User talk:Tulp8

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Atsje)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Tulp8!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 information 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 Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Photographer's Barnstar
Hello Atsje,

I see you've photographed all municipal monuments in Baarn, very good! However, would you please categorize them in Gemeentelijke monumenten in Baarn instead of just Baarn? Also, adding the {{Gemeentelijk monument}} template will make it easier to associate your photographs with the monuments. As you can see in File:Baarn Amsterdamsestraatweg40.JPG will this also add the distinctive emblem of the municipality of Baarn to the photograph. Thank you Vera (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baarn Brinkstraat 44ab.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!

JuTa 22:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baarn BWV De Eem logo.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!

EvilFreD overleg 20:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Baarn Theekoepel van IJsendijk 1903.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Andries de Wilde.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Dr Sytze Greidanus jong ca 1875.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 07:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atsje, ik heb het bestand File:OpenStreetmap Kerkplein Breda.jpg genomineerd voor speedy deletion (directe verwijdering), omdat de afbeelding niet zoals de titel zegt afkomstig is van Openstreetmap, maar van Google Maps, waarop auteursrechten staan. - Mvg Supercarwaartalk 15:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inderdaad, meteen nuweg dus! Super.. bedankt voor het melden, er is inmiddels een vervangend bestand geupload. Groet, 86.88.254.29 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Willem Carel van Boetzelaer 1925.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!

Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Natuur. Van de familie Lex van Boetzelaer ontvangen, het is me te veel gedoe om de rechten te regelen, 'k zal hem zelf wel weggooien. Groet, Atsje (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, dat lijkt niet te kunnen, dan maar de termijn afwachten.Atsje (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Caroline Constance Albertina van der Hucht-Kerkhoven.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Basvb (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

[edit]
Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

Hallo Atsje, betreft het hier Willem Carel van Boetzelaer (1845-1935) en Margaretha Nicolasina van Schuylenburch (1852-1930). Zo ja, dan klopt de beschrijving niet. Betreft het Johanna Charlotta van Schuylenburch (1843-1891) die in 1864 Godfried Hendrik Leonard baron van Boetzelaer (1842-1914) huwde, dan klopt de naam niet. Kan je even nazien? Bedankt. Lotje (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Het betreft hier het huwelijk tussen Mr. Willem Carel baron van Boetzelaer (geb. 15 sep 1845 ovl. 16 sep 1934) en Margaretha Nicolasina jonkvrouw van Schuylenburch (geb. 12 dec 1852 ovl. 18 apr 1930). Ze zijn op 30 jan 1873 getrouwd. Deze 50-jarige bruiloft is dus een paar dagen later dan de eigenlijke datum gevierd. De beschrijving (1902) klopte inderdaad niet, terwijl de naam van de foto wel klopte. Het moet 2 februari 1923 zijn. Ik heb het al aangepast. --Lex vB (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Augusta de Wit BWSA.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!

Tekstman (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portet Andreas Willem Tjaarda-door Anna Joustra-olie doek-kl.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!

Tekstman (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herman Groenendaal2.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!

Tekstman (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RKD zonder watermerk

[edit]

Hey,

Ik heb een scriptje geschreven dat de watermerken uit afbeeldingen van de RKD haald, zie http://www.veradekok.nl/Dememorixer/ --Vera (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escher Vogels gemeentehuis Baarn 4a.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!

Vera (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Baarn Jan Broerze-De Fluitspeler 28.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  polski  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  ไทย  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−

Vera (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  हिन्दी hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Paul Ovink 2016 20.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Paul Ovink 2016 20.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Vera (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  हिन्दी hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Paul Ovink 2016 20a.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Paul Ovink 2016 20a.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Vera (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  हिन्दी hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Paul Ovink 2016 21.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Paul Ovink 2016 21.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Vera (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nederlandsche Kinderbond Bondslied.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!

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verkeerde id's

[edit]

Hallo Tulp8, bij diverse foto's gemaakt in Baarn kom ik nog een aantal tegen zonder id. Zie ook [1] Zou je deze kunnen toevoegen? Alvast bedankt. Rudolphous (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syrinx

[edit]

Dag, Tulp8. nl:Syrinx staat op mijn volglijst en ik zie dat je de pagina hebt beveiligd, maar er staat bij Trivia, en daaronder, nog een stuk vandalistische tekst. Groet, Eissink (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Beste Tulp8, Dit werk is eigenlijk pas nu net publiek domein geworden. Auteursrechtem verlopen namelijk pas aan het eind van het jaar waarin het 70 jaar geleden is dat de auteur is te komen overleiden. Je moet dus eigenlijk 71 jaar rekenen. Vera (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De BWSA publiceert tekst onder een cc-by-sa licentie. Ze hebben naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet de rechten van het beeldmateriaal in hun bezit. Bij deze foto gok ik dat ze de auteur in de attributie zouden hebben overgenomen als die er was in de publicatie waar ze deze uit hebben. Als dat er niet bij staat kan je het sjabloon wat ik er nu onder heb gehangen gebruiken. Vera (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edo Fimmen.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!

Vera (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. van Asbeck

[edit]

Dag, Tulp8.

Met interesse – vanwege de Internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte – heb ik de aanmaak gezien, eerst van je artikel over Jeanne van den Bergh van Eysinga-Elias, vervolgens dat over Mellina van Asbeck. Ik vrees echter dat je de laatste ten onrechte aanziet voor de M. van Asbeck die bestuurslid was van de ISW. Geen van de bronnen die je geeft bevestigt dan ook die identificatie. ISW's "baronesse M. van Asbeck" was m.i. niet Agnes Mellina (Melline) van Asbeck (1886-1962), maar haar tante, Mariane Cathérine van Asbeck (1862-1931). Een bron die dit bevestigt is het proefschrift van Mireille Kirkels over Gerrit Mannoury (zie alhier). Zoals je zelf al schreef, was Melline amper in Nederland, en ze was ook wat aan de jonge kant voor een ISW-bestuursfunctie (enkele anderen waren een jaar of vijf ouder, maar Van Eeden en Mariane Cathérine waren de vijftig al gepasseerd). Ik hoop dat je mijn conclusie kunt delen, anders zul je volgens mij met betere bronnen moeten komen. Ik heb in elk geval een foto van A.M. van Asbeck geüpload.

Met vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Eissink. Dank voor de reactie. 'k Heb de info meteen aangepast zodat ik het op mijn gemak kan overdenken. Maar 'k ga er vanuit dat uw bronnen kloppen. Ook de foto is bijgeplaatst. Die was ik wel tegengekomen maar was niet zeker of de beeldrechten het gebruik toestonden door het ontbreken van een jaartal. 'k Ben geïnteresseerd in Frederik van Eeden en de kringen rondom hem en kom zo uit bij meerdere interessante personen. Maar papieren bronnen heb ik niet, dus in ben in deze tijden aangewezen op internet. Zou er over tante nog een pagina in zitten? Enkel het zitting hebben in het bestuur van de Internationale Schools voor Wijsbegeerte maakt haar niet E. 'k Vond het overigens wel interessant om te lezen dat beide Van Asbecks in internationale kringen verkeerden. Met vriendelijke groet, Tulp8 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
De meest interessante figuur "rond" Van Eeden – het was meer andersom – was wel en:Victoria Welby ('t NL-artikel is nagenoeg waardeloos). Welby's invloed leidde via Van Eeden tot wat later "De Hollandse Significa" is gaan heten. Ik heb op dat vlak redelijk wat geschriften weten te verzamelen: schroom a.u.b. niet te vragen, mocht dat zo uitkomen.
Misschien kan Paul Brussel nagaan of over Mariane Cathérine van Asbeck meer te vertellen is – ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar haar betrokkenheid bij de ISW. De naam Asbeck komt tweemaal voor in Van Eeden's dagboeken, maar onduidelijk is daarbij hoe of wat (een huurder op Walden? ik weet het niet).
Succes en plezier gewenst, Eissink (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
P.S. Ik heb maar één bron gevonden die een naam geeft bij "M. van Asbeck", en het is dan wel een proefschrift, maar ook in proefschriften worden fouten gemaakt en een bron voor haar aanname geeft Kirkels niet, ze noemt alleen de naam. M.a.w.: wie weet was het toch Melline, de aanwervingsprospectus had tientallen figuren van allerlei achtergrond aangetrokken, en op het eerste gezicht lijkt Melline misschien meer in die kringen thuis dan Mariane. Hoe langer ik er over nadenk, hoe minder onwaarschijnlijk ik het begin te vinden. Aanvankelijk is er namelijk zelfs sprake van een school voor wijsbegeerte én sociologie, precies de richtingen waarin Melline later zou afstuderen (terwijl van Mariane op dat vlak niets te vinden lijkt). Ook was er wel een theosofische factie aanvankelijk afgekomen op de plannen. Enzovoort. Het vergt nader onderzoek, maar ik weet zo snel niet waar nu te zoeken – als ik ooit nog wat tegenkom, dan laat ik het weten. Eissink (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Kirkels heeft zich vergist... Zie hier: Melline d'Asbeck, Thoughts on a High School for philosophy (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1915). Het was dus wel degelijk Melline! (En "Melline" moet denk ik ook de naam zijn voor het artikel, dus niet Mellina). Zeer interessant dit, want haar naam, laat staan dit geschrift, vond ik nergens – tot nu, want Wijnand Mijnhard noemde naam en titel een paar jaar geleden in deze MNL-jaarrede. En daarmee is dus ook zeker een betrouwbare bron gevonden (altijd weer gek dat Google zulke teksten niet direct vindt). Bedankt voor het op het spoor zetten! Eissink (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Tot slot: vermeldenswaard is volgens mij ook dat ze, als "Jkvr. Mellina van Asbeck", in 1912 een artikel publiceerde (zie advertentie) in Het Tijdschrift. Een Koloniaal-Politische, Sociologische en Algemeen-Kultureele Revue voor 't denkende Deel van het Indische Publiek, nr. 3, getiteld 'Over de Grondslagen en de Individualiteit der Moraal'. Naast haar proefschrift over nl:Jan van Ruusbroec, dat in twee verschillende edities verscheen, heb ik zo snel geen verdere publicaties aangetroffen (maar ze heeft dus ook een proefschrift in de sociologie geschreven). Eissink (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Eissink. Het gebeurt me vaker: hoe meer ik weet, hoe meer ik zou willen weten. Zo'n ontdekkingstocht is een soort schatgraven. Ik stel voor om eens aan Wim de Wagt te informeren hoe de relatie tussen Melline/Mellina en de ISW was. Ik zou daarbij de hoofdzaken van hierboven kunnen gebruiken. Het resultaat kan ik dan aan Paul Brussel voorleggen om te kijken of die nog iets hierover in zijn boekenkast kan vinden. Tulp8 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aan Paul dacht ik vooral vanwege de tante, die vermoedelijk uiteindelijk niets met het hele verhaal te maken heeft, maar wie weet. Eissink (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Van De Wagt kwam de volgende reactie: Wat interessant allemaal, maar wat sneu ook voor ‘mijn’ Mellina, dat er getwijfeld wordt aan haar inzet voor de Internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte… Ik vermoed (maar ik kan het mis hebben), dat u mijn historische roman 'De barones en de vluchteling' niet hebt gelezen. Weliswaar een roman, maar gebaseerd op uitvoerig bronnenonderzoek in binnen- en buitenland. Na lezing kan er geen twijfel meer bestaan over haar betrokkenheid! Eén voorbeeldje: haar brieven aan Frederik van Eeden hierover, die de vestigingsplaats betroffen, Den Haag of Amersfoort. Ik zou zeggen: koop mijn boek (Boom uitgevers te Amsterdam). Alles staat daarin. Van de door u genoemde tante had ik overigens nooit gehoord. Maar er is veel wat ik niet weet over haar. Bijvoorbeeld ook de reden dat ze al kort na het starten van het initiatief vertrok. De Eerste Wereldoorlog? Haar vader, die diplomaat was en met wie ze in het buitenland vertoefde? Arme Mellina, zo’n bijzondere vrouw: erudiet, ondernemend en visionair. Leest u bijvoorbeeld het artikel dat ik onlangs op LinkedIn plaatste, over haar idee om een Europese politieke partij op te richten, in 1932!.
Met deze reactie kan het geparkeerde stukje dus teruggeplaatst worden. Maar wel fijn dat de twijfel tot meer interessante inzichten heeft geleid. Daarom bedankt voor het meedenken! Tulp8 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mijn twijfel kwam natuurlijk (zeg ik wellicht ten overvloede) omdat geen van de aanvankelijke bronnen de identiteit bevestigden, het bleef telkens "M.". Daarna kwam de eerste identificatie bij Kirkels, maar die blijkt het dus fout te hebben. Na de vondst van Van Asbecks boekje uit 1915, én de bevestiging door Mijnhard, had het geparkeerde stuk wat mij betreft ook zeker al teruggeplaatst kunnen worden. Het was natuurlijk niet mijn bedoeling om onnodig twijfel te zaaien, de eerste bronnen waren gewoon onduidelijk (en Kirkels dus zelfs abuis).
In het goedkoop te verkrijgen A.F. Heijerman en M.J. van den Hoven (redactie), Filosofie in Nederland. De internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte als ontmoetingsplaats 1916-1986 (Boom, Meppel, 1986) is het een en ander te lezen over de roerige ontstaansjaren (en ook daar is het telkens "M.", haar voornaam wordt geloof ik nergens genoemd). Er was al vrij snel sprake van een botsing tussen de theosofisch geörienteerden (Reiman e.a.) en de meer wetenschappelijk ingestelden (Brouwer e.a.), wat wel als reden wordt genoemd voor het ontbreken van een meer precieze documentatie van de ontwikkeling in die jaren.
Zoals De Wagt als ondertitel zelf ook aangeeft, is zijn werk een historische roman, ik zou dat niet onder het kopje "Biografie" zetten. Ik ben geen liefhebber van dat genre (ondat de lezer feit en fictie niet meer uit elkaar kan halen en er dus hoe dan ook een vals beeld de wereld wordt ingebracht), maar als ik het tegenkomen zal ik het lezen.
Weinig leuker dan het uitpluizen van dit soort zaken, dus graag gedaan. En bedankt voor het artikel! Eissink (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Beschrijving bij files

[edit]

Hallo Tulp8, wil je eens kijken naar bv. deze afbeelding? Het ligt ziet er nogal verhakkeld uit. Er zijn er een heel aantal Thanks. Lotje (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Het ziet ernaar uit dat de aangegeven foto's met mijn oude camera zijn gemaakt. Die camera had moeite met belichting. Het kopje hierboven luidt " Beschrijving bij files", dat begrijp ik niet goed in relatie tot de belichting. Kunt u dat nog even aangeven? Ziet u graag d at de genoemde foto' s opnieuw gemaakt worden of bedoelt u toch iets anders? Met vriendelijke groet, Tulp8 (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]