Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Louis_Wright.gif 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!
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!
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!
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!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Pieter, in a few days I expect you back actif on commons. By the unblock denial I did not judge content of your actions, I did judge behavior. The deletion request template states: In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such, and yet, some scrutiny showed me that you intended deletion requests as personally and that you said so. Do that never again. I hope you learned from this involontary wikibreak. I still believe in the content value of your contributions. Therefore, I trustfully invite you to do some scrutiny on my gallery, I do not consider it as personal. I intend to learn from your experience. Greetings, --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Blocked Indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.
See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In reaction to your edit summary [1], I have assumed that you wished to create a User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Archive2010b, so I did for you. I also updated the navigation header to the archives accordingly on all your archive pages and on this page. If this was not what you intended, please let me know and I will rectify accordingly. Rama (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
Hello Pieter!
I do not understand some of your actions in the last days. This for example. There is no broad consensus that that you have to put a DR if you doubt the source. If you are so worried that some admin can randomly delete the file after 7 days why don't you convert the 'no source' to a DR? Instead you put your energy into an edit war with Martin H. which was completely counterproductive. Some words on his userpage could have explained why you don't agree with the 'no source' instead of removing sillyno sources. Same here. You know so well that Own work is invalid because the author is some person who lived in 1598 and not the user who took the photo and uploaded it. Instead you ignorantly write: if you do not believe that this is uploader's own photo, you can make a DR and revert twice!! You know that this user can't be the author!!!!!. You could have:
fixed the source
converted it to a DR yourself
talk to the user who put the no source tag
Instead you just revert (twice!) solving non of the problems with the file.
I do not support your block but behaving like this you are not helpful to the project (even if you a right) because harsh actions like that create frustration in other users and you are actually not solving anything.
This kind of tagging chases away contributors. The requirements on Commons are arcane, and some admins make the impression of liking newbies mostly as a bite for breakfast or lunch. Too few people here worry about that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I tend to agree with Pieter that laziness is a problem with the no source backlogs. This is the main and only reason why I don't participate in clearing these categories. If DR has too many procedures (we have a script) and a tag is preferred, then why not propose a new problem tag like {{Nsd}} specifically for doubtful or "unverifiable" sources. Using no source discourages newbies and ask themselves what the heck I provided a source. ZooFari16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
@Amada44. Looks like you are the first person who understand the Bapti's actions. Could you explain, what should be writted in File:Lipsius 013.JPG in your opinion, but wasn't written? Note, this is a photograph, not a mere scan, probably it's copyrightable by itself, and is not covered by {{PD-art}}. Also note the bibliographic reference to the book in the "description" field. Trycatch (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oy, it's that type of desperation to delete stuff that contributed to me hanging up the gun and badge. Even artwork not in a frame can cast a shadow - just hang it over a window. Seems like a rule that's being abused a bit in this case. But I suppose this isn't the venue for that discussion... Wknight94talk18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, Commons disregards the copyright claims of French museums and libraries on their photos and scans of art. As well as the claims of the NPG in London against DCoetzee's uploads, or of Swedish museums. So I find it strange that Commons would allow Rama to claim copyright on such photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's a terrible double standard and reflects very poorly on the project. I tried raising the issue long ago but no one cares, in fact, some actually prefer that users' claim copyright even if there isn't one. Usually with some lame rationale like "public domain isn't possible in some countries", yeah, so let's add restrictions to 300-year-old paintings in the name of freedom. When third-parties do it, we call it copy-fraud. We don't respect their claims to copyright on PD-art stuff, we're even ready to fight it in court, yet our own users do the same exact thing and we encourage it. Rocket000 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Unblock request granted
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.
Request reason: "There is no consensus for permabanning. The allegation that I accused Adam Cuerden of lying is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I have not harassed anybody, please read en:WP:HA#NOT. I am not a steward, so I cannot deadmin anybody. And if my little gallery (three images without names being mentioned) made anyone feel uncomfortable, shooting the messenger is not the best course of action."
Unblock reason: "See my comments below. --ZooFari"
Pieter Kuiper, I have granted your unblock request. Your request and discussion about you on the board was dying and your unblock request was sitting for a while now, so I knew a decision had to be made by someone. You know what's right and what not, and you know why you were blocked. I know that you were not justified to be blocked, but you need to understand that "the way you do it" makes others upset regardless of how legitimate the situation is. It is your decision to continue this way or take another approach that would not run the community wild. I could have declined this request because half the community thinks you should stay and the other half are going to loose respect for me. I think you are capable of finding that other path, so please take advantage of my leniency. Next time this unblock may not happen again, and it is now your turn to make a decision. I will be following your contributions as a clean start, and only then will you prove to me that this unblock was well decided or not. I'll see you around. ZooFari04:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
You rabble rouser! But as about anything I do is interpreted as trolling, or harassing, or hounding, or attack, I will not put anything but the basics on my user page: no flags (crossed or not), no old French newspapers, no nudity, nothing that anybody could construe like anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done. I've left the version as one without the wall of shame. I actually have no issues with it however the actual word "shame" may well be unhelpful to your position I guess. --Herbytalk thyme13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.
Nice that you are back again! With interest I have read your message on my talk page. But one little hint ahead: if you disagree with an inserted problem tag, please do not just remove it. If you disagree, please start a regular deletion request. I think you know how it is done technically. Thanks in advance for your support! Happy editing. Kindest regards. --High Contrast (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are both right. Normally we change a speedy to a DR if we do not agree. But also it is not good to add a speedy instead of a DR just because it is easy and then let other users do the hard work adding the DR later. --MGA73 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Listen, if you disagree with a problem tag, you convert it to a regular deletion request. You don't blank the problem tag without addressing the problem and without notifying the user who added the tag. Simple as that. —LX (talk, contribs)20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to see a bunch of DRs that say "Someone thought there was a source problem. I don't understand how they could believe that, but we have to go through this anyway." If you put a problem tag there, then you open the DR with an explanation of why there's a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
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!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The PD-PRL license considers only the photos that were published published without copyright information, here we don't know have information about the source so we don't know if the license applies, additionaly the author of the photography ain't mentioned (the user credits himself but he only probably scanned the image since he's too young).Plushy (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Much as I hate to admit it, Kuiper is right on this one. You simply cannot claim copyright over five characters of text in a standard font. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Do you really understand what you and your colleagues do and say ? my license doesn't contain GNU, saying the contrarily you violate the truth, is that wikimedia ? The software and site are under copyright, you can't bypass that, even GNU is less that copyrightBruno pages (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
You wrote: "the license given below". Well, "below" it says {{PD-textlogo}} - not GNU. I find your actions incomprehensible. Anybody is free to write your neologism BOUML in whatever font they want, whether you like it or not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
We're not claiming we did it. We're not denying that you created the image. However, as you have been told repeatedly, this image is too simple for copyright. You cannot copyright plain text in this manner - you could copyright the font, but that's all. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok, you could even have deleted it, I had made it only to prove a point. The kerning did not exactly reproduce the image that was on the site of the program. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's not like I disagree with your analysis here, rather the contrary, as you can only claim copyright (or claim author rights according to french law) on something that is actually relevant to it. It's not like deleting the file will change much the situation. It is also not like we have to answer requests like this one from third parties, who ever they might be, and for what ever taste (=argument related to liking something or not liking it and not infringing any major laws...) related reasons that might be. Esby (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
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!
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
When you were blocked by Adam, when rama declined your unblock request, didn't you cry out they are involved with you, and should not have done it to you? lycaon is involved with me. I have been on his "shit list" for more for almost 2 years, and I even do not know why because no matter how much I begged him to explain what I have done to him, he never did. he does not even wants to explain his "reviews" to me because he does not talk to me. His wife said she kicked back on me, and that's why she opposed my nominations. Do you believe it is the right reason to oppose nominations? you call his voting on my nomination "opposition" . It is not opposition it is a trolling by a very involved user, the user, who hates me without even explaining what he hates me for. you are involved with me too. So may I please ask you do not put your very long nose, in something that you don not seem to understand, and mind your own business?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Once again, lycaon's votes on my nominations have absolutely nothing to do with my images, but have all to do with his hater towards me personally. The image you refer to was promoted by Jebulon, and if lycaon did not show up there, it would have been promoted, but this does not matter. I cannot care less, if my images get promoted or not. I cannot care less, if reviewers are fair or not. I only care about a bad faith review of a very involved user. It is what lycaon is doing to me. It calls trolling and it ought to stop.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there, mr. Kuiper, whe've had a few skirmishes once in a while, but in spite of that, or maybe rather because of that, I genuinely appreciate your ability to liven up something as boring and trivial as discussions of picture licenses here on Commons, in contrast to many other editors and admins it seems. But I think this place needs people like you to keep it from stagnating, so I hope you won't get banned indef again. My condolences if you do. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
As I see it, there's no harm in nominating an image for deletion, if I'm wrong, or new source info is discovered, it'll be kept after all. Has happened on occasion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
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!
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I am not trying to be difficult, but the onus is on the uploader to provide source information. The uploader in question has uploaded dozens of images, many of which "looked old" and turned out to be copyvios. We are working with the uploader to get source information for each and every image (textbook names, websites, etc.). At this point, I am not sure anyone can say that any of these images are obviously old. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The image is obviously old, look at the lettering of the caption. Uploader refers to Parks Canada, but a search on that site does not give any hits now. But what would a url to some modern web site help? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
A site, esp. a government site, often has background information. And engravings of this sort were pretty common in the first decades of the 20th century, so depending on the who/when/where of the image, it could or could not be a copyvio. Given the uploader's track record, I'm not as easily convinced that it is obviously old. However, given your comments I did some google searching. I think Harfang got it from the Canadian Military History Gateway, where I found the image, but ironically no source information. But I then found the image on this forum, which lead me to this other site, which indicates that the enraving is by Benjamin Sulte, who died in 1923 (the engraving appears to be from a work published in the 1880s). So, the image is okay, and I will update the image accordingly. But it is exceedingly frustrating, as you know, to have to do all this work, and I have spent hours doing the same thing for this guy's images. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
You have been warned previously about changing the categorisation of Latuff images where you should have known it was controversial. Despite that, it seems you have recently begun doing so. You must be well aware that Latuff's images and their categorisation is controversial and I've previously asked you not to play around with the categories and instead discuss it with others at an appropriate venue. Since you're struggling to resist the temptation to play around with these categories I have blocked you for a period of one week to prevent continued disruption to Commons. I hope that when you return you will try to resolve any disagreement about Latuff images by discussion. Adambro (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Unblock request declined
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "I did not start this, I only joined the discussion after Alvesgaspar had started adding the "anti-zionism" label to lots of images. I do not see what is disruptive about that."
Decline reason: "Edit warring is counterproductive and the block was thus in line with the blocking policy. Alvesgaspar may have started something, but you continued, and you have been warned before.Kameraad Pjotr19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)"Reply
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
"I did not start this, I only joined the discussion after Alvesgaspar had started adding the "anti-zionism" label to lots of images. I do not see what is disruptive about that."
It isn't suggested that your participation in any recent discussions relating to this issue has been disruptive. Nor is it suggested that you started anything, it seems Alvesgaspar started the recent changes of the categorisation of Latuff images but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to revert Alvesgaspar's changes and recommence the long running edit warring that you've been involved with concerning the categories as you've done here and here. You've been asked, as have a number of others, to stick to discussing disputed issues instead of edit warring on a number of occasions. It remains unclear why that is apparently such a challenge. Adambro (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've suggested you should discuss instead of playing around with the categories which you should know would be controversial, not as well as. Participating in discussions doesn't give you a free pass to change the categories as you see fit. The idea is that you'd discuss it with others and try to reach some agreement or at least determine what the majority feel is appropriate. As for referring to File talk:WekillforFUN.gif#What is "anti-zionism"? in your edit summary here, at the point you did that all that was there was a statement by you. I don't know what your idea of consensus is but that certainly doesn't look like consensus to me. Adambro (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see you also blocked Schoscha and Liftarn. For some reason you did not block Alvesgaspar who added silly categories to lots of images, and restored them when they were removed. None of us who were blocked had been near 3RR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Regarding Alvesgaspar, as far as I am aware he has not previously been involved in the categorisation of Latuff images and it therefore follows that I've not asked him avoid directly changing the categories and discuss it first as I have with you and a few others. You'll note that I've now done so. This is why he's not been blocked. If however I have forgotten something here and I have discussed this with Alvesgaspar previously then I would appreciate it if you might bring that to my attention so I can reconsider the situation. Adambro (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've already understood this. But the main thing here is that they're edit warring, and edit warring isn't the way to go; they should discuss it at the file's talk page and not start edit warring. Heymid (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have unblocked Pieter Kuiper because of this:
(cur | prev) 13:13, 4 October 2010 Mattbuck (talk | contribs | block) m (690 bytes) (Changed protection level for File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif ([edit=sysop] (expires 13:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)))) (rollback(AJAX) | undo)
(show/hide) 13:27, 4 October 2010 Adambro (talk | contribs | block) blocked Pieter Kuiper (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (continuing to edit war over Latuff image categorisation) (unblock | change block)
The block was performed for a documented reason and an unblock was denied.
The unblock was performed without any report on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and could be seen as a Wheel War. Furthermore, I fail to understand the reason for the unblock.
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!
This is the really annoying thing about Commons: DRs of public domain photos. Some admin who thinks he knows better than museums. So cocksure that he does it before anybody had a chance to see it, out of process, without giving it the chance of at least a week of discussion. Nobody has a copyright claim on this kind of images, any copyright difficulty is completely legal theory. It was this photo. The photo was made in the Ukraine, could be {{PD-Ukraine}} or maybe {{PD-Poland}}. If one does not want to believe the USHMM (I think they are a reliable source), one could do some research. And I would have done if I had had the chance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The precedent was unusual in that the closing admin disregarded the vast majority of comments. While I suspect that he was right in that instance, his decision would certainly be a matter for debate; it is not the type of clear-cut precedent that one would want to use to shut down another deletion discussion less than two hours after it was initiated (esp. when some discussions related to Holocaust images have gone the other way). I believe the more appropriate route would have been to have let the discussion play out (although to limit it to a week or so). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
None of those comments were valid, they all went along the lines of "no one will sue", "maybe it's PD", and "it is valuable!". Such images do not belong on commons. See: COM:PRP It basically has no source, we know nothing about who created it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
(ec) Where most thought it should be kept, and where no real reasons were brought forward to delete this image. What country's copyright law is supposed to be violated here? Certainly not US law. Undelete, and let the DR run its normal course of at least a week (in practice several months). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're making conclusions about "all" those comments which I don't necessarily share (although, like I said, I'm not sure that I disagree with the result). Either way, it's contentious. What seems clear to you isn't necessarily so to others. Where there is debate, no matter what you think of the potential views of others, speedy delete should not be invoked. I suspect I would end up saying delete this image, but I don't think you made the right call in closing down the discussion so quickly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
We know it was created by a German soldier who died less than 70 years ago. What is there to argue about? It s a clear case, all Peter is clinging to is that some website claims it is PD with no reason as to why. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
No. I see no logic in your statement, what does Holocaust expertise have to do with copyright law exactly? We have had museum staff claiming copyright on images they had scanned from PD books, and museum staff asking us to remove images of fossil dinosaurs, in neither case did we comply. Why? Because they didn't know a thing about copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I also don't like the way DR was closed, and I don't see why this rush was necessary, but I don't see a way how this photo can be free. It was found in some album of a dead (?) German soldier. I.e. the work was hardly ever published with consent of their author. And for unpublished works the country of origin is the country of which the author is a national, i.e. 70pma Germany. Trycatch (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
FunkMonk is basing his conclusion on a blog, that sources back to Google books, which says that the photo was found in the personal album of a German soldier. It doesn't say that it was taken by a German soldier. It could have been taken by a Ukrainian for all I know. While FunkMonk's conclusion may be absosulutely correct, the fact that we are having this discussion suggests that there closing the DR without any discussion was not the appropriate course of action. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what the fuzz is all about, the exact same photo had already been deleted, so what I did was basically just clean up. Why complain now and ask me to undelete this photo, instead of the duplicate that was deleted earlier? As for my link being "just a blog", try to actually look at it, then you'll see it links to a book on Google Books. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would have thought it would be evident to you that where there is debate, you should allow the debate to occur. I have already explained what the issue is with the previous discussion. More than one third-party editor here has expressed discomfort with the process you followed. I am surprised by your response. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As to your speculation that he might be "Ukranian". Well, then what? He could be a Martian, doesn't matter, as long as we don't know for a fact, the image has no source and does not belong here. And again, why don't you ask to get the duplicate undeleted? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are arguing the substance of it. That's an argument to be made in a deletion discussion. You do not get to prejudge deletion discussions. As for the previous image, I am asking that this image be undeleted because it is the one with which we are dealing, the DR was closed prematurely, and the decision in this discussion may differ from that discussion. You may disagree, and I am not sure you are wrong, but you do not get to deprive the opportunity for others to speak to the issue. I am not sure why you are so vehemently against letting the normal process unfold. You've now had two editors, other than the uploader, tell you that they are uncomfortable with the process you have followed (neither of whom necessarily disagree with you on the merits), but you seem to be ignoring all those points and keep wanting to argue the substantive of it. Which, of course, you should be doing in the context of a DR discussion.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As the discussion is going now, it doesn't really make a difference that the image has been deleted. so I'll undelete the image now so the discussion can be seen by more editors, not because I think it will change the fate of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The guys seem to believe that the other deletion was unwarranted too. I know they will argue forever here, so I'll at least let them duke it out where everyone can see it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, I don't think the fate will necessarily change either. But given the unusual nature of the precedent, I think following the normal process is the prudent course. Thank you for your understanding. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
No I don't think so. We can't delete an image and then hope for the duplicate image to have a different outcome. The 'normal process' is to go to the undeletion request and ask for this image to get undeleted and if it does, the duplicate image can also be undeleted. Amada44talk to me21:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am not hoping for the duplicate image to have a different outcome. Please don't put words in my mouth. This image was nominated for deletion. The previous image was subject to an unusual finding. The discussion should play out. That's all. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why are no one who complained here commenting on the reopened DR? And only thing unusual about the DR of the older version was all the allegations of Nazism getting thrown around by IP editors. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you read my comments above, you would understand that my concern was wth your actions, rather than the DR. And I spent the evening with my family, so I suppose I must apologize to you for not participating in a DR within the first 7 hours of its existence. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
So now the adminship expects me to do volunteer work for commons? I thought that the message was "we prefer to do the work ourselves for a week". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As far as I'm concerned, Occam's razor tells us the photo was taken by a German soldier, and probably first published in Germany. Which makes it a copyvio. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could be Ukraine. This, however, doesn't change the fact that we don't know when. And it could also likely have been published first in Russia, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
First of all you don't know if it was published before 1951, and second you don't know if it was even published in Ukraine, and not Russia, where the photo is archived. Your speculation=fact approach is laughable. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
In spite of your pompous edit summary "You seem to think you know everything, but you don't know what I know", you still don't seem to be able to demonstrate that this wasn't published in Russia first rather than Ukraine. The photo is in a Russan archive, for Christ's sake. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Read it yourself: Ukrainian or Soviet work that is in the public domain in Ukraine according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Ukraine before January 1, 1996, e.g. if it was published before January 1, 1946 and the creator died before this date, and no copyright was registered in the U.S. (This is the combined effect of the retroactive [1], Ukraine's joining the Berne Convention in 1996, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.) Which means it can't be on Commons since images have to be PD US too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Still, I'm not convinced an image published in Russia somehow becomes PD because the "subject matter is Ukrainian". And we don't have a "PD USSR" either.[3]FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Exactly, my convictions don't matter, but if a photo was published first in Russia, no amount of "Ukrainian subject matter" makes a difference. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, I am feeling a bit surprised to see civility warnings and threats of blocks for personal attacks from a "community" where Mbsmellz1, SergeratpackWoodzing, admin Mattscumbuck, admin(?) Adamfuck thisCuerden and admin somehow sickRama are setting the tone. Without any diffs that would motivate special restrictions on me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're right Pieter, and I would like to apologise for the language I used. Even though I don't like you and truly wish you weren't here, that sort of comment was inappropriate and there is no excuse for that. However, in the context you just used it those were personal attacks, and so you're no better than me. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Those are personal attacks. You have to learn to use only arguments which do not involve other peoples behavior, both for edits concerning encyclopedic content and for edits concerning your defense. A trespasser cannot excuse his behavior by pointing to possible other trespassings. Greetings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Comment Even if other users make personal attacks and gets away with it does not give you the right to make comments like that. If you make more "illustrations" like that I'll block you myself. --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do not need illustrations. I need Commons to get back on track. Having you pointing out other users mistakes is not always helpful. --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
More files from that user has now been deleted. I doubt that we will find 3 users that agrees that you were stalking that user. --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Kuiper: "I am perfect and have never done anything wrong in my life. I am also an irreplaceable asset to the Wikimedia Foundation and all its projects. Everyone I have offended by being sarcastic, mean and antagonistic hundreds of times is an over-sensitive whimp or a mentally underdeveloped idiot (a word I often use about people), so let's stalk them, link them, misquote them, lie about them and twist things around to try to get them in trouble! Let's make an art form of it! " ~ So what else is new? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Liftarn and I should also be unblocked. Adambro blocked the three of us out of the blue, after just single reverts. J.delanoy unblocked me, because that was a punitive block - File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif had already been locked. Anyway, I was the first to start discussing Alvesgaspar's edits. I was not edit warring. And if I had been, it would have been sufficient for Adambro to tell me that in his opinion I was. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, our mailserver seems to be down (maybe for the whole weekend). It would have been interesting to know what "specific reason" was used to justify the discrimination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's simple. I mentioned the reason in my unblocking rationale. He said if he was warned it would had been enough. I believe him. There is no comment from either you or Liftarn that assures me you won't go edit Latuff right away if I unblock you. Of course, in your case there's more to it. Rocket000 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I wrote that it would have been enough if Adambro had told me that in his opinion I was edit warring. Liftarn also wrote that he was trying to resolve any disagreement about Latuff images by discussion. And when I was unblocked by J.delanoy, I did not go edit Latuff. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't see where you said that or did not get that meaning from the way you said it. And if I thought you were lying, I would tell you. I mean exactly what I say and nothing more. I would trust you if you did say "I won't go edit Latuff". I would trust Liftarn too. However, he hasn't asked to be unblocked, and you are in a different situation. You had your unblock request denied, got unblocked, and then got reblocked. Your (un)block log is long enough and I don't feel like adding my name to it at this time, especially since you don't have much longer to go. Rocket000 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hoi Pieter, kun je ook eens kijken naar mijn bijdragen in deze searchlist, [4]. Van mij mogen mijn bijdragen daar allemaal weg, maar dat is geen argument. Groeten, --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
De site is niet erg duidelijk georganiseerd, maar ik zie nergens een basis voor {{CC-BY-SA-2.5}}. Op http://www.bhic.nl/index.php?id=213 staat "Alle rechten voorbehouden De inhoud van deze site is bedoeld voor persoonlijk, niet-commercieel gebruik. "
Nu zeggen ze ook: "Voor het vermenigvuldigen en/of openbaar maken van reproducties van foto's waarvan het auteursrecht bij het BHIC berust, wordt de toestemming hierbij verleend." Maar bij de fotos staat niet aangegeven wie auteursrecht heeft. Mensen kunnen eigen foto's opladen, en nergens staat dat ze daarmee hun auteursrecht overdragen aan het museum. Het is een beetje een zooi. Als jij contact met ze hebt, zou je ze kunnen vragen om duidelijker te zijn. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Die site is inderdaad onduidelijk, het colofon was ooit alleen het onderste gedeelte; de site is sindsdien geweldig gegroeid en het colofon is uitgebreider gemaakt, maar doet geen beroep op de Nederlandse databankwet. Ik ben er zelf intussen voorstander van, niet van websites te kopieren. Ik heb 3 jaar geleden e-mail toestemming gehad van een van hun webmedewerkers, maar noch ik, noch hij hadden een duidelijke kijk op licensies en of commercieel gebruik in de toestemming besloten was, zou ik niet kunnen zeggen. Ik heb de mail niet meer en ik heb sindsdien ook geen contact meer gehad. De latere toevoeging persoonlijk, niet-commercieel gebruik zou een aanknopingspunt kunnen zijn voor DR's, maar sommige archieffoto's zijn waarschijnlijk ook al PD-oud. Je kunt misschien met een paar selecte DR's de discussie lanceren. Groeten, --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Dat lijkt me niet zinvol. De fotos komen van verschillende periodes en verschillende collecties. Misschien geven de archiefnummers informatie over de oorsprong. File:Velp à la libération, 21-09-1944 (BHIC).JPG is een foto van Leo van den Bergh, hij overleed vorig jaar. BHIC heeft meer dan 200 fotos van hem, maar wie bezit het auteursrecht? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Afgezien van een paar vooroorlogse prentbriefkaarten, gaat het vooral om foto's die waarschijnlijk voor de gemeenten gemaakt zijn, en via gemeentelijke fotoarchieven in de BHIC-beeldbank zijn gekomen. Ik neem aan dat hiervoor {{Attribution}} goed is. Maar dan zijn er ook nog de luchtfotos, die zeker niet vrij zijn, maar waar je dat niet kunt lezen in de beeldbeschrijving. Dat maakt het moeilijk te weten wat er nu geldt voor de fotos van bijvoorbeeld Van den Bergh. Het lijkt me logisch dat hij ze inclusief auteursrecht aan het museum heeft gegeven. En hoewel ik daarvoor geen bewijs kan vinden, laat ik toch de zaak maar geworden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your lessons. At the Precilhon discussion, I liked your postcard argument and I keep it in mind as a practical upload criterium for pictures of french villages. In the very beginning (2008) I did a few DR's for a try, but found out DR's are not my thing, I stopped making or closing DR's. But you must not hesitate to make a DR if you see an image of me that deserves it. VrGr. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that there are many, which is what happens when one goes about in France or Belgium making and uploading photos of culture according to Dutch or German rules. As an example, photos of the the artwork in Category:Chuffilly-Roche are obviously candidates for tagging as {{Copyvio}}. It would be best if you could delete such images yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure what the situation is here. Is the file not PD-old or was the license incorrect and correctly removed by the IP? ZooFari18:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Sally_Bauer.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!
Who is harrassing ? I have already given a lot of explications to this contributor via OTRS. He said (on OTRS) that this picture come from a website : I believe him, and that why we need a clear permission.--Bapti✉07:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I understand French. And TheMalsa said on OTRS this file has already been published (that why we need a permission). Secondly, for the moment, he put this picture on CC-BY-NC (on OTRS).--Bapti✉17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
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!
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Pieter, could you explain to me the „published before 1978-thing“? I just want to understand it and learn about international licenses (I sure know more about the German copyright than about international). Plus request no. 2: Would you check Category:King_Kong_(1933_film) and tell me, if the posters are free or protected? Thank you so much, --Schwäbin (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (the Suabian)Reply
Sorry, forgot something: For the remaining pictures (posters File:9462_0005.jpg and File:9462_0006.jpg and the dinosaur), I think they show the wrong license? Because they are presumably not free in Germany, Austria, Switzerland (70 years pma). Which template would be correct? {{PD-Pre1964}}? Or {{PD-US}}?
I am not sure if the pictures really are free in the EU. Please, would you change the copyright templates, you have a lot more experience than I do. Thanks again, --Schwäbin (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Pieter, thanks a lot for your help keeping the pictures of the KaDeWe! We succeeded at last. Do you know this department store? --Bonzo* (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome. Yes, I was there. The first time in 1977, on a school trip. Then later when I sometimes worked in Berlin in the 1980s. I wish I could have shopped there for food today... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
new evidence - you are wrong !
the author of the foto served in the danish army. In da.wikipedia he is listed as commander of the Livgard in 1960
read here : http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_Kongelige_Livgarde
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hoi Pieter,
I intend to upload 300 engraved portraits from Album du centenaire, Grands hommes et grands faits de la Révolution française (1789-1804)ouvrage illustré de 438 gravures sur bois, d'après les dessins de E.Bayard, H.Clerget, Yan'Dargent, Darjou, Férat, Ferdinandus, Lix, Philippotteaux, Raffet, H.Rousseau, Thorigny, Valnay; Paris, Librairie Furne, Jouvet & Cie Éditeurs, 1889. One portrait already exists on commons: File:Cambonpierrejoseph.jpg. I have two questions for you, speurneus:
First question: If you see impediments against uploading, let me know.
Second question: Concerning the artists: in the picture above, the left signature is H.R. who also signs as H.Rousseau, and he is the designer, and the right signature is E.Th, who signs also as E.T. or E.Thomas. This couple made most of the portraits. It I wonder if H.Rousseau could be the painter Henri Rousseau in his youth. It should be nice if you could get track of these artists. Greetings, --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Speurneus! I made a first upload, see here. File:AduC 001 Montesquieu (1689-1755).JPG. You see H.R. and E.Thomas signatures. I intend to study the signatures on uploading the individual pictures; but I looked a bit, and yes, there is also E. Thorigny! I go google-seaching on that too, now, thanks. I took the photographs today from the 5th edition (proud owner), rather big format, and turned them black-and-white with (almost) maximal contrast. Any advice about quality? Shall I upload them all? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The problem with this kind of books is that maybe the illustrations are not free, even when the main author has been dead long enough. One would still need to know who these people are. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I found the names of the artists on the Album title page. Émile-Antoine Bayard (1837-1891); H. Clerget (1818-1899); Yan'Dargent (1824-1899); Alfred Henri Darjou (1832-1874) or Victor Darjou (1804-1877); Ferat (1819 — 1889); A. Ferdinandus (??-1888)); Frédéric Théodore Lix (1830 - 1897); Paul Philippoteaux 1845-1923; Auguste Raffet (1804-1860); Félix Thorigny (1824-1870. H. Rousseau might be Henri Rousseau 1844-1910, who started its painting carriere being over age 40, but he must have designed before; his style has some characteristics of engravings...or is that whisful thinking. I did not find Valnay. Concerning the signatures of the gravures, I have to decript some yet. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Cool. However still I don't see any information whether the guy is a sole copyrights heir and I can doubt it, because he doesn't have even the same name as his grandpa, tehrefore at least his mother still owns copyrights (+her siblings and their children etc.). And, moreover, just looking at any random file description, I as a Commons user, cannot really figure out why the uploader released these images under free licenses and really verify/trust their status. That's why I asked him for a contact. Do you agree? Masur (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The trick is that if a user user says "Google" or "xxx-website.com" is the source then a "no permission" is good. But if a user upload a file stating "My father/whife/mother/sister... took this photo and gave me permission to upload it" then I see no reason to doubt that. If someone thinks this is not ok then they could ask uploader for a permission or start a deletion request. As I understand it there is a permission - you (Masur) just do not trust it (or want it in writing). In cases like that a DR is better because there you can give the reason why you do not trust the uploader and other users can comment. --MGA73 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are an infinite amount of ways of drawing the Angus Dei not just one specific way, thus originality. Thats like saying any painting of Jesus on the cross or elephants are non original since they are "just an elephant". Anyhow the Swedish and Finish ways of looking at CoA are quite different since Finland has specifically exempted all their CoAs from copyright. Anyhow I'll change it to a normal DR although the copyvio status seems pretty obvious. the Dr is here. /Lokal_Profil15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I now see that you are from the Netherlands, which does permit freedom of panorama for works of art, and perhaps that is the genesis of your confusion regarding these works. No such freedom of panorama exists in the United States for three dimensional works of art, unless such works are de minimis to the image. Since this is blatantly not the case, and FOP does not exist for these images, I'm re-tagging them all for deletion. Please do not undo these edits unless you can adequately explain how these works are in fact not protected by United States copyright law. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Danke für das Zurücksetzten der LA's der irren IP. Der User dahinter (dafür brauch ich kein CU) ist User:Roland zh. Von welchem ich heute aus Urheberrechtsgründen einige Bilder eben mit genau dem Baustein {{copyvio}]] vesehen musste. Nur schient der nicht zu verstehn was denn das Problem bei seine Bildern ist nämlich das, dass der Künstler noch nicht, bzw. zuwenig lange Tod ist (keine 70 Jahre PmA). Und das in der Schweiz bei Innenaufnahmen eben kein FOP gilt. (You unterstand me? Ore must I translete in englisch?) --Bobo11 (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Dasn ist ja gut wenn ich mir die Finger nicht verbiegen muss um englisch zu schreiben. PS. Durfte die ganze Arbeit von heute Morgen noch mal machen hat selber (oder eien IP) alle {{copyvio}]] rausgelöscht. --Bobo11 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
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!
Users do not vote on the other´s nominations/creations.
Users do not write on the other users talk pages
Users do not comment on the other user's comments directly, sticking to the central point of shared discussions.
Users do not make edits to files the other has uploaded with the exception of categories: descriptions, filenames, deletion nomination, derivative works, ...
Users do not discuss one another (directly or indirectly), even if they feel the other has done something wrong, or violated the interaction ban. They can wait for the rest of the community to notice/evaluate.
The users do not revert edits by the other users, such as addition of categories to images, or otherwise edit war with the other users.
The users do not block one another.
Users simply cease to exist for one another.
Failure to obey these restrictions will result in:
(x+1)2-day block for violations, where x represents the number of blocks already given (i.e. 1 day for the first violation, 4 days for the next, then 9, 16, 25, etc.).
Community discussion, should the issue escalate to the point where a 1+ month or indefinite block may be considered.
An administrator who has previously (un)blocked the user(s) in question prior to <date of initiation> may not block the user(s) during the restriction.
Changes to the restriction must be supported by consensus. Restriction expires: 2011-11-06
Obviously that's not a requirement, it's up to you. However, please note that the interaction restriction extends beyond FPC. In fact some of the past conflicts between you and Mbz1 have been elsewhere. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The whole "remedy" was about FPC, and it "neutralizes" the people that actually looked at the photos. Obviously FPC is all about supporting nominations, about "I will scratch your back if you will scratch mine" - criticism is not welcome, and the weirdest stitch jobs get promoted anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Dag Pieter,
mag ik de tekening veranderen op http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manual_transmission_clutch_Neutral.PNG ? Het lijkt erop dat je onmiddelijk de oude tekening terugzette. Ik heb enkele mails die ik kan doorsturen om te bewijzen dat ik inderdaad één en ander afgesproken heb met Armlamp (=Stef Breukel) Ik zou de andere tekeningen ook willen updaten; indien dit niet gedaan wordt zullen de oude tekeningen toch moeten verdwijnen gezien ze incorrect zijn.
KVDP (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Jouw versie geeft helemaal niet aan hoe de versnellingspook in de auto gerelateerd is aan wat er gebeurt in de versnellingsbak. Je kunt veel beter jouw tekening opladen onder een nieuwe naam. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Das wel waar, echter dit zal ik veranderen onmiddelijk nadat de eerste versie van alle tekeningen alsook de beschrijving geupload zijn. Ook zou anders deze tkening(en) sowieso gedeleted moeten worden (incorrect). Mag ik dan doorgaan met het uploaden ?
I can't really follow this (English and some French are my limits) but I support Pieter's revert here and would strongly ask KVDP to stop over-writing good images with radically changed images.
Firstly the old image wasn't wrong, secondly the KVDP image was. Yes, the first image simplified the drawing of the dog clutches. This is reasonable simplification for the clarification of a diagram and wasn't wrong. The dog clutches as drawn are still workable dog clutches. Nor do all gearboxes have synchromesh. Those up to the 1950s were commonly "crash" boxes without, just with plain dog clutches as drawn. Secondly a four-speed gearbox has three geared paths through it, not four (as added by KVDP). The top gear is a straight-through gear. Now that is a significant error to have introduced.
Besides which, the 3D render was much clearer than the flat side view. If you want to change an image to that extent, first try not to (can the 3D render be fixed?), only do it if the initial problem is serious (it wasn't), only do it if the new image is better (it wasn't) and most of all, upload it as a new derivative, not an over-write! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was wondering if you could take a look at this DR. It's a very nice old Polish topographical map, but I don't know the appropriate laws here, and 1933 is old enough it could be PD, but not old enough it must be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
... disrupt Wikimedia Commons to illustrate a point. Nominations like this are disrupting and you know this. While I may understand the frustration in cases like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karrer.jpg and its inconsistency if compared with Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Steinbeck 1962.jpg, it is still no justification of such disruptions. At the end it comes down to the point that a judgement has to be made by the closing admin regarding the presented evidence and our policies. Inconsistencies in border cases are unavoidable in a project like this. The only approach is to submit cases at COM:UDEL or to seek a wider consensus for a set of similar cases at COM:VP. However, using this as an opportunity to harass the closing admin by an opening disrupting deletion request is a behavioral pattern which is not helpful and that does not follow the quality of work we are otherwise used to see from you. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am getting totally fed up with this place. USEL does not work. And it is those deletions by just a few copyright hawks that are disrupting Commons and the wikipedias as a whole. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Peter, that you protest against copyright hawks who measure with double standards, is oke, but do not do it by deletion requests against them.--Havang(nl) (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. This is certainly not a scultpure which is installed permanetnlly in the public space, therefore not PD in Poland. We don't know whether it is a work of the uploader or is he just uploading works of his friends of whoever. It would have been more clear, if he hadn't used "zillions" of sockpuppets (check here) for uploading files where some of them were labelled in "zillions^2" different ways. And "Zwasiel" can stand for "Zbigniew Wąsiel" (scultpurer), but it's not obvious, therefore needs OTRS clarification, as usual for professional artworks uploaded on Commons with author names given. Masur (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think we need to know if the fotographers passed their rights to the depicted persons and if yes: the heirs have to agree to the publication under a free licence (which should not be a problem in these cases I guess) or to a release them to PD. I am not sure if the uploader understands that all this material is then allowed to be used commercially and/or reworked by anybody. If rights have not been passed over by the fotographers these images have to be deleted. Im am trying to clear these questions with the uploader. --Martina Nolte (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The assumption for portraits used to be that copyright was transferred to the customer. For this kind of unpublished stuff, the owner of the object has the right to publish, in whatever way they want. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
In Germany copyright cannot be transferred, only usage rights. And there has not existed such an automatic transfer of usage rights to the depicted person. It can not at all be assumed that even the right for publication would ever include that the owner of the picture is himself allowed to transfer his rights into PD to everybody for every purpose without any restriction. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
If even the uploader himself does not claim to be neither author nor owner (or heir of one of them) it is obvious that there is no permission. The tag is right. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Stop now, please reverting the permission-tags. File:Heinrich von Nathusius (Althaldensleben).JPG was taken - just guessed by the uploader - "about 1885". Let the photographer 1885 have been 25 years old and becoming 80 years old, than he died in 1940 and the image is still not free. He could also have been still alive 1960 so that his heirs own all rights on this picture. We do not have any evidence that the photographer died before 1940. We also do not have any evidence that the image has ever been published and could thus fall under "PD-EU-no author disclosure". --Martina Nolte (talk)
Reverting each other without even an attempt of discussion is even more useless. We have these permission-tags for images lacking permission. That's it. And we do not discuss legal issues in DRs. What is your problem with that? It seems that you do not have a very deep knowledge of these copyright issues and it's hard to understand why you cannot let an administrator just decide on them thouroughly. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
DRs are for discussions about project scope. To discuss legal facts in the community is waste of time and senseless. We have these tags to be used. So you, please, stop stalking and reverting me without any reason. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The copyvio tags are wrong in most of these cases, that's why I began to change these into permission tags which you also reverted. Images where the PD-old tag is obviously wrong and where propper source description and/or permission is lacking do not need community discussions but first informations by the uploader with whom I started to clear there backgrounds. He uploaded lots of such images and I tagged only some of them examplarily to start a clearing with him. Your deletions of the permission tags (not copyvio tags) is not helpful in this. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
You overeagerly close a deletion discussion and when I continue it you delete my comment and stop the discussion? Please refrain from such behaviour, a non-admin closure is not something official, especially coming from you. Hekerui (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
You reverted my closure. You did this stealthily, without notifying the uploader, and without it getting listed in the daily DR log. That is highly irregular. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is relisted, you reverted minutes after I did removed your closure (made based on a misunderstanding of Commons policy, because Commons requires content to be in the public domain in the U.S., but you simply kept it regardless) and it was in response to a public discussion. So much for your accusations. Hekerui (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fine, I updated the date on their only talk page notice. Please read rule of the shorter term - your comments don't indicate you are aware of this and it's Commons policy to make sure content is in the public domain in the U.S. Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, why did you start mentioning copyright terms? The issue does not have anything to do with time limiations, it is utterly irrelevant. And stop using that officious tone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
This. I very nearly blocked you immediately (& if anyone else did it would not bother me). The tone of that is just not acceptable. If you ever make a posting like that again & I see it I will block you without further warning. --Herbytalk thyme17:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Look for example here for Martin H.'s idea of efficiency. It would be more helpfull if you encouraged Martin H. to take his controversial tagging to regular deletion discussions instead of jumping on me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I can't think of a better example of "defending the indefensible", but I too don't see Pieter's block-worthy behaviour here as warranting a 1-month block. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Agreed - given I am the one who warned him I find this very odd. BUT as far as this was concerned it was all over. If it happened again it would be another matter. Block - maybe, 1 month - nope. --Herbytalk thyme19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Pieter has a consistent pattern of blocks for harassment and other problematic behaviour, and continued to attack and make racist comments after the warning. He was nearly indeffed for harassment a while ago, and is, I believe, forbidden from communicating with Mbz1 over, among other things, attempts to use anti-Semitic cartoons to harass her.
I don't see how a someone with a long history of warnings and blocks for this behaviour, who still persists in the behaviour, does not justify a one month block. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Let me get this straight
Pieter, who has nearly been indef blocked, who is forbidden from communicating with Mbz1 because of his use of Latuff cartoons to harass her - and for complaining about which, she was blocked for a couple months, who has a consistent pattern of harassment, and who is the subject of endless discussions on this board, does not deserve ANY block? That's ridiculous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20
04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It's an amazement to all that Pieter hasn't been indef blocked, and many of his past actions could warrant it. However this isn't one of them. There's enough rope in his past to hang him with, but (with apologies to Martin) a weak joke about German efficiency would barely raise an eyebrow with anyone else. Not for Pieter's benefit, but for the project's benefit, we should apply the same standards to all editors. No-one else would receive a month-long block for this. Nor is his past history with another editor especially relevant (Pieter's attitude and disregard for some of our behavioural policies is self-evident).
If there's past history with Martin that I'm unaware of, especially if there are past blocks, then I could of course be wrong. Otherwise though, a block is justified, but I can't see how a block that long is protective rather than vengefully punitive and ineffective. Blocks like this don't help and they don't stick either - there's always some other admin who would overturn it, when they might let a more measured block stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
??? He should be indef blocked but he shouldn't be blocked for a month? Are you really calling a nasty, ridiculing ethnic slur "a weak joke about German efficiency". Shame on you! Get ahold of yourself and your ethics!SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
"He should be indef blocked but he shouldn't be blocked for a month?" Yes.
There are two reasons to block Pieter, of different lengths and requiring different standards of offence to justify them. He justified the short one, he may have justified the long (indef) one (it's a serious response, so it shouldn't be done hastily by one admin). A month though is somewhere in the middle, between these two actions. It was excessive punishment for today's offence, but not enough immediate offence or clear enough debate to warrant indeffing. As you can see by Kameraad Pjotr's unsurprising actions afterwards in unblocking, it thus wouldn't stick and so he ends up scot-free. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Martin H. immediately reverted. As he had done when uploader Middayexpress and when admin Belgrano had removed the tags. This is why there is such a long backlog, why admins do not want to work on those categories.
If this project is dysfunctional, Pieter, that's something for which you can cheerfully take credit. Your attitude and your repeated attacks on editors are a significant contribution to a poor atmosphere, one which is never going to be conducive to effective working. No doubt you contribute to the project in some way. Your role as devil's advocate in opposing almost any decision (not just deletions) has an odd value of its own in maintaining balance and avoiding simplistic populism. Yet this must be balanced against your attitude and continual attacks on others, way outside what we see as acceptable. Is your overall contribution positive or negative? Sadly I would say firmly negative. Is this so negative that it warrants a permanent ban (not a block, those are clearly ineffectual on you)? That's a question for more than one editor, but it would gain my support.
Your recent block was unwarranted because it was disproportionate to the offence, and that makes for a weak and unsupportable block. Such blocks cause rancour amongst the admins, amusement to the one blocked, and I'm sure it fed your obvious taste for drama. I for one would have supported up to a week for the offence, or indef if we saw you as beyond redemption, but not a month as that looked like an offence-based block rather than a removal of the irredeemable, yet it was excessive for that crude joke (Calling Germans "efficient" is far less offensively racist than those comments afterwards that immediately equated Germans with anti-semitism!).
I do not think that this project needs you, benefits from you, or that you should any longer be part of this project. But that should be as the result of debate in the right place, not a one-off response to an insult, even if racist. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
People like Martin H. have no qualms about continually attacking contributors with accusations of "carelessness", "copyfraud" or "falsity". Nobody here cares about that. Contributors from other projects get permbanned here, like Hcrepin by admin Rama or Elkawa by admin Sandstein. Without any consequence for their admin status.
Most of my time here is spent on unnoticed and unglamorous categorization in the physics category tree. I also got pretty good at opposing deletions, but what is the drama in that? The gratuitous deletions of 19th century photos is what got me decided to get involved here, and that job has required a lot of searching. Somewhere else you say that I would have "traumatized" Adam Cuerden. Well, he has been dramatically "retiring" many times, before he chose to focus on me. I never blocked him, and I never deleted any of his images. Or anybody else's for that matter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
This isn't about other people, it's about you. Why are you such a WP:DICK? If you want to do categorization in physics, then do it. Nothing requires you to be as abusive as you so frequently are, so why do that?
I cut you a lot of slack because you're Dutch, and the (generalised) Dutch have both excellent English language skills and yet a blunt social attitude that confuses the English no end. It's frequently seen as amazingly rude - Dutch rudeness can be so amazingly and unexpectedly rude that I've seen it cause car crashes. If this stuff was written in Cyrillic, or pronounced with a heavy acccent, the English would be far better able to deal with it. Written as native- English though, they see it as an extremely rude Englishman, and react accordingly. That aside, you're still a WP:DICK. We agree here to not do things that we might normally do, and usually that works well, no matter how artificial (and indeed, insincere) it seems. Yet you refuse to play ball. I can only assume that it's because you enjoy the drama and Commons has no place for such teenage antics - there's :en WP for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why involve national and/or ethnic classifications here? Why drag everyone from the Netherlands into it? Doesn't Kuiper's instantaneous retaliation speak for itself? Always? There's nothing "Dutch" about that. Just his feeling that he can do and write and reply what he pleases in each and every situation. OK this is his talk page, so here too he can show us that he is flawless, and all he looks for is something somebody wrote that he can attack back. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
@ Andy Dingley. Quote from WP:DICK: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move...". Blaming Pieter for all the problems is a mistake and not helpfull. We have to concider 2 things. What he say and how he say it. It is easy and popular to say that Pieter is rude etc. and that he should be blocked. But that is not helpfull and it does not solve the problem. What about also looking at the reasons for the actions?
Example: If Pieter comments that a user adds "No source" on files where they should not be added then I think a good user and/or admin would do this:
Tell Pieter something like: I agree that user x should not do this or that but comments like (link) is not acceptable. Please stop (or if the comment is rude enough make a short block). I have informed the user not to use "no source" (or whatever - see below) ... and
Inform the user not to use "no source" but to start a DR and/or
Make a note on the "no source"-template that it should not be used in cases where there is a source mentioned and that such files should be send to a DR instead and/or
Add a button on the no source that makes it very easy to convert a "no source" to a DR or
If Pieter is not right inform him that he is not right on this matter (link).
Being German with a partly Dutch family background I'd like to get away from this cultural focus (we have rude and kind people in all cultures) and instead would like to give an example how I experienced the same problem as already mentioned above with Pieter just a couple of days ago: I came across several hundreds of uploads by one user of works created between mid of the 19th and up to 2008. A mixture of anonymous works and works by known authors, published and unpublished, partly described as own work or with the uploaders real name as author (where he isn't author), mostly licenced as PD-old. I tagged some of them as copyvios and started a discussion with the uploader (he's German, too) about what kind of questions and problems I have and see there. Pieter reverted the tags with permission was given (scan from a photo from 1942, uploaders name given, but only owned privately = a clear copyvio) or changed PD-old undifferentiated into another wrong licence with Undo revision... ([7], [8] and others). I started a discussion with him on his site pointing out the issue and - as a compromise - choosed the missing permission tag insteed of copyvio speedys. He still reverted me ([it is old) and became more and more rude and personal when I asked him to stop these reverts. Make a DR, stop bugging me., Make a DR and you might learn something., Prinzipienreiterei] (harping on about principles). In the end he started DRs on pictures of me to illustrate his point even more clearly. He thus converted a simple question of "how to" into a more and more personal animosity without any step for a solution to the underlying copyright questions. I score this as a higly disruptive and destructive attitude that should not get socially acceptable in a collaborative project. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: Personal attack in edit summary.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "I will never write "wat ben je toch een lul" (which is a translation of "you are such a DICK") ever again. If it can be a mitigating circumstance, this was the first time I used such a vulgarism in writing. It is wrong between grown-up civilized people and should not be condoned and I will be forever indebted to Multichill for reminding me of what I had known since Kindergarten. I will rinse my mouth. Please expunge and oversight my edit summary, it is such an embarrasment to have it in the edit history of my user page that I stooped to such levels of incivility."
Decline reason: "Given that I had just warned you about abusive language and not for the first time I decline this request and would have blocked you myself as Multichill did had I seen the edit. In the insanity that is currently Commons others may disagree but I hope folk will look very very carefully before overturning this block. Indeed it is time I think to consider whether it is likely you are capable of contributing to a collaborative project properly in the longer term - I have my doubts and will think about this while we have the opportunity. It is sad but Herbytalk thyme08:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)"Reply
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
Pieter Kuiper does a great deal of useful work -- more than 50,000 edits on Commons -- in tagging files for deletion, in finding images from which Commons copyvios were copied, and in categorization. I do not disagree with him any more than I disagree with several other active editors. So, from one point of view, I would hate to see him banned indefinitely.
On the other hand, he is highly disruptive. This is not the first or second time we have had to spend editor time discussing whether he is worth the trouble he causes. When I first became an Admin, he harassed me on many decisions -- even posted me to his "Wall of Shame" -- and only the encouragement of colleagues -- notably Herby and Rocket000, but others as well -- kept me active here. I firmly believe that he does the same to many new users and Admins and that we have lost users and possibly Admins because of it. So, I agree with Herby -- it is time to think seriously about whether all that good work is worth the trouble that comes with it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
How do some editors (mostly thankfully elsewhere at :en) obtain these "Get out of jail free" cards? Pieter's inability to switch off his wish to argue and insult whilst he's here at Commons fails a very basic requirement for working on any of these projects. Think it if you must, but don't act on it. His contributions are an irrelevance - you _must_ make at least some attempt to abide by these rules, no matter what else you bring. Pieter simply doesn't care and doesn't see such petty constraints as applying to him.
So would I, but only because (as both users above have described eloquently) Pieter Kuiper once and for all has proven himself incorrigibly disruptive to the project through his attitude. I would never support a permanent ban of anyone if I felt there was the slightest chance that he/she might improve in his/her attitude. Based on what I have seen, over and over, that is not conceivable in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Someone told Pieter that he is a dick and Pieter told that user you are a dick your self (something like that if I understand the translation correctly). That got Pieter blocked. It may sound unfair since he did not started this time.
However, I support the block because I think we should put a stop for users that talks bad to or about other users. This should of course not just apply for Pieter but for all users.
Pieter is blocked and that should be enough for now. When he comes back he will hopefully do his best not to do anything worth blocking for. If he does not manage to do that he can be blocked when the time comes. But lets try to be positive from now on.
So before you post any more negative comments about Pieter please consider "What good will that do?" "Am I really helping Commons or am I a WP:DICK if I do that?". My opinion is: "It will do no good. It will only add more to the the bad climate on Commons.". So I really think we should block the next user that makes a negative comment here on this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
Done. I've left the version as one without the wall of shame. I actually have no issues with it however the actual word "shame" may well be unhelpful to your position I guess. --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
_plaque_Jules_Supervielle.JPG){kind=link}
Comment Even if other users make personal attacks and gets away with it does not give you the right to make comments like that. If you make more "illustrations" like that I'll block you myself. --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
:
.JPG){kind=link}
_Control_IAS_IN000870.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_IN000010.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_IN000879.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANashville_Parthenon_005.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=45755779&oldid=45754853){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_IN000126.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_IN000057.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_IN000825.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_IN000014.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Polte-Werke,_Messestand,_1934.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=46278413){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=46276263){kind=link}
