User talk:Arch/Archive 1

Welcome to the Commons, Arch/Archive 1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image Tagging Image:Cot.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} 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. --Filnik 09:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Makkum 08268.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Julle Boelens wapen.svg

Hi,

You did a lovely new piece for the file and I do encourage you to upload the new version separately in order for it to be used. --Malinion

Hello, just fixing up some old work. Separately uploading is not necessary as long files are not in use on any page. Regards. --Arch (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted my upload, please dont do that. --Arch (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I see you are the original creator. --Malinion 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Armorial de Beyeren

Thanks a lot for uploading these images. I think though that the digital copy of the original book has some flaws due to the armorial's old age. In particular it looks like you made some arms where Or should have been used instead of argent. E.g. the King of Aragon was supposed to wear Or four pallets gules, and the King of France is well known to have had golden fleurs-de-lis. The King of Sicily was incidentally also a member of the House of Anjou and used to wear "Azure semé-de-lis Or, a label gules". So it seems like the original golden colour had just become too pale and you mistook it for argent. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I already knew that, the colors are so badly faded, an there's indeed a little (sometimes almost indistinguishable) difference between gold and silver. Not only Gold and silver, but (I guess) green too. (See File:Die heer van Pe.svg its a indefinable color) I have to research this. I think the chances are likely that some inaccuracies will arise. I dont recognize all the shields and/or names, to make it worse, the names are in medieval spelling. I have to figure out the unkowns ofcourse. If you encounter something, please let me know, if you would want to, so I can update them. It will save me a lot of time anyway. Thanks for the tips Aragon, France, Sicily, I will immediately grab the paintbrush, regards --Arch (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was also wondering about "Die heer van Pe". The shield could be vert but then the eagles shouldn't be sable since you wouldn't usually combine two tinctures without a metal. The Rietstap's armorial mentions the Barons of Pé de Tannère [1] but the blazon doesn't match the Beyeren image. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Die heer van Weesmaell.svg and File:Die heer van Wesemaell.svg are obviously the same arms. I think we could easily keep only of one these files and redirect the other. What do you think though? De728631 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

About "Die heer van Pe", I guess that someday the answer will pop up, the road to Rome was not built in one day. I've did a little research too, but didn't find anything usefull. About "double files", some shields appear often double (or triple) in the book. When finished it should be a copy amorial like the Gelre Armorial on Commons. There's sometimes a Difference in blazon, sometimes in spelling. I do not know how important this can be. But I guess that such a thing is to solve by changing the names in the main namespace. However, the smallest image anomalies are relevant.

• 
• 
• 

Above three versions of Henegouwen, in the beginning of the book just one lion, than with quarters, but the newest version those lions have coloured nails. Well, did Claes Heynensoon made an error? Or is it an indication that the shield was inriched between 1238 and 1405? Its higly interesting. So perhaps it's wise not to make a decision hastily. Let's look at the issue again in a month? --Arch (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind images where the blazon is obviously different and so the elements have changed because of enrichment etc. But where the blazon stays the same, I don't think we need two different versions where the fleurs-de-lis are slightly smaller or larger (Weesmaell). And with medieval sources I'd say the spelling is the least concern. That said, do we really need File:Die heer van Diest II.svg too? On the other hand, I would welcome another version of File:Heren van Montfoort wapen.svg with a shield that fits Heynensoon's style. These arms occur on page 13v as "die borchgreve van montford" (don't be fooled by the upper right figure; the slightly coloured background is just shining through from the page before). De728631 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Die heer van Vyanen
• 
  Jan van Vyanen

On On page 13 en 14 are the shields from the lord of Vianen, and his son Jan. They are presented as two shields. Indeed the same shields (in this case) becausse it doesn't have Turnierkragen or a label. you propose to upload only one file in this case. SO the name "Jan" will not apear in something that should be complete. And why? To save a few bytes? I call it poverty. If it were dozens of descendants with the same shield I can follow. Worse, I will cost me twice as much time, becausse I should look trough the whole book to see of there are doubles. You take away the fun with this type of proposal, at the expense of history. --Arch (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my proposal. We can use redirects from different names to a file with one and the same shield, so the descendants bearing the same arms will in fact show up in a search and in the category. The different armigers can also be mentioned in the description for the common arms file. And nobody said that you would have to pick out the doubles beforehand. It would probably be much easier to scan Category:Armorial de Beyeren once your finished with your work because the category can be accessed much easier than the original scans. As to the purpose of all this, we have a policy at Commons that allows for the deletion of exact duplicates, so sooner or later somebody else will certainly come around and wonder about these redundant images. My approach is to not give them material for lengthy discussion and solve such issues rather sooner than later. But that is just me, so please don't worry. I won't go ahead and nominate any of the duplicates. All I wanted to do was to point you at this potential issue. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, now I understand, I didn't know that such kind of solution was possible. Well, that sounds alright to me. If you can manage such kind of redirects than I can support it. I ont know how to do that. :) --Arch (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

They work like normal wiki redirects: you create a new page [[File:Jan van Takatukaland]] and just add a #REDIRECT[[File:Coat of arms of Takatukaland]] Once there are already any redundant images though, one of them would have to be deleted. In such cases I suggest we keep the generic name of the House like Die heer van Vyanen and redirect from any personal names. How does that sound? De728631 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make a redirect for Jan van Vianden, but I cannot see the name "Jan" when I cross my mouse over the image, what is the solution for this? Arch (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mouseover is not going to work anyway. You need to add the redirect page to Category:Armorial de Beyeren (or others) so the link shows up in the category. I've done that with File:Jan van Vyanen.svg. While the category link is not visible on the redirect page itself, the file link and the piped image do show up in the category. And you can also do an exact search for "Jan van Vyanen" and will get the desired result. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Vos

Dank je wel voor je vriendelijke bericht. Ik ben inderdaad wel eens in Dantumadeel geweest, maar ik kan me het bord met een wapen niet herinneren; wellicht staat dat niet langs fierpaden. Wel heb ik de versie met de springende vos eerder gezien, maar ik heb me het probleem pas gerealiseerd toen ik de versies naast elkaar zag. Dat de gemeente een verkeerd wapen voert is natuurlijk hun zaak, maar ik zal het er met mijn collega's herauten over hebben, bij ons komende overleg; misschien is er iets aan te doen. Tenslotte baseert de gemeente zich op een oudere afbeelding, dus wellicht is het mogelijk om het blazoen daar aan aan te passen, of andersom. De weergave is op zich ook heel voorstelbaar, omdat de snellere honden ook inderdaad meestal springend worden afgebeeld, maar in dit geval is het blazoen expliciet.

Waar ik vandaan haal dat de vos lopend (nu, ja "loopend") moet zijn is uiteraard de vaststelling van de Hoge Raad van Adel. Ik heb die hier niet bij de hand, maar gelukkig staat die op dezelfde pagina van de gemeente (in wat gemoderniseerde bewoording): "Zijnde een schild, gevuld als volgt: het bovenste Keel, - een gegolfde beek van zilver. Het derde gedeelte van goud beladen met een lopende Vos van Keel . Het onderste gedeelte van groen – Het Schild gedekt met een gouden Kroon." (25 Maart 1818). Denk er om dat het blazoen nauwkeurig en bepalend is, niet de op zich vrije veergave die alleen maar hoeft te voldoen aan het blazoen maar in verdere details kan variëren.

Ik ben niet erg actief op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedie, en ik zie je bericht daar ook niet. Maar hoe dan ook draag ik voornamelijk door de week bij aan Wikipedia; mij tijdens het Pinksterweekeinde verwijten dat ik niet reageer is een tikje haastig. Mysha (talk)

Mijn "vriendelijkheid" komt voort uit het gebrek aan vertrouwen dat je kennelijk hebt in een medegebruiker die hier al jaren samen met andere (vrijwel constant) mee bezig is. We zijn projectmatig alle Nederlandse wapens aan het nalopen en corrigeren. Om een lang verhaal kort te maken, we doen dit met behulp van bronnen. In het boek "Gemeentewapens in Nederland. 1914-1989. Naar het officiële register van de Hoge Raad van Adel. 's-Gravenhage, VNU-Uitgeverij, 1989." kunnen we lezen over de bende die het gaf tijdens de beginjaren. Antonie Frederik Zurcher kreeg tussen 1814 en 1820 een gigantische opdracht op alle wapens op te tekenen, hij moest daarbij nauwgezet de ingezonden afbeeldingen natekenen. De verzoeken waren veelal voorzien van zeer summiere beschrijvingen (!) in enkele gevallen zelfs zonder (!) beschrijving of toelichting. Later ontstond daardoor de vraag of nu de afbeelding of juist de beschrijving leidend zou moeten zijn. Bij Koninklijk Besluit van 23 april 1919, Stb. 181, kwam aan de onduidelijkheid een einde, voor zover het overheidsorganen betrof. De stelregel is dat bij de latere wapens (na 23 april 1919) de beschrijving leidend is, afbeeldingen van Zurcher zijn dus leidend. Om die reden moeten wapens uit Zurchers' tijdperk exact overgenomen worden zoals de afbeelding volgens het register , want het blazoen is dus uitsluitend nauwkeurig en bepalend ná 1820. Een beschrijving of afbeelding aanpassen is juist uit en boze, het gaat immers om een KB. Zelfs voor een kleinigheid als een een spelfout moet een nieuw KB worden gemaakt, zoals onlangs nog bleek in Alphen aan den Rijn! Of een extra staart voor het wapen van Hattem. Daardoor kunnen we nu met zekerheid zeggen dat het wapen van Nijmegen volgens de beschrijving (KB 07-08-1953 een rode kroon hoort te hebben, terwijl de tekening in het register een blauwe toont. Nu komt het, een wettelijke verplichting voor zowel de aanvraag als het voeren van een wapen bestaat er niet. In de praktijk komt dit bijna niet voor, een officieel door de Kroon verleend wapen wordt algemeen op prijs gesteld. Dat wil zeggen, dat als Nijmegen een wapen in gebruik heeft met een blauwe muts dat niet fout is. Sterker nog, een gemeente kan besluiten een wapen met Calimero erop te gaan voeren, het is niet verboden, ondanks dat zo'n denkbeeldig wapen geen opname in het register heeft, of een KB, dan is het toch het wapen van gemeente X. Nu Dantumadeel. Zoals we zien is het diploma bevestigd op 25-03-1818. Dat valt dus in Zurchers' tijdperk, derhalve is de tekening leidend. Zoals ik al met de voorbeelden liet zien van de gemeenteborden, maar ook te zien is op de website van de gemeente; ook zij gebruiken de springende vos. Ongetwijfeld staat de afbeelding ook zo op de burgemeestersketen, en op het gemeente stempel (als ze het wapen daarvoor gebruiken). De afbeelding met de lopende vos komt van NGW, dat foutief op basis van de beschrijving gemaakt werd. Wapens worden bij Koninklijk Besluit vastgelegd, zowel afbeeldingen als beschrijvingen, daar kunnen en mogen wij als Wikipedia vrijwilligers niet aan tornen. De enige mogelijkheid zou zijn geweest, als er daadwerkelijk een officiële afbeelding bestaat (niet zo'n zelf gefabriceerd plaatje van NGW, de enige afbeelding die er bestaat met een lopende vos, NGW blijkt echter géén betrouwbare bron) om er een tweede wapen bij te maken waarop de vos lopend zichtbaar is met als onderschrift, het wapen volgens de beschrijving. Enfin, m'n irritatie nam idd toe doordat ik zag dat je niet reageerde op wiki-NL, maar daags erna wél hier weer wijzigingen doorvoerde om je POV kenbaar te maken, met de afwijzing van de goede tip van een collega door even overleg op te zoeken ipv stellig je "gelijk" aan te willen tonen. Ik hoop dat bovenstaand verhaal je nu duidelijk maakt dat de afbeelding wel degelijk correct is, ondanks de afwijkende beschrijving. Groetjes --Arch (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Hermen van Wittene.svg

 

Pay attention to licensing

Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. File:Hermen van Wittene.svg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file. If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

Elisfkc (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Euert van Wisscell.svg

 

Pay attention to licensing

Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. File:Euert van Wisscell.svg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file. If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

Elisfkc (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You should look further than just tagging images from old users, start a little talk? hm? Some people can made mistakes that are very easy to solve. Show a little humanity next time friend instead playing tagging police. --Arch (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Her Claes van Cranendonck.svg

FYI, I've restored the previous version with argent fields since these are the arms of Cranendonck according to Rietstap [2]. It may be though that either Rietstap or Heynenzoon made a botch here because the blazon for a branch of Cranendonck does describe a quarterly shield, but the crosses are coloured just the other way around. But then you never know with the many extinct cadet branches of the noble houses... I think though it's safe to assume that if the main arms with three horns in a field of silver were still borne in the 19th century it should be what we call the "Stammwappen" in German. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent :) I thougt the same allready, its confirmed here. The crosses are clear, I'm familiar with Stammwappen ;) here we say "Stamwapen" Tnx! --Arch (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Diest

I've found the blason for the Lord of Diest and the arms are in fact "Or 2 fesses sable" (see also File:Diest-St-Wappen 096 5.png). So I think we don't need File:Die heer van Diest II.svg any longer because it is an identical copy. Would you mind if I delete it? De728631 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Dont mind it, indeed we can use one shield too, so just go ahead. PS tnx for the nice work on the decriptions, seems very nice :) --Arch (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Her Geldoff van Zenne.svg

This seems to be evidence that Pac-man was already played in the Middle-ages. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Oostzaan wapen.svg

Hoi Arch, hier staat toch echt het wapen van Opperdoes, niet dat van Oostzaan. Ik kan het helaas niet ongedaan maken, want "het lijkt al ongedaan gemaakt te zijn". Met vriendelijke groet, Dqfn13 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ik zie net dat Niessl het vandaag al heeft gewijzigd. Actie is dus niet langer nodig. Groet, Dqfn13 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi-res images of Beyeren armorial

Hi Arch,

I'd like to inform you that I just uploaded the full Beyeren armorial in hi-res, pls check https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Armorial_de_Beyeren

(these are the images that are visible in https://galerij.kb.nl/kb.html#/nl/wapenboek

With kind regards, --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Roggel.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Roggel.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Roggel.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Roggel.jpg

File:Roggel.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!

De728631 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Salvador wapen.svg

File:Salvador wapen.svg 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!

Jcb (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Vestingwerken oud nederlands-stelsel.png

File:Vestingwerken oud nederlands-stelsel.png 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!

Dldwg (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Vestingtermen.jpg

File:Vestingtermen.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!

Dldwg (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Coat of arms of Steenbergen (city).svg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Coat of arms of Steenbergen (city).svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Sittard-Geleen.svg

File:Coat of arms of Sittard-Geleen.svg 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!

Thayts (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Wapen-Oost-Gelre.png

File:Wapen-Oost-Gelre.png 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) 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Wilhelmina van Bronckhorst.png

File:Wilhelmina van Bronckhorst.png 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!

Oursana (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Willem Vincent van Wittenhorst.png

File:Willem Vincent van Wittenhorst.png 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!

Oursana (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Krimpen aan den Ijssel vlag.svg

File:Krimpen aan den Ijssel vlag.svg 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!

Ceahjlazco1882 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)