normally I get a warning if a file has a talk page. But I'll restore the file for you. Good luck with aranging the validation of the license! Natuur12 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! No e-mail reply yet, I’ll try next commenting on the photo blog entry itself. -- Tuválkin 15:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done, and good news: The author confirmed the relicensing as CC-zero! -- Tuválkin 21:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks for the message. The images is nice so I'm glad that the permission is validated. Natuur12 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shantideva.jpgEdit

Hi,

I think this is clearly PD-Art, whatever the source says. I also left a message on Ellin Beltz' talk page about his DRs. Would you consider restoring it? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you kept the others who could be pd-art this sounds fair te me. Most of his uploads where louzy sourced, prove of them beiing pd was missing some where clear copyrightviolations. I only found the date to young since 19th centuary could also mean 1899 and the source appeard not to be that great but he told me that this website is maintained by Sam van Schaik so it should be okey for now. Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Dear Natuur12,

There is De Minimis in Russia. That clear enough. But what happens in October? Will there be FOP for buildings in Russia?

Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So it seems after reading this comment. It looks okey to me so I'm quite reluctant with deleting them since October is quite soon. Expecially in cases like this. Natuur12 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the good news. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

FacistdeleterEdit

Can you take a look at this? He's referring to other deletions you and Jurgen did. Do you know what deletions he's referring to and under what account they were uploaded? Facistdeleter is an obvious attack sock account, and I'd like to identify the master account if possible. INeverCry 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know I only blokced the guy since it is an attack acocunt which starter with bothering Jurgen and I didnot anything controversial lately here or at nl wiki. I cannot match his uploaded file with one of my deletions. I cannot match it with one of Jurgen's upload's either. I can't remember deleting technicle images on commons either. (depens on his definition of technicle ofcourse) I delete a lot of small sized images without EXIF data like mentioned. I see that the account is used for intimidating posts at en wiki as well. I really don't have a clue who the puppetmaster is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: After some digging I found the following. This account and this sandbox. If you look athe the files File:Longitude-latitude.gif and File:Longitude-lattitude-2.gif you see what I mean. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just coming here to tell you about that account. ;) It's blocked for socking at en.wiki. I'll block it here, and let someone know the Facistdeleter account is a sock as well. INeverCry 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alitta succinea (epitoke form).jpgEdit

You closed this DR as "kept" stating "In use so in scope" where I too voted to keep. But after a through discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Alitta succinea (epitoke form), we delisted it, replacing it with File:Alitta succinea (epitoke).jpg. We have a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Please_consult_the_original_author_if_an_edit_is_needed to where many of us stated that it is better to consult the original author first, when we need an edit. So I request you to reconsider the closing decision as the image in question is no longer in use. Thanks, Jee 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How could they ruin that picture like this.... I will reconsider this DR. If I had know this when I closed this DR I would have decided to delete this file. Natuur12 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Je verwijderingen van een aantal afbeeldingen m.b.t. artikelen over TibetEdit

Je ontwijkt een aantal vragen van mij. Van de antwoorden die je wel geeft, begrijp ik een aantal niet. In de hoop dat bij mij het begrip wel begint te dagen heb ik opnieuw het volgende verzoek.

Nogmaals; zou je mij in Sesamstraattaal kunnen uitleggen waarom jij wel bijvoorbeeld File:Meeting Mao Zedong and dalai lama.jpg; File:1959 Tibetans are captured in Lhasa 1.jpg; File:Nun Trinley Chodon , Cultural Revolution TIbet.jpg; deleted hebt, maar dat bijvoorbeeld File:Mao, Soong and Deng at International Meetings of Communist and Workers.jpg; File:Thamzing of Tibetan woman circa 1958.jpg; File:Struggle session against class enemy.jpg; File:Down to the countryside movement.jpg ( en zo zou ik ook nog een groot aantal kunnen noemen) er nog steeds opstaan. Het zou voor mijn begrip een hoop helpen als je dat voor mij kan verduidelijken.Niet in de algemene bewoordingen die je eerder gebruikt hebt , maar in simpele taal per afbeelding.

