User talk:Natuur12/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Opmerking verwijdernominaties

Hey, het klopt dat niet al mijn foto's van topkwaliteit zijn en nuttig. Maar er zitten ook foto's tussen van redelijke kwaliteit die een overzichtelijker of meer gedetaileerd beeld geven, als wat nu beschikbaar is(miscien zijn er wel betere beschikbaar, maar zijn die ontvindbaar door een slechte catergorie indeleing). Dus waarom meteen allemaal verwijderen?. user:Cvbnapple

Opmerking verwijdernominaties

Waarom geef je al mn fotos aan als recht overtredend. user:Zaankantertje75

De reden is simpel. Jouw foto's kwamen ter zaken op de IRC dat er mogelijk auteursrechten geschonden waren. Vervolgens zijn we met een paar mensen jouw uploads nagelopen en ze bleken overeen te komen met afbeeldingen van andere sites. En zeg nou even eerlijk. Je hebt ze niet allemaal zelf gemaakt of niet? --Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Welcome to the OTRS team! You may wish to add {{User OTRS}} to your user page. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving files

This moving action by you was superfluous and not covered by any file moving guidelines. Please do not charge our servers with such actions. --High Contrast (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My appoligies, I thought it felt under criterium number 2. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I thank you for your work. My text above was only some kind of a hint. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

My deep thanks for moving the file "Dameportræt". Kind regards, Orf3us (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Files marked for Speedy deletion

Hey there. The aerial photographs which you are marking for speedy deletion are photographs I took from a plane. They are not from Google or Bing. --Ichabod (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So where is the Exif data? --Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
If you need me to, I'll upload the original photos. I just used Paint Shop Pro to adjust the contrast. --Ichabod (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My appoligies. I reverted myself. The bing maps angle and your angelse where quite similar but now that you told me you used photoshop I noticed my mistake. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I understand the need to keep Wikipedia free of copyright images. I uploaded a version of one of the views with EXIF data for verification purposes. --Ichabod (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A thank you. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

please

Please delete :-). Grzegorznadolski (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only change filenames. I'm sorry but I can't help you. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay after the :-) Grzegorznadolski (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ...

... for renaming my six photographs (File:Murrhardt - Walterichskapelle - Portal - Bogen rechts.jpg etc.) to the suggested useful names! Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Johan van der Galien

FYI: I removed the speedy tag and added no permission. This way the file won't get speedy deleted and we'll still have an eye on it. OK? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oke,Thank you. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

From: Johan G. van der Galiën Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:56 PM To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Subject: Issue AvatarBlogLvD1.jpg Lies van Dalen Dutch wikipedia page

Dear Madam or Sir,

AvatarBlogLvD1.jpg has been first published on the internet on my own colorflags.satoconor.com website. I made this photo my self with my own camera and did retouch . I replaced later this photo on the site with another one. So I do not need permissions. It can still be in the Google cache or someone copy pasted it in to their own site, if it is still on the internet.

What kind of evidence do you want?

Kind regards,

Johan G. van der Galiën. Johan van der Galien (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oke, it's quite simpel. You need to mail the permission to WP:OTRS. If you prefere you can mail it in Dutch to info-nl@wikimedia.org or to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if you want to write your email in English. You need a singed letter by the photographer. I see that you already wrote your email. But if you know this person please take a better picture. She looks a bit ill at this picture. You need to use a official email account. So no free accounts like hotmail or Yahoo etc. I understand that you speak Dutch because ou are the author of the Dutch Wikipedia article. I'm Dutch as well so you can talk with me in Dutch if you prefere. If you really don't succeed in getting the required permission I will send a email to her. But I will only do so after the 2 weeks evaluation period of the Dutch Wikiepdia article. If the article is kept I will help you with the required permision by sending an email. Untill than you are the one who has to send the emails. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving File:Cabeza olmeca, Santiago Tuxtla.jpg - it's the only decent photo of this monument on Commons and hopefully this will make the photo easier to find. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark Chronicle

Hallo. Why no simple geometry? Isn't it as these? --Spinoziano (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, see Commons:Threshold of originality. Some of those logo's have diffrent licenes and probadly some of them are too complex as well. The logo as a whole is quite complex. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Carli Lloyd 2012.jpg

Hi, I saw the conditions, but Commons aren't commercial usage, are they?--Zorro2212 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The images are for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is released under the cc-by-sa wich allows comercial use. Non commercial images like the one you uploaded from flickr are not compatable. Non commercial is a grey area ass well. That's why commons doesn't allow such pictures. You can read about it here: Commons:Licensing --Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, you're right. I've just read info about flickr licensing. I didn't do many operations like these for today. Sorry for troubles, I've deleted my last uploads. --Zorro2212 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploads

Hoi Natuur12. Dank voor het uploaden van foto's via wikiportret en photosubmission. Wel even een paar dingetjes die mij opvielen:

  • Wikiportret heeft een eigen sjabloon die je gemakkelijk kunt gebruiken: {{Wikiportrait}} (OTRS nr. invullen en klaar, licentie staat er al bij);
    • Nog handiger, zet deze link in je favorieten en vul het formulier dan in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?&uploadformstyle=basicwp&wpUploadDescription={{Information%0A|Description={{nl|1=}}%0A|Source=wikiportret.nl%0A|Permission=ccbysa/GFDL%0A|Date=%0A|Author=%0A}}%0A{{wikiportrait|}}
    • Iets vergelijkbaars bestaat er voor de photosubmission queue: https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Photosubmissions
  • Als je {{GFDL}} (en alleen die licentie) wilt gebruiken, doe dan {{GFDL|migration=redundant}} (anders komt ie weer in een onderhoudscategorie terecht zie o.m. hier);
  • Let op de categorieën die je toevoegt, want "Great Britain" is niet hetzelfde als "United Kingdom"[1] en sommige categorieën bestaan gewoon[2];
  • Tot slot: vergeet de OTRS tickets/nummers niet toe te voegen[4].

Hopelijk heb je weer wat aan en voel je je niet aangevallen met allerlei feitjes. ;-) Groetjes, Trijnsteltalk 20:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

    • Hi, bedankt. (Ik d8 overigens echt dat die schrijver in de categorie Groot Brittannië moest) De tot slot was ik vrees ik vergeten. Shame on me. Is er een lijstje met vasten fotografen? De reden waarom ik dat wikiportret sjabloon niet gebruik is omdat ik het op de huidige manier sneller kan doen via de uploadwizard. Die tip van {{GFDL|migration=redundant}} ga ik zeker meenemen. Dankje voor je uitleg. Ik zal de cat nog even toevoegen. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Reviewer

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-

Hi Natuur12, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket #2013110810016371

Hi Natuur12. I see you recently uploaded File:Melanocyte with melanin in dendrite to the left.jpg, under OTRS ticket #2013111710004642. I was wondering if any of the other uploads to English Wikipedia by this user were included in the permission on this ticket? If you could check this out I would appreciate it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the ticket should be 2013110810016371. (My bad). But the ticket only grants permission for the file File:Melanocyte with melanin in dendrite to the left.jpg I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response! I will pass this along to the interested parties. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Grigor DImitrov

Have edited the source for the Dimitrov Boodles pictures in flickr. thanks for the notice. Didn't know how to put different sources for multiple uploads. Dencod16 (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for adding the proper source. It's hard to find the origginal on flicker without. Natuur12 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Enjoy! TBloemink talk 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Tim Murphy uses a M1A1 Abrams tank simulator.jpg

If you can mark this image, please feel free to do so. It should be in the US public domain--I think so at least since the image is at the bottom of the source page. I am signing off now as its 1:30 AM in Canada. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, the photograph is made by an employe of the U. S. Department of Defense and is published on their website. The author is Sgt. Sara Wood so is it is most likely that this file is in the public domain. Sleep well. Natuur12 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin Lymantria once showed me how to find the link for this single set of images nd I have now updated the weblinks for this image with the wayback machine...so that they work. Perhaps you can mark this once as Lymantria marked this other one? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Panoramio review

If you wish to mark some images in panoramio review, feel free to go ahead. They are in China anyway with no FOP problems. I have marked 12 today but it may be better if someone else marks the rest. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I'm home. I'm at they office right now. Natuur12 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the source can now be seen. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Serdechny

User Serdechny gave sources for 5 images in this category I notice like this or this. I marked only one of them as I marked 10 panoramio images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm my collegue JurgenNL already marked those pictures. A well, there are other pictures which need a review as well :) Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

re:Trijnstel

Hi, I am sure you mean well, but saying "sweet" about a female colleague isn't that wise, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it sounded better in my native language. I meant to say "lief". Now I think about it I cannot find a correct translation. I'm sure she will forgive me :). I think highly of her and I seek her counsil often. Thanks for the advice I will rember to avoid the word sweet. Natuur12 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: If you have the time, please feel free to check and see if there are any images in this category to mark like this I marked one of this person's images two days ago so I prefer if a second person marks this person's other images. He has 2 images in this category including the image I mentioned. Thank You from Surrey, Metro Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Thanks for your help. I had marked this other image by this uploader. But a second reviewer is preferable since this photo source account is not like Alan Light from flickr--that everyone knows about on Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Happy Hollidays for you ass well. Greetings from a cold, wet and stormy Holland. Natuur12 (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I assure you that the file i have uploaded is not a copyright violation, i got it freely under license from this page: http://logo.al/logos/universiteti-i-tiranes-cdr/ ; so please remove the nomination for deletion you've made for this logo. Regards AceDouble (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't find where it is mentioned that it is freely licened. I added the license review tag since the source's language is not a langue which I understand. Please add the link when you upload it. That would have prevented a nomination for deletion. Kind regards. Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Carly Melin.jpg & File:D.melanogaster Female Sperm Storage.jpg

If you can read the OTRS permission ticket, perhaps you could give attribution to these images two with an OTRS ticket? I don't know who got these image's OTRS tickets--hence the pd-license template problem. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Solved, the first one is a bit strange however but I trust that everything was checked properly. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Washington-demo.jpg & File:Clematis gouriana flower.JPG

Dear Natuur12 in Holland,

The second image should be OK to mark but the first is a problem since flickr says the pd license has been retired. The uploader, Liftarn, is very reliable, however. But perhaps it was OK at upload? If not, maybe you may know an Admin to contact here on wherher to pass this image or to file a DR. I am have idea. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The public domain declarator is not support but I believe that once you release something in the public domain you cannot revoke this. Not all country's support the public domain declerator, I guess that's why they stopped using it and replaced it with the cc-zero. I marked the second one. That flickr stopped supporting public domain images doesn't mean that it can't be used elswhere of course :). Both images seem fine with me. I'll fix the first one as well. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank You Natuur12. I was a bit scared from marking the first image and I think JurgenNL was too since this image was in license review for many hours and while he marked another image, he did not mark this either. Both of us were unsure of what to do. But I thought the permission could not be revoked. Thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Warming Hut.jpg

Dear Natuur12,

Happy New Year in 2014. Can I ask 2 brief questions-one on an image below and one personal?

I have seen this image above in the pd-author category for some time. If you think this image is the author's own work, please feel free to give it attribution and pass it. I made only 1 edit to it--for a better image description. I cannot tell, if it is the uploader's own work unfortunately...except that the uploader uploaded the image in the article where it is used.

Secondly, I see that you live in the Netherlands. However, there are also Dutch people in Belgium called the Flemish. Is the main difference between a Dutchman in Netherlands and a Dutchman in Belgium is that one in Holland is Protestant whereas the Dutch in Belgium are Catholic? I have always wondered if the difference was just religion and not language. I assume the Dutch in Holland and Belgium both speak...Dutch but just with different dialects.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Happy new year. The picture has no clear source. I checked the orriginal website using the Wayback Machine but they have no printscreens of the website after 2002. The pictures where not in the public domaine however, the said had as disclaimer all rights served. The orriginal uploader isnot active anymore and has a history of uploading files with no source. According to the printscreens from the wayback machine the domain has changed to www.rideacr.com/ but this does not exist anymore. Maybe we can ask an en-wiki admin to check if the source was not lost during the transfer to commons. No rights served in combination with pd-self and pd-author is a strange combination if you ask me btw. I cannot think of anyone who would put that on their website. I cannot find this file on they web elswhere with a free license. But it may also be the case that he just gave the link in the discription so that you can find more information about the subject, the Copyrighted free use tagg however should not be used when it is your own work. As long as it remains unclear if the source is or isn't lost during the transfer we cannot now for sure.
And now your personal question. The Flemish speak a different dialect indeed. There are more cultural diffrences. Flemish people where always catholic just like the southern provinces of the area we now call The Netherland. This has changed over time but some area's in The Northern parts of the Nertherlands still most of the people are Protestant and in some area's of Flanders are heavily Catholic. The dialect they speak in Flanders is called Flemish. In Flanders they are more relaxt for an instance and in The Netherlands we always seem te be in a hurry and we say what we think of people more easely. There are lots of diffrences but in they end it remains unclair what is an preconception and which is really the thruth. Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I just asked and the only source (and the only thing availeble in the discription) that was given is mtwaterman.com and there is really no reason to assume this file was indeed released into the public domain. So this file is clearly missing a source and it may be a copyrightviolation as well but that's something we cannot prove but I belive that there is a significant doubt that the licening templates are correct. Natuur12 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply on the picture and the Flemish. I will post your comment on this picture and tag it as a speedydelete. PS: I was always curious about the Dutch Flemish. Still it seems that the Flemish are more industrious than the Walloons which is why Belgium is having so many problems surviving as a state. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

file:Uppspretta.jpg

Hallo Natuur12, ik heb gereageerd op het plaatsen van het Uppspretta.jpg bestand (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uppspretta.jpg). Wellicht moet de naam van de persoon die de foto heeft gemaakt (Birta Rós Sigurjónsdóttir) bij de foto worden weergegeven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.27.149 (talk • contribs)

Er is een aantal dingen aan de hand met de foto. Het betreft hier namelijk een foto van een kunstwerk. Er zijn dus minstens twee rechthebbende. Namelijk de fotograaf die de foto heeft gemaakt en de personen? die het kunstwerk hebben gemaakt. In sommige landen is dit geen probleem vanwege het concept Commons:Freedom of panorama. In ijsland heb je dit echter niet met een paar uitzonderingen daar gelaten zoals voor niet commercieel gebruik uit mijn hoofd gezegd. Deze foto kan daardoor niet zondermeer op commons gehost worden. Er is natuurlijk wel een oplossing. De kunstenaar kan zijn toestemming insturen naar commons:OTRS. Hij kan dan toestemming verlenen dat zijn kunstwerk wordt gepubliceerd onder een vrije licentie. Het is wel zo handig als dit dezelfde licentie is van de fotograaf want niet elke licentie is hetzelfde namelijk. Het is ook raadzaam wanneer de fotograaf zijn of haar toestemming instuurt op dezelfde manier aangezien de foto door een professional is gemaakt en er geen EXIF data is en het bestand gepubliceerd gaat worden in een boek. Dit even om gedoe voor te zijn dat na een tijdje kan ontstaan wanneer de vraag ja, wie was er nou eerder de kop opsteekt. Ik neem tenminste aan dat de fotograaf de foto zelf geupload heeft anders is het zeker nodig dat er toestemming ingestuurd wordt.
Alvast een kleinigheidje om mee te geven, enkel de fotograaf en de kunstenaars kunnen de foto vrijgeven. De fotograaf dus voor het gebruik van de foto en de kunstenaar voor het afbeelden van zijn werk. Dit kan niet iemand van de organisatie zijn omdat ze zeer waarschijnlijk niet de rechthebbende zijn. Ik hoop dat het lukt om de toestemming te regelen want het is een mooie foto. De mail mag in het Nederlands verstuurd worden. Voor informatie over de licenties kan je hier kijken. Als je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File rename (2013 to 2014)

Thank you for fast response,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File rename (2013 to 2014)

Thank you for fast response,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File rename (2013 to 2014)

Thank you for fast response and help,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This image

I made a comment on this image's talkpage. Fastilly apparently asked the original contributor at Wikipedia about its status and the image was not deleted in November 2008. I don't know if this image can stay or must be deleted. If you think the uploader is OK, please feel free to credit the original named author. If not--and this image always needed COM:OTRS--perhaps a DR is needed as the uploader has left wikipedia? I cannot decide here as the original uploader at Wikipedia did not seem to have any record with copyright violations and the image was originally uploaded at Wikipedia in November 2008. Perhaps, "this image is grandfathered" now and should not be covered by newer Common's policies. I cannot say. If not, perhaps a DR is better? PS: I voted in your RfA. Regards and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and I will look at it when I'm home. Searching through website with images of guns while at they office is probadly not a good idea. Sleep well. Natuur12 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Trijnstel took care of it so it should be fine and I cannot find real evidence which proves that permission isnot granted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I could not find evidence that the permission was not granted which was why I didn't file a DR. And since a later user uploaded a higher resolution image, this indicates the image was originally on the link still in 2010. I suppose that assuming good faith here was appropriate. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Natuur12, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Proficiat! Trijnsteltalk 13:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats! Nice to see you closing DRs already. INeverCry 21:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI sockmaster

I noticed your warning of User:193.202.110.186. This is a sockpuppet proxy IP of globally locked sockmaster Wikje, and has now been globally blocked. This edit gives his name in the edit summary. If you see anything else from this sockmaster, block the IP right away and let a checkuser like me or Trijnstel know. Also, make sure you don't see any named people in his edit summaries; he often puts up personal info of a certain admin from en.wiki. If you see any personal info like that, be sure to hide the revision/s. INeverCry 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not him again. Thanks for the heads up. I should have recognised him since I blocked him several times at the Dutch Wikipedia. Sorry, missed it. Most time's he is shouting mush more in his eddit summary's. Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He's been socking with proxies here pretty regularly lately. Every few days. INeverCry 19:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He also spiders pages and valdalises them when someone calls his name btw. Don't know if he does that at commons but he does so at the Dutch wiki so I slightly modified your comment if you don't mind :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Here he trolls the DR notifications done by FutPerf, hits random admins and well-known users, and certain galleries, etc, often Polish. If you see another IP of his, it'll likely be an open/abused proxy/zombie, so I would suggest blocking it for a year. INeverCry 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Oke, I'll do. Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

File:David Winning3.jpg

If the author who gave permission for this image is Kevin Clark, please feel free to credit him in the pd license as I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As for this image, who would you credit, the Common's uploader or the Bank of Colombia? Since there are other images of Colombian currency on Commons, I assume the image can remain here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Logo laten staan AUB

Hallo, het is nu al de 4e keer dat u het logo op de pagina VLP [5] verwijdert. Ik heb al verschillende keren gemeld dat op dit logo GEEN copyright rust. Daarnaast ben ik een vertegenwoordiger van de VLP. Graag het logo terugzetten en laten staan. Bedankt. -Woeler1 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC+1)

Zie com:OTRS voor de correcte procedure. Zodra de toestemming vastgelegd is zal het logo weer teruggeplaatst worden. Het logo is namelijk te complex om vrij te zijn van auteursrechten. Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

Hi Natuur12, can you fix something that went quite wrong? A new user on nl.wp uploaded a picture on commons over an entirely different existing picture, here: [6]. The previous picture needs to be restored and his new picture needs its own place. There are more problems with his uploads, see [7], and I have advised him to get in touch with you: [8]. What he has contributed till now on nl.wp is good, so it is worth it helping him to get on the right track, I think. Thanks, --VanBuren (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you are fast! Thanks. --VanBuren (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the picture. He can reuploade it under a diffrent name with a correct licening tagg of course since it is most likely drawn by him/herself. Natuur12 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hij heeft het weer gedaan: [9]. Ik heb hem gewaarschuwd op zijn overlegpagina. Hoe kun je zo iemand bereiken? Zonde van zijn inspanningen. --VanBuren (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Waarschijnlijk leest hij zijn overlegpagina niet of mist hij de notificatie. Zal even uitleggen welke informatie er mist bij zijn andere afbeeldingen. Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mégumi Satsu ...... weer al foto geschrapt vandaag

hallo,

Ik snap het echt niet! In 2011 heb ik een LP (33RPM) foto gebruikt ter illustratie van de pagina van deze zangeres : Megumi Satsu. De pagina bestaat in het Frans, Engels en Japaans. Heel snel werd deze foto geschrapt voor copyright violation redenen : dat kan ik wel begrijpen : ik beschik niet over de rechten. Ik heb dus een vriend-kennis-fotograaf gevraagd om over één van zijn foto's van Megumi Satsu te kunnen beschikken om de pagina te illustreren. Hij heeft onmiddellijk aanvaard en hij heeft schriftelijk zijn toestemming gegeven. De toestemming heb ik natuurlijk samen met de foto laten verschijnen. Dit was 2 jaar geleden. En nu, vandaag, inééns, wordt deze foto weer al geschrapt. Wanneer zal ik UITEINDELIJK een foto van Megumi Satsu kunnen plakken, aub? Dit is echt zooo vervelend, frusterend, onrecht illustraties te schrappen zonder notificatie, rechtvaardinging of controolaanvraag. Niets. Bovendien, heb ik in 3 verschillende talen moeten surfen om uiteindelijk hier te landen. (méér dan 1 uur dat ik hiermee bezig ben, ik ben niet dagelijks op Wikimedia Commons, excuseer!). En wat dan als ik geen Nederlands kon scjhijven? Frans mag niet? geen) Hartelijk dank. Ben echt kwaad en gefrustreerd hoor! Matt Kinska — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkinska (talk • contribs)

Hoi, er was een probleem met de foto. Ik ontving namelijk een bericht dat de fotograaf enkel akkoord is gegaan met vrijgave voor op Wikipedia. Wat er vermeld stond op de foto was een creative commons licentie die niet overeenkwam met wat de fotograaf schreef. Hij was in de veronderstelling dat de foto alleen vrijgegeven zou zijn voor gebruik op Wikipedia. En dat is niet toegestaan volgens het licentiebeleid. Daarnaast was er geen bewijs dat de toestemming inderdaad gegeven was. Die had opgestuurd moeten worden via com:OTRS. Aangezien de fotograaf zelf een klacht had een de toestemming ontbrak heb ik besloten het bestand te verwijderen. Overigens mag u me ook gewoon aanspreken in het Engels als u dat liever heeft., Frans spreek ik inderdaad niet. Wilt u de foto tereggeplaatst hebben zal er dus naar com:OTRS toestemming verstuurd moeten worden dat de fotograaf daadwerkelijk akkoord is gegaan met vrijgave onder een vrije licentie die voldoet aan het licentiebeleid van commons. Ik snap dat dit allemaal frustrerend is maar wanneer een fotograaf duidelijk aangeeft dat de toestemming niet in orde is, in dit geval dus niet zoals hij voor ogen had is het veiliger om dit bestand te verwijderen. Natuur12 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

pff, hartelijk dank voor de snelle reactie, maar jammer genoeg is de frustratie nog efkes gegrooid! : uw uitleg is voor mij - profaan - totaal onverstandbaar - Chinees voor mij, of méér aangepast, Japaans lol - Hoe bedoelt u "licencie van CC die niet overeekomt met wat de fotograaf schreef". Wat méér kan ik doen dan een schriftelijke toestemming te vragen en plakken samen met de foto? ... wat ik eigenlijk gedaan heb! ... Laat maar zitten ik zal deze pagina zonder foto laten of een andere oplossing vinden. Dit is allemaal te ingewikkeld en ik heb andere belangrijke dingen te doen in het leven. Ik heb geen zin om om de twee jaren tijd bestenden en verliezen voor niets. prettige dag verder

De fotograaf had toestemming gegeven voor gebruik enkel op Wikipedia maar u had de foto geplaatst onder de cc-by-sa-3.0. Deze licentie staat dus hergebruik door iedereen toe mist de naam vermeld wordt en het bestand verspreid wordt onder dezelfde voorwaarde. Dat is dus niet hetzelfde als u mag het bestand gebruiken voor op Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

... natuurlijk heeft de fotograaf een toestemming gegeven voor wikipedia, het gaat om een wikipedia-pagina! Voor wie of wat anders had ie een toestemming moeten geven? Anderzijds heb ik gewoon de (ingewikkelde) procedure gevolgd om de foto te uploaden met de gevraagde informatie, maar het zou ook kunnen dat ik iets verkeerds gedaan heb. Om eerlijk te zijn ,snap ik niet goed wat cc-by-sa-3.0 betekent... maar ja. Anyway... dit is wanhopig! Ik ben geen geek maar ook niet idioot, ik vraag me echt af hoe de andere mensen over zoveel foto's op wikipedia beschikken en hoe ze daarmee kunnen leven, want ik vind dat persoonlijk VRESELIJK. Bovendien, beschik ik over alle officiele rechten op het imago van die artiest via schriftelijke testament en het lukt mij niet een illustratie op deze pagina te beweran. Dit is echt ironisch!

De cc-by-sa-3.0 is een licentie die een aantal dingen inhoud, namelijk dat iedereen een bestand vrij mag gebruiken, vrij mag aanpassen en er commercieel gebruik van mag maken mits hij de afbeelding onder dezelfde voorwaarde vrij geeft. De fotograaf heeft aangegeven dat de foto enkel op Wikipedia gebruikt mag worden. Dit is dus niet hetzelfde. Meer mensen vinden deze licenties en de uploadformulier ingewikkeld. Dat kan. Oplossingen zijn dan de footograaf de foto in te laten sturen naar het photosubmissionadres. Dan upload iemand anders de foto. De Nederlandstalige tegenhanger is www.wikiporet.nl. Maar goed, als de fotograaf de rechten heeft overgedragen of als u aan kunt tonen dat hij alsnog akkoord is gegaan met vrijgave onder de cc-by-sa-3.0 of een andere compateble licentie kunt u het bewijs hiervan opsturen naar com:OTRS. Dat u over de rechten van het imago van de artiest bezit kan zo wezen, maar dat maakt u natuurlijk niet de rechthebbende van de foto. Dit heeft allemaal niks met ironie te maken maar met auteursrechten. Natuur12 (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

hartelijk dank. Ik heb de fotograaf nu pas gecontacteerd en hij heeft inderdaad bevestigd dat hij gisteren een beperking van de foto heeft gevraagd. Maar hij wist niet dat de foto geschapt van wikipedia zou zijn. Anyway, u hebt gelijk, mijn positie tov de artiest heeft niets te maken met auteursrechten.. ben gewoon een beetje kwaad, gefrustreerd en teleurgesteld dat het allemaal zo moeilijk is. Ik beschik ook over mijn eigen foto's van Mégumi, ze zijn natuurlijk niet zo mooi en zo professioneel maar misschien zal ik één uploaden in de toekomst, dit is zeker gemakkelijker. groetjes

Clarium Capital office interior.jpg

Hi, I see you deleted an image I uploaded from Flickr. Before uploading the image I asked the photographer about dropping the non-commerical restriction and he agreed. You can see the discussion on the flickr page. Would you be willing to restore the image? edward (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm difficult question since he didnot change the license and he didnot mention an exact license. (I assume he understands that you meanth the cc-by-sa-2.0 and the he new he agreed to something when he said yes). He said sure, feel free to use it but he didnot change the license. I'll think about it for a moment and ask one of my fellow admins if this is sufficiant when I'm home. Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jcb, what do you think. Is this sufficiant? Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok. (Are you aware the talk at Flickr begins below?) - Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, never thought about that. But I restored the file and added why it is under cc-by-sa. Thanks Jcb. Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The flickr page has been updated to cc-by-sa. edward (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed it again. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Abby Martin image

22:27, 16 January 2014 Natuur12 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Abby Martin RT correspondent.png (Copyright violation: a screen capture of a copyright show) (global usage; delinker log)

Did someone ask you to delete this image? I believe it was appropriately licensed. Did you look at the licensing info? User:RedPenOfDoom removed it from Wikipedia at 22:21, and you deleted it from Commons six minutes later, which is a record of some kind. Could you explain how it is that you communicated about this image and what made you think the license was invalid? Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear back from you. In your reply, please link to the original licensing info you deleted. FYI, I've reported this incident at the ANI noticeboard on en. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This appears to have been a rush to judgment. Looking at a cached version of the image it is indicated to come from this video, which was released on YouTube under a valid free license. It may seem a bit surprising, but a screencap from this news segment is free media.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, first of all when you look at my profile page you can see that I'm from Europe so that I could be asleep. (In fact I was asleep for almost an hour since the alarm clock was about to ring 5.30 hour later.) Secondly, I have nothing to do with the en wiki administrators noticeboard when I delete a file here. Thirdly I never heard any deletions request at the IRC since I was busy cleaning up the speedy's and the file's without a source. The Devils's Advocate is right since I apperantly missed the free license. I regret that this happed but I don't think that I deserve to be threated like this. You could have just asked a collegua to restore the file and it would have be done already. You say: I discovered that the admin frequents an IRC channel used for identifying problematic images (Jouw foto's kwamen ter zaken op de IRC dat er mogelijk auteursrechten geschonden waren). It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that TheRedPenOfDoom bypassed all forms of discussion and requested deletion of an image on IRC without discussing it, and refusing to discuss it when asked. This is so not true and you refere to something I said a long time ago before I even was an administrator. You donot know the context of that case either so there is absolutely no reason to assume that your scenario is correct. I will restore the file ofcourse and admit that I made a mistake but please asume a bit of good fait here here since we are all volunteers. Natuur12 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion of Saint Mark (Venice).svg

Since I can not reply there.

I created the file I nominated for deletion. It is not an older version, but a newer one. When I say that it was "made from a few parts that don't really mesh together well", it's not my taste as in how it looks, but exactly what I did to create this file. It was a request that I shouldn't have fulfilled, and was never used in an article. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone is using it at his userpage. It seemed quite harsh to me to delete it and leave his userpage with an empty spot. I see that this is a newer version but this would not have changed the outcome since it is in use If there was nonone to oppose and if there was no one who uses it to illustrate his/her userpage I might have judged diffrently. I didnot hear any arguments why this file is plain wrong. Btw, my native language is also Dutch. Natuur12 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue

Dear Natuur12,

If you think its safe to give attribution to a bot, please feel free to give it a try here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm of course the bot should not be credited since he didnot produce the file. There are three diffrent people who have acces to the bot so I don't know who made them. Maybe you could ask one of the botowners who made this files? Natuur12 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Breukelen wapen.svg

Hallo Natuur 12,

Zou je me een groot plezier willen doen? Ik heb vandaag File:Breukelen wapen.svg upgeload, maar dit is het wapen van Cothen, zou je misschien dit bestand voor me willen hernoemen? Het moet dus Cothen wapen zijn. Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank, MVG --Arch (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - de afbeelding heet nu File:Cothen wapen.svg. Natuur12 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Da's snel BEDANKT!!!! :-) --Arch (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Foto's: Zero

Dag Natuur12,

U heeft drie van mijn foto's verwijderd, waarvan één (Zero DS) in ieder geval terecht, ik ben nieuw op wikipedia als editor, vandaar. Maar de andere twee foto's ben ik het niet mee eens, met de tabel weet ik niet wat ik overtreed, het is namelijk informatie, geen afbeelding door iemand gemaakt, en de foto genaamd Zero heb ik zelf gemaakt in de autosalon in Brussel, waarom kan dit niet? Ik geloof dat ik deze informatie inbegrepen had in de omschrijving.

Alvast bedankt,

Buster BusterFranken (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, ik heb maar 1 foto verwijderd. Die was duidelijk een schending van auteursrechten. Ook die tabel in z'n geheel is naar aller waarschijnlijkheid gewoon beschermd. Natuurlijk mag je het cijfermateriaal gebruiken maar dat is wat anders dan de gehele tabel te copy pasten en vervolgens te uploaden onder een vrije licentie. Wel kan je een discussie hebben of deze tabel voldoet aan com:TOO maar dat ligt vrij laag in Nederland. Daarnaast zit er een verschil tussen zoiets gewoon gebruiken en hij vrijgeven onder een vrije licentie. Tevens voldoet deze tabel niet aan com:SCOPE aangezien je dit gewoon als tabel in hoort te voeren. Wel kan je naar het originele pdf-documentje verwijzen als bron natuurlijk. Je derde foto is aangevinkt als zijnde toestemming ontbreekt aangezien twee van je 3 foto's niet zijn toegestaan. Maar na de uitleg die je me hier hebt gegeven en je uitleg op NL wiki geloof ik je en heb ik de tagg verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Files of User:Bobbyshabangu

Hi Natuur12 (talk) , please tell me why did you delete Files of User:Bobbyshabangu without explaining the reasons behind the deletion. i mean i was using the picture on my chapter www.wikimedia.org.za but you deleted it regardless seeing this ! Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agreed by the nominator that the files which I deleted where not covered by FOP#South_Africa. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Electrolytic Amine Reduction.jpg

No longer in use. And now also tagged with a factual error. DMacks (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that there is an discussion going on at the file's talkpage so I cannot delete this file. The best thing to do is to renominate the file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your prompt response (and admin work in general!). DMacks (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Logo com:TOO notatie voor File:Logo NSSV Don Quichote.jpg

Beste natuur12,

Naar aanleiding van uw nominatie heb ik de bron en de toestemming voor het verspreiden van het logo toegevoegd. Wellicht bent u het logo elders vaker tegen gekomen op de website van de vereniging of op sociale media. Ook deze plaatjes zijn door mij opgesteld en dergelijke sites worden mede door mij beheert. Hopelijk voldoe ik hiermee aan de eisen voor com:TOO, mocht dit niet het geval zijn zou ik graag horen welke acties nog meer vereist worden.

Mvg,

Gijs Slotman.

Dit is het officiële logo en daarom is verificatie via com:OTRS vereist. Het is het handigst wanneer de toestemming verstuurd woord vanaf een e-mailadres horende bij de vereneging. Een andere mogelijkheid is om op de site te vermelden dat het logo beschikbaar is onder de genoemde licentie. Wanneer er bij bron een link wordt toegevoegd is het in orde. Zeg het me dan wle even als dit gebeurt is, dan kan ik hem doorstrepen. com:TOO, voluit Threashold of originality, slaat erop dat deze logo's te ingewikkeld zijn om vrij te zijn van auteursrechten. Veel van de logo's met betrekking tot Nederlands zijn namelijk te ingewikkeld om vrij te zijn van auteursrechten en worden continu geupload. Vooral door mensen die ergens lid van zijn en denken tot het wel mag, vandaar dat ik eens de bezem door die categorie gooi. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Beste natuur12,
Bedankt voor de reactie, ondertussen heeft het bestuur van de vereniging via de mail toestemming verleend voor het gebruik van het logo gestuurd. Dit is vanmiddag gebeurd en ik weet niet hoe lang ze er over doen om zoiets dergelijks te verwerken. Maar bij deze iig de bevestiging, zodra de mail is verwerkt zouden wij graag zien dat de nominatie voor verwijdering wordt weggehaald. Alvast bedankt. Mvg, Gijs Slotman.
Ik heb de logo nog niet in de inbox zien zitten maar zodra de toestemming is verstuurd kan het een paar dagen duren, zeker wanneer het om gratis emailadressen gaat zoals gmail. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of student organisations in the Netherlands

Hi,

Ik begrijp niet goed waarom ik een verzoek tot verwijdering heb ontvangen voor het logo van FVOG en hoe ik kan voorkomen dat dit gebeurt. Ter verduidelijking, ik heb dit logo vorig jaar ontworpen toen ik de functie van penningmeester bij FVOG bekleedde. --User:Daansoons

Dat staat uitgelegd bij de nominatie, toestemming kan opgestuurd worden naar com:OTRS. Aangezien het hiet om het logo van ene verenging gaat is verificatie via com:OTRS noodzakelijk. Zie ook het kopje hierboven. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Samizambak

No one was recently added photos. Why do you not understand warnings.--Samizambak (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of your uploads are copyrightviolations. I warned you for that. If you upload copyrightviolations again you will be blocked. It doesn't matter that it happes a while agoo. What does matter is that most/all of your files are so a warning seems appropriate. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can not add files that are already in a long time. Interesting to me about this topic.--Samizambak (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The files you previous uploaded are copyrightviolations. I got nothing more to add. Natuur12 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you are confused

At User talk:David Shankbone, you are complaining that "own work" is not an adequate source for File:Donatella Versace David Shankbone 2010 NYC.jpg. Why would this be any different than "own work" for any other photo that a participant in this project takes him-/herself and uploads? Certainly it is consistent with David's other contributions over a period of many years. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This Question

It seems that Lymantria is away. Perhaps, you can decide which images are OK and which for Commons. They come from Belarus which has no COM:FOP. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I did a few of them but I'm not sure about the bridges and the water tower. Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo_Het_Rotterdamsch_Studenten_Gezelschap.png

Wat moet ik doen om te zorgen dat File:Logo_Het_Rotterdamsch_Studenten_Gezelschap.png niet wordt verwijderd? Bart5314 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

De rechthebbende het logo laten vrijgeven via com:OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Помнік камсамольцам. Полацк.jpg & File:ИОСИФ КОРСАК - заказчик и спонсор храмов в ГЛУБОКОМ..jpg

Dear Admin Natur12,

If you think that these two images are FOP violation in Belarus which has no [[COM:FOP, please file a regular DR here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - There is no evidence that those scupltures are in the public domain. Natuur12 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Many thanks. :)--Avocato (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Dewey Defeats Truman.jpg

I don't know but perhaps the license for this image above is PD-US Govt? Its from NARA. Anyway, I found that image from license review. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge deletion discussions

Hello. I'm a little confused by your closing of these discussions. You closed a handful of the discussions dealing with this memorial, but not others, and you didn't provide any rationale as far as I can tell. In one discussion, you pointed to a vague post by Labbattboy that doesn't refer to any of the issues under discussion. This is a complicated issue, involving a fairly lengthy prior deletion discussion, and a debate over the applicability of collective work provisions in the applicable French copyright statute. It seems odd that you would have closed a few of the discussions, yet others remain ongoing, given that the same issues apply to all of these images/discussions. It is unfortunate that Jean initiated a separate discussion for each image, instead of initiating one group discussion, and it has caused some confusion, but nonetheless the decision for all of them should be made at the same time. And, given the circumstances, the closing should address the points that have been raised. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have been quite busy and indeed those seperate DR's are a bit of a disaster especially since I normally start at the bottom. I'll write my closing argument at th last one. Two remain open if I'm correct? It appear clear to the case closings this way. Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot more than two. I think it is premature to be closing. I am still writing a response to a comment from today, about the application of 113-5 of the French statute to architectural works. For a complicated issue, where there is a past deletion discussion and an ongoing debate, I am not sure why we would close the discussion. In fact, I'd quite strongly say that closure is premature in these circumstances. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to overull me on this one. I didn't realise what a mess this actually was closing when I closed the first one. I meanth that there where two left eligible for closing today of course. (Turned out to be three). I looked at it carefully btw and didnot made any rushed discision ;). Natuur12 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to "overrule" you as you are not at fault. And I do not think you were rushed. I'm not criticizing you. This is a mess, and I asked Jean numerous times to consolidate the discussion in one place, which he seemed not to understand. I ask that you simply revert your closures on the basis that these discussions are all intimately connected, you can't decide some without the others, the discussion is still well underway, and when you are in the position of effectively overruling a previous lengthy discussion we should be allowing time for full time and for the discussion to continue. There is no rule requiring that the discussions be closed today, and our practice in fact supports the notion that we act with an abundance of caution when dealing with the more complicated discussions, especially with long histories. I have in the past "unclosed" discussions myself, where on second thought I concluded that the initial closure was premature. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okey, I will do that. Natuur12 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Part of me regrets asking you to have reconsidered, as this might be a lengthy deletion discussion, and I am already sick of it. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Flickr human review

Dear Natuur12,

If you have some free time, please feel free to mark a few flickr images. The bot did not mark images for 3 days and now that it did there is a small backlog. You can mark 10 or 15--its up to you. I too have been busy with work sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look this afternoon. I already did a few but first I have to deal with the deletions requests at nl wiki ;). Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for any help which you can give. I have been marking some picasa images where the backlog is over 350 images (it was 650+ images once)...thanks to a bot. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clyde River at Herron's Mills.jpg

Hi, it seems to me that in the first sentence of your closure of this DR, you've made the same mistake as Leoboudv did when he added a copyvio tag to the photo saying "Flickr review NOT passed: Author is using NC, ND, or all rights reserved." The photographer's "CC-BY-SA 2.0 at 240 by 180 or lower resolutions" release is still there on the Flickr page for this image; it has just been entered as a comment,[10] instead of by changing the license field on Flickr (presumably because that field does not allow the uploader to choose this particular license). Since this misunderstanding is the issue that prompted the DR in the first place, it seems to throw the whole closure into question. Would you please consider revising this part of your closure? --Avenue (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not possible to let a CC license only apply to a low resolution. If you release a work into a CC license, you release all resolutions. Jcb (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, so this is not a CC license. That and related issues made up the bulk of the DR discussion. We quickly debunked and moved on from the erroneous claim that prompted the DR, which is why repeating that claim seems to detract from the closure's credibility. --Avenue (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the closure. Jcb (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to reconsidder my closure since the license actual license on flickr is all rights served so it is not clear to me that he had the intention of releasing it. See for example this link, this link or this link. Only releasing version with a lower resolution isnot possible like Jcb says. Of course I read the statement I release this image under CC-BY-SA 2.0 at 240 by 180 or lower resolutions. but I doubt if this is a valid statement since you cannot release only one version. You cannot just add a extra restriction to a free license like Stefan4 explains. But I will rephrase my words so it becomes more clear. Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the revised version is much clearer IMO. --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Det mörknar öfver vägen - HjS 1907.jpg

Hello Natuur12,

in that case the uploader actually provided the name of the author, it is Hjalmar Söderberg (1869–1941). So the image is in the PD and should not have been deleted, please restore. Sorry, perhaps I should have withdrawn the request as soon as the author's name was known. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I overlooked the name. Fixed and corrected the licening template. Natuur12 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

These 2 images

  • Would these 2 images of more modern bridges be OK for Commons? They are in Podgorica, Montenegro which has no COM:FOP. I have asked Lymantria but he is away. Or are they OK.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the second one could be okey under DM but I'm not sure about the first one. Montenegro FoP is tricky. Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puccini.IMG 2523.jpg

Hello. I have just a suggestion about this deletion request. Maybe you could check this OTRS ticket. It seems that the heir of the sculptor gave a permission to publish some picture of his works. I do not know if it is unrestrictive enough to allow this picture. Thank you for your help. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the ticket and the following images seem te be covered by the ticket:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Albert1er.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Danseuse_aŭ_cymbales.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Cardinal_mercier.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Danse_folle.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Sourire.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:L%C3%A9onlepage.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Vers_la_joie.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Vieŭtemps.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Monument_gendarmerie.JPG
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:IMGP1509_edited.JPG
I'm afraid permission was not granted for this one :(. Natuur12 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for checking it. BrightRaven (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:AssembleaMilano2009Senpai 05.JPG

Hi, File:AssembleaMilano2009Senpai 05.JPG has evidently been left out when you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to Indro Montanelli (Milan). Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tnx, deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Finnish coins

Why were File:2011 Finland.png and File:2004 Finland.png deleted with a reference to that deletion request? They were not even listed there. Besides, it is very likely that {{PD-FinlandGov}} applies to the national side of Finnish euro coins, so images like this should at least get a deletion discussion instead of speedy deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The finish are probably okey. Restored them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Pro7-Logo.png

File:Pro7-Logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Fry1989 eh? 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyrights violation

Lot of files has copyright violation. --AntonTalk 07:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yann already took care of it :). Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

These 6 images

If you have time, perhaps you can mark these 6 images. Four of them were uploader by Jurgen....but I cannot read Dutch or see the license.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Those pictures uploaded by Jurgen are a interesting one. The EXIF data has a other copyrightnotice than the EXIF data of the images. He already send an email for confirmation. I probably speak him this afternoon but he is on holiday right now. I'll ask him about the email when he is online at the IRC-channel. The license mentioned at the website is the same as mentioned at the file page btw. I marked the other two. Natuur12 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Raquel4 3.jpg

Hi! Above file was part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raquel Mancini, closed by you recently with deleted. Eventually you forgot to delete this file. Per source "Fue descubierta por la revista Gente cuando tenía apenas 16 años" and considering es:Raquel Mancini (1964—) most likely taken 1980+, failing - as the other files - URAA. Gunnex (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - ty. Natuur12 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London (4039996300).jpg

  • "Those bliboards are in the center of the image" - no, they are in fact in the middle of the bottom half
  • "quite a large part of the image is covered by the billboards" - or more accurately, less that 25% of the horizontal and 50% of the vertical, which I would think would come to an area ratio of a lot less than a "large part"
  • "they are in a high resolution" - totally and utterly irrelevant, per COM:DM, which is policy
  • "and per Jim of course":
    • "The two billboards are the center of interest of the image" - no, the building is the centre of interest. If it was the billboards, why include the lower and upper floors too, plus the roof, and indeed all that sky? And why frame it so that a lampost is in front of one of the posters? The building was obviously the centre of interest, anyone who claims otherwise has nothing to base that on at all
    • "arguably the photo would not have been taken except to show them." - seriously? does the title and description on the Flickr page support that total speculation? It would appear not - Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London and The area of London where UK film premieres take place. With loads of cinemas. This is the Odeon West End, the second Odeon cinema in Leicester Square." makes it pretty obvious that the photographer intended to photograph the building
    • "Both billboard's categories are included in the image's cats" - so what? They were not included on the original photographers image, so again, per COM:DM, it is yet more evidence that the posters were not the intended subject

I would have liked the opportunity to point these things out in that undeletion request, but as you closed it after less than 24 hours, I'll have to make them here instead, and hope you see the error you have made and reopen it. Ultra7 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I took the file File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG. mentioned as an example in the DM police as a guideline. The copyrighted grafity was less prominent available File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg than in this case. The dm policy tells me: Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast. and there is no way to prove that this was incidental. My suggestion is that you crop out the billboards and than reupload the file. It's an interesting thought btw that Fastility, Jim and I are wrong on this one. I also read this part of DM of course: Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies. but I believe that this one is on the wrong side. Natuur12 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The proof that it was incidental is everywhere - the framing, the title, the description, the lampost in the way, the photographer's lack of tagging or indeed any discernable interest in photographing film posters. Not only is there no proof it wasn't incidental, the only proof offered up that it was not incidental was that someone else categorised the images based on the posters (which was pointless, as you quite clearly couldn't use this image at normal viewing distance as a replacement for the posters in any application - such as a T-shirt print or a Wikipedia article infobox). And let's be clear, what you can do with the image by cropping is totally irrelevant. There is no 'side' to that which images can fall on either way, it's a black and white exclusion - you judge COM:DM based on normal viewing only - it either violates at normal viewing, or it doesn't. But getting back to the incidental issue - the only way the photographer could avoid capturing these specific billboards, would be to take the photo at a different time, but then of course there would be different posters in place. And then Jim would presumably be making the same argument that obviously their intention was to photograph those posters, instead of these posters, which obviously makes no sense given the photographer never once mentioned posters at all. That's the biggest reason why being in agreement with Jim shouldn't mean much in this case. As for Fastily, I have no faith in his application of COM:DM at all - he apparently has no problem at all with deleting images based on the fact they can be cropped, such as this example, even though that is totally against policy. I have complained about that before, but he ignored me, and nobody else cared. You can ask him why he does that if you want, I'm no longer interested in banging my head against that particular wall. But I won't be cropping the image, because doing so would be acceptance that it fails COM:DM. Which I am saying it does not. Ultra7 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you start making speculations I'm done talking. Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What speculations? Ultra7 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Ultra7, You brought this to my talk page and here in the same minute without telling either of us of the other discussion. That discourtesy deserves our simply ignoring you, but I'll add that this image has been discussed at Fastily's talk page, the DR, and the UnDR as well as here and my talk page. Four highly experienced users (almost a million contributions to WMF projects between them) thought that the copyrighted billboards were not DM. Two users (also highly experienced) thought they were. That's both a better airing than the vast majority of our decisions get and a lot more experience in the group. I think this is done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Christ. These were very simple questions Jim. If you don't want to answer them, fine, but don't blame the number of venues this was raised in, or the lack of any evidence any of this was actually considered by your collectively experienced heads, on me. I'm not the one who filed an ineligible speedy. I'm not the one who makes one word DR closures in cases where it's obvious that won't suffice. I'm not the one who closes a UD less than 12 hours and after only 1 post. I only became aware of it after the DR closure, so according to your own definition, I've only posted about this issue once. I'm not obliged to cross-post to either of you about the subsequent discussions, because according to you, the process is already over, finished, done. A fair airing, as you call it. Others would clearly disagree, and like me, will be wondering why you react so evasively and aggressively, and why Natuur12 stopped responding so quickly, in the face of what were some very simple queries about your collective views of what this image supposedly showed, or what this photographer supposedly did or didn't do, and what COM:DM supposedly does or doesn't say. Ultra7 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I made my point quite clear. You made it clear that you disagree. And then Jim would presumably be making the same argument that obviously their intention was to photograph those posters, instead of these posters, which obviously makes no sense given the photographer never once mentioned posters at all is speculation. You are formalising a scenario. The creative commons license does allow us to make derative works. When quite a large part of the photograph's is in fact a copyrighted poster your ability to make derevatives is extremely limited and the scope of licening tels us: The creator of the original artwork has rights to any reproductions and derivative work. This could be an interesting thought. I already gave you the advice to crop out the poster and reupload it. You refuse. It's an easy solution to be on the safe side if you don't want to do so that's fine with me. I already gave my arguments and I have more important things to do than talking in circels. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I formulated a scenario based on the evidence - it's called a logical deduction - it is perfectly valid. The photographer took a photo of a building. He never mentioned the posters. If the photo had been taken on a different day, the posters would be different, but Jim's argument would clearly be the same. There is nothing you can say that disproves that scenario. More to the point, there is nothing Jim can say to it either. Which is why he didn't bother. As for derivative works - you are just plain wrong. The CC license is valid for any derivative that remains de minimis. There is absolutely no requirement, obligation, advice or CC criteria that says we must crop out the copyright part of an image in order to claim de minimis or license as CC-derivs allowed. If you want to give that advice, you are by definition claiming that this image is without doubt, not de minimis, and without doubt, ineligible for any CC license. So, yes, I refuse to crop out the posters, because it is absolutely not required in this case. Anyone who has a problem with that, including you, can speak to the Wikimedia Foundation, because they like me are not remotely interested in taking action to limit the availability of free media when it is not required, no matter how easy it might be to do. And before you start claiming to have better things to do than me, please consider that I've been on Commons since 2007 - the list of things I've not been able to do because of wasted days like this spent arguing with admins who simply refuse to accept they've made an error is as long as my arm. Also consider that you are one of the newest admins on the site, and your overall time on the site is a fraction of mine. Do not make the mistake many people seem to do of assuming that because my user page is a redlink, I must be a complete novice. Ultra7 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This could be an interesting thought. That's what I siad about the cc license and there is no reason to get personal. Natuur12 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Not interesting, alarming. And this is personal - your decision making is a product of your knowledge and your experience, and yours alone. It's no excuse to get a decision wrong just because Jim makes guesses and calls it subjectivity, or because Fastily ignores a policy completely. If you're going to close UD's in less than 12 hours, and after just one comment, then I do not expect to later find out that you apparently think Commons doesn't host CC images if the prospects of derivatives is limited. It makes me wonder what else you got wrong, especially when you ignore me when I ask you for explanations about the things you appear to have got wrong. Ultra7 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Again: This could be an interesting thought. so I was not saying it was correct but something to think about. Those things are not the same. And now stop laying words in my mouth. That you're pissed that you didn't get it your way okey. But please stop making attacks on admins just because somethig got deleted you wanted to keep. I read your rant at the RFA page and it seems to be that your only goal is to make a fuss about this. And yes I don't usually talk with people who twist my words and start making speculations since those discussions are going nowhere. Especially when people got the habbit of behaving like this. If you still disagree you can ask a second opinion from another admin or whatever but it is quite clear that we disagree and not going to agree either. I know understand why Fastily ignores you. I thinks this discission is done. Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
My only goal is to retrieve a wrongly deleted image. You are attributing other motives to me because you are incapable of justifying this deletion, and so you see this as an easy way out of the discussion. It's a common tactic used on Commons by poor administrators, just like Jim and Fastily. He didn't ignore me for any other reason than there is nothing he could say that justifies him deleting images as COM:DM based on the fact that they can be zoomed. He was wrong, he just didn't want to admit it, so he ignored me. Just like you are doing now. I haven't put any words in your mouth, let alone twisted them. Perhaps the issue is that you're not a native English speaker. What you call speculations, are not in fact speculation at all, but logical deductions. Yes, it's obvious we disagree - but only because you just keep saying "I disagree". What you specifically disagree about and why, I still haven't got a clue. Do you accept there is absolutely no evidence that the photographer intended to photograph the posters? Do you accept there is lots of proof that the capture was incidental? Do you accept that COM:DM is judged at normal viewing, not as a zoom/crop? Do you accept that Jim was simply guessing at the photographers motives, and doesn't have any right to compare his guesses based on no proof (which is speculation) against my evidence based deductions? Do you accept that the posters are not, in any way, a "large part" of the image? I still haven't got a clue what you think about any of those issues, because all you seem interested in talking about are these other interesting things, which then turn out to have nothing to do with the deletion. The reason you are shutting this discussion down has nothing to do with anything I've said, except for the fact that you are incapable of answering my questions. I will not ask for a second opinion, because there is no chance in hell any admin on Commons will ever criticise another admin, and no chance in hell that any admin will ever spend the time necessary to unpick the reasons why you won't answer my questions. The only thing admins on Commons have any time for, is threatening people like me for wasting their precious time. If you want to know why people rant about admins on Commons, those are the reasons. Ultra7 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And of course the proper venue to get second opinions was at COM:UD - but you made sure that that discussion didn't even occur. That's why I had to come here and waste my time talking to you. If you don't like doing that, or you find it difficult to do because of the language issues, then don't close UD reviews before they have even had a chance to come to a conclusion. It's that simple. There was nothing stopping you from simply voting oppose, and then if you wanted to ignore any follow-up questions, you could have done so. It is after all the standard way these things happen here. Jim simply turning up and offering his unfounded speculations which then must be taken as fact because he has thousands of edits, with nobody else given the chance to respond, is not, and never will be, remotely acceptable as a review process, whatever he says. Ultra7 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep talking about the error that the four of us made. There's no error here, and, really, very little to discuss. Whether something is DM or not is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. As I have said several times, four very experienced editors think the billboards are not DM. Two experienced editors think they are. There's no error on either side, simply a difference of opinion, and in this case the majority vote counts. Period, end of story.

As for the argument that if you took the image a month later, you would have different billboards, that's certainly true. If you photograph a billboard space, you will always have a copyright problem, unless you pick a moment when the billboard is being changed.

I also have to point out that this image has gotten more attention from highly experienced editors than almost any deletion we have made. The six of us have well over a million WMF contributions. How many images get that kind of attention? You can hardly complain that somehow this got short shrift when, in fact, it got far more attention than it deserves. If that's not an acceptable review process, then I suggest you leave Commons -- we delete 1,500 images a day and there is no way in the world we have the resources to do better than we did with this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you photograph a building with a billboard space, you will always get the billboards. If you claim the photographer intended to photograph the billboards, without offering up any evidence at all that this was the case, then whether you like it or not, that is an error. If you claim something is COM:DM without ever once referring to the concepts/wording in the actual policy, and more importantly while ignoring everything someone else says who disagrees who is actually referring to the policy, then whether you like it or not, that's an error. What I think you're problem is - you seem to just not realise that just because you have offered an opinion, doesn't mean that it's also not an error. Just like people can all give different opinions on how to amputate someone's leg. The correct way to figure out which one is right is not to count them, but to verify whether or not they know what they are talking about. I know you have thousands of edits, and you know what? It doesn't matter. That's not how you measure experience, for the very reasons you actually outlined - nobody is taking a blind bit of notice what happens here 99.99% of the time. I've made billions of category edits in my time here, and I can count the number of times anyone has complained about them on one hand. Does that mean you should take my word as that of a categorisation expert? Obviously not, because that would be stupid. But yes, the real tragedy of this site is that you get away with it - that 4 people who are making errors really can delete perfectly acceptable images even when 2 people who didn't make any errors, object. Some people think that's a bad thing, you clearly disagree. At the end of the day, I can't think of a better reason why the WMF shouldn't just do a complete reboot of the way Commons is run, than this post of yours. Ultra7 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, there is reason enough why "WMF shouldn't just do a complete reboot of the way Commons is run", the processes run quite well at the moment. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
You've obviously not spoken to anyone at the WMF recently. They consider Commons to be an embarrassment. Jimbo himself is urging outsiders to register and try to reform it, as he recognises the people already here have proven themselves incapable of running it properly. Ultra7 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And to be clear, misquoting users for sarcastic effect is the sort of thing they don't consider to be good practice. Ultra7 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As for "matters of fact" - it's a fact that COM:DM says in black and white, do not consider what the image looks like when cropped/zoomed when judging de minimis. One of the 4 "highly experienced" editors claiming this image failed COM:DM, did exactly that. Did you simply miss that? Or is it the case that you are fully aware if it, but for you, ignoring the black and white text of a policy falls within the boundary of a bunch of different people just giving different opinions, then counting them up at the end (of course giving this one extra weight, because the person who said it has a billion edits). Do you seriously believe there is anyone at the WMF that would ever endorse any of this as remotely good practice? On a well run WMF project, people get desysopped for repeatedly and deliberately ignoring policy. On Commons they get hailed as a backlog clearing vastly experienced super-admins. Ultra7 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This Note

Dear Natuur12,

Please feel free to mark some of the Korean images in license review if you have some free time. Like this I can only mark a few photos. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm quite busy today since I'm finishing a report. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I passed this image based on the license. I am not sure if this small sculpture has any FOP issues. But if it does, please feel free to delete it since its a recent upload. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No le entiendo

Por favor puede traducirlo. Gracias --Parair (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

ping user:Jcb. I don't speak spanish. Natuur12 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, Savh already helped solving this. Natuur12 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This DR

Could this deletion request be closed as delete? It seems open long enough. It seems that the uploader has uploaded 2 other copyvios. So, Commons has a problem now unless you or Lymantria can deal with this situation. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Seems like flickr washing. Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

These 5 images

If you have some time, please mark these 5 images from 2009. I have marked two others but its better to have a second reviewer:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked them and the exif data is the same every tie and the uploader has many uploads of this event. Only this file has a diffrent EXIF info but it is the same brand of camera's. Seems fine by me. Natuur12 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DR result

Wasn't the result of this DR Deleted rather than Kept? |FDMS 11:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Both files where in use and exactly the same so they should have been procecced as duplicates and that is wat I did. The file was redirected. In fact it was deleted but since the link is still blue and I use a script to close them is said kept because the script doesn's work properly when I try to close DR's when the link is still blue. In short, the file was deleted and redirected ;). Natuur12 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So maybe delete this page? |FDMS 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-Art

What are you trying to fix with Template:PD-Art. Can I help? --Jarekt (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had a problem with the parameters but it was just me being clumsy again. Sorry. Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Joseph Chipolina vs. Slovakia.jpg & File:Jordan Perez vs. Slovakia.jpg

Dear Natuur12,

I marked most of the 5 images since you were not free. But if you have some time, please consider marking these two images--not by this uploader.

PS: I don't know if uploader SylviaBoBilvia's only unfree image can be saved.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done and the unfree file cannot be kept I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That is unfortunate but at least the unfree image was used on only 2 wiki pages. I don't know how many 4 or 5 year old flickr mages have still not been marked sadly on Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:ANHALAMINA.png

Here discussed this file, which has been renamed. WBR, BattlePeasant (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? When it is in use it is in scope and than it won't be deleted. First replace the file than nominated it for deletion. Simpel as that. Natuur12 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the orpahned file btw. Natuur12 (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the file that I originally proposed to remove. We're good. WBR, BattlePeasant (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organist

Hello

I would like to know why did you remove the photo?? There was something wrong?? Best regards

Hi, the photograph could also be found here. Therefor we need to validate that you are the copyrightholder via com:OTRS before we can host this file. If you send evidence of permission to OTRS they will restore the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabiha Gökçen picture

What is your opinion on that one ([11])KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we need to know when the author, Yarım Ay Dergisi, died in order to keep this. But a Turkish speaker is likely to be able to find out when the photographer died. Natuur12 (talk)

File:Carroza Isla Mágica.jpg

Dear Natuur12,

If this image is OK, please feel free to pass it. All I can say is that it is a temporary installation...I think. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, the image below appears to be a derivative image with no clear source:

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

    • The first one is taken in Spain where there is no FOP for temporarely instalations amd if I read the discription via google translate it tells me the "statue"or wahtever it is moved. The second one has a non derivative-non commercial license. Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help here. I made a comment in the DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting File:Michigan Latvia 06.jpg

Hello. It seems that you forgot to merge details from the smaller version. Regards, Ain92 (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops forgot to merge the cats. I added the last cat. Thank you for the notification. Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

These 3 images

Dear Natuur12,

The uploader asked me to mark these 3 images below on my talkpage. It may be better if you mark them as you can be certain if they are OK for Commons--or if they need to be marked again in one case. Please help.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I marked them. They seem fine to me. Natuur12 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ticket#2014011710011973 File: Boris_Vian_-_WIKI.jpg

Hello

What is it exactly you disagree about? The Cohérie Boris Vian is ready to give all permissions you wish provided you contact them at contact@borisvian.org explaining clearly why you decided to delete a photograph they OFFERED to wikimedia commons without counterpart, being well aware that Boris Vian needs no special publicity . Thank you for our answer.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I temporarely undeleted it to have a look at the EXIF data. It is often that people tell you o it's from a photobooth or my wife made it while it looks professional or my dad took it who died some years ago while it doesn't look like some photo from a photo studio or looks to recent. In this case the EXIF data told me that the picture was scanned. If you looks closely you see a somewhat purple watermark so this doesn't like something from a photobooth. Natuur12 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Btw, the OTRS-agent and administrator handeling the ticket hasn't accepted the permssion yet so your request seems premature. Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Then how do you explain that this photo is freely used by google the two deleted photo of Vian here? Since you rejected it, it is still property of archives Boris Vian, Cohérie Boris Vian. No one has a right on this photo except the heirs Boris Vian (i.e;Cohérie Boris Vian). And if the cohérie says it is photomaton, since they have the whole history of Boris Vian, you should believe them. Beside, can you explain how you can detect that it is no photobooth? It certain has been scanned before being sent to commons. The previous Boris Vian photograph, also deleted on commons Fichier:Boris Vian.jpg, is also on google. The cohérie Boris Vian says it is not from their fact. They believe there is something dishonest behind all this. Can you answer them about all this? here their adres : contact@borisvian.org .Thank you very much--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I already awnsered your question. There is a purple waterwark at the pictuture. The pose looks professional. That something shows up at google doesn't make it free to use neither does it make the the user the copyrightholder. Many images show up at google without permission from the copyrightholder. This is a basic fact. And no I'm not going to email them. The OTRS-ticket will be processed by an experienced agent. When everything sorts out he will or will not, depends on the outcome restore the file. If the picture is from a photobooth the file is in the public domain if not the photographer owns the copyright and not the family. So your statement that the family owns the copyright seems quite unlikely. If you have any further comments please place them at com:UNDEL. I didnot reject the picture but I only commented at the undeletions request and temporarely undeleted the file to have a look at the EXIF data. Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Computer monitors in B&W.jpg

What lack of De minimis? The images on the computer screens are own works of the photographer (and flickr user), as you can see on the on the wall and on this similar image to the one on the computer screen open on a photo edition program. So this file must be undeleted. Tm (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would have been nice if this was mentioned in the file discription and in the DR. I can't smell that he is the copyrightholder of the deritivative works in the image. Natuur12 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, please add this to the file discription as well. Natuur12 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Two images

Dear Natuur12,

Should the first image below be deleted as its more than 1 week now?

Secondly, if you think this image can be passed, please consider passing it. The uploader cropped it to focus on some paintings.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Casa dos Povos da Floresta 01.jpg

Hi, Natuur12.

I've fixed the image. Can you take a look? Thanks, Dornicke (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Seems okey. Thank you for fixing the source. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Kept

Can you hit the [keep] button here? INeverCry 20:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Natuur12 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Kapuzinertheater Luxemburg.jpg

Dear Natuur12,

Perhaps this image is unfree but I can't find the image source from the given flckr account. Maybe you may have better success? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment: Now the German uploader gives me this message but it is besides the point because while the flickr account owner has licensed many of his images freely on his flickr account for Commons, some of his Luxembourg images seems to have an 'NC' restriction while others are CC BY SA Generic and a few are ARR. It may be free but I can't find it. But I don't understand German and can't locate this image....so I cannot respond. And its 12:47 AM here so I have to sign off soon. Maybe you can help? If not, that's OK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Thank you very much! Leitoxx 23:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickr images

Dear Natuur12,

If you have time, please check if there are any images which you may find it worthwhile to pass. I have marked some already but have to sign off now as its 2:42 AM here in Canada. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a few. Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File rename request

Just wanted to let you know that here comes the third invalid request: Special:Diff/119127419.    FDMS  4    10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I looked in to it and he uploaded a lot of files with as subject the Union of Utrecht. However he overwrote a already excisting image. Apperantly he is working for the national archive. Now I understand why he wants this specific filename. This explains a lot. I'll try to restore the file page which he had overwrote. Natuur12 (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
And done, restored the original file and renamed his upload. Natuur12 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, but it seems fine now. Thanks!    FDMS  4    11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This user is uploading a set of pd images form the Dutch National Archive regarding the Union of Utrecht and overwrote a file. He apperantly overwrote and existing file and thought that the rename request was valid because he uploaded the file. That's all :). Natuur12 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Santander, Colombia

What ??? in use ? WHERE ??? the two flags which I indicate for possible deletion (File:Bandera de Santander (Colombia).svg and File:Flag of Santander Department.svg) are not being used in any wikipedia, where did you get you the conclusion they are being used ? The single use is a user who put the file in his signature. --Shadowxfox (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

According to global usage both of them are used on the Spanish Wikipedia. It is allowed to upload a couple of personal files and apperantly those are used by the uploader. Therefor they are inscope and they will not be deleted. End of story. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
What is this? The DR was closed at 14:21 and you changed the flag at 20:04? I call this framing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but nothing of "end of story". The idea of ​​this request is to have a single file for this flag, no 3 duplicates. Perhaps by the policies of wikipedia that files are inside the scope, but for deletion policy dulicates should be eliminated. If this request is not discussed properly I'll have to re-request the deletion of these files; the files are not being used by the uploader but for another person.--Shadowxfox (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not framing, I forgot to change that flag in the article on 5th march ! I changed the file in almost articles except a few of them, waiting for the result of the DR.--Shadowxfox (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, since you quickly replaced the files and since you started your first mesage with quite the tone and quite the caps-lock yelling you understand that I don't really feel like talking this over with you? The coloring and the desing is diffrent, the files where in use and therefor in scope and com:NPOV applies. It is not up to you to decide which flag has to be used. Not my fault that you forgot to replace them anyhow.... I stick with my closing statement. That's all there is you need to know. Natuur12 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, then I'll re-open the deletion request, once the official government agency send me information about this flag. Not much more to say, goodbye.--Shadowxfox (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Rod Humphries and Lionel Rose 001.jpg

Could you undelete this file please? We have an OTRS ticket that appears to address the "who held the camera" issue raised. --Fæ (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:LuftschutzbauGefechtsturm(vonChrBardenhorst).jpg

Did you notice what was in this file’s talk page before deleting it? If you didn’t, why not? If you did, why did you deleted it all the same? -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm strange. Normally I get a warning if a file has a talk page. But I'll restore the file for you. Good luck with aranging the validation of the license! Natuur12 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! No e-mail reply yet, I’ll try next commenting on the photo blog entry itself. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done, and good news: The author confirmed the relicensing as CC-zero! -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks for the message. The images is nice so I'm glad that the permission is validated. Natuur12 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shantideva.jpg

Hi,

I think this is clearly PD-Art, whatever the source says. I also left a message on Ellin Beltz' talk page about his DRs. Would you consider restoring it? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you kept the others who could be pd-art this sounds fair te me. Most of his uploads where louzy sourced, prove of them beiing pd was missing some where clear copyrightviolations. I only found the date to young since 19th centuary could also mean 1899 and the source appeard not to be that great but he told me that this website is maintained by Sam van Schaik so it should be okey for now. Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Natuur12,

There is De Minimis in Russia. That clear enough. But what happens in October? Will there be FOP for buildings in Russia?

Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So it seems after reading this comment. It looks okey to me so I'm quite reluctant with deleting them since October is quite soon. Expecially in cases like this. Natuur12 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Facistdeleter

Can you take a look at this? He's referring to other deletions you and Jurgen did. Do you know what deletions he's referring to and under what account they were uploaded? Facistdeleter is an obvious attack sock account, and I'd like to identify the master account if possible. INeverCry 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know I only blokced the guy since it is an attack acocunt which starter with bothering Jurgen and I didnot anything controversial lately here or at nl wiki. I cannot match his uploaded file with one of my deletions. I cannot match it with one of Jurgen's upload's either. I can't remember deleting technicle images on commons either. (depens on his definition of technicle ofcourse) I delete a lot of small sized images without EXIF data like mentioned. I see that the account is used for intimidating posts at en wiki as well. I really don't have a clue who the puppetmaster is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: After some digging I found the following. This account and this sandbox. If you look athe the files File:Longitude-latitude.gif and File:Longitude-lattitude-2.gif you see what I mean. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just coming here to tell you about that account. ;) It's blocked for socking at en.wiki. I'll block it here, and let someone know the Facistdeleter account is a sock as well. INeverCry 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alitta succinea (epitoke form).jpg

You closed this DR as "kept" stating "In use so in scope" where I too voted to keep. But after a through discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Alitta succinea (epitoke form), we delisted it, replacing it with File:Alitta succinea (epitoke).jpg. We have a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Please_consult_the_original_author_if_an_edit_is_needed to where many of us stated that it is better to consult the original author first, when we need an edit. So I request you to reconsider the closing decision as the image in question is no longer in use. Thanks, Jee 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How could they ruin that picture like this.... I will reconsider this DR. If I had know this when I closed this DR I would have decided to delete this file. Natuur12 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Je verwijderingen van een aantal afbeeldingen m.b.t. artikelen over Tibet

Je ontwijkt een aantal vragen van mij. Van de antwoorden die je wel geeft, begrijp ik een aantal niet. In de hoop dat bij mij het begrip wel begint te dagen heb ik opnieuw het volgende verzoek.

Nogmaals; zou je mij in Sesamstraattaal kunnen uitleggen waarom jij wel bijvoorbeeld File:Meeting Mao Zedong and dalai lama.jpg; File:1959 Tibetans are captured in Lhasa 1.jpg; File:Nun Trinley Chodon , Cultural Revolution TIbet.jpg; deleted hebt, maar dat bijvoorbeeld File:Mao, Soong and Deng at International Meetings of Communist and Workers.jpg; File:Thamzing of Tibetan woman circa 1958.jpg; File:Struggle session against class enemy.jpg; File:Down to the countryside movement.jpg ( en zo zou ik ook nog een groot aantal kunnen noemen) er nog steeds opstaan. Het zou voor mijn begrip een hoop helpen als je dat voor mij kan verduidelijken.Niet in de algemene bewoordingen die je eerder gebruikt hebt , maar in simpele taal per afbeelding.

Vriendelijke groet,

Renevs (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Meeting Mao Zedong and dalai lama.jpg -> foto van een levende fotograaf en geen bewijs dat hij toestemming heeft verleent voor vrijgave onder een vrije licentie en ook geen bewijs dat de afbeelding in het publieke domein valt het probleem is dus dat hij in de VS heeft gewoond en je weet niet waar deze foto gepubliceert is.
File:1959 Tibetans are captured in Lhasa 1.jpg -> idem
De andere twee filename's kloppen niet dus die kan ik niet bekijken. De andere bestanden waren niet genomineerd voor verwijdering. Natuur12 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:SydneyBuilding0147.jpg

I just nominated the above file for deletion, not realizing it has already been nominated before, and kept. However, you might like to reconsider deleting it, since I have deleted it from en.wikipedia, so now it won't be missed.

07:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It was kept since the file is in scope, has a valid license and there was no consensus for deleting it so no.~ Natuur12 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

License review request

Could you please do the license review for the following file
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak-74-infografika.jpg <bt> Thanks in advance --RussianTrooper (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

renomination for deletion

Now I migrated the Wikipedia articles to the original, unbloated version of the file. So - I renominate now?..--Scanmap (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can renominate the file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/119793399

??? Previous discussions were about the image itself, I just wanted to delete (and probably redirect) one of the duplicates ...    FDMS  4    17:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We got a special procedure for duplicates. See Commons:Duplicate. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that, so far all duplicates I've started a DR for have been deleted or redirected. Could you order CommonsDelinker for me and redirect the duplicate afterwards?    FDMS  4    19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Already ✓ Done.    FDMS  4    00:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG.png

Sorry to be "wise after the event", but this is something I wasn't aware of.
I didn't realize that the picture had been moved from en:wikipedia to commons, and am more than a little surprised that it was. I have zero problems with it being deleted from commons, and am not at all surprised that the OTRS ticket is/was "nowhere near the standard required".

However ...

The picture has historical significance, and is easily justified as useable on the w:Ben Roberts-Smith page. Please advise the easiest way to get back to the situation prior to the picture being moved from en:wikipedia to commons. Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the permission is insufficiant and that this file doesn't quilify for fair use. (There are free alternatives available so I've told.). So this would probably not okey at en wiki either since there is the permission states that you can use it for your website or publications. That's something like a Wikipedia only permission and this is not suficiant. The best thing you could do is to ask the Chief Photographer / Imagery Coordinator Defence Digital Media from the australian departement of defence and ask him if he is willing to release the image under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a tip, you might find more free alternatives at this webiste. Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not wanting to sound, or be, rude, but you seem to have completely missed the point, and your response doesn't seem relevant.
1) At the risk of stating the obvious, Ben Roberts-Smith and Mark Donaldson are two different people who have almost nothing in common with the exception that they have both been awarded a VC. So I don't understand the relevance of your answer.
2) Well, the problem is that the permission is insufficiant and that this file doesn't quilify for fair use. - a) The permission is insufficient for what? b) The file doesn't qualify for fair use??? Really??? You surprise me. What leads you to say that? Please explain.
3) There are free-use pictures of Donaldson - So what? Donaldson is a different person. Why would anyone want to put a picture of Donaldson on Roberts-Smiths page?
4) So this would probably not okey at en wiki either ... - Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
5) That's something like a Wikipedia only permission ... - Errr. No. It's not.
6) The best thing you could do ... - Errr. No. It's not. The best thing I can do is ask you to restore the picture onto en:wikipedia so that a historically significant fair use on the Roberts-Smith page can be done. And that's what I did.
So why won't you do what I ask?
7) Just a tip, you might find more free alternatives at this webiste - Errr. No. I won't. There's nothing free on that website, or on any website that doesn't own the Australian Defence copyright.
Why won't you do what I ask? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to restore it for you bacause I don't believe this file can be used under fair use and the OTRS-ticket is invalid. If you disagree you can ask at com:UNDEL for temporarely udeletion for transfer but I'm not going to restore it. I'm not going to restore a file if I think that it is against policy. And yes you can use it for your website is not a valid permission. The ticket states: and you can then download what ever images of the event that you wish to use within your publication / Site. So yes this doesn't include republication and derivatives and it is not even sure of commercial use is included since people often think that Wikipedia is non commercial. So this is not a valid statement of permission for commons or en wiki. That's nog even near a free license. The images of And for the website see this link. Unless you have some evidence that their claim is invalid of course. @Russavia: could you please explain why this isn't fair use since you have more knowledge about this subject than I do. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the fair use I think it fails criteria number one. This is where the images of Mark Donaldson come in. Both of them have been awarded a VC and for Mark Donaldson their are plenty of alternatives for a fellow VC awarded so this fails Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. it is not unlikly that a free equivalent can be found, can be created or will be available in the future. Natuur12 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look. I'm not trying to be difficult or aggressive or a nuisance or anything else. I'm trying to ask you to do something really simple which, to me, seems really simple and obvious, so I'm not understanding your replies. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm asking of you - or at least your responses don't give me confidence that you understand.

1) I'm not asking you to restore it to Commons. Do you understand that? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
2) I'm asking you to restore it to en:wikipedia. Do you understand that? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
I await your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes and yes. What I mean is that this image is most likely not okey under en wiki policy unless you can show me a relevant policy proving that this file is okey to hoste at en wiki I will not restore it. I understand you perfectly but I'm not going to restore file for transfer to a local wiki when I'm not sure if the file is okey according to the local policy and I don't think it is. I don't think that this file is released under a free license as mentioned here and I don't think it qualifies for fair use as well. Natuur12 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kind sir for the clarifications! I still have no doubt about my opinions, but now that I understand your opinions, I will think about the wording of a reply that addresses them. Again, thank you for the clarifications. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nederland+Vlaanderen 800x533.png

I write to you, because you are competent in Netherlands issues. Please comment that request. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, interesting one. I'll have a look. Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Natuur12,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flag issue

Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESCUDO DE PASO DEL REY.jpg

Hello Natuur12. I didn't know that tha coats of arms from cities argentinians are free to copyright, when I nominated File:ESCUDO DE PASO DEL REY.jpg for speedy delete. See {{PD-AR-Gov}}. Sorry, --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 19:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. Is this an official COA? I'm not that familiar with them. Natuur12 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "[...] este Escudo fue aprobado por el Honorable Concejo Deliberante de Moreno, el día 11 de Octubre del año 2000, mediante Ordenanza Nº 715/00". In English: "[...] this COA was approved by the Honorable Council of Moreno, on 11 October 2000, by Ordinance No. 715/00". Extracted from http://cfp402moreno.blogspot.com.ar/2011/11/lo-sabias-el-escudo-de-la-ciudad-de.html. http://cfp402moreno.blogspot.com.ar/ is an official website with the approval of the Ministry of Education of the Province of Buenos Aires. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Swaziland-1Lilangeni.jpg not deleted?

Hi Natuur12! You closed the DR linked above a few hours ago as Deleted.... it's still there and the action isn't reflected in the log... cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your mesage. I hit the delete button. Natuur12 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

These 6 images from 2012

Dear Natuur12,

Can you decide if these images below are own work and safe to pass. I don't know.

He has many images from the Iran Military Forum but I don't know if these images are owned by this Forum's creator. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw those works yesterday but the release seems to be have done by a simple forum post and you must have an account to see the actual files, I am quite reluctant with making an account on a forum about Iranian millitary. I don't know what to do either with this images. The best solution would be that the copyrightholder sends his statement and a list of effected files to OTRS since this is a little bit to abstract if you ask me. Natuur12 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the images be tagged with 'no permission'. Do you have any views? I will be away today but I may tag a few images then later. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your speedy deletions based on requests for courtesy deletion...

  • I replied to your explanation as to why you courtesy deleted an image where a professional photographer first released images under a free license, and then clawed them back.
Several years ago I started an article about a guy who was both a law professor at one of the service colleges, and an active NCIS agent who have been part of the team who interrogated and analyzed the interrogations of Guantanamo captives. When I returned to the article a week or two later, I found it had been deleted, by an administrator who was a member of the OTRS team. He told me the individual didn't want to be covered by a wikipedia article. He acknowledged that the article was neutrally written, properly referenced, and otherwise complied with all policies. But he told me he thought the individuals notability was around the cusp of notability, and, in those circumstances, a member of the OTRS team had the authority to speedy delete the article.
The wikipedia had strict condistions for speedy deletion, and I didn't think "possibly borderline article whose subject doesn't want to be covered" met the criteria for speedy deletion.
Every few months I renewed my discussion with this administrator. Every time, while he was quite polite about it, he repeated his first defense -- (paraphrasing) "yes but, the subject of the article doesn't want to be covered." Finally I took the article to DRV. Once he saw that no one else agreed that a notable person should be allowed to pick and choose whether they were covered he gave a handsome apology. The DRV closed with restoration of the article, and a procedural AFD -- where the deleting admin explicitly agreed with restoration, and cited his inexperience with DRV for his mistake.
I wonder whether you made a similar mistake. If Joey L says he made an honest mistake, and placed a free license on an image by mistake, that entitles him to request the same kind of courtesy deletion as anyone else.
Should we have two paths to courtesy deletion of images? One path for those IP rights holders who request courtesy deletion through our usual channels, and another for those IP rights holders who, like Joey L., request courtesy deletion through the OTRS team, and find that the OTRS team are much more lenient about granting them a courtesy deletions? Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you cannot compare an article with a image of course when you are dealing with licenses. To awnser in short. Normally, there are exceptions (angry law firms while the image is a clear copyrightviolation for example) in my opinion an OTRS-member should start a DR and explain why the copyrightholder or the subject wishes the image removed. This is okey if you ask me since not everyone understands how to start a DR. Sometimes people even think that they are mailing to a professional heldesk instead of voluntears for example. In this scpecific case I didnot speedy delete anything but closed a regular DR as you can see here. So I don't believe that I have make the "same" mistake in this one. No speedy deletion occured and I never read an OTRS-ticket conciddering this specific file. You can disagree with my closing for other reasons of course. Natuur12 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Raleigh state capitol banner.jpg

Dear Natuur12,

Perhaps you can correct this information template for this photo? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio human review

Dear Natuur12,

Can you create a category for Panoramio human review images here It doesn't exist right now. Thank You as this is a newly created bot. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

UDR revert

Hi,

Fastily closure was already reopened by someone else, and then he closed it again. Seeing that TWO bureaucrats validated this decision, it seems the minumum to let the requests open until further discussion take place. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me but it feels wrong to remove his closing statement. Natuur12 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

One file

Hi,

In this DR, I think you forgot to delete the first file. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the message. Deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, and here too ;-). Gunnex (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And it's gone. Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
+1. --Gunnex (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done There are just way to many DR's and way to less admins closing them :( Natuur12 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
+1 (= File:Salom Yaracuy.jpg). Thx for your work. Gunnex (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
+1 (3 files). Gunnex (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio human review

Dear Natuur12,

If you have a bit of time, please consider marking a few of these images which are in Belarus which has no COM:FOP. If there is a problem, please consider filing a DR. I have marked the rest.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done some. Not sure about the park so I'm leaving that one for someone else. Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Siboga expedition

That was very pleasant of you, Natuur. Really appreciated, thank you.

I hail from Bammbrugge on my mother's side, but my Dutch is a total train wreck. Wish you well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you message. I'm from South Holland myself. Kind regards. Natuur12 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Antoine Lacroix

Hi Natuur12, Can you please explain to me why you deleted these files when the licence was changed to CC-BY-SA? Was there some misunderstanding? Thanks, PatHadley (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no misunderstanding but normally the photographer or it's family in this case are the copyrightholders. Not the museum. So how did the York Museums Trust become the copyrightholder instead of the family? Natuur12 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicholson Baker photo deleted

Hi Natuur12, Could you please have a look on Bakers dikussion about the photo, which he submitted himself as wageless on Jan,17? The deletion has consequences to the german wiki site as well. Sorry for style, [non native speaker], and thanks. -Dermotor (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that you mean this discussion? Since the photograph was published somewhere else before being uploaded to commons we need evidence of permission via com:OTRS that you are indeed allowed to upload this photopraph under a free license. We need evidence of permission from the photographer btw, in this case Elias Baker and not the subject since the photographer is the copyrightholder and not the subject. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard to understand for an amateur user;-). As far as I do understand its up to either Nick or Elias Baker to send an email to com:OTRS. Bedankt -Dermotor (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio photographer

I notice there are 3 photographer cats on panoramio I was just wondering if you might consider creating a fourth category for this panoramio photographer I think there are 280 photos from his account on Commons here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea but I would need a bot to do so. I got StroopwafelBot but he doesn't have a botflag here at commons :( Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Question

Hi there. I noticed you deleted all but the original file requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helicopter Anatomy.png. Is this one pending an OTRS? If so, should it get a template suggesting as such? Thanks, The Haz talk 13:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the top image as well. Just forgot it. Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This DR

Will this image be undeleted in 2026...assuming Wikipedia exists in 2026? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It probably will ne resotred but we never know what the future brings us. Natuur12 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Interieur, eerste verdieping, achterzijde rechts (Rechter achterkamer), decoratiestuk, Juno en Flora - Amsterdam - 20393950 - RCE.jpg

Dear Natuur12, please refrain from doing any more out-of-policy deletions. We have a full release for all of these images so that includes this one. Multichill (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dat is een beetje het probleem in deze. De beeldenbank had naar Wikimedia Nederland gemaild tot het helemaal niet de bedoeling was dat deze afbeeldingen openbaar zichtbaar waren en een personeelslid benaderde mij. De foto's zijn alleen zichtbaar wanneer je de link hebt zeg maar. Het is twijfelachtig of die cc-by-sa vrijgave dan geldig is voor bestanden waarvan het niet de bedoeling is dat zo opduiken binnen de zoekfunctie en waarvan er ook helemaal neit de intentie was om ze openbaar te publiceren. Daarnaast waren er privacyproblemen volgens de rechthebbende een aangezien dit een van onze beste beeldendonateurs is leek het me wenselijker om ze gewoon direct te helpen in plaats van het door de bureaucratische molen te gooien waarbij de beeldenbank enkel gefrustreerd raakt en waarna dit met 99% zekerheid uitloopt op een verwijdering onder het com:PCP of om een andere reden. Dus aan jou het verzoek een beetje beter op te letten dat je enkel afbeeldingen upload die zichtbaar zijn via de zoekfunctie want dit is voor niemand leuk. Niet voor jou en niet voor de rechthebbende. Ik hoop dat ik het in deze wat meer verduidelijkt heb waarom ze zijn verwijderd. Dit is dan hopelijk ook eenmalig want zonde is het wel. Natuur12 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We have criteria not only for the easy cases, but especially for the hard cases like this one. The images are freely available, freely licensed and we have have the permission in otrs. Please undelete the images and nominate them for deletion if you think these images should be deleted. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The organization which released the images stated that they thought these files were hidden, and that they got a complaint because of privacy issues. If they have given us permission but on a later moment (now) find out that they can't give this permission because they don't have full permission themselves, then it seems no more than logical to not keep these images. If they, like in this case, contact different persons a day after eachother because they find the matter pressing (I believe they had a complaint of the owner) then I believe it's best to handle quickly. They will contact about a larger lists of images, those are not that pressing in my opinion and we'll be able to discuss these in a deletion request. If after that deletion request none of those images are deleted we can rediscuss the current ones, it's not like these were used on any articles. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Multichill, ik ben in deze bereid het er goed over te hebben. Dus ik vraag je af wat je reactie is op het bericht van basvb hierboven. De rechthebbende waren niet al te blij dat deze foto's op commons stonden en ze zijn wel een van onze beste beeldendonateurs. We kunnen ze of pissig maken door voet bij stuk te houden of we kunnen ze gewoon van dienst zijn met een simpele courtesy deletion. In plaats van op mijn antwoord in te gaan herhaal je eigenlijk enkel je eerdere standpunt. Daar kan ik niet zo veel mee aangezien ik ze niet verwijderd zou hebben wanneer ik niet zou denken dat dit de beste oplossing had. In ieder geval is dit wel bevorderlijk voor toekomstige samenwerkingen terwijl bureaucratisch doen niet echt bevorderlijk is voor toekomstige samenwerkingen. In hun zoekfunctie duikt de afbeelding die hier als voorbeeld aangehaald wordt niet op. Dit is helemaal geen lastige case. Simpeler kan het niet, iemand heeft een oprechte vergissing gemaakt. Deze afbeeldingen hadden nooit online mogen komen en deze afbeeldingen worden ook niet bedoeld in de OTRS-conversatie. Ik zie uit naar je inhoudelijke antwoord. Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki waarschuwing

Hi Nature12,

You've put a tag on this file I've uploaded some days ago. It is not really important to me, so I don't care if it would be deleted. Thanks anyway. Yours, Bijltjespad (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image in-use oddity

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aluminium formate.svg as keep because in-use, which is in keeping with the "File usage on other wikis" entry on File:Aluminium formate.svg. However, the listed use, en:Aluminium formate does not actually seem to use it: removed in the last edit to that article. That edit was on April 8, not sure why the image-description page still lists it. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm strange that the file was still listed as in use than in the "File usage on other wikis" entry. Deleted it. Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nirvana around 1992.jpg

Hello!

You have closed the above DR with the rationale: "per above". What do you mean by that? The IP brought a total different argument which was not discussed and Flominator's link is worthless with this issue. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the link shows that a thrusthworthy user confirms in the edit sumary that the file was available under a free license and he uses a cashed version (which obvios doesn't work anymore) to support his claim. So we got two trusted users who seperately confirmed that the files was available under a free license. The only problem is that the license review proces itself has been done by the uploader which was allowed back then if I'm correct (still a huge nono if you ask me). So a second person confirmed the license so I found it sufficiant to keep the file. Natuur12 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Natuur12, no, we do not have two trusted users who seperately confirmed the file's licensing. As the file's history points out: User:Flominator was the uploader and the license reviewer and this is indeed a problem. Please countercheck this. --High Contrast (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
When I follow this link I read in the editsummary Image is now 'All rights reserved' on flickr, but Cc-by-sa 2.0 is still shown on the Google Cache and this comment was made by Platonides who is certainly trusted. In the edit he added the relicense template. Did I miss something here and do you find this statement suficiant? Natuur12 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also noticed this statement but it is a very vage analysis by Platonides since this cache result is no longer retrievable. Platonides did no real license review since Platonides could only confirm the image's new ARR situation. --High Contrast (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it quite clear myself. He used this cash page to check the license and he actually saw that it was licened under the cc-by-sa. I know that you disagree with this but this discussion is interesting especially since this is not the only file which has been reviewed by the uploader since you where alowed to do so untill 2012.... So why don't we reopen the DR, link to this discussion and ask people like Jameslwoodward to comment on the DR? Natuur12 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Man Performing..."

I just logged in to see that a submission of mine was deleted because of supposed copyright infringement. That is not the case and all websites and posts of it have been granted permission to do so. Even the website listed as the copyright infringement shows on the bottom of the page that he claims no rights to the picture. You can contact the host if you would like to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstinner (talk • contribs)

Hi. I gues you are talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Man performing Autofellatio.jpg.? This one is not deleted by me but you have to send some evidence that you are the copyrightholder to com:OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

These images

All these images above cannot be kept as the original source was deleted before the image could be reviewed. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm that's a pitty. They will probably get deleted tomorrow. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Could you mark these 3 images here, here and here ?

They are from human flickr review. The fisrt image may have US FOP issues but I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LR

Isn't this somewhat contradictory? You also confirm that the claimed copyright holder (Flickr photographer) is in fact the real copyright holder (architect) by marking a license review as passed …    FDMS  4    20:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm confirming that it was indeed available under a free license, nothing more, nothing less. If we would also take FOP into account for the actual review we should probably forbid all bots since they don't check stuff like FOP. In my opinion you only confirm that it was indeed available under a free license. Of course there are the extra checks. I'm marking them and listing them for DR since they would otherwise make a mess of the license review cats. Natuur12 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You are not the only one thinking that way about license reviewing, but still COM:LR says something completely different. Maybe it should be adapted?    FDMS  4    21:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think so, unless we can build bots that check them for FOP-issue's :) Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, bots check the blacklist, do you too? (I don't.)    FDMS  4    21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes but not always. When I suspect that there could be something wrong. Doesn't happen often since I mostly do the general cat. I can't even remember a singel case where I cought sombody flickr washing :). (Or maybe I just pick the ones that are most likely not flickrwashing.) Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for restoring these images for me. Between you and Fastily, the work is going smoothly. Normally I don't work in the Commons queue, but its way backlogged and I've recently cleared the EN backlog (where I am an admin) and it needs attention. Thanks for helping me with this. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and thanks for cleaning up that massive backlogg. Natuur12 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Titus Brandsma

Hallo Natuur12, Ik zie dat de Nijmeegse foto van Brandsma is verwijderd. Ook de foto van de buste in de Bedevaartskerk van Brielle staat genomineerd. Is daar nog wat aan te doen, er blijft anders weinig over. Vr. groet, --JanB46 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ik vrees van niet. Ik heb het samen met Woodcutterty nog eens bekeken maar kerken vallen waarschijnlijk niet onder het begrip panoramavrijheid in Nederland. Zonde is het wel. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:La-vierge-aux-rochers.jpg

Natuur12, I think in your haste you deleted the "good" examples while left the "bad" one. --Jarekt (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess so, thanks for restoring them in time. Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem now; the Commonsdelinker has all (or almost all) image links deleted in the Wikipedia articles. But I do not know where. --Trzęsacz (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it. You can use this tool to see where an image has been removed by commons delinker. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the UmtXX.jpg images. There are still 11 remaining, all of them appearing to be similarly out-of-scope. But nominating the remaining images for deletion is a bit arduous, is there an easier way of marking several images at once? ~ Nelg (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal Standard of the Kingdom of France.svg

While I understand that this file has to be kept as it is in use, or could be kept as a highly fictional version, but I disagree with your other statements and they come off as rather hostile.

The persons who want this file deleted have given sources. This is a very dismissive statement. I originally tagged this file, a tag which has not been disputed, and the original sources have been referred to in the deletion debate. The uploader has acknowledged the inaccuracy of his file, vouching merely to keep it for nostalgic reasons. The other person voting to keep it merely expressed aesthetic value. No claim of full accuracy, let alone proof of it.

Your second remark is irrelevant. The rules of heraldry are sacred, yes, but correctly representing what was actually used, erroneous as it may be, is sacrosanct for an encyclopaedic project. The article illustrates the frequent abuses. Yet, this does not apply, as it does not concern the coat of arms proper (the azure escutcheon with the fleur-de-lis). Dqfn13 was mistaken in this, but I can understand where he comes from. The semy of fleur-de-lis is part of the field of the flag, and this belongs to the domain of vexillology, which has no such rules. The overlap happens in both files as well, as well as in both source files.

That the Dutch Wikipedia article is written by someone who knows a lot about this subject seems to imply that Sodacan does not know much about heraldry. Sodacan is an established and lauded member of both Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia (reviewer status), having made countless contributions to topics concerning heraldry. Other users have vouched for him, as can be seen by the lauding barnstar collection he has achieved. With one exception, these are all related to heraldry. The file in question is a copy and paste of work that Sodacan originally created.

The aesthetic value of the file is opinion, and choice belongs to the NPOV. That value has been defended and contested. The accuracy, however, is a matter of facts, and has been acknowledged as lacking. The second part of the discussion merely concerned how lacking it was.

These were some remarks I felt I had to make. If the file has to be kept, it can be kept. I have no strong opinion on the matter. I do, however, maintain that it is inaccurate and should be clearly marked as such, and should be replaced (per the uploader's statement). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not up to you but up to the local community's to decide isn't it? This file was widely used and there where more opinions on this specific desing. You fourth alinea is for the most part a Non sequitur. As long as the file is in use it should be kept. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The overlap I was refering to is the overleg of the fleur de lys on the crown with the fleur the lys above that and of the medal at the bottom with the fleur de lys under that... those overlaps should not be there as it is not on the jpg files either. Overlapping angels/sherubs are okay. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
These appear in all versions, and are the consequence of the division of the fleurs de lis. See this image for illustrations. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Vind het erg interessant om deze discussie verder te volgen maar hij kan gewoon in het Nederlands hoor ;) Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Laat ik er maar wat duidelijker in zijn dan: de fleur de lys achter de kroon zou niet achter de fleur de lys van de kroon moeten staan maar achter de rode voering. De fleur de lys achter de medaille zorgt er voor dat de medaille slechter zichtbaar is en dat gebeurd alleen in de versie van Sodacan niet in enige andere versie. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Het zou compositorisch beter ogen, maar dit is eerder een esthetische fout dan een inhoudelijke fout. Het omwisselen van de volgorde van rijen zou dit probleem al oplossen, denk ik op het eerste zicht. Ik ga het na het plaatsen van deze reactie bij Sodacan aankaarten. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sodacan heeft ondertussen de verspreiding en de grootte van de lelies aangepast. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Of course I did replace the file globally by the correct one before starting the DR. Now, it is only used at a template in the french WP that is used on talk pages. Some usages of that kind cannot be replaced automatically, but I can ask one the the template editors there.--Antemister (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Joseph_Gatt_attends_the_Star_Trek_into_Darkness_Blu-Ray_release_party_at_the_California_Science_Center.jpg

Natuur12, I noticed that you restored File:Joseph_Gatt_attends_the_Star_Trek_into_Darkness_Blu-Ray_release_party_at_the_California_Science_Center.jpg. It is very unlikely that we have a valid license for this image. This photo is Getty rights-managed image #180281530. In fact, if you compare the two images, you can obviously see in the lower right of the uploaded image the translucent gray box that Getty overlays on their images (a little closer examination also makes it clear that the Getty watermarking was electronically removed). —RP88 21:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it was Fæ who checked out the ticket and all the reacherche. Thanks for your message. I'm interested in what he thinks. @Fæ: .
Sorry, I didn't notice that Fae was involved with this image. I'm happy to defer to him if the uploader gave him a good reason for why this image is apparently a Getty rights-managed image (with the watermark still present, just obscured!) —RP88 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A quick check reveals that File:2013-07-09_Pantages_Sister_Act_-_JG_-_01.jpg, uploaded by the Commons user under the same OTRS ticket number, is Getty rights-managed image #173209267. The photographer of the second image is Chelsea Lauren, while the photographer of the previously mentioned image is Frederick M. Brown. This makes me question the validity of OTRS ticket 2014042510018937 even more. —RP88 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I read the ticket really carefull and he doesn't know about the getty images so I will change the template to OTRS-recieved and I will leave him a message at his talk page. And thanks for being this sharp. We would have almost missed a possible copyrightviolation. Natuur12 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Darn, it's pity I've already replied to the ticket. I'll review this for a second time tomorrow and may add a speedy and then write a second email unless there is a reasonable good faith explanation. Good research. --Fæ (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@RP88: I have marked the Star Trek event photo for speedy, it strongly appears a derived version of the Getty image. I have withdrawn my validation of the Pantages Sister Act photo, however as that is not an apparent derived work, I think the doubt is not significant enough at this point to require a speedy deletion. I will follow up with the correspondent. As you say, these failures put all the images in that correspondence in doubt, which is very disappointing. I will keep it under review and ask for more eyes on the ticket if the doubts persist. Thank you again for your research on these.
Without compromising any information on OTRS, I have created User:Faebot/SandboxO as a temporary working sandbox for the 10 images on this OTRS ticket. Several appear on IMDB or Gatt's Facebook page, so it is no surprise to get multiple matches on Google or Tineye. If you discover any matter of concern, feel free to mark up the sandbox or leave a note on my talk page. --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio images

Dear Natuur,

I have marked 60 flickr images today. If you have some time, please consider marking some of these panoramio images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have been busy all day but I will have a look. Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Änderung Aronstab>Schildblatt

Sorry Natuur12, hatte mich vertippt, trotzdem vielem Dank für die schnelle Änderung und einen schönen 1.Mai. VG----Martin1009 -the Seeker 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And fixed :) Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is time up?

Hi Natuur12: I was wondering about this nomination. Do you think time is now up, we are nearly a month of waiting? If they do ever get permission, the files can be UNDEL. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they will respond any time soon. So yeah, time's up. We cannot hoste images with an unclear copyrightstatus forever :( Natuur12 (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see here. --79.27.147.169 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Best solution is to ignore it in this case and please log in when you make comments at my talk page. Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dead pixels

Just so you know, your recent deletion of File:Ashley Script sample.svg has led to the presence of a dead pixel in the Wikimedia Logo Mosaic. The image was linked to this page here, which really should have made you think about what you were doing a little more carefully.

Please fix the damage you caused. Thank you. DS (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the nominator claimed that the script is still unnder copyright and he provided this link as evidence. So I won't restore the file onless you provide me some evidence why my closing would be wrong. Ashley Havinden is from the UK where the threashold is low and it is quite likely that this script is indeed copyrighted. That a file is used somewhere is never a reason to keep a file with an unclear copyrightstatus. I checked the nominators claim carefully and concluded that this file was not free without a reasonable doubt. Natuur12 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is here. Unless there are exactly enough white pictures on Commons to complete the mosaic. Somehow I find that quite doubtful. EvilFreD overleg 17:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: I've replaced the deleted pic with a file from Wikimedia logo mosaic/Colours gallery/White. Trijnsteltalk 18:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Metoc/Template

User:Metoc/Template contained the license of most of Metoc's images. When deleting the template, you have left some tens of images without license. I suggest undeleting it - at lest temporarily. When undeleted, it can be substituted before deleting again, if you still think it should be deleted, or the issue can be adresed in other ways, but always keeping the original cc license in images.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it. I don't know what he is doing but he blanked the page. Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Scarlett Johansson - Captain America 2 press conference (retouched).jpg

On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scarlett Johansson - Captain America 2 press conference (retouched).jpg, you kept the image because it's in use, it's only use is on a talk page, how is that a rational excuse? Lady Lotus (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it is not only in use on that talk page but there is also a derivative work File:Scarlett Johansson - Captain America 2 press conference.jpg. Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Bled (13914833863).jpg

Hi, with File:Bled (13914833863).jpg, the old revision still needs to be deleted. Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Competency

Please don't sabotage the wikis that rely on Commons. If you're not willing to take five minutes to close a RfD properly, then leave it to someone who is.

You are why so many editors try to avoid Commons. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what DR are you talking about? Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:14 Irene symbol.svg.
Sorry that I blew up at you. I've become rather frustrated with WP articles becoming unstable because of problems at Commons – it is a nice idea to share files, but not practical when the repository is unreliable. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are just to many images and to less admins dealing with those DR's. The original file is still available. In this case somebody made a really bad svg file and the uploader agreed with the file being deleted. As a gesture of good faith I recplaced the file cross wiki for the png. Natuur12 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

License check request

Could you please do the license check for the following files:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak_74m_by_deeveecee-d7ea0ni.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AK-family-rifles.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modified-aks.png
Thanks in advance. --RussianTrooper (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Natuur12,

If you can, please mark these panoramio images I marked several flickr images today. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done There where only three images left. No FOP problems since they are from Germany. I'm off to work in some minutes so I will be back in a couple of hours. Natuur12 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idioma polaco.PNG

You made a horrible mistake, this is not an argument that some Wikis are using this unsourced map with mistakes. As a Pole who lives on this territory where polish language according to the map is a minor language I can ensure You that polish language is a major language there. It is a fact, You can check it here [12], there is only a 100K (Kashubian) people who even know that language, so how it can be a major language in pomerania? Silesian Language is [13] dialect of polish. You made bad decision againsts the facts. Please make it right, because the primary target of Wikipedia is to provide true information, not false. And once again - it is not an ARGUMENT that some other Wikis use this map. Andrzej19 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about this since that would be quite pointless. It is up to the local projects to decide if they want to use this map or not. Not up to you. Commons admins don't decide which version is right and wich version is wrong. The only mistake that has been made was your poor motivation when you nominated it for deletion. Besides, the uploader is willing to fix the map. I suggest you go talk with him about updating the map. And this is not Wikipedia, this is Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious, but needed admin task.

Thank you for all your hard work! -- Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :) Natuur12 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

+1: If someone would ask me... I would say (for me personal), Natuur12 is one of the best admins at the moment at Commons! -- Perhelion (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

:) Natuur12 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Vyacheslav Lopushnoy.jpg

Dear! The request to recover the File:Vyacheslav Lopushnoy.jpg removed with you. Permission is got for the photo publication in Wikipedia under the free license CC BY-SA 3.0, GFDL from the author of a photo. Tiket OTRS #2014050610002942. Excuse for my bad English. Yours faithfully, --Dogad75 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dogad75: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks!--Dogad75 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


These two images

Dear Natuur12,

Can these two images below be deleted. It seems the original 2005 source images are ARR.

Secondly, if you can mark 10-15 images in flickr human review, it might help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you. We have many reviewers on Commons but many mark images sporadically. PS: I thought it was strange that the 2 images were not deleted as I had tagged them more than 8 hours earlier. But thank you for dealing with them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Natuur12,

Perhaps you can close this DR as keep since I have withdrawn my nomination. The problem is whether someone like you would be willing to mark this image--because if not it will remain in the picasa human review category and someone else may file a DR nomination in future. I don't know the solution here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the first 2 file uploads can be deleted? Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

    • There is no need to delete them plus it is important so safe the uploadlog. Still thinking about that other file btw. The skeleton is probably not copyrighted, the background is but is it DM and is it eligible for copyright? Natuur12 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for giving your reasons here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's uploads

Dear Natuur,

Most of this user's uploads appear to be unfree derivative images or screenshots of copyrighted images. They should all be deleted. Do you know what to do here? I am not good handling mass DR's Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominated them for deletion and listed them here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wolf8196. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - ING - Pat Andrea - De zwarte vaas (1980).jpg

Hi, you closed this with a remark to discus this at the OTRS notice board. Do I have access top that notice board? I really don't know. How can I check a OTRS ticket? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find the OTRS-Noticeboard here. You can aks questions about specific questions there. Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Flickrreview

Dear Natuur,

If you have some time, please try to mark say 10-14 images in flickr review. Its not good if only I mark them all the time. A second marker is preferable. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Did a few of them and nominated some of them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio review

Can you mark just these 4 panoramio images? This uploader will tell me later if it is not marked. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phil Fish at GAMMA 3D 2008.jpg

It's not in use, though its original is. Also the image contains a copyvio (composite overlay in the top right corner)—you may want to take a look again. czar ♔ 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is In use here en:Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/January and the copyrightable part is com:DM. Natuur12 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That's tautological—it's a listing of recently added files. It's not in use in an article. The image was specifically photoshopped in—it's not part of the original capture. It was added as a joke and has no educational or encyclopedic value. You're saying I need to take it to another deletion discussion? czar ♔ 16:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This statement is much more clear and proves that this file is not DM. Thank you for clarifying this. Natuur12 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Appreciate your help czar ♔ 17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolian family in front of her ger.jpg

If you think this is the flickr account owner's own photo, please consider marking it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Uploader made a lot of photographs using the same Camera. Natuur12 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File rename of DesireOparanozie06.JPG to BibiMedoua03.JPG

Hi! I had asked the renaming of the File:DesireOparanozie06.JPG to File:BibiMedoua03.JPG. However, maybe due to my insufficient explanation, the file was kept as it is. The person on the image is Bibi Medoua, and not Desire Oparanozie as I mistakenly titled. Pls rename it or delete it so I can re-upload correctly. Thanks and sorry for the inconvienence. --CeeGee (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, nominating a file for deletion is not the standard practice to correct the name. You can find more information about how to request for a namechange here. I renamed the file for you but in the future you can simply ask for a rename instead of nominating it for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts and for your further info. I see that the renamed file "BibiMedoua03.JPG.jpg " has now two extensions. I am afraid this can cause some problem. --CeeGee (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it :) Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Set

Hi Natuur12. Thanks for the license review on File:Mistsnihd6.png. When you have the time, could you please also confirm the following set? (File:Ucidlhd24.png, File:Ucidlhd15.png, File:Ucidlhd18.png, File:Ucidlhd17.png, File:Ucidlhd21.png, File:Ucidlhd22.png, File:Ucidlhd25.png, File:Ucidlhd27.png, File:Ucidlhd29.png, File:Ucidlhd28.png, File:Ucidlhd30.png, File:Ucidlhd1.png, File:Ucidlhd5.png, File:Ucidlhd9.png, File:Ucidlhd5a.png, File:Ucidlhd12.png). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, hope this helps :) Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

University of Waterloo Stratford Campus

Hi Natuur 12. I am incredibly frustrated. Both myself and other users have repeatedly tried to put images on the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page and these images are constantly being removed even though all the licensing and attributions have been done correctly. I just saw that you recently removed two images. I truly do not understand you did this and encourage you to put them back up. Stko123 (talk)

Images from Zoologische Mededelingen

Hello Natuur12, you nominated two images I uploaded from a paper published on Zoologische Mededelingen, claiming there is no proof they are licenced under cc-by-3.0. For proof, please see: [14] (the bottom of the page). Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to contact me, please leave a message on English wikipedia, I only visit commons on occasion when I want to upload an image. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and sorry for nominating them. I coudln't find any evidence that the files where free in the actual document. Natuur12 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nobusuke Kishi 01.jpg

Dear Sir, I ask about your measures for this request.Commons:Licensing provides as follows here from 2008."Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."And it is deleted like these by User:Fastily in the past. Commons:Deletion requests/File:TonDucThang1948.jpg,Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imelda Marcos in 1954.jpgBy the reason of URAA. I think that you have a duty to answer this contradiction as a manager. Plese let me know. --Y.haruo (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't have a duty to awnser to any question of course but since those nominations a lot has changed. For some more background you can read Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)I read about an argument, but the conclusion did not seem to be given.I am the Japanese who is weak in English, but I am not awnser.--Y.haruo (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The conclusion is for now " YES. URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}". Some admins agree with it and others not. The follow up discussion took place here. Some admins delete them, other admins delte them, some undelete them and others start a wheel war about the undeletion etc. Nasty discussion so I'm not deleting or undeleting anything ;) But lately there have been none deletions because of the URAA. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for answering my question.I wish victims like me do not increase.I hope for further development of Wikimedia.--Y.haruo (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Murals by Diego Rivera in the Palacio de Bellas Artes

What about other pictures? File:PBA Man at the Crossroads full view from above.JPG should be kept. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide me a link to the exact DR? I cleaned up most of the back logg today so I don't rememer every specific DR. Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:CarnVidaMex4BADF.JPG, but it's of a different file. Well, I didn't put in every specific file except one (or two). --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you really need to nominate the specific files and sort out which are okey and whcih aren't. They should be listed in the DR since we cannot keep track of it if their not. Those files will be okey one day and if they are not listed in a DR we are not abel to undelte them than. So feel free to nominte all files which are not okey. You can use visual change to easely nominate them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

University of Waterloo Stratford Campus

Hi Natuur 12. I am incredibly frustrated. Both myself and other users have repeatedly tried to put images on the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page and these images are constantly being removed even though all the licensing and attributions have been done correctly. I just saw that you recently removed two images. I truly do not understand you did this and encourage you to put them back up. Stko123 (talk)

Put the photo of Larry Alan Burns back on his page. The jpg. is not copyrighted and it's inclusion on the page doesn't violate any rules. Also, quite meddling.

It could very well be copyrighted so unless you can provide evidence that this file is in the public domain I won't restore this file. It is possible since this file is PD since the subject is a federal judge. There was no source given, only a false claim of ownership. I am willing to help but you have to provide sufficiant evidence instead of demanding stuff which I cannot do. Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

source for image

Hi Natuur12: I bet the source of this image is contained in the text I can't read well. Can you help? I'm slowly working my way through images without source, trying to fix as many as I can, but this one is "over my head." Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it but I'm not sure if the currect licensing tagg is correct. This text could be copyrighted. Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have seen letters said to be non-copyright and others that were. I'm totally confused on that issue for this letter, but at least it has a source. Thank you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludwik Marian Kaźmierczak in the uniform of Haller's Army with fiancée Margarethe.jpg

I have a quick question about this, I am not sure how is it PD in the US ? If, as stated in the DR it was first published in 2013 then (according to Commons:Hirtle chart) it would be in copyright in the US for either "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author or if author is unkown 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first" so as the author is unknown that would be 2039. Or have I missed something ? LGA talkedits 00:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a long discussion with some good arguments and some false arguments. We have no evidence that the first publioation date is indeed 2013. Maybe it was published sometimes before. If we really want to be this strict we have to delete a lot of other historical images. The author is anomymous so it is highly unlikely that the copyrightclaims is valid. If there actual is a copyright it lies with a unknown person or it's unknown heirs who could never be tracked. So worst case scenario we have a copyright that can never be enforced. Where did the newspaper found this image? I believe that it is very unlikely that this file is never pusblished before and all of a sudden a newspaper finds an old family photograph. I can only conclude that it must be made available to the public somehow so PD-1996 could easely fit. Natuur12 (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This uploader's images

Dear Natuur,

This uploader's images appear to be copyright violations and he has 2 copy vios notices on his talkpage. If you agree, perhaps you should tag them for speedy deletion as I don't see any free license for them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

They where already tagged by LGA so I deleted them. Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion please

Hi Natuur12! I have received an odd email, but the emailer said I could put it on my talk page. Could you please take a look; it's currently the one on the bottom. The correspondent is ordering me to go through and groom his image licenses and sources. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's past midnight here so I will have a look at it after I had some sleep :) Natuur12 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Roberto Jacopucci

See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Roberto Jacopucci. Delete this files or tell me who is this man!

See this and this link. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The point is: is not an European Member of Parlament (so the file sould be renamed for sure). The link show that is a Cavaliere al Merito della Repubblica Italiana (see [15]) and is not sufficient to be notable (you see that 127654 people got this medal) and for this reason (not notable) the file should be deleted. --5.157.117.166 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Who are we to judge? Natuur12 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Marian Mudder.jpg

File:Marian Mudder.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） ∙ +/−

Paulbe (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed

Could you please have a quick look at this - thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look later because this will take some time. Natuur12 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Integriteit

Tsja, dat is een zeker vanuit een kalm iemand als mij, een heftige kop. Ik ben heel boos, en ik denk ook dat ik een mijn bijdragen aan Wikipedia ga opschorten. Toch, respecteer ik dat je net als ik je best heb gedaan hier. Jij hebt ook principes, ik heb ook principes, maar die komen kennelijk niet overeen. --Paulbe (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tja wanneer je mijn commentaar niet goed doorleest kan ik er ook weinig aan doen. Wanneer je goed leest zie je dat ik aangeef dat het bestand verwijderd dient te worden tenzij de fotograaf het een en ander kan verduidelijken. Het enige wat ik vraag is of je aan de fotograaf wilt vragen en bericht naar OTRS te sturen. Dit bestand verwijderen lost de situatie namelijk niet op. Men blijft dan zitten met een fotograaf wiens foto gebruikt is zonder dat hij weet wat er gebeurt is. In plaats van mij gewoon de vertrouwen ga je in deze uit van kwade wil maar dan ook echt op een manier die deze richtlijn op grove wijze schend. Zou ik in het OTRS-team zitten, verkozen zijn als admin op 2 projecten en op 1 nog eens voor de arbcom als ik niet te vertrouwen was? Dat het al in je opkomt dat ik eventueel met bewijs zou manipuleren is hoogst kwalijk te noemen. Ik heb nota bene uitgelegd dat er meerdere mogelijkheden zijn en dat dit bestand niet per se een auteursrechtenschending dient te zijn en tot ik dat wil uitzoeken. Een grotere versie van z'n bestand zegt dan niks wat we niet weten.
Z'n OTRS-ticket verwerken kost een hoop tijd en het is dan voor OTRS-mensen erg vervelend wanneer bestanden met een vaag statement genomineerd worden voor verwijdering. Dan kan men namelijk niet proberen alsnog toestemming voor de foto krijgen. Je had ik deze kunnen zien dat ik de uploader was en eerst een bericht op mijn overlegpagina kunnen achter laten wanneer je het OTRS-noticeboard niet kon vinden.
Dat jouw principe kennelijk is om een bestand verwijderd te krijgen zonder mee te willen werken aan het verkrijgen van een correcte toestemming of om mee te willen werken aan een manier om de fotograaf een correcte, heldere uitleg te geven van wat er gebeurt is vind ik eigenlijk vrij stuitend. Alles wat ik vraag is of je de fotograaf contact op wilt laten nemen met OTRS zodat de foto hopelijk behouden kan blijven. (Wat was er nou niet duidelijk aan die vraag)
Alles wat we nu hebben is een foto met een onzekere auteursrechtelijke status. En ja het gebeurt dat mensen foto's opsturen die niet van hem zijn, en ja meestal kan je zoiets achterhalen maar in dit geval was het niet mogelijk. Je moet wel een knappe appel zijn om een wettelijk bindend verklaring op te sturen dat je de rechthebbende bent terwijl je dit niet bent. (Al gebeurt dat natuurlijk zo nu en dan). Enige wat ik vraag is of je een beetje mee wilt werken om dit op te lossen in plaats van niet relevante betogen af te steken. Die hebben namelijk niks te maken met de auteursrechtelijke status van deze afbeelding. Bedenk wel dat ik enkel de persoon bent die de toestemming heb verwerkt dus waar ik het uitgaan van dusdanige kwade wil aan verdient heb is mij een raadsel. Natuur12 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Gedeeltelijke verwijdering

Beste Natuur12, je hebt een foto verwijderd die genomineerd staat op de pagina Commons:Deletion requests/File:HamdeenSabahi.jpg. Echter was dit een bewerkte versie van een andere foto die hier ook op Commons staat en die er nu nog steeds staat, namelijk deze: File:حمدين صباحى.jpg. Het lijkt me beter dat je die dan ook verwijdert, als daar blijkbaar auteursrechten mee geschonden worden. Met vriendelijke groet, Ymnes (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nog een vraagje, weet jij of deze foto auteursrechtelijk beschermd is? Ik ben namelijk bezig op de Nederlandse Wikipedia om een artikel over hem te schrijven en deze foto zou een mooie toevoeging zijn. Ymnes (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Die foto van beeld en geluidenwiki is waarschijnlijk oké. Dit sjabloon kan gebruikt worden om aan te geven dat het bestand van beeld en geluid afkomstig is. Verder heb ik de andere foto ook verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Bedankt voor je actie en antwoord. Dan zal ik de foto van Jos Cleber gaan uploaden. Ymnes (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nockebybanan maps

I think you overlooked my comment at the end. Tomiwoj has been working to replace the files with content from Open Streetmap, and as far as I can tell, all of these files had been replaced, so only revision deletion would have been needed. I believe the same goes for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tvärbanan maps except File:Norra Ulvsunda.jpg, File:Tvärbanan main location map.jpg and File:Vreten.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I indeed overlooked your comment. I restored the files except for three. Those where not recplaced yet. I kept the older versions deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 0411.jpg, etc.

You closed the DR on this and other images without discussion. Can you explain where File:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 0411.jpg this image would be useful in a Wikimedia project?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Apperantly here. Natuur12 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As an admin at that Wiki, they're gone. It's likely the page they were on will be gone in short order, too. Had you mentioned that at the DR, I could have done that then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You could have seen that they are in use and that they where kept before. Natuur12 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe that a file in use at a project doesnt automatically qualify the image for keeping if the usage is entirely inappropriate and is removed without comment. if anyone at the project using this image wanted to argue for continuing to use it, then we could speedy keep until that debate is concluded.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it does make the file automaticly in scope. Commons doesn't decide which files are appropriate to use at a local project. Natuur12 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been referred to

…at Lx 121's talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Two images

Dear Natuur,

Please consider marking and passing or failing these two images:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the first one is okey after a quick google search but the second could or could not be okey. I'm pretty sure that the accountholder isnot the copyrightholder but the file could be PD due to it's age. I nominated it for deletion since the copyrightstatus remains unclear. Natuur12 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Aircraft at Nuremberg Airport (9629420549).jpg

Hi there. I noticed you closed the debate on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aircraft at Nuremberg Airport (9629420549).jpg. Did you take into consideration that a major supporter to keep that file--User talk:178.7.237.121--is a blocked spammer? Thanks, Magnolia677 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I ignored the IP-adresses since those are obviously sockpuppet- or meatpuppets. However, there where also three other users plus the uploader who voted keep. Even without those IP-adresses there was no clear consensus to delete the file. Did you notice this btw? Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what I noticed was that none of the editors on the Flughafen Nürnberg article have deleted it yet. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Chuck Marean files

you kept a bunch of files uploaded by this editor, including Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiscal conservatives.jpg, but you gave no rationale for keeping, and my specific deletion arguments were never addressed by anyone commenting. This is NOT the same as the mass deletion from time past. I don't think this was a proper keep decision, and would like them to be relisted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You nominated a lot of files where most of them where in use while Commons often has a lot of backlog when it comes to DR's. Instead of doing your homework properly you just nominated them. Admins are not here to sort out you mess. Shame on you. If you looked properly at the file, you can see that the licensing tag is wrong. You should have nominated it for not having a valid licensing tagg and you could still do so. Natuur12 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, shame on me. the images are completely out of scope, and you ignore that. go ahead, ignore the purpose of the commons. maybe i dont know a lot about licensing tags. i do know when an ignorant editor uploads out of scope files, and they are kept by admins following some lame rule w/o making any effort to understand why they are out of scope. This is why i dont want to be an admin.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:SunRail Church Street arrival.webm

Dear Natuur,

If you are comfortable here, please consider marking this single video file. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can, please mark and fail this single image. I failed other uploads by this uploader...but perhaps an Admin should mark this single image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Schwiki

Hi, Could you please explain why you have deleted these images??? All these images are shoot by the uploader Schwiki.

  • File:Rajasthan-27.jpg
  • File:Rajasthan-25.jpg
  • File:Rajasthan-22.jpg
  • File:Rajasthan-21.jpg
  • File:Jodhpur-inside fort 05.jpg
  • File:Jodhpur-inside fort 01.jpg
  • File:Jodhpur-inside fort 02.jpg

Other images we are going to OTRS.Jayantanth (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, when most of the images where not okey. The uploader didnot tell which files where okey and which wheren't. That leaves all of them with an unclear copyrightstatus so they get deleted. But those works are derivative works and evidence of the pd status of the paintings was missing etc. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The images which I stated above was clear and simple shoot by uploader. And other images about KJ seal, we are going through with OTRS. So could you please recover those images?? The users is new, not familiar with all rules so he can mistakes in the licensing section during uploading. Thanks.Jayantanth (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read com:DW. They where photographs of artworks etc which may or may not be protected by copyrightlaw but there was no evidence provided that those artworks are out of copyright. Since those works are 2D and the photographs itself are not taken in a public place it is unlikely that those are covered by FOP. The uplaoder has to provide evidence that the artworks are out of copyright. Untill than I wont resotre those files since they have an unclear copyrighstatus. Natuur12 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts

…to keep Wikimedia working, vis-a-vis all images fine; being an Admin here is job I would never wish. Not exactly sure if, or why, we ended up at odds at the Lx matter, but I look forward to possibility of collegial interactions in future. Feel free to glance at Russavia's Talk page for my final word to him as well. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This uploaders images

Almost all of these uploaders images are sourced to a website whose images are 'All Rights Reserved'/Tous droits réservés. They could be speedily deleted. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Natuur12 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not make problematic rename, I am correcting Serbian names [16] see here. --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you are changing transliterated names back to it's orgiginal Serbian name. No need to do that. This is the third time that the right has been revoked Kolega.... Natuur12 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

INC's quick return message

Dag - i was overjoyed seeing his return and missed out the ⌘ Cmd. Thx for your repair. --Maxxl2 - talk 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A well, things like this happen :). Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rudolf Heinisch

Hi Natuur12, you may have overlooked that for the 2 deleted entries User:Yellowcard had added a valid OTRS-ticket yesterday, though he didn't notify that in the DR. So, I am going to undelete these 2. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okey. I would have kept them if I didn't overlooked the OTRS-ticket :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Maslov Mikhail Evgenievich.jpg

I have no problem with the decision that File:Maslov Mikhail Evgenievich.jpg should be kept as presumably PD, but wouldn't you agree that makes the date, the claim of authorship, and the CC license totally bogus, so they should be removed (and an approximate date added, as well as author unknown)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the upload. 08:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File you deleted was uploaded again

Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:LoriSwansonProfile.gif and deleting the copyright violation.

Unfortunately, the uploader has done so again under a new file name. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:LoriSwansonImage.jpg.

-- Jonathunder (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave the uploader some explenation. Natuur12 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user's recent uploads

Dear Natuur,

This user forgot to ask a flickrreview for his recent uploads--and he typed in the wrong license. If you have time, perhaps you can type a few flickrreviews for his recent images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit busy today. I got an exam tomorrow. Natuur12 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Burns, larry.jpg vs File:Judge Larry A. Burns.jpg

Natuur12 can you see if File:Judge Larry A. Burns.jpg is a recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus of File:Burns, larry.jpg ? LGA talkedits 09:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is so I deleted it again. Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CarnVidaMex4BADF.JPG

Since closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Diego Rivera was revised, I wonder if you can undelete the file that I nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can. :). Natuur12 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Amelia Earhart as "Lady Lindi".jpg

I don't know who own the rights to this image or if it is in the public domain. The flickr source said it was taken from another website.

File:Carolyn Jarvis, Chief Correspondent for Global News' 16x9.jpg

I believe that there was an OTRS ticket on this. I have been in contact with Samantha Simic who is with the publicity department of en:Shaw Media and has been in contact with me by her Shaw Media email. Also, I have been in touch with en:Carolyn Jarvis who agrees that Simic has the authority. Per Simic's conversation is that this was uploaded on a OTRS ticket. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carolyn Jarvis, Chief Correspondent for Global News' 16x9.jpg Cheers en:user talk:Jim1138 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no OTRS-ticket metioned at the file page. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I asked Simic to redo the OTRS. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UN

I don't understand your close of the above DR, if you also read the discussion at the template talk page, I think there is broad consensus the deprecation of template and then a review of the individual files, would that not be a better close than keeping the template ? LGA talkedits 20:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what I suggested when I closed it so that the template can be deleted after thoses files are reviewd. If I delete the template now we end up with 1300 files wihout a license so I would rather delete it after the review. Natuur12 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
O, wait. I see wat you mean. Yes. I still had to ask someone to change the licensing template since I tried to do it myself but it didnot work. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@LGA: After a second attempt and after breaking the template it is done. Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12, if you have a moment, could you please delete the following subpages of Template:PD-UN:

Those pages are all translations of the old, deprecated, version of PD-UN that are now obsolete. They get in the way of adding translations for the "deprecation warning" content. I could blank these pages, but deleting them is cleaner. —RP88 07:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. —RP88 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

File:West Midlands Police Museum (13176634224).jpg

Dear Natuur,

Can Commons keep this image of an old British police trophy? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How about these 2 images:

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The trophy could be PD but the other two are not okey. Natuur12 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:
Hi, Pigsonthewing was working on categorizing the museum uploads. It would make sense for him to apply speedy deletions to obvious problem cases based on discussion, hopefully avoiding a DR.
The museum sign (13175361163) would have been created by the museum and the IP rests with the museum. As the museum has issued the free release (Pigsonthewing can confirm the status of the Flickr account, this seems based on his editathon with the museum), there would seem no issue of copyright to be concerned about in that case. A similar rationale can probably be put forward for the trophy inscription, though age might be sufficient. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the best solution is to let Pigsonthewing deal with it ;). Natuur12 (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Webcam-toy-foto135.jpg

Hi! Please decide something about that file. You closed the request. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Sorry for the late response. I was in a meeting. Natuur12 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caiman skull.jpg

Sorry, I don’t understand that. I nominated this pic for deletion due to its obviously bad quality. I listed four (repeat: four!) insufficiencies clearly qualifying that pic as a really bad photograph. And then there are two users (one of them being the uploader) who simply say “it’s usable”, but give not a single valid reason why it’s is usable. Yes, you are right, there was no consensus but there was even no real discussion! So I conclude that if I would upload dozens of blurry, coarse-grained and much too dark pics and someone says “hey, your pics are useless they sould be deleted, they atually should never have been uploaded”, the only thing I have to do in order to avoid deletion is to say “no, it’s usable”, despite its obvious uselessness?! --Gretarsson (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, my awnser can be very short, there was no consensus to delete this file as out of scope and you didnot provided links to better alternatives. Natuur12 (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The first point you’ve already pointed out, and I answered yes, there was no consensus but there was no discussion either (in the sense of interchange of arguments – my “opponents” simply said “it’s usable” without saying why). Btw, I never claimed that pic to be out of the project’s scope. Indeed it is potentially usable but in fact it is not due to its strong blurryness, coarse-grainedness, and so on.
To paraphrase the second point: a photograph that no one ever will implement in an WP article due to its bad quality is better than no photo at all. OK, I surrender to this “brilliant” logic and I urgently recommend you to read this article... Cheers! --Gretarsson (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC), last edited --Gretarsson (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You really expect a awnser when you are going ad hominem? Natuur12 (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Sorry, you already got your chance. The only thing I expected was to be taken seriously. You failed, so I don't expect anything from you anymore. Cheers! --Gretarsson (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Andrea Cardona en Los Alpes en 2014.jpg

There is only image on this flickr account? Do you wish to pass it? --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: Its strange but suddenly there are many flickr images to be human reviewed. I reviewed 25-30 images tonight but must sign off now. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The file is already marked but I think that the file is okey. Cannot be found elswhere and is probably made by the person who manages her personal website. I don't know why there are so many file in the ca for human reviewing. Maybe it has something to do with that flickr to commons tool? Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
:) Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Transformers.png

Hello, I see you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Transformers.png as a keep with the rationale that US copyright law does not protect fonts. I believe your rationale is either in error, or at least should be clarified to address the rationale I made when nominating the file. I understand that simple fonts are not protected, but that was not the reason I nominated the file. I argued that this is not merely a font, but that there is a non-de minimis texture on the font. As a for-instance, consider the situation if I were to upload an image containing text, but the font vector were used as a mask for another image. That image would plainly not be merely a font. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, de minimis is not very relevant in this case. My closing was not in error, deciding if a logo is com:TOO is very subjective and not an exact science. However, we have a casebook at the com:TOO page and looked at the following two cases which show similarity's, here and here. It does not matter how complicated a font is, they are not protected in the US. The texture looks pretty basic to me. But it is a borderline case so another admin might have judged differently. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hm, fair enough. I don't agree that the texture is simple enough to fall below the TOO (as compared to the gradients in the other examples, though then again those other examples have stylistic elements that are probably at least as creative as the included texture). The reason I cite de minimis is because I suspect that if the texture used on the text were uploaded on its own with the claim that it didn't pass the TOO, we'd have seen a different result. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to ask for more opinions. That is always a good thing with borderline cases. Natuur12 (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

These images

Can you launch a mass DR on the images mentioned here? Another Admin agreed that these images cannot be kept since the French artist died in 1960. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that those files are not okey. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument aŭ Mères Françaises. Natuur12 (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Newsbeuter.jpg

This image is redundant, not educationally useful, and should be deleted because:

  • The interface is unreadable
  • JPEG is not an appropriate file type for screenshots
  • The file's awkward dimensions make it impossible to use in an article and it is too small to be cropped
  • It is not used and will never be, because there is a better image that doesn't have these problems: File:Newsbeuter.png

—Iketsi (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, your last point is what you should have mentioned in the DR, where the better quality image can be found. Admins are genarally not going to look for it. Natuur12 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you. —Iketsi (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Permission to use my photo of Sandra Maas

Sent to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I give my permission to host the photo SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin.jpg at Wikimedia Commons under CC 3.0 with credit given to me as the photographer. It came from my website at: http://americanindian.net/kusi/jackiecollins/photo28.html Phil Konstantin wikipedia & wikimedia user Philkon ============

Philkon (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Philkon: - Thank you so much! I send you a quick reply via OTRS :). You can find the file here. Natuur12 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

She is welcome to use any of the photos I have taken of her. I just ask that I be notified first. Phil Philkon (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Philkon: Okey, I renamed the file for you btw, SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin was already taken so I renamed it to file:SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin2.jpg. If you prefer another filename please let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Whina Cooper in Hamilton.jpg

Dear Natuur,

I guess this image is OK and has a OTRS permission ticket somewhere. Image has been here since 2010. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Török Ferenc.jpg

Hello Natuur12. Thanks for processing the deletions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Török Ferenc.jpg. I wanted to let you know that while you deleted the other files in this request, it looks like you forgot to delete File:Török Ferenc.jpg itself. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A, I forgot the first image again. Thanks for the message. Deleted it. Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris May 2012 - Parc André Citroën (3).jpg

Dear Natuur12,

If you have time, please decide if you can mark this image in a park in France above. Secondly, if possible, please try to mark a few of this person's images in panoramio review He uploads high quality images but the bot never passes them. I mark a few of them but he uploaded 7 more images for panoramio review today...and I think the panoramio bot will place them in panoramio human review again. I've been marking more flickr photos. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catalogue 1933 Portieŭ.jpg

Dear Sir,

You have chosen to delete a file I had loaded under the pretense "dubious own work": commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catalogue 1933 Portieux.jpg

It would have been appropriate, had you any doubts that you ask the "loader" about it. Therefore, please specifically describe how you came to this deletion decision so that we can get it back in place, as this file is clearly & definitely our own work.

regards

Chaanara (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Chaanara: - Well, no it would not have been apropriate to ask this at your talk page since the files where nominated for deletion. You had the change to explain this in the DR. Those works where from 1933 and therefor it is unlikely that those works are own work. This file could be in the public domain but you need to provide some evidence for that. Natuur12 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

fictieve wapens

De eerste fictieve wapens zijn behouden hoor.... één keer raden wie de afhandelend moderator is... Dqfn13 (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tja, aannamen dat een wapen getekend door Prummel correct is is hoe dan ook een beetje dubieus natuurlijk zeker gezien de bronnen ontbreken maar je kan op deze toch ook het fictional COA-sjabloon plakken? Overigens is de afhandeling technisch gezien wel correct. Is er geen consensus om iets als out of scope te verwijderen blijft het meestal behouden. Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons dondert daarmee wel naar beneden in vertrouwen bij mij... Blijkbaar mogen volledig bij elkaar gefantaseerde wapens (en dus ook andere dingen) gemaakt en geplaatst worden als ware het officiële afbeeldingen. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Dat lijkt me niet de bedoeling natuurlijk maar helemaal out of scope zijn ze ook weer niet. Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Voor die wapens is geen concreet bewijs te vinden en toch wordt het behouden. Er staat zelfs bij dat het officiële wapens zijn! Of in ieder geval suggereren de titels het. Maar goed, jij kan er ook niks aan doen, ik zal mijn frustratie wel ergens anders op proberen te koelen. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ik weet het. Er is echter ook deze richtlijn en mijn inziens vallen fictieve wapens waar geen bronnen voor zijn er ook onder maar niet iedereen deelt die mening. Natuur12 (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Tja... en met tegenstanders als Fry en zijn hulpjes... dan kan je het bij de heraldiek en banestiek wel schudden. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Signatura d'un acord d'adhesio al programa Municipi Cooperatiu impulsat per la federacio de Cooperatives de Treball de Catalunya.jpg

Dear Natuur12, Can my upload in this image please be deleted? Something went wrong and the image was distorted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maryam-Al-Khawaja.jpg

Hi. You recently deleted this file. I think that all images owned by Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (and mainly hosted on their website: bahrainrights.org) were released under a free license. I'm not sure if #2011053010010714 is the correct OTRS ticket, but there should be one there. If you have any questions, could you reach me or notify me on my English Wikipedia user page? Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS-ticket was not present at the file page but after a good look I found the correct ticket ticket:2011071810007122 so I will undelete the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Locals walk the streets of Madison Square near the Flatiron Building in New York City.jpg‎

Hi! You stated that no reason was given for my deletion request of File:Locals walk the streets of Madison Square near the Flatiron Building in New York City.jpg‎. However, I mentioned File:Flatiron building 1918.jpg as the reason, since the images are duplicates, and we don't need both. Maybe a misunderstanding has occurred? --Jonund (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that is exactly the problem. You didnot motivate it correctly but please use template:duplicate for this case. Safes a lot of work. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen deletion requests being motivated the way I proceeded, and to me it seems as an intelligible motivation. It's easier to use the "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox than to edit the file page manually. --Jonund (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
For you it might be easier but not for the admins dealing with backlogs. You have to delete the file first and than you have to redirect them to get the same result. Those files can be used via InstantCommons so if you just delete them you can break something somewhere else. And I have not seen DR's motivated this way. I have seen DR's been motivated with duplicate of. If you are motiving it in such way that the closing admin has to do someone else his homework the DR is not motivated correctly. You have to look what is going and in the same time you could have dealth with 2/3 clear to the cut cases. Natuur12 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isaac_Arnault,_Saint-Barth_~1.JPG

Hi dear natuur12, You stated that the person has notoriety for my deletion request of File:Isaac_Arnault,_Saint-Barth_~1.JPG. I must precise that this Isaac Arnault, which is contemporary, must not be confused with Isaac Arnault, seigneur de Corbeville (1566-1617). This person has no elective functions, no politic functions, no diplomatic functions and is really unknown in France. His contributions seams to be something like personnal branding. --gpesenti (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all there was no motivation why this person is not notable and he has his own cat which you also nominated for deletion. And no I didnot confused him with Isaac Arnault, seigneur de Corbeville (1566-1617). This person shows up at a lot of important events and he meets with a lot of very notable and important people so I would concidder him relevant enough for Commons. He is not a total nobody. And please keep in mind Commons != Wikipedia. He might even be notable on some smaller wiki's ;). Natuur12 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually, on wikipedia projects, it's the contributor to motivate on the subject notability, not the inverse. It's difficult to me to motivate on something that doesn't exist. His think tank "Ambitions et Emergences" doesn't exist. His society States Lab Inc doesn't exist. His society MVNDVS (he write an article on french about it, which has been delete) does'nt exist. He his not employed as a french diplomat as he assert previously. He mentionned a commission named "Europe et harmonisation vertueuse" that has no existance. I find nothing verifiable about his notability. --gpesenti (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a Wikipedia-project. See com:NOT. I am not going to do your homework when I am closing DR's. Simpel as that. