User talk:LimoWreck

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Dadizele_-_Dadipark_1.jpg

[edit]
Image deletion warning Image:Dadizele_-_Dadipark_1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Sterkebaktalk 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nieuwpoort_-_Albertmonument_-_1.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Brbbl (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nieuwpoort_-_Albertmonument_-_2.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Brbbl (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nieuwpoort_-_Albertmonument_-_3.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Brbbl (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nieuwpoort_-_Albertmonument_-_Albert_I.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Brbbl (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betreffende bovenstaande verwijderingsverzoeken

[edit]

De gebruiker Brbbl is NL-talig en zou de Belgische wet hebben moeten lezen i.p.v. klakkeloos uit te gaan van "in België is geen FOP". Volgens mij gaat het in de wet veel meer over beelden als in musea en niet om monumenten die meer als gebouwen kunnen worden beschouwd. Verder wordt er niet over afbeeldingen van 3D voorwerpen gesproken maar wel over het maken van indentieke exemplaren. Ik zal bij Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nieuwpoort_-_Albertmonument_-_1.jpg een reactie geven. Wouter (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goed werk Wouter. Zou er geen mogelijkheid zijn om die FOP details eens en voor altijd op te klaren door een univ of ministerie ? Ik heb inderdaad de indruk dat de Belgische wetten op de meest veilige (slechts mogelijke) manier geïnterpreteerd worden: naar mijn gevoel is 70 tot 80 % van de weggegooide foto's onnodig. Dit is bijzonder frustrerend voor al die mensen die er al hun tijd en energie in stoppen. --Foroa (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Het is inderdaad frustrerend dat iemand als een olifant door een porseleinwinkel daar door komt lopen en in het wilde weg gaat nomineren. Er is niets aan de hand met die foto's, en mocht het toch zo zijn, dan hoort commons dat wel van de rechthebbenden. Het trieste is dat zo soms zomaar waardevolle foto's verdwijnen van mensen die slechts sporadisch op commons verschijnen, en dus helemaal niet de mogelijkheid hebben een reactie te geven. Trouwens, het straffe is dat die pipo zelfs foto's zit te nomineren waar nog nauwelijks het beeld op te zien is. Zo'n verzoeken getuigen maar van ondoordachte plompheid en kunnen m.i. zelfs stante pede worden afgewezen... --LimoWreck (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb het plan om als deze bui over is op de Freedom of panorama pagina een verwijzing te maken naar de talk pagina en een apart stuk op te nemen over de in mijn ogen FOP in België met een paar uitzonderingen. Voorbeelden van nominatie voor verwijderen die onterecht waren kunnen als voorbeeld dienen. Ik heb zonet ook gekeken op de http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auteursrechtencaf%C3%A9 Daar is een gebruiker "JanDeFietser" die op veel vragen antwoorden geeft. Ik zal hem eens het probleem voorleggen. Wouter (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zojuist gedaan. Zie http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:JanDeFietser#Auteursrecht_voor_Belgi.C3.AB Wouter (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Blijft wel opletten, want nog al te vaak komt men met allerhande interpretaties af. Als je aan gebouwen begint, dan mag ruim de helft van de Belgische foto's op de schop. Daar heeft men geen bezwaar tegen, noch op Belgische foto's op andere websites of in literatuurwerken trouwens. Nu ja goed, er zijn ooit op de Engese wikipedia of hier mensen geweest die zowaar vonden dat foto's van auto's niet konden omwille van copyright. We moeten ook niet paranoia worden ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zou het wel fijn vinden als jullie je commentaar over die pipo ook zouden melden aan die pipo...moi. Ik heb het stukje van JanDeFietser gelezen en dat komt uiteindelijk neer op "geen slapende honden wakker maken". België kent geen uitzondering op het copyright mbt werk dat permanent staat opgesteld in de openbare ruimte. Alle uitzonderingen staan in het Belgisch wetboek mbt Auteursrecht [1] onder afdeling 5, artikel 22. Hierin staan uitzonderingen die wellicht opgaan voor het gebruik van de afbeeldingen op wikipedia, aangezien wikipedia zelf geen winstoogmerk kent. Commons en de GNU Free Documentation License geven echter aan dat de afbeelding onder elke omstandigheid, commercieel of niet, gebruikt mag worden. Dat is niet geval met de afbeeldingen van deze beeldhouwwerken. Eenmaal op Commons zullen derden dan al snel denken dat de afbeelding ook zonder rechten zijn. Die klacht is al eens op de Nederlandstalige wikipedia geuit. Blijven er maar een paar mogelijkheden over.