Vriendelijke groet,

Renevs (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Meeting Mao Zedong and dalai lama.jpg -> foto van een levende fotograaf en geen bewijs dat hij toestemming heeft verleent voor vrijgave onder een vrije licentie en ook geen bewijs dat de afbeelding in het publieke domein valt het probleem is dus dat hij in de VS heeft gewoond en je weet niet waar deze foto gepubliceert is.
File:1959 Tibetans are captured in Lhasa 1.jpg -> idem
De andere twee filename's kloppen niet dus die kan ik niet bekijken. De andere bestanden waren niet genomineerd voor verwijdering. Natuur12 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:SydneyBuilding0147.jpgEdit

I just nominated the above file for deletion, not realizing it has already been nominated before, and kept. However, you might like to reconsider deleting it, since I have deleted it from en.wikipedia, so now it won't be missed.

07:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It was kept since the file is in scope, has a valid license and there was no consensus for deleting it so no.~ Natuur12 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

License review requestEdit

Could you please do the license review for the following file
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak-74-infografika.jpg <bt> Thanks in advance --RussianTrooper (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

renomination for deletionEdit

Now I migrated the Wikipedia articles to the original, unbloated version of the file. So - I renominate now?..--Scanmap (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can renominate the file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/119793399Edit

??? Previous discussions were about the image itself, I just wanted to delete (and probably redirect) one of the duplicates ...    FDMS  4    17:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We got a special procedure for duplicates. See Commons:Duplicate. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that, so far all duplicates I've started a DR for have been deleted or redirected. Could you order CommonsDelinker for me and redirect the duplicate afterwards?    FDMS  4    19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Already ✓ Done.    FDMS  4    00:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG.pngEdit

Sorry to be "wise after the event", but this is something I wasn't aware of.
I didn't realize that the picture had been moved from en:wikipedia to commons, and am more than a little surprised that it was. I have zero problems with it being deleted from commons, and am not at all surprised that the OTRS ticket is/was "nowhere near the standard required".

However ...

The picture has historical significance, and is easily justified as useable on the w:Ben Roberts-Smith page. Please advise the easiest way to get back to the situation prior to the picture being moved from en:wikipedia to commons. Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the permission is insufficiant and that this file doesn't quilify for fair use. (There are free alternatives available so I've told.). So this would probably not okey at en wiki either since there is the permission states that you can use it for your website or publications. That's something like a Wikipedia only permission and this is not suficiant. The best thing you could do is to ask the Chief Photographer / Imagery Coordinator Defence Digital Media from the australian departement of defence and ask him if he is willing to release the image under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a tip, you might find more free alternatives at this webiste. Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not wanting to sound, or be, rude, but you seem to have completely missed the point, and your response doesn't seem relevant.
1) At the risk of stating the obvious, Ben Roberts-Smith and Mark Donaldson are two different people who have almost nothing in common with the exception that they have both been awarded a VC. So I don't understand the relevance of your answer.
2) Well, the problem is that the permission is insufficiant and that this file doesn't quilify for fair use. - a) The permission is insufficient for what? b) The file doesn't qualify for fair use??? Really??? You surprise me. What leads you to say that? Please explain.
3) There are free-use pictures of Donaldson - So what? Donaldson is a different person. Why would anyone want to put a picture of Donaldson on Roberts-Smiths page?
4) So this would probably not okey at en wiki either ... - Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
5) That's something like a Wikipedia only permission ... - Errr. No. It's not.
6) The best thing you could do ... - Errr. No. It's not. The best thing I can do is ask you to restore the picture onto en:wikipedia so that a historically significant fair use on the Roberts-Smith page can be done. And that's what I did.
So why won't you do what I ask?
7) Just a tip, you might find more free alternatives at this webiste - Errr. No. I won't. There's nothing free on that website, or on any website that doesn't own the Australian Defence copyright.
Why won't you do what I ask? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to restore it for you bacause I don't believe this file can be used under fair use and the OTRS-ticket is invalid. If you disagree you can ask at com:UNDEL for temporarely udeletion for transfer but I'm not going to restore it. I'm not going to restore a file if I think that it is against policy. And yes you can use it for your website is not a valid permission. The ticket states: and you can then download what ever images of the event that you wish to use within your publication / Site. So yes this doesn't include republication and derivatives and it is not even sure of commercial use is included since people often think that Wikipedia is non commercial. So this is not a valid statement of permission for commons or en wiki. That's nog even near a free license. The images of And for the website see this link. Unless you have some evidence that their claim is invalid of course. @Russavia: could you please explain why this isn't fair use since you have more knowledge about this subject than I do. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the fair use I think it fails criteria number one. This is where the images of Mark Donaldson come in. Both of them have been awarded a VC and for Mark Donaldson their are plenty of alternatives for a fellow VC awarded so this fails Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. it is not unlikly that a free equivalent can be found, can be created or will be available in the future. Natuur12 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Look. I'm not trying to be difficult or aggressive or a nuisance or anything else. I'm trying to ask you to do something really simple which, to me, seems really simple and obvious, so I'm not understanding your replies. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm asking of you - or at least your responses don't give me confidence that you understand.

