Whaledad

q:nl:Overleg gebruiker:Whaledad

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Whaledad!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Whaledad!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Scholen Amersfoort.png was uncategorized on 9 March 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Scholen Amersfoort.svg was uncategorized on 9 March 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Houston_CowParade_2001-001.JPG

File:Houston_CowParade_2001-001.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

[1] -- Mdd (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Vraag

Hoi Whaledad, je zult wellicht al gezien hebben dat ik het niet met de wijziging hier eens ben. Maar nu heb ik een vraag. Zelfs als zou het alleen keramiek zijn, hoe kom je erbij dat dat weergegeven moet worden zoals jij dat hebt gedaan? Neem bijvoorbeeld een foto van de Delfse poort van Geraldus, zie hier. daar zet hij toch ook niet meer:

• Source = Sculpture by Cor Kraat
• Author = Sculpture by Cor Kraat (Picture by: Gerardus)

Het komt op mij over, dat ik het bij de Shark Art Gallery foto op de reguliere wijze heb weergegeven. Maar de opvattingen zijn hier ook aan verandering onderhevig. Hebben Gerardus en ik het niet juist gedaan? -- Mdd (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mdd, prettig om op normale toon te kunnen communiceren. Ja, ik denk dat zowel jij als Gerardus het verkeerd hebben. De significantie (het kunstobject) in beide gevallen is niet de foto, maar het object dat is gefotografeerd. Dus "the source" is het oorspronkelijke kunstwerk. De "author" is de kunstenaar die het oorspronkelijke object heeft gemaakt (of ontworpen, als het gaat om architectuur, bijv.). De secundaire author is de fotograaf, die in het geval van 3D objecten een nieuw kunstwerk "bovenop" het oorspronkelijke maakt. Vandaar mijn nevenplaatsing van "picture by". Dit is mijn begrip, maar ik ben niet het allesbepalende orakel voor Wiki in deze. We kunnen best op zoek gaan naar een specialist die ons uit de brand kan helpen. Whaledad (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kun je die ad-hominem argumenten achterwege laten? Hierom zal ik de discussie tot een minimum beperken. Hier heb ik advies gevraagd omtrent bovenstaande. -- Mdd (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

De foto is het werk van de fotograaf, die genoemd moet worden. Op Commons wordt dan de bron aangegeven met {{own}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Deze bewerking lijkt me ook omstreden gezien deze discussie. Zou je daar niet gewoon nog even mee wachten? -- Mdd (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Whaledad, ik heb een mail gestuurd naar Barbara Nanning. Verder heb ik hier nog een vraag. Mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RfD pictures by Reginaldduckworth

(Moved from higher location on Talk Page) All of the suggestions for deleting photographs posted by Reginaldduckworth are without merit. All photographs are licensed for usage in any and all media in perpetuity or they are owned by Reginaldduckworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaldduckworth (talk • contribs)

• For the pictures RfD-ed this seems unlikely. Whaledad (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Blessed Mary of the Divine Heart files are in Public Domain

Schwestern vom Guten Hirten - Munster, Westfalen (Congregation of Sisters of the Good Shepherd) published a book with all of these photographs called Maria Droste zu Vischering to promote her canonization cause and the pictures are referenced as in PD because because Blessed Sister Mary of the Divine Heart lived between September 8, 1863, and June 8, 1899, and in United States the copyright ceases after 100 years since the death of its author (70 years in other countries). Also numerous prints are using these images of the Blessed Maria Droste zu Vischering for public devotion of the followers of the Catholic Church, so these files should not be deleted. 84.90.94.99 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In USA, the copyright expires 95 years after the work was first published, not 100 years after the death of the author. When was the book published? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also: unless these are self-portraits, the date that the subject died is irrelevant, but the date the photographer died is crucial. Whaledad (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see here and here, all pictures of Blessed Mary of the Divine Heart are placed in Public Domain by the Congregation of Sisters of the Good Shepherd. Several articles on internet use these portraits (see an example here and another here). Please, do not delete the images - all of them are important to illustrate her life on WP. 84.90.94.99 22:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Girobetaalkaart.jpg

File:Girobetaalkaart.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Basvb (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FoP-Nederland

Waarom zouden beelden van een Nederlandse beeldhouwster en geplaatst in een Nederlands dorp (in Laren en in Blaricum) verwijderd moeten worden omdat er in België geen vrijheid van panorama bestaat? Gouwenaar (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, vergissing. Whaledad (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - May - Panoramas

I'm afraid I have had to remove File:Mercer Arboretum and Botanical Gardens.jpg, File:Interior Panorama Rio de Janeiro Cathedral Sao Sebastiao.JPG and File:Panorama of Sao Conrado beach.jpg since they were not first uploaded to Commons in May 2015, per the Photo Challenge rules. -- Colin (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I overlooked that requirement. Whaledad (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Whaledad, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!

Dear Whaledad,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) 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.

In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.

Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Black Transparent Sari.jpg

Yours sincerely, Fæ (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion requests

Beste Whaledad, hartelijk dank voor je jarenlange inzet in diverse Wikiprojecten. Met de jaren zijn er diverse momenten gebleven, dat we lijnrecht tegenover elkaar zijn komen te staan en daarna zijn we verder stug onze eigen weg vervolgd. Ik moet eerlijk toegeven, dat ik pas recentelijk meer begrip kan opbrengen voor jouw stellingname en optreden. Het zal je wellicht niet zijn ontgaan, dat ik je voor een tweede maal gepingd heb in het terugplaatsverzoek waarbij ik enige woorden heb gewijd aan dat laatste. Mocht je hierover nog vragen hebben, op- of aanmerkingen, of jouw kant van de zaak nog eens zou willen belichten, dan ben je uiteraard van harte uitgenodigd. Ik hoop in ieder geval, dat dit op termijn wat schot kunnen brengen in wat ik meen een redelijk verloren zaak, de Nederlandse Wikiquote. -- Mdd (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. Heb support gegeven voor terugplaatsing, maar als afzonderlijk bestand. Hoop dat dit helpt, Whaledad (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Whaledad, we weten natuurlijk allebei dat het in dit soort overleg gaat om argumenten, die hout snijden. Nu ben ik niet bekend met de slang "pic for hire", het begrip en de implicaties daarvan. Nu kan ik dit op internet niet vinden, zie hier, maar wel het begrip "work for hire," zie hier. Omdat ik het terugplaatsingsverzoek zelf niet nog verder wel belasten, wil ik je hier graag vragen of dit is wat je bedoeld? -- Mdd (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Mdd, ja het is "work for hire". Waar normaal gesproken de fotograaf het copyright heeft (ook als iemand anders hem/haar betaalt voor het maken van de foto), kan in het geval dat de fotograaf de foto in opdracht van iemand anders maakt, deze fotograaf als onderdeel van de opdracht aangeven dat de opdrachtgever eigenaar van het copyright wordt. Een goed voorbeeld is een huwewlijksreportage. Normaal gesproken is onderdeel van de opdracht, dat de fotograaf eigenaar blijft van het copyright. Dus elke keer dat het bruidspaar nieuwe afdrukken wil, moetn ze terug naar de fotograaf om die te kopen. Whaledad (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way, de originele foto is inderdaad heel mooi, door de manier waarop de schaduw werkt, maar de ge-uploade versie is van extreem lage kwaliteit. Ik vermoed een scan van de foto in Viva? Is er een kans om een betere afdruk, of het negatief te verkrijgen? Whaledad (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record: Both original, Viva photo and first publication can be seen in this collage. The original and first publication were squire images, the Viva publication was a rectangular picture trimmed from the squire one. -- Mdd (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Mdd, I'm not sure what squire images are, but the last image on the strip shows negatives. Do these negatives still exist? Or the original print that you scanned way back when? Again, the current scan is of very low quality (probably done with early technology scanner, and could use some improvement by scanning with modern equipment. Whaledad (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)