  • de beeldend kunstenaar maakt zelf een foto en ziet af van de rechten.
  • de beeldend kunstenaar of zijn nabestaanden geven aan dat zij in dit specifieke geval afstand nemen van de rechten.

Bij beiden moet volgens de wet alsnog wel de naam van de betreffende kunstenaar vermeld worden. Ook dat zie ik zelden...én moeten alle licenties nagekeken worden. Als ik Wouter goed begrijp op Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nieuwpoort - Albertmonument - 1.jpg dan is er dus wel FOP in België alleen niet voor het Atomium. Dan stel ik voor om [[2]] pagina ook aan te passen, wat ik wel raar vind want ik neem aan dat daar al een discussie aan vooraf gegaan is. Afdeling 3 gaat overigens over de oorspronkelijke werken, of exacte kopieën van de kunstenaar, en de doorverkoop door derden. De nominaties zijn dus niet onterecht, alleen onwelkom. Jullie willen wachten totdat iemand zo stom is om een foto te uploaden van een kunstenaar van het kaliber Metallica die er vervolgens zo'n enorme klap geld voor vraagt dat we halverwege het jaar weer om geld moeten gaan bedelen. Het is frustrerend, dat snap ik. Ik heb zelf ook een collectie van foto's uit België waar ik nog niks mee kan. --Brbbl (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wat ik graag zou willen zien is een mening van een juridisch geschoold persoon betreffende het auteursrecht van foto’s van gebouwen in België. Vandaar mijn vraag aan JanDeFietser. Helaas is er nog geen antwoord gekomen op mijn laatste opmerking.
Zelf kan ik niet iets vinden in de wet dat zou kunnen slaan op foto’s van gebouwen. Afdeling 5 gaat over “Uitzonderingen op de vermogensrechten van de auteur”. Maar dat is dus als er sprake is van rechtsgeldige auteursrechten. Als er geen auteursrecht zou zijn bij foto’s van gebouwen, dan is art. 5 niet relevant. Zie echter http://www.indymedia.be/en/node/1590 over de “bollen van het Atomium”. SABAM en SOFAM zijn kennelijk erg actief maar is het moeilijk concrete informatie te krijgen. SABAM gaat over auteurs, componisten en uitgevers. Iets over architecten wordt op hun website niet vermeld. Bij SOFAM worden wel (4) architecten vermeld. Ik zou graag zien dat iemand met een juridische achtergrond contact opneemt met SABAM en SOFAM en daarnaast met de wet in de hand een samenvattend geheel maakt over de FOP in België voor wat betreft afbeeldingen op Commons. Wie zou dat kunnen en willen doen?
Zoals het nu is wordt naar mijn mening te gemakkelijk gezegd “er is geen FOP in België, dus alle foto’s van gebouwen, kerken, scholen en beelden mogen niet op Commons”. Dan kan op [deze] pagina het aangepast worden en op de overleg pagina - of ergens anders - de gedetailleerde argumentatie vermeld worden. Wouter (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nu ga je er van uit dat ik niet die juridische kennis bezit? Is ook zo, maar toch, je hebt het nooit gevraagd... ;)
Evenzo, er staat niets expliciet over beelden/gebouwen in de openbare ruimte in België. Toch weten SABAM en SOFAM met diezelfde wet in de hand rechtszaken te winnen mbt tot het Atomium. Er staat ook niks expliciet over het Atomium in de wet in de zin van "Alles mag gefotografeerd worden, behalve het Atomium". Het enige verschil tussen het Atomium en bijvoorbeeld het gemeentehuis van Turnhout (met twee prominente reliëfs van een voor mij onbekende kunstenaar - hint, hint?) is SOFAM en SABAM. De architect van het gemeentehuis van Turnhout betaald deze twee instanties blijkbaar niet genoeg. Het zou mooi zijn als we een gerechtelijke uitspraak konden inzien van een SOFAM tegen iemand die toch de foto's heeft gepubliceerd. Of een advocaat kunnen benaderen die met het SOFAM te maken heeft gehad. Is er een mogelijkheid dat het SOFAM alleen al met de dreiging het pleit beslecht.
Op Indymedia staat overigens Dat er moet auteursrecht betaald worden voor het gebruiken van muziek, tekst en alles wat creatief is, weten de meeste mensen. Dat gebouwen onder dezelfde wetgeving vallen, weet nagenoeg niemand. Het is zelfs zo dat elk gebouw automatisch beschermd is. De architect heeft de rechten op een gebouw ook al is hij niet aangesloten bij een beheersmaatschappij als SABAM of SOFAM. De architect kan zijn morele rechten nooit verliezen, dit in tegenstelling tot de exploitatierechten van het werk. Met andere woorden, alles wat in geld berekenbaar is, kan verkocht worden. (alinea 4), zij zijn blijkbaar wel al overtuigd, al vinden ze de consequenties wat verwarrend gezien hun laatste vragen aan het SOFAM.
En dan heb ik als laatste punt, nog steeds, dat ik aanneem dat het voor [deze] pagina ook discussies aan vooraf gegaan zijn? En we nu dus opnieuw het wiel willen uitvinden.
--Brbbl (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb eens gekeken naar de geschiedenis van de FOP pagina en naar de bijbehorende talk pagina. Daar is niet veel bruikbare info te vinden behalve op de talk pagina over het Atomium. De opmerking van Brbbl “Is er een mogelijkheid dat het SOFAM alleen al met de dreiging het pleit beslecht” is waarschijnlijk zeer dicht bij de waarheid.
Misschien is het nuttig om deze discussie op http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auteursrechtencaf%C3%A9 voort te zetten en op het Franstalige equivalent i.p.v. de gebruikerspagina van LimoWreck. Mijn Frans is onvoldoende; weten jullie iemand die dat kan en wil doen? Wie weet is er een Franstalige advocaat die met het SOFAM te maken heeft gehad en actief is op Wikipedia. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ach Wouter, ik citeer even commons admin Korrigan bij het behouden van afbeeldingen: "Maybe amateur lawyers could troll in other places than Commons?". Vooral het tweede en derde woordje slaan de nagel op de kop: "amateur lawyers". Als er zo'n flagrante schendingen zijn, dan geven eventueel rechthebbende wel een seintje, zoals Jan de fietser al zei. Maar er zijn vraagtekens genoeg (welke wet, interpretatie van de wet, welk geval is dit, onder welk recht valt dit (land + toepassing), etc.. etc..), dat het inderdaad nefast, zowel voor commons als wikipedia trouwens, dat hier "amateur lawyers" denken zich te kunnen uitleven. --LimoWreck (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hè wat vervelend nou. Zeg nou gewoon, brbbl je bent een troll die zich uitgeeft voor amateur advocaat. Nu speel je het zogenaamd door aan Wouter met een citaat van een heuse admin. Ik gaf twee simpele redenen voor mijn gedrag.
* Op Commons staat onder Belgium: NO-FOP. FOP staat voor Freedom Of Panorama, museumstukken staat meestal niet in de openbare ruimte dus daar gaat het niet over.
* SOFAM weet zich met de Belgische wet in de hand het Atomium te vrijwaren van foto's die amateur fotografen ("amateur photographers") maken en op het internet zetten.
Je gaat niet in op deze twee argumenten. Je verandert niet de pagina op commons waarop staat Belgium NO-FOP en speelt het ook nog eens op de man. Overigens excuses dat wij jou pagina gebruiken voor deze discussie. Ik zal deze samenvatting verplaatsten naar de plek die Wouter al aanwees. Overigens ben ik het eens met Wouter dat er eerst maar eens uitgezocht moet worden, in het Frans danwel Nederlands, wat die Atomium/SOFAM zoal kan maken. Als blijkt dat het gebakken lucht is, ben ik de eerste die foto's upload. Maar als ze wel degelijk een punt hebben, blijven wij hier dan de amateurs?--Brbbl (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

[edit]

Just wanted to stop in and say thank you for your help with various images I've uploaded to Commons, including some from Hingham, Norfolk, England, as well as others. Much appreciated! Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frindsbury, Strood, Rochester, Kent

[edit]

Hi, just to point out a few links may be needed:- the Ecclesiastical parish of w:Frindsbury, is in w:Strood. Church Green, Frindsbury is in the Civil Ward of Strood North, and the town Centre of Strood used to be in the Civil ward of Frindsbury- before the local government changes that established the Unitary Authority of Medway. Medway remains within the Ceremonial county of Kent. Place names on en:wiki use the ceremonial county names not the administrative county names. The whole of the Hoo Peninsular, including w:Frindsbery Extra used to be in the w:Strood Rural District Council. Strood wasn't, it was in the City of Rochester upon Medway. In 1669, de Ruyter w:nl:Tocht naar Chatham tried to sort out this problem but sadly went home when the British Government gave him a couple of ships to play with. If he had stayed, he could have fixed the broken chain, and told the good folk of Frindsbury, to make up their minds on what they wanted to be called :-)

--ClemRutter (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made. When I don't really know what categories are most appropriate, I try to leave everything is it is (it's then up to someone who has the knowledge), but I may make some mistakes of course. It's indeed sometimes unclear what people mean on commons, wikipedia, or elsewhere with the names, villages, civil parishes, or something else ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dendre/Dender

[edit]

Bonjour Cher LimoWreck,

J’ai vu qu’à deux reprises tu avais retiré la catégorisation de mes images relatives à la Dendre sans en avoir discuté.

Or je sais que tu es une personne de dialogue. Ne penses-tu pas qu’il serait intéressant puisqu’il n’existe pas de traduction anglaise comme c’est la cas pour l’Escaut (Scheldt) de conserver les deux appellations Dendre/Dender ? Les deux termes pris séparément ne semblant pas contenter tout le monde, cela aurait le mérite de respecter les règles applicables sur Commons lorsqu’il n’existe pas de terme unique comme dans le cas précité et surtout d’éviter bien des contestations futures.

Amicalement.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Personnellement, je n'aurai même pas de problème avec "Dendre" comme catégorie. Le plus important pour moi, c'est que les photos de cette rivière se trouvent dans une seule catégorie ;-)
J'avais choisi "Dender" (en néerlandais), parce que cette catégorie existait déjà. Mais j'ai également laissé "Dendre Orientale" et "Dendre Occidentale" (donc en français) comme ça.
Personnellement, je n'ai pas un seul critère pour choisir un appellation, dans le cas où les noms néerlandais et français sans différents. Quelques choses dont j'essaie de tenir compte:
  1. Si une rivière se trouve seulement en Wallonie (et peut-être la France), j'utilise souvent le nom francophone. Si une rivière se trouve seulement en Flandre (et peut-être les Pays-Bas), j'utilise souvent le nom flamand. Je faits les mêmes avec d'autres photos, par exemple les bâtiments, etc...
  2. Comme tu as indiqué pour l'Escaut: il y a un mot anglais, "Scheldt". C'est intéressant, car l'anglais est la langue préférée sur Commons, et ainsi il ne faut pas choisir entre NL et FR ;-)
  3. S'il n'y pas une traduction anglaise spécifique, et si la rivière se trouve en flandre et en wallonie, je regarderais peut-être au tracé de cette rivière. Par exemple, s'il n'y avait que 5 km en Flandre, je choisirai une appellation française.

Donc pour le Dender/Dendre, comme j'ai dis, j'ai conservé la catégorie existante ("Dender"); et j'avais jugé que c'était un nom assez raisonnable, car la Dendre se jette dans l'Escaut en Flandre, et par analogie avec les villes et villages "Dendermonde", "Denderleeuw",...

Peut-être, quelques autres utilisateurs belge sur commons auront également encore quelques autres idées ou suggestions ? --LimoWreck (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Steinbeisser and his barracks

[edit]

Et oui, j'ai malheureusement vu le "bordel" qu'a introduit cet utilisateur dans les catégories. Un vrai massacre. Malheureusement, j'ai en ce moment peu de temps pour reverter tout son travail, plusieurs centaines de modifs à prévoir. Je me suis déjà concentré sur les casernes françaises. Encore s'il s'était contenté de remplir que la catégorie barrack, cela aurait été, mais il a systématiquement rempli "military buildings",'military history of", 'militaries of...'... J'essaierai de regarder régulièrement les contributions de cet utilisateur voire s'il a bien compris le concept de catégorisation. Mais, y'a du travail sur la planche pour avoir de nouveau des catégories correctes. Cordialement Christophe.Finot (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ter informatie

[edit]

[3]. 78.22.249.51 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zie ook [4]. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churches in Belgium

[edit]

Hello,

U plaatst te veel kerken in de categorie : "Churches in Belgium" (zie de "warning" in die categorie). Plaats die liever in een categorie per gemeente en deelgemeente als sub-category. mvg. --Jmh2o (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er staan er niet te veel in, die categorie dient daar namelijk voor. Vraag maar uitleg aan User:Foroa desnoods. Samengevat: subcats maken is geen doel op zich. En als er veel elementen in ene categorie horen, dan moet dat zo. Als er bv. > 500 gitaarspelers zijn in Category:Guitarists from the United States, en daar moeten geen onnodige subcats in. Dingen MOET je niet verder wegstoppen dan nodig. --LimoWreck (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doe zoals je wil. Te veel werk in het echte leven. mvg. --Jmh2o (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churches in Belgium

[edit]

Isn't it more convenient to categorize the churches by municipalities, in the case of Assenede, all the churches of the gemeente in one category, and then this category in "Churches in Belgium" at Assenede, where you could find the churches of Bassevelde, Boekhoute, Oosteeklo etc ?--Jean Housen 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC) The same for Durbuy, etc. This solution would give 596 municipalities and their churches, in place of 2359 municipalities (before the "fusion" of 1977). I think it would be easier .... More : by creating one category "Churches in..." by parts of municipality, the risk is to have one or 2 churches in each category, for example in Bomal there is ONE church, in Durbuy ONE church, in Barvaux ONE church, but the Municipality of Durbuy count several churches in Durbuy, Bomal, Barvaux, Warre, Tohogne, Septon, Oppagne ....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanhousen (talk • contribs)

Well, it may be confusing at first sight, but pictures from the former municipality itself are put in the category of that section itself. So, "Churches in xyz" contains all churches from the section (former municipality) xyz itself. So, "Churches in Durbuy" contains all churches on the territory of Durbuy itself, "Churches in Tohogne" all churches on territory of former municipality Tohogne, etc... Otherwise, we tend to duplicate the whole hierarchy on the long term, which wouldn't be ideal . May you could inform with User:Foroa, who once put some explanations about the subject on commons, if I'm not mistaken. Regards --LimoWreck (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meulns

[edit]

Nêin'k, k'ei gêenn droai van de meuln g'ed. K'ei ol de meulns systemoatisch "noame, plekke" gedôopt omdakke toun de "meulens by location" kan by moaken. Nie da dadde zô fak es, moa meskiens komn z'olzô mynn kop nie ofzoagn voe der nog tien katjes tussen te môosken.

Oe es't anders ? K'öre nie styf vele van gy. --Foroa (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 'k'an gelyk ol wa oardigs zien passeern vanachternoene; mo 'k 'an't nie vodder uutgezocht ;-) Der zoaten een poar verkeerde noamen tusschen, da wa's 't belangrykste ;-) Dat met diene komma (of haken, 't makt niet uut), vien'k ik toch moar oardig; subiet komt er nog een of da't em types, joartallen, of weet-ik-vele-wa,... er achter wilt zetten. Moa soit. En ja, 'k doen't wa kalmder an hé; 't is in vloagn. En verdikke, die toale is ier toch makkeliker te klapp'n dan te typ'n ;-)--LimoWreck (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keiem - Belgian Military Cemetery 4.jpg

[edit]

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

'n andje toesteekn ?

[edit]

Zeg Limo, gin gegacht voe Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Progress vollediger te moakn (Ref sites voe Brussel, Wallonië, Dutschn gemêenskap). --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'k 'en der e poar (externe) links ipgezet... ;-)--LimoWreck (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt. Gin goestienge vö an die karre te trekkn ? --Foroa (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BEF1-nl b back.jpg

[edit]
Pay attention to copyright
File:BEF1-nl b back.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This also applies to:

--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Tag

[edit]

According to the "copyvio" tag "If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag.". I see that you think that this dosn't apply to these coin, so I will list them as "Delete" instead.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of images of Belgian coins and bills

[edit]

Several images of bills and coins from Belggium have been listed for deletion so that the community can discuss if they should be kept or not. We would appreciate if you could contribute your opinion, seeing as created one of the images that's up for deletion as a result. The discussion is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of money of Belgium. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roeselare_Hugo_Verriest_-1.JPG et seq.

[edit]

This:

"an even more import rule: no false claims please ! The work is from 1913, it's even on the statue. I think it's unacceptable that people spread lies for trying to destroy things."

is unacceptable. I made no false claims and I did not lie. Those are serious charges and they are completely unwarranted.

There is a 1948 date on the side of the plinth. It appears (by Google translate) to be the date of the statue. It is certainly possible that I was mistaken in my interpretation of that. Being mistaken, however, is not at all the same as making false claims or lying. Both "false claims" and "lie" require that I knew that what I said was incorrect when I wrote it.

I would appreciate an apology and a strikethrough of your comments on the DRs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

[edit]
Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−
Dear LimoWreck,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
 Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hernoemingen

[edit]

Hallo LimoWreck, Ik denk dat ook de Slot-categorieën onterecht voor hernoeming genomineerd zijn: Category:Requested moves (date undefined). Inderdaad een puinzooi. Groetjes - Romaine (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dat lijkt mij ook. Let op: ik weet wel dat men soms wel eens het woord kasteel vertaald, maar vaak gebruikt men toch gewoon de originele naam. Hoeveel reisgidsen spreken in Frankrijk niet gewoon van château dit of dat, of in Duitsland van Slot dit of dat. Als het om die Deense kastelen gaat: het laatste wat ik er van gezien heb is dat Foroa die move requests weggehaald heeft om de gekende reden, maar blijkbaar was de actie van Foroa tevergeefs ? Zelf heb ik niet meer de zin gehad me er mee bezig te houden, omdat ik (als niet-mod) even geen zin had in bemoeienissen met een categorieboom waar ik eigenlijk niet in thuis ben en waar een gebruiker wat kom vervelend doen. --LimoWreck (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaalgebierg

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Gaalgebierg has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jwh (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I've created the new Category:Gaalgebierg (Esch-sur-Alzette) as there are several hills in Luxembourg called "Gaalgebierg": Gaalgebierg op der Scherr, Gaalgebierg (Bieles) and hopefully more to come...
Cheers --Jwh (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NMVB kaart West-Vlaanderen

[edit]

Ik heb nu eindelijk de tijd gevonden om de kaart bij te werken. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sint-Truiden

[edit]
Map van Kortrijk

Hallo,

ik zag dat u voor verschillende steden en gemeenten landkaarten gemaakt heeft, zoals voor Kortrijk. Ik vroeg mij af of het ook mogelijk zou zijn om zo'n kaart te maken voor de stad Sint-Truiden. Ik ben namelijk zeer te spreken over deze mooie en zeer overzichtelijke kaarten. Ikzelf heb niet voldoende knowhow om dit soort mappen te kunnen maken, dus ik hoop dat u mij zou willen helpen.

Met vriendelijke groeten Takk

Ja, het is de bedoeling is verder te doen... maar het werk ligt al een tijdje stil. Hopelijk geraak ik bv. daar eens ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LimoWreck! Sorry voor het gezaag, maar ik zou je toch nogmaals willen vragen of je misschien een kaartje van Sint-Truiden zou willen maken. Hopelijk vind je er tijd voor, ik zou het ten zeerste appreciëren! Takk 17:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello LimoWreck. When you are creating new categories of « Cities and villages in France », create also all the interlanguage links like this. Père Igor (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is the most important. Sum-it-up tool helps (my preferences/gadgets). Bots such as Special:Contributions/MerlIwBot will complete one day... --Foroa (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Foroa told: the French link is the most important one, as it's usually guaranteerd that's the most correct, complete and up-to-date link. It's too much work to search for all individual links for each and every exotic language, as is they don't exist consistently, and most importanty: there are various bots running that usually pick these things up, and bring it up to date. --LimoWreck (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See User_talk:Foroa#Sumitup.3F. --Foroa (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category_talk:Churches_in_Brussels

[edit]

Dag Limo, kan je even kijken naar Category_talk:Churches_in_Brussels ? Bedankt. --Foroa (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear LimoWreck,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
 Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 16:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


Category:Clermont

[edit]
Category:Clermont 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 category, 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.

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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Cycn (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anloy - Statue.jpg

[edit]
File:Anloy - Statue.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pastel (food)

[edit]

Dag LimoWreck, de commonlinks zijn niet correct. Kan jij dit even nazien? Lotje (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gârbova

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Gârbova has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Hkoala (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koetjesreep 1.jpg

[edit]
File:Koetjesreep 1.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Josve05a (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JarektBot (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Excellent! Herpoel (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Flag of Kortrijk.svg

[edit]
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Flag of Kortrijk.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!

And also:

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Houthulst - Military Cemetery - War graves 1.jpg

[edit]
File:Houthulst - Military Cemetery - War graves 1.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

94.110.25.243 13:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Creeks

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Creeks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Bidgee (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medingen

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Medingen has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 00:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments France 2019

[edit]

Bonjour,

Le concours Wiki Loves Monuments France est de retour et ouvert jusqu'à 31 septembre ! Déjà 8310 photos ont été importés cette année, vous aussi rejoignez le concours !

Le concours concerne tous les monuments présents dans la base Mérimée (qu'ils soient classés, inscrits ou simplement classés). De l'imposant château aux ruines industrielles, de la chapelle au coin de la rue aux mégalithes en forêt, c'est un impressionnant patrimoine qui attend d'être photographié et documenté. Où que vous soyez il y a des monuments autour de chez vous. Enfin, vous pouvez mettre en ligne autant de photos que vous le souhaitez de ces monuments. Pour information, le règlement est disponible sur le site du concours. Nous attendons vos photos avec impatience !

Les plus belles photos seront sélectionnées par un jury national composé d'amateurs et de professionnels, de contributeurs à Wikimedia Commons et d'acteurs du patrimoine. Un jury international sélectionnera ensuite des meilleures photographies mondiales.

Si vous avez des questions, l'équipe organisatrice se fera un plaisir d'y répondre.

P.S. : vous recevez ce message parce que vous avez participé au concours Wiki Loves Monuments en France les années précédentes. Si vous avez déjà ou si ne pouvez pas participer au concours cette année, faites passer le message autour de vous pour que de nouveaux et nouvelles photographes rejoignent l'aventure !

Bonne journée,

Sarah Krichen WMFr et Nicolas Vigneron, pour l'équipe de Wiki Loves Monuments France, 14:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rectories

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Rectories has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ninove

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Ninove has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

2A02:A03F:E45E:A400:55D6:EB47:E9BC:B3D8 10:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus que quelques jours pour participer à Wiki Loves Monuments France !

[edit]

Bonjour,

Le concours Wiki Loves Monuments France est ouvert pour une semaine encore, jusqu'au 30 septembre. Déjà plus de 6 000 photos ont été importées cette année alors vous aussi rejoignez le concours ! Cette campagne de contribution concerne tous les monuments et objets mobiliers présents dans la base Mérimée et dans la base Palissy. De l'imposant château aux ruines industrielles, de la verrière décorative au reliquaire, c'est un impressionnant patrimoine qui attend d'être photographié et documenté. Vous pouvez dès à présent mettre en ligne autant de photos que vous le souhaitez de ces monuments et objets du patrimoine français. Nous attendons vos photos avec impatience !

Les plus belles photos seront sélectionnées par un jury national composé d'amateurs et de professionnels, de contributeurs à Wikimedia Commons et d'acteurs du patrimoine. Un jury international constituera ensuite une sélection des meilleures photographies mondiales.

Si vous avez des questions, l'équipe organisatrice se fera un plaisir d'y répondre.

P.S. : vous recevez ce message parce que vous avez participé au concours Wiki Loves Monuments en France

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LimoWreck&oldid=809840722"