Eggishorn

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Eggishorn!

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.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Eggishorn,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh 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 (2016) 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 Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:SiennaShieldsmosaic.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:SiennaShieldsmosaic.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Túrelio, please check again. This Flickr image is explicitly tagged Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), which is a compatible license. Eggishorn (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:JodieRummer7847-1.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:JodieRummer7847-1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:JodieRummer7847-1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: please check the files. This is explicitly licenced and the license is attached. Please remove the incorrect tag you placed on the file. Eggishorn (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is unvalid. Copyright holder (Jodie Rummer) must send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:JodieRummer7917.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:JodieRummer7917.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:JodieRummer7917.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:JodieRummer7973.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:JodieRummer7973.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:JodieRummer7973.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging

Hello, Eggishorn. I hope you understand that it is a bit unpleasant to be pinged in a discussion that I can not contribute to (in case you didn't know: I'm currently blocked on enwiki). Given the fact that you nonetheless did, I will answer you briefly here.

I know that I have not convinced you, nor anyone else, of the fact that The Banner started to interfere with Emigré55's editing on Pourbus because I happened to have tried to guide the latter, or rather: because I was accidentally present there on that moment, but it is true. If you had any idea of the past in terms of my 'relationship' with The Banner, you would no doubt agree that he should have never stalked me on enwiki, yet that is what he did. But even if you didn't agree, the fact that The Banner's prime interest was me and not the article's subject, meant a completely false start towards Emigré55. The Banner's intention was not pure, and you can witness the devastating impact now.

Yes, Couwenbergh's personal blog post was shot down as an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Couwenbergh is an academic, though he didn't graduate in arts, who had at least six books in the field of the arts published, mostly on good, but more or less marginal, more or less local painters, which makes it extra difficult to establish his reliability as such. However, a few days ago, RKD deemed Couwenbergh's suggestion (not: claim) that certain sitter on certain painting might be so and so, worthy enough to higlight in their database, of course adding the source's URL. It takes mind bending techniques that exceed my capabilities to then still be able to maintain that it cannot be said that 'someone' has suggested that the sitter might be Van Egmond – if RKD finds the suggestion valuable enough to mention, why should a couple of editors on Wikipedia be able to overrule that? Not only is RKD the largest art history center in the world, it is highly regarded. That The Banner, JzG/Guy and perhaps others want to dismiss the new circumstance is beyond understanding: it would mean that no peer review or indeed any indirect future reference to the possible first identifier of the sitter could be accepted, which is just too ridiculous to even consider.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Eissink (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

I pinged you purely as a courtesy because otherwise talking behind another editor's back about them is deceitful. I have no intention of re-litigating settled discussions. I wish you better luck on this project, one which I have next to no interest in. Eggishorn (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My work here is appreciated, thank you, but it has little to do with luck. Eissink (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC).