User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/1

Image:Berlage001.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging Image:Kurt_Schwitters.JPG edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurt_Schwitters.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Polarlys 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging Image:Cornelis_van_Eesteren_and_Theo_van_Doesburg.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cornelis_van_Eesteren_and_Theo_van_Doesburg.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Polarlys 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Jan Toorop Veronica.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Advertisement_Groote_Dada_Avond.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

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

If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Doodle-doo Ħ 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:School of David Mars and Venus.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Zuidwyck House 3 - Amsterdam - nl.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for the info. So, the author is not mentioned in your book too ? --Clockwork Orange 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's correct, Vincent Steenberg 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Sockpuppet_of_user:Edgar_Allan_Poe_.28been_blocked_before_for_copyvio.29 for the reason behind deleting all. Those files have been restored. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Theo van Doesburg letter to Hans Arp 2.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Fil nik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Theo van Doesburg letter to Hans Arp 1.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Fil nik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bedankt edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hoi, bedankt voor de hulp met het categoriseren van mijn foto's. Kijk ook eens naar mijn artikelen! Vriendelijke groet, Jvhertum 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Graag gedaan. Ja, ik dacht laatst "waarom staat er geen foto van het Accijnshuis op commons? Toch een bekend gebouw". En voilà! Ineens staat ie erbij. Interessante artikelen. Heb je wel eens overwogen w:nl:Sjabloon:Infobox gebouw toe te passen? of ben je niet zo van de infoboxen? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dank je. Ik ben eigenlijk geen overtuigd fan van infoboxen omdat ze vaak veel plaats innemen en weinig tot niets toevoegen. In het geval van gebouwen vraag ik me af of het veel zin heeft om een infobox te plaatsen. Jvhertum (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Stadsschouwburg Amsterdam.jpg edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Mifter) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:AntonyKok-1915.jpg edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Fil nik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Paintings "of" someone or "by" someone? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

hi there,

you onced moved the category here [1]. AFAIK the format is "Painting of X" although I do agree that correct English should be "Paintings by X", isn't it? Are you familiar with the policy on Commons? Gryffindor (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry about that. I should have looked at Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum first. No, I am not familiar with the policy of Commons? Do you mean Category:Commons policies? I'll have a look at it. And what does AFAIK mean? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK is as far as I know. Maybe i'll put a question on the talk pages for discussion and ask if it should be changed. Gryffindor (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

ok, thank you. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Paleis het Loo edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Vincent, I reverted your deletion of a category. Although it is no castle, it is for somebody searching the image "of that thing in Apeldoorn" easy to have also the possibility to find it via the Castles in Gelderland. --Wouter (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wouter, I am not sure about that. When I was looking for Het Oude Loo I simply entered "Het Loo" in the searchbar and the first thing that came up was Paleis het Loo. So I think people will find their way to Category:Paleis het Loo even when it's not categotised under Category:Castles in Gelderland. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Buildings in Amsterdam edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm Giorgio, the guy that drives you crazy re-categorizing Amsterdam Buildings. I'm really sorry but all that pictures you fixed were left not categorized since last spring. So I did it but, because I'm not from Amsterdam, I couldn't put them in the right category. I preferred to label them with a general tag and to leave the unthankful job to somebody else but more expert than me about the city. Fortunately, Wikipedia and Commons are a team-job then, I hope, you will pardon me. Thank you anyway.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Giorgio, no problem at all. My pleasure. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Van Loghem gebouw in Hoofddorp edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ha Vincent, als ik het mij goed herinner wel. Als je vanaf het Station Hoofddorp komt (het oude station dan hm, waar nu appartementen in zitten, dan ga je bij de Hoofdvaart naar rechts en dan is het één van de eerste gebouwen. Ik ben al lang niet in die buurt (bij de Hoofdvaart) geweest, maar ik herinner het mij wel. Ik zal het voor de zekerheid eens aan mijn moeder vragen: of het er nog staat, ik het goed zie en waar het ooit voor gebruikt is. Volgens mij zat er vroeger de ABN in. Maar misschien 'herken' ik het wel verkeerd hoor. Woon jij in Hoofddorp? Kun je dan een keer een mooie foto van het oude station maken? Dat is best leuk. En kerken in Hoofddorp staan er ook helemaal niet op, op Wikicommons. De Katholieke Kerk aan de Kruisweg is toch de moeite wel waard en het Witte Kerkje (met de begraafplaats) aan de Hoofdvaart is ook best mooi. En als ik het mij goed herinner staat er bij verzorgingstehuis De Horizon (wat een naam hm ...) ook nog een oud kerkje. Verder staat er van het Oude Raadhuis (ook aan de Hoofdvaart bij het Burgemeester Stamplein) ook alleen een lullige foto op. Het nieuwe Gemeentehuis staat d'r helemaal niet op. Als ik in de buurt ben ga ik ook nog wat foto's maken. Tasja (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, ja, Hoofddorp is ook niet een voor de hand liggende eindbestemming voor een leuk dagje uit. Maar ik zal eens kijken. Ik weet nu tenminste waar ik moet zoeken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gebouw De Volharding, Grote Markt, Den Haag edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ooo, oké. Ik dacht dat het juist 'leuk' was om er een meer volledige beschrijving bij te geven. Moet ik het weghalen?Tasja (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ik heb de beschrijvingen ingekort. Ik ben 21 oktober trouwens in Hoofddorp. Zal eens kijken of het gebouw van Van Loghem er nog staat. Heb je op die pagina van Jan Buijs (zie de link bij de foto's) zijn interieurs bekeken? Prachtig toch! Ik ben ooit in zo'n huis geweest, dat was nog vrijwel authentiek, is was zwaar onder de indruk. Tasja (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nee, die zie ik niet. Wat is de link van die pagina? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gebouw Van Loghem, Hoofddorp edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ha Vincent, het gebouw van Van Loghem staat er nog hoor. Er is zelfs niets aan veranderd, alleen zit ABN AMRO er niet meer in. Toen ik in H'dorp was, was ik mijn fototoestel vergeten, maar morgen ga ik weer. Neem ik h'm wel mee en maak ik wat foto's. Maar het staat er dus nog wel. Aan de Hoofdvaart. Tasja (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

ok, super. ik hoop dat het morgen net zo zonnig is als vandaag. Alvast bedankt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bosschaert vs van der Ast edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have uploaded it under a new name and I have asked the version with the wrong name be deleted (and now I know why you suggested I do it ! What a bore !). Sincerely, --Anne97432 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Sorry to have troubled you. I'll take care of the rest (replacing image on various pages, etc.). Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Ambrosius Bosschaert, the Elder 05.jpg edit

Image deletion warning

Image:Ambrosius Bosschaert, the Elder 05.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Van Loghem, Hoofddorp edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Ha Vincent, ik heb een paar foto's van het Van Loghem gebouw te Hoofddorp op Wikicommons gezet. Je vindt ze in de categorie Han van Loghem en in de categorie Hoofddorp. Zoals je zult zien is de gevel wel verpest. De vijf smalle ramen op de begane grond zijn vervangen - er is nog 1 origineel raam en 2 nepperts. Het raam op de eerste verdieping is geheel weg. Ook de ingang is er niet mooier op geworden. De poort is vervangen door een lelijke rechttoe rechtaan deur, waarbij vooral de grove omlijsting negatief opvalt, echt lelijk. Er zit nu een notariskantoor in. Kans is groot dat ze niet eens weten dat ze in 'een echte Van Loghem' werken. Tasja (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hoi Tasja, Ja, dat verschijnsel ken ik (zie afbeelding rechts)! Hopelijk heeft de gemeente Haarlemmermeer het op de monumentenlijst gezet en wordt het ooit nog eens in oorspronkelijke staat hersteld. Het is wel een belangrijk gebouw voor Nederland. Het doet me veel denken aan werk van Jan Wils, dat daarna pas tot stand kwam. Het bewijst maar weer dat Van Loghem zijn tijd ver vooruit was. Bedankt voor de foto's! Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Op de monumentenlijst? In Hoofddorp? Tuurlijk niet. Hoofddorp gaat nogal ruw om met mogelijke monumenten, het dorp heeft er nog maar een paar, zie hier: http://www.haarlemmermeer.nl/content.jsp?objectid=16048 Had je deze foto trouwens al gezien: Image:Oude Postkantoor en Van Loghem in 1918.jpg, leuk hm? Toen was 't gebouw net af. Het lijkt idd op werk van Jan Wils, mooi gebouw heeft die Wils gebouwd aan de Nassaulaan in Alkmaar zeg. En die garage? Verschrikkelijk, die gevel. Tasja (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ja, mooie foto. Misschien is het tijd om een pagina met werk van Van Loghem te maken? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Category:Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

hi there,

good thing you pointed that out. I noticed that you had a similar problem with this before. I am also noticing that almost none of the other images are categorised? I would suggest you add the category to all the other images of the book as well and maybe also put a note on the images that they should not be replaced with colour images, otherwise the work could get lost and it' easy to overlook. Gryffindor (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

ok, no problem. I'll think of something. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

i saw you took care of categorizing the images. Thanks a lot for that. Shame it's not possible to add a wikilink to a wikisource category... Maybe there's a template for that instead? I'll have a look at that later. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I suggest if there are other images you work with with Wikisource to categorise them all in order to save them from future deletion confusion. I posted a question on that topic in the admin board Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sisterheader. Gryffindor (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Exhibition_De_Stijl_Paris_1923.jpg edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:Exhibition_De_Stijl_Paris_1923.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Teofilo (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thisone will not survive on COM. If you want to present it to "the world" (outside EU), use it on enWP under "Fair_Use" rationale in an appropriate article. See, e.g., pics in en:Caesar Cardini on "how-to-do". Best, Wolfgang (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I meant: NONE-but-one of those pics would be allowed on COM. The allowed one is the least relevant, in this case. Wolfgang (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm: Another advice: Wait for its author to die [which might already have happened], PLUS wait another seventy years, an you will be most welcome to upload thisone to COM. Such are the ruleZ. Wolfgang (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Joseph? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Volgens mij dient de nieuwe naam category:Joseph Cuypers geen enkel doel, want die naam wordt vrijwel nooit gebruikt. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Je hebt gelijk als je zegt dat zowel "Jos" als "Joseph" kan, maar volgens mij verdient "Joseph" de voorkeur, omdat hij zichzelf zo noemde. Zie ook nl:Overleg:Jos Cuypers. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

vGogh edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Vincent,

as I plan to "cleanup" CAT:vG soon, by re-editing most description templates, I'm quite sure that there will occur quite some "bugs". May I invite you to help un-doing them? I think we'd do that for the sake of "the rest of this world", and "in honor of vG". It will, for sure, not be about the two of us. tx, Wolfgang (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wolfgang,

yes, I'll have a look at it once in a while. But be aware that I'm also doing a lot of other stuff here on commons and elsewhere, so I'll probably only do one or two each day. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll drop a note here as soon as it might be worth while (which is, not before the end of this week) cu, Wolfgang (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Categories edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for adding right categories to the images recently uploaded by me, such as File:Singel 2005.jpg. I took them from Flickr and had to put categories according to their Flick pages, which may contain mistakes. -- deerstop. 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok, no problem, Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic