Knorrepoes

Image:Wapen-Albrantswaard.jpg

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. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Wapen-Albrantswaard.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wapen-Albrantswaard.jpg. I notice the image page currently--Arch (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 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|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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. Iamunknown 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dutch village arms

I have received your message. What exactly does nl:Sjabloon:Ngw say? I try machine translations with poor results, so if it complies with Commons policy, please bring the template here and translate it into at least English. I cannot read any Dutch. Image:WapenBonaire.jpg is an example that may need the template.--Jusjih 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not make the template, but I just added a note on my User page, satting that everybody is free to take the pictures, as long as it is with proper source. As long as they refer to my user page, you can see the permission. I would also like to put it on www.ngw.nl, but that is presently not possible, as I have no access to the site (new server).Knorrepoes 07:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of permission? Public domain? Machine translations of nl:Sjabloon:Ngw suggests public domain licensing. Is that the permission that you mean?--Jusjih 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

NGW

Your edit to {{NGW}} will lead to mass deletion of images and finally to deletion of the template. Non-commercial is not allowed. GijsvdL 09:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, you remarked: "non commercial is essential; many councils do not allow commercial use"

Questions: What rights do these councils claim on these images? Is the copyright (auteursrecht) of some of these codes of arms owned by the town or municipality? If so, under what license have these councils released the images? If the town or municipality does not have copyright, (for example, because the copyright has expired 70 years after the author/designer died) they have no means to decide on commercial or non-commercial use.

Apart from copyright, the merkenrecht may apply, if the rights to these images have been registered in the merkenregister.

And possibly special legislation exists for official 'wapen' (code of arms). I don't know about that.

Coming back to my question: Do you know of any legal rights (copyright or otherwise) that any town council may have in these images? Thanks. Johan Lont 10:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I found Wapens and Ministeriële circulaire in which I read:

Het afbeelden van het gemeentewapen in (wetenschappelijke) publicaties is geoorloofd: de gemeente heeft geen auteursrecht op het wapen.

Ook bestaat geen bezwaar tegen gebruik van het gemeentewapen als plaatsaanduiding op voorwerpen, waarin handel wordt gedreven (b.v. souvenirs) of waarmee reclame wordt gemaakt, mits bij het publiek niet op enigerlei wijze de indruk wordt gewekt, dat de productie van of de handel in die voorwerpen onder verantwoordelijkheid van de gemeente geschiedt.

Note, however, that some municipalities do claim copyright, which is possible if the design is of a recent date.

A municipal regulation (APV) that forbids the use of the code of arms, can, of course, not forbid the copying and publishing of the image in some article. Such a regulation can only forbid the usage that holds a suggestion that the publisher is connected with or endorsed by the municipal authority.

Still, it might be best to delete all images from which it is not clear who the author/creator or copyright-owner is. You may have copyright in the drawing. That drawing is still a copy of some original, that you did not create. Johan Lont 11:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John and others, I made the change for two reasons; first as I mentioned that I have drawn most of the images listed, at least the Dutch ones, myself. Which means I own the copyright of those images, no question about that. That means that I can also state that I would not liek to have the images commercially used. I have come across several uses of the images in books, on thimbles, on magnets, in newspapers, souvenirs etc etc, without 1) giving me credit or 2) providing me with royalties. That is why I have in my disclaimer on www.ngw.nl the message that I do not accept commercial use without letting me know first. I will always grant permission, no problem, but I have received some royalties, which is appropriate. I would like to have a similar statement when my images are used in Wikipedia. Most images were put on wikipedia without asking me, I am rather new on wikipedia, but I see that that was impossible to avoid, so I made the best of it. But still, I would like to have the statement added. If not, well, that would mean to remove all the images that I own, which is indeed several hundred Dutch arms. I agree that usage of the coat of arms as such (not the specific drawing !) is free in the ways as stated above. Of course I did not create the initial image, but I did make the drawings for my site. Which is making a picture of a building; I did not create the building, but I own the copyright of the image. Of course I do not hold any copyright of scans of images from other sources, such as from the Coffee Hag albums, of which I have uploaded many (those are copyright free, as they were drawn in the 1920s). Or from international sources, which have been taken from my site. Unfortunately, in most cases in Wikipedia the original sources are hardly mentioned and should all be corrected...Knorrepoes 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. Johan Lont 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Johan, can you change the template thus in a way that it is acceptable; for example, commercial use can only be after consultation with the webmaster, see the disclaimer ? Or something silmilar ? So we can keep the images from my hand and keep everybody happy.

I may actually start to delete or nominate for deletion, images from my site that are scanned by me, but are in wikipedia without the original source, which is basically illegal. That is mainly German images. It is another issue, but still important.Knorrepoes 15:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"can you change the template thus in a way that it is acceptable" last week 3 different users did that, but you reverted all of them. GijsvdL 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the tag in such a way that it is acceptable for everyone I think. I do not forbid commercial use, but would like to be notified and, if necessary, compensated. I also made it clear that it only holds for 'my' images, not for all images from ngw. There are a lot of images that are not properly credited, or credited to ngw, but I am not the one that can state if an image may be used of not, as they are not mine. In these cases the publisher of the book should provide a statement that the images can be used. In any case, I found hundreds of images of arms that are without any source. Someone may start to clean up the whole heraldry part of commons....

GijsvsL also made a change in the template, which was not valid. I did not make the template (..) and the disclaimer on my site has not been changed for a very long time, so the date tag made no sense. I never changed my position...Knorrepoes 18:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be difficult to find a solution that fits with what you (Knorrepoes) describe ánd conforms to the licensing rules of commons. The GNU Free Documentation License does not allow you to place such restrictions on copying and distributing the materials as "to be notified before use" or "if necessary, be compensated".

For normal, honest, decent users that want to use your images, maybe you would be willing to give away some of your rights, and replace the "usage restriction" by a polite request (summarized):

"I put x hours of work in these images, (1) Please notify before use; (2) (optionally) (if used commercially, I would like to receive some compensation for my work); (3) If you use these images, please add this request to the license statement. This is not a requirement, but would be highly appreciated.

This method solves some problems, but not all. I believe that under the GFDL rules, you cannot prevent others from removing this request from the template, here on commons.wikimedia.org.

Another problem is, that some wikipedia-clones copy the contents of Wikipedia to make money with advertisements. Some of them apply the rules for the GFDL license (mention the license, the source and add link to original), some don't. They may not always notify you, or be willing to do what you request. If they do not follow GFDL, rules, you can start legal action against them. If they do comply, you cannot do anything about the fact that they use the images commercially.

Another remark can be added to the tag, that warns the user that these images are official coats of arms of a local authority, and it may be illegal to use them in a way that appears as if a product, organization, or message comes from or belongs to that authority. That has nothing to do with copyright. It is not a rule or restriction that comes from YOU. It is just extra information for the user. Johan Lont 11:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coffee-Hag-Denmark.JPG

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Coffee-Hag-Denmark.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this image isn't free. The artist, Friedrich Britze, died in 1956. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it is Friedrich Britze ? His name is nowhere mentioned in the albums.Knorrepoes 06:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time when this product was created, virtually all heraldic compositions/illustrations in Denmark were produced by either Fr[iedrich] Britze (05-10-1870, Berlin - 07-05-1956, Copenhagen) or Poul Bredo Grandjean (1880-1957). In both cases, their images will be copyrighted until c. 2028. Britze worked as engraver for the Danish postal service and as the court's official heraldic artist (våbenmaler) and variations of this drawing of the three-lions arms were used during the reigns of King Christian X and Frederick IX, and very extensively for official purposes during the 1960s up till the 1980s. E.g. I remember Britze's drawing from customs stations, passports and stamps when I was a kid. On closer inspection, one string of hair seems to be missing from the third lion's tail, so it is also a possibility that this image is a close imitation of one of Britze's drawings. That would explain why he wasn't credited, but details regarding the crown, shield and a number of points regarding the lions point towards Britze, so perhaps it is simply an earlier copy of the same drawing. Erling Svane's "Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben", Odense University Press, 1994 has other variations of this drawing on pages 51 and 53. It is nothing personal that I marked it as a speedy. I did so because I'm too used to seeing deletion nominations remaining open for many months. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is said in some sources that all the Coffee Hag images were drawn by Grandjean, but again, there is no author mentioned. On the other hand, it may have been someone completely different; the front image of the Polish book for example was drawn by a Dutch heraldic studio based on Polish designs... I believe you if you state that it is of his making, but we are not sure... Personally I don't care to have the image removed, it does not affect the article much, but it should be for valid reasons and all we have is an assumption. I will also copy this to the talk page of the image, to have the administrators decide on this.Knorrepoes 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the image is either made by Britze or that it is a derived image based exclusively on one of his drawings. In both cases, it falls under Britze's original copyright. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Some Coats of Arms not from www.ngw.nl

Image deletion warning

Commons:Deletion requests/Some Coats of Arms not from www.ngw.nl 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 images, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

De-categorization of portuguese crest cats

Hi Knorrepoes,
you removed the categories from Category:Crests of Alcoutim and other cats for portuguese crests without leaving any edit summary, with the consequence that these cats are now permanently listed among non-categorized categories. May I ask why did so? If you think these cats should be deleted, why didn't you propose them for deletion? Cheers --Túrelio 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not finished in recategorising the Portuguese arms and afterwards I will ask all obsolete categories to be removed.Knorrepoes 07:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag templates

Well, you are wrong: Military flags are very well included in "Körperschaften des Öffentlichen Rechts". Here you can see the tagging used with a modern german military flag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flagge_Generalinspekteur_Bundeswehr.svg. --Fornax 11:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure. First of all the page that you mention above shows a flag not a coat of arms, so the license is definitely not valid there.. Secondly the definition of the Körperschaften (if you click on the link in te template) states : Eine Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (K.d.ö.R., auch mit KdöR, KöR oder K.ö.R. abgekürzt) ist eine mitgliedschaftlich verfasste und unabhängig vom Wechsel der Mitglieder bestehende Organisation, die ihre Rechtssubjektivität nicht der Privatautonomie, sondern einem Hoheitsakt verdankt. This may indicate that the army as such definitely could fall under this, but the rest of the article does not mention any army body (see Einteilung nach Art der Rechtsquelle and Einteilung nach Art ihrer Mitglieder). Maybe some legal expert can state whether an army unit can be considered a "Körperschaften des Öffentlichen Rechts". In any case, I made a new template for the flags. I am just cleaning up the mess of heraldic images on wikipedia and one of that is to distinguish flags and arms properly. Knorrepoes 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem of the confusing templates. In the mentioned cases there is the additional difficulty, that the flags include coat-of-arms ! What about the correct template ??.--Fornax 11:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of license templates

{{Insignia}} is not a license template. Please stop removing licenses from images: either correct them to the proper license or propose them for deletion, if there is no proper license. Patrícia ^msg 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you propose proper licences ? In any case the PD-Coa license is NOT valid as they are not heraldoic arms ánd they are not "Körperschaften des Öffentlichen Rechts". Removal/deletion is going too far for me, but they need to have a proper license.Knorrepoes 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My German is not good enough to dig copyright laws. I'm happy that you are discussing the issue with others, but removing license templates in the meanwhile is not acceptable, especially if there is no consensus on changing to other licenses or to create new templates according to the German law. Keep in mind that the deletion debates can be good to canvass people in looking into the problem, and they are the ultimate way of making an admin doing a mass deletion. Cheers, Patrícia ^msg 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[1]

Origin/Meaning: Wannenmachereisen - maybe it means a tool of bath tube makers in 18th century. Here a link to the Wannenmachermuseum, not so far from you. regards Geograv 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aalsmeer.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Aalsmeer.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!

RudolfH (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Wapen roermond.jpg

Beste Knorrepoes, Waarom noem je dit wapen voormalig? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Omdat Roermond op 17 november 2008 een nieuw wapen heeft gekregen, met een andere kroon en wapenspreuk.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Knorrepoes!

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.

BotMultichillT 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Koudekerk.gif was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Aalten2.jpg was uncategorized on 3 July 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Logongw.jpg was uncategorized on 24 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-NL-gemeentewapen/en

Hallo Knorrepoes, onlangs werd een wapen van mij genomineerd voor verwijdering het betreft een reproductie van een bestaand wapen zoals de gemeente deze ook in het openbaar manifisteerd zoals op gemeentevoertuigen en wegwijzers e.d., De nominatie werd gedaan naar aanleiding van het sjabloon die over het algemeen in gebruik is op Commons voor de Nederlandse gemeentewapens.

Ik denk ook dat zo'n nominatie vroeg of laat wel was te verwachten vanwege de onduidelijkheid ervan. Enerzijds is er sprake van vrijstelling door de HRvA, anderijds het vermeende auteurschap van de maker. Het komt er dan feitelijk op neer dat men uitsluitend een eigen ontworpen wapen kan uploaden. Ik las op de overlegpagina van het sjabloon dat je er zelf ook al tegen aanliep destijds.

Nu heb ik enkele passages gelezen uit de auteurswet, maar ook de VNG heeft zich eens over de situatie gebogen. In het kort blijkt dat als iemand in loondienst zoals in dit geval een wapen tekent voor een gemeente, dat het auteursrecht in zo'n geval bij de opdrachtgever (de gemeente) ligt. Nu ligt het probleem dus tussen de HRvA en een gemeente. Wat Googlen leverde bij mij een tweedeling op onder gemeenten. De ene helft laat blijken dat auteursrechten inderdaad bij de HRvA liggen, anderen passen kennelijk hun APV aan, en trekken het auteursrecht duidelijk naar de gemeente, waarbij wel moet worden gezegd, dat over het algemeen geen bezwaar bestaat voor het gebruik van educatieve, niet winstgevende/commerciele doeleinden zoals bijvoorbeeld Wikipedia. Dan is er nog een groot aantal gemeenten die er geen woord over rept.

Nu is bij mij nog geen enkele gemeente bekend die bezwaar maakt van het gebruik van hun wapen in een wikipedia Artikel. Los van dat lijkt het me wel eens handig om eens uit te vogelen hoe het nu precies zit. Ik had al wat gezocht op internet, maar bergens lees is uitsluitsel, of een gerechtelijke uitspraak die licht op de zaak werpt. Wel ingewikkelde instructies omtrend een reproductie van een kunstwerk op een postzegel bijvoorbeeld, of logo´s die verdacht veel lijken op de orgineel, waarbij uiteindelijk een rechter moet oordelen of er inderdaad sprake was van schending van auteursrechten.

Persoonlijk lees ik het wat betreft de wapens zo, in de auteurswet en de Stichting Pictoright staat In beginsel komt het auteursrecht toe aan de maker van een werk. Maar als het werk in dienstverband (loondienst) gemaakt is dan ligt het recht bij de werkgever ofwel in dit geval de gemeente niet bij de ontwerper-maker dat is duidelijk en staat beschreven in de wet, in de brief van het ministerie staat Het afbeelden van het gemeentewapen in (wetenschappelijke) publicaties is geoorloofd: de gemeente heeft in dit geval geen auteursrecht op het wapen. 1 en 1 is 2, ik kan niet anders concluderen dat het in deze uitzonderlijke situatie geoorloofd is. Dan zou het probleem daarmee opgelost moeten zijn. Ware het niet dat gemeenten in sommige gevallen wel duidelijk middels hun website een copyright claimen ondanks dat zij erbij vermelden dat voor niet commerciele doeleinden gebruik over het algemeen wel toegestan is. Men zou alle 418 gemeenten kunnen aanschrijven, maar dat lijkt me nogal een omslachtige en tijdrovende methode.

Ik weet niet of er mogelijkheden bestaan om een eventueel beroep te doen op Wikipedia gebruikers met wat juridische kennis om uitsluitsel te geven aan deze toestand, of eventueel in samenhang met bijvoorbeeld de HRvA en het VNG om het voor in de toekomst voor eens en altijd duidelijk te hebben. Ik ben benieuwd naar uw mening hierover. Met vriendelijke groet, Arch (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ik heb dit al een paar keer bij juristen aangekaart en het komt er gewoon op neer dat, net als wat je zegt, het in opdracht en in loondienst is gedaan, het bij de gemeente ligt, anders bij de auteur. Gemeenten kunnen dus nooit jouw of mijn tekeningen verbieden. Wel kunnen ze misbruik verbieden (al is de vraag wat is misbruik ?), maar voor wikipedia of mijn site is het dus toegestaan. De APV beschermt dus feitelijk alleen tegen misbruik. Probleem is dat het wapen alleen als beschrijving wordt verleend bij KB. En een KB is een openbare wet, en tenzij in het KB gebruik wordt vastgelegd is het dus niet verboden.

Overigens heb ik pas één keer ooit een probleem gehad, verder heeft in al die jaren dat mijn site bestaat nog nooit een gemeente bezwaar gemaakt. Bij jou kan dat overigens eerder voorkomen, omdat jij je heel sterk aan de stijl van de gemeente conformeerd. Ik heb mijn eigen stijl en die wijkt dus af.

Hetzelfde speelt ook in Duitsland. Wapens zijn openbaar, maar veel gemeenten proberen gebruik aan banden te leggen. Düsseldorf heeft een oplossing (?) door een alternatief wapen (wat dus niet geldig is) voor burgers beschikbaar te stellen.

Denemarken is veel strenger in de wet, maar ook daar heb ik nog nooit problemen gehad. Engelad heeft dezelfde problemen als hier, maar de College of Arms geeft ook aan dat het volledig publiek is.Knorrepoes (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoi Knorrepoes, intussen zijn we een aantal maanden verder, en wat je schrijft dat had ik intussen al bemerkt. De zaak was reeds opgelost, en was eerlijk gezegd vergeten dat ik de kwestie hier aangekaart had, vandaar dus dat het me even ontschoten is je hiervan tijding te brengen. Ik had met één gemeente contact opgenomen na aanleiding van een verwijderingsnominatie, en het gebruik daarvan voor Wikipedia is (zoals ik al verwacht had) geen enkel probleem. Het ging in die kwestie om een nominator die meende dat auteursrechten gaan gelden voor een ontwerper, dus niet de gemeente zelf. Ik meende al na uitzoeken van auteursrechtenwetgeving e.d. dat het natuurlijk vreemd zou zijn als dat zo was. Stel, ik geef opdracht aan een reclamebureau om een logo te ontwerpen voor mijn bedrijf, betaal daar de ontwerper goed voor, en auteursrechten zou ik naar kunnen fluiten? Had dus (voor de zekerheid) ook met het ministerie contact opgenomen, en die bevestigen ook je bovenstaande verhaal. Samengevat, de meeste ontwerpen zijn "oer" oud, nieuwere ontwerpen vallen onder de Hoge Raad v. Adel, waarmee je ongetwijfeld bekend mee bent. Ik probeer dus inderdaad zoveel als mogelijk de ontwerpen i.d.d. aan het origineel na te tekenen, en ook dat levert dus geen problemen op, temeer de educatieve kant van Wikipedia. Het zou daarentegen een ander verhaal worden als ik een commercieel bedrijf had die stickers, T-shirts e.d. verkocht met opdrukken ervan, maar zelfs dan twijfel ik intussentijd zwaar aan een succesvolle belemmering daarvan als eventuele "rechthebbenden" hun aanspraak zouden willen laten gelden. Dan komen we inderdaad op dat "misbruik" verhaal uit. Advocatenvoer dus. Maar goed, zoals je zelf al zei, voor een website als die van jou en Wikipedia absoluut onrelevant. Vriendelijke groet, --Arch (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your rename request

Hello

I have declined your rename requests for File:Coat of Arms of North Ossetia-Alania.png and File:Wapen Ossetien.svg since your request is controversial. An article in Wikipedia (Coat of arms of North Ossetia–Alania) says that these images are in fact coat of arms. That means at least a group of editors disagree with you.

Please resolve the dispute before requesting rename again. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I now also renamed the page, according to names on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_country_coats_of_arms and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_emblems_and_coats_of_arms_of_Asia. When it is not a coat-of-arms, these symbols are named Emblems in Wikipedia. Accordingly, the files should be renamed as well. So maybe you can reconsider and make the change. Knorrepoes (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Ngw2 template

Hello Knorrepoes;

I´ve problems with the template. The site doesn´t open, because it tried to open a https - site - Example:

This image is taken from www.ngw.nl – Heraldry of the World – an international civic heraldry site by Ralf Hartemink. ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Moers

tried https://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Moers - right is http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Moers

Can you help me?--Juergenk59 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No idea, I don't use (and never did) https sites. When I look at the template, it shows http, not https...Knorrepoes (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answer - it seems that I´ve a problem with my pc settings...--Juergenk59 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Biotechnion.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Biotechnion.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:Biotechnion.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

—LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Effostwebsitelogo.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Effostwebsitelogo.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:Effostwebsitelogo.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Smooth O (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ommedyck.jpg

File:Ommedyck.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!

Glorious 93 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Nitra-hasko.png

Hello, I would be very interested in your source for this coat of arms. I would be personally interested because I may or may not be related to Jakub Hasko. Thank you in advance! --Pelicanegg (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)