1) I'm not asking you to restore it to Commons. Do you understand that? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
2) I'm asking you to restore it to en:wikipedia. Do you understand that? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
I await your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes and yes. What I mean is that this image is most likely not okey under en wiki policy unless you can show me a relevant policy proving that this file is okey to hoste at en wiki I will not restore it. I understand you perfectly but I'm not going to restore file for transfer to a local wiki when I'm not sure if the file is okey according to the local policy and I don't think it is. I don't think that this file is released under a free license as mentioned here and I don't think it qualifies for fair use as well. Natuur12 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kind sir for the clarifications! I still have no doubt about my opinions, but now that I understand your opinions, I will think about the wording of a reply that addresses them. Again, thank you for the clarifications. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nederland+Vlaanderen 800x533.pngEdit

I write to you, because you are competent in Netherlands issues. Please comment that request. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, interesting one. I'll have a look. Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results AnnouncementEdit

Picture of the Year 2013 ResultsEdit

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Natuur12,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flag issueEdit

Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESCUDO DE PASO DEL REY.jpgEdit

Hello Natuur12. I didn't know that tha coats of arms from cities argentinians are free to copyright, when I nominated File:ESCUDO DE PASO DEL REY.jpg for speedy delete. See {{PD-AR-Gov}}. Sorry, --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 19:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. Is this an official COA? I'm not that familiar with them. Natuur12 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "[...] este Escudo fue aprobado por el Honorable Concejo Deliberante de Moreno, el día 11 de Octubre del año 2000, mediante Ordenanza Nº 715/00". In English: "[...] this COA was approved by the Honorable Council of Moreno, on 11 October 2000, by Ordinance No. 715/00". Extracted from http://cfp402moreno.blogspot.com.ar/2011/11/lo-sabias-el-escudo-de-la-ciudad-de.html. http://cfp402moreno.blogspot.com.ar/ is an official website with the approval of the Ministry of Education of the Province of Buenos Aires. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Swaziland-1Lilangeni.jpg not deleted?Edit

Hi Natuur12! You closed the DR linked above a few hours ago as Deleted.... it's still there and the action isn't reflected in the log... cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your mesage. I hit the delete button. Natuur12 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

These 6 images from 2012Edit

Dear Natuur12,

Can you decide if these images below are own work and safe to pass. I don't know.

He has many images from the Iran Military Forum but I don't know if these images are owned by this Forum's creator. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw those works yesterday but the release seems to be have done by a simple forum post and you must have an account to see the actual files, I am quite reluctant with making an account on a forum about Iranian millitary. I don't know what to do either with this images. The best solution would be that the copyrightholder sends his statement and a list of effected files to OTRS since this is a little bit to abstract if you ask me. Natuur12 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the images be tagged with 'no permission'. Do you have any views? I will be away today but I may tag a few images then later. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • PS: As for this DR is it 50 years pma in Latvia and not 70 years. Is it also 50 yrs in Russia? I don't know the pma page here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe it is better to leave those file for someone who is more familiar with that forum. For the copyrightlenght I find en:List of countries' copyright lengths very handy. In Russia the term is 70 years according to this list except when the artist died before 1943. In that case the term is 50 years. Natuur12 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your speedy deletions based on requests for courtesy deletion...Edit

  • I replied to your explanation as to why you courtesy deleted an image where a professional photographer first released images under a free license, and then clawed them back.
Several years ago I started an article about a guy who was both a law professor at one of the service colleges, and an active NCIS agent who have been part of the team who interrogated and analyzed the interrogations of Guantanamo captives. When I returned to the article a week or two later, I found it had been deleted, by an administrator who was a member of the OTRS team. He told me the individual didn't want to be covered by a wikipedia article. He acknowledged that the article was neutrally written, properly referenced, and otherwise complied with all policies. But he told me he thought the individuals notability was around the cusp of notability, and, in those circumstances, a member of the OTRS team had the authority to speedy delete the article.
The wikipedia had strict condistions for speedy deletion, and I didn't think "possibly borderline article whose subject doesn't want to be covered" met the criteria for speedy deletion.
Every few months I renewed my discussion with this administrator. Every time, while he was quite polite about it, he repeated his first defense -- (paraphrasing) "yes but, the subject of the article doesn't want to be covered." Finally I took the article to DRV. Once he saw that no one else agreed that a notable person should be allowed to pick and choose whether they were covered he gave a handsome apology. The DRV closed with restoration of the article, and a procedural AFD -- where the deleting admin explicitly agreed with restoration, and cited his inexperience with DRV for his mistake.
I wonder whether you made a similar mistake. If Joey L says he made an honest mistake, and placed a free license on an image by mistake, that entitles him to request the same kind of courtesy deletion as anyone else.
Should we have two paths to courtesy deletion of images? One path for those IP rights holders who request courtesy deletion through our usual channels, and another for those IP rights holders who, like Joey L., request courtesy deletion through the OTRS team, and find that the OTRS team are much more lenient about granting them a courtesy deletions? Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you cannot compare an article with a image of course when you are dealing with licenses. To awnser in short. Normally, there are exceptions (angry law firms while the image is a clear copyrightviolation for example) in my opinion an OTRS-member should start a DR and explain why the copyrightholder or the subject wishes the image removed. This is okey if you ask me since not everyone understands how to start a DR. Sometimes people even think that they are mailing to a professional heldesk instead of voluntears for example. In this scpecific case I didnot speedy delete anything but closed a regular DR as you can see here. So I don't believe that I have make the "same" mistake in this one. No speedy deletion occured and I never read an OTRS-ticket conciddering this specific file. You can disagree with my closing for other reasons of course. Natuur12 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Raleigh state capitol banner.jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Perhaps you can correct this information template for this photo? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. Its funny how one open bracket can destroy an info template. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio human reviewEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Can you create a category for Panoramio human review images here It doesn't exist right now. Thank You as this is a newly created bot. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank You for your help. PS: This case is strange. I uploaded an ARR image for panoramio to test and fail. But the category indicates there is no 'possibly unfree panoramio image' but the panoramio template list dows show another image previously failed by the bot--this other image was tested earlier by the bot's creator to see if it would fail a few days ago. See here Maybe its just a different word for the category. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : I don't think so since Zhuyifei1999 asked if this panoramio cats could be created here. Unfortunately, I am not good at creating cats. Only very basic ones. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I created thhem but they need somekind of discription. Natuur12 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll tell the bot's creator to create a description in future. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I'm not good at writing descriptions :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

UDR revertEdit

Hi,

Fastily closure was already reopened by someone else, and then he closed it again. Seeing that TWO bureaucrats validated this decision, it seems the minumum to let the requests open until further discussion take place. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me but it feels wrong to remove his closing statement. Natuur12 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

One fileEdit

Hi,

In this DR, I think you forgot to delete the first file. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the message. Deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, and here too ;-). Gunnex (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And it's gone. Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
+1. --Gunnex (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done There are just way to many DR's and way to less admins closing them :( Natuur12 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio human reviewEdit

Dear Natuur12,

If you have a bit of time, please consider marking a few of these images which are in Belarus which has no COM:FOP. If there is a problem, please consider filing a DR. I have marked the rest.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done some. Not sure about the park so I'm leaving that one for someone else. Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank You for your help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Siboga expeditionEdit

That was very pleasant of you, Natuur. Really appreciated, thank you.

I hail from Bammbrugge on my mother's side, but my Dutch is a total train wreck. Wish you well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you message. I'm from South Holland myself. Kind regards. Natuur12 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Antoine LacroixEdit

Hi Natuur12, Can you please explain to me why you deleted these files when the licence was changed to CC-BY-SA? Was there some misunderstanding? Thanks, PatHadley (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no misunderstanding but normally the photographer or it's family in this case are the copyrightholders. Not the museum. So how did the York Museums Trust become the copyrightholder instead of the family? Natuur12 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicholson Baker photo deletedEdit

Hi Natuur12, Could you please have a look on Bakers dikussion about the photo, which he submitted himself as wageless on Jan,17? The deletion has consequences to the german wiki site as well. Sorry for style, [non native speaker], and thanks. -Dermotor (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that you mean this discussion? Since the photograph was published somewhere else before being uploaded to commons we need evidence of permission via com:OTRS that you are indeed allowed to upload this photopraph under a free license. We need evidence of permission from the photographer btw, in this case Elias Baker and not the subject since the photographer is the copyrightholder and not the subject. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard to understand for an amateur user;-). As far as I do understand its up to either Nick or Elias Baker to send an email to com:OTRS. Bedankt -Dermotor (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio photographerEdit

I notice there are 3 photographer cats on panoramio I was just wondering if you might consider creating a fourth category for this panoramio photographer I think there are 280 photos from his account on Commons here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea but I would need a bot to do so. I got StroopwafelBot but he doesn't have a botflag here at commons :( Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Lymantria has a bot but I don't know if his bot does this tasks. Anyway, it was just an idea. Thanks anyway for your views here. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion QuestionEdit

Hi there. I noticed you deleted all but the original file requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helicopter Anatomy.png. Is this one pending an OTRS? If so, should it get a template suggesting as such? Thanks, The Haz talk 13:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the top image as well. Just forgot it. Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This DREdit

Will this image be undeleted in 2026...assuming Wikipedia exists in 2026? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It probably will ne resotred but we never know what the future brings us. Natuur12 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank you for your reply, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Interieur, eerste verdieping, achterzijde rechts (Rechter achterkamer), decoratiestuk, Juno en Flora - Amsterdam - 20393950 - RCE.jpg Edit

Dear Natuur12, please refrain from doing any more out-of-policy deletions. We have a full release for all of these images so that includes this one. Multichill (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dat is een beetje het probleem in deze. De beeldenbank had naar Wikimedia Nederland gemaild tot het helemaal niet de bedoeling was dat deze afbeeldingen openbaar zichtbaar waren en een personeelslid benaderde mij. De foto's zijn alleen zichtbaar wanneer je de link hebt zeg maar. Het is twijfelachtig of die cc-by-sa vrijgave dan geldig is voor bestanden waarvan het niet de bedoeling is dat zo opduiken binnen de zoekfunctie en waarvan er ook helemaal neit de intentie was om ze openbaar te publiceren. Daarnaast waren er privacyproblemen volgens de rechthebbende een aangezien dit een van onze beste beeldendonateurs is leek het me wenselijker om ze gewoon direct te helpen in plaats van het door de bureaucratische molen te gooien waarbij de beeldenbank enkel gefrustreerd raakt en waarna dit met 99% zekerheid uitloopt op een verwijdering onder het com:PCP of om een andere reden. Dus aan jou het verzoek een beetje beter op te letten dat je enkel afbeeldingen upload die zichtbaar zijn via de zoekfunctie want dit is voor niemand leuk. Niet voor jou en niet voor de rechthebbende. Ik hoop dat ik het in deze wat meer verduidelijkt heb waarom ze zijn verwijderd. Dit is dan hopelijk ook eenmalig want zonde is het wel. Natuur12 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We have criteria not only for the easy cases, but especially for the hard cases like this one. The images are freely available, freely licensed and we have have the permission in otrs. Please undelete the images and nominate them for deletion if you think these images should be deleted. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The organization which released the images stated that they thought these files were hidden, and that they got a complaint because of privacy issues. If they have given us permission but on a later moment (now) find out that they can't give this permission because they don't have full permission themselves, then it seems no more than logical to not keep these images. If they, like in this case, contact different persons a day after eachother because they find the matter pressing (I believe they had a complaint of the owner) then I believe it's best to handle quickly. They will contact about a larger lists of images, those are not that pressing in my opinion and we'll be able to discuss these in a deletion request. If after that deletion request none of those images are deleted we can rediscuss the current ones, it's not like these were used on any articles. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Multichill, ik ben in deze bereid het er goed over te hebben. Dus ik vraag je af wat je reactie is op het bericht van basvb hierboven. De rechthebbende waren niet al te blij dat deze foto's op commons stonden en ze zijn wel een van onze beste beeldendonateurs. We kunnen ze of pissig maken door voet bij stuk te houden of we kunnen ze gewoon van dienst zijn met een simpele courtesy deletion. In plaats van op mijn antwoord in te gaan herhaal je eigenlijk enkel je eerdere standpunt. Daar kan ik niet zo veel mee aangezien ik ze niet verwijderd zou hebben wanneer ik niet zou denken dat dit de beste oplossing had. In ieder geval is dit wel bevorderlijk voor toekomstige samenwerkingen terwijl bureaucratisch doen niet echt bevorderlijk is voor toekomstige samenwerkingen. In hun zoekfunctie duikt de afbeelding die hier als voorbeeld aangehaald wordt niet op. Dit is helemaal geen lastige case. Simpeler kan het niet, iemand heeft een oprechte vergissing gemaakt. Deze afbeeldingen hadden nooit online mogen komen en deze afbeeldingen worden ook niet bedoeld in de OTRS-conversatie. Ik zie uit naar je inhoudelijke antwoord. Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki waarschuwingEdit

Hi Nature12,

You've put a tag on this file I've uploaded some days ago. It is not really important to me, so I don't care if it would be deleted. Thanks anyway. Yours, Bijltjespad (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image in-use oddityEdit

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aluminium formate.svg as keep because in-use, which is in keeping with the "File usage on other wikis" entry on File:Aluminium formate.svg. However, the listed use, en:Aluminium formate does not actually seem to use it: removed in the last edit to that article. That edit was on April 8, not sure why the image-description page still lists it. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm strange that the file was still listed as in use than in the "File usage on other wikis" entry. Deleted it. Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nirvana around 1992.jpgEdit

Hello!

You have closed the above DR with the rationale: "per above". What do you mean by that? The IP brought a total different argument which was not discussed and Flominator's link is worthless with this issue. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the link shows that a thrusthworthy user confirms in the edit sumary that the file was available under a free license and he uses a cashed version (which obvios doesn't work anymore) to support his claim. So we got two trusted users who seperately confirmed that the files was available under a free license. The only problem is that the license review proces itself has been done by the uploader which was allowed back then if I'm correct (still a huge nono if you ask me). So a second person confirmed the license so I found it sufficiant to keep the file. Natuur12 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Natuur12, no, we do not have two trusted users who seperately confirmed the file's licensing. As the file's history points out: User:Flominator was the uploader and the license reviewer and this is indeed a problem. Please countercheck this. --High Contrast (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
When I follow this link I read in the editsummary Image is now 'All rights reserved' on flickr, but Cc-by-sa 2.0 is still shown on the Google Cache and this comment was made by Platonides who is certainly trusted. In the edit he added the relicense template. Did I miss something here and do you find this statement suficiant? Natuur12 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also noticed this statement but it is a very vage analysis by Platonides since this cache result is no longer retrievable. Platonides did no real license review since Platonides could only confirm the image's new ARR situation. --High Contrast (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it quite clear myself. He used this cash page to check the license and he actually saw that it was licened under the cc-by-sa. I know that you disagree with this but this discussion is interesting especially since this is not the only file which has been reviewed by the uploader since you where alowed to do so untill 2012.... So why don't we reopen the DR, link to this discussion and ask people like Jameslwoodward to comment on the DR? Natuur12 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Man Performing..."Edit

I just logged in to see that a submission of mine was deleted because of supposed copyright infringement. That is not the case and all websites and posts of it have been granted permission to do so. Even the website listed as the copyright infringement shows on the bottom of the page that he claims no rights to the picture. You can contact the host if you would like to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstinner (talk • contribs)

Hi. I gues you are talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Man performing Autofellatio.jpg.? This one is not deleted by me but you have to send some evidence that you are the copyrightholder to com:OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

These imagesEdit

All these images above cannot be kept as the original source was deleted before the image could be reviewed. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm that's a pitty. They will probably get deleted tomorrow. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : Could you mark these 3 images here, here and here ?

They are from human flickr review. The fisrt image may have US FOP issues but I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

    • And done. First one could be okey but the uploader has to present some evidence for that. Natuur12 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, Thank you for your reply. Sorry for the late response. I had to leave to do some work. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LREdit

Isn't this somewhat contradictory? You also confirm that the claimed copyright holder (Flickr photographer) is in fact the real copyright holder (architect) by marking a license review as passed …    FDMS  4    20:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm confirming that it was indeed available under a free license, nothing more, nothing less. If we would also take FOP into account for the actual review we should probably forbid all bots since they don't check stuff like FOP. In my opinion you only confirm that it was indeed available under a free license. Of course there are the extra checks. I'm marking them and listing them for DR since they would otherwise make a mess of the license review cats. Natuur12 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You are not the only one thinking that way about license reviewing, but still COM:LR says something completely different. Maybe it should be adapted?    FDMS  4    21:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think so, unless we can build bots that check them for FOP-issue's :) Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, bots check the blacklist, do you too? (I don't.)    FDMS  4    21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes but not always. When I suspect that there could be something wrong. Doesn't happen often since I mostly do the general cat. I can't even remember a singel case where I cought sombody flickr washing :). (Or maybe I just pick the ones that are most likely not flickrwashing.) Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for restoring these images for me. Between you and Fastily, the work is going smoothly. Normally I don't work in the Commons queue, but its way backlogged and I've recently cleared the EN backlog (where I am an admin) and it needs attention. Thanks for helping me with this. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and thanks for cleaning up that massive backlogg. Natuur12 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Titus BrandsmaEdit

Hallo Natuur12, Ik zie dat de Nijmeegse foto van Brandsma is verwijderd. Ook de foto van de buste in de Bedevaartskerk van Brielle staat genomineerd. Is daar nog wat aan te doen, er blijft anders weinig over. Vr. groet, --JanB46 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ik vrees van niet. Ik heb het samen met Woodcutterty nog eens bekeken maar kerken vallen waarschijnlijk niet onder het begrip panoramavrijheid in Nederland. Zonde is het wel. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:La-vierge-aux-rochers.jpgEdit

Natuur12, I think in your haste you deleted the "good" examples while left the "bad" one. --Jarekt (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess so, thanks for restoring them in time. Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem now; the Commonsdelinker has all (or almost all) image links deleted in the Wikipedia articles. But I do not know where. --Trzęsacz (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it. You can use this tool to see where an image has been removed by commons delinker. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Last modified on 23 April 2014, at 19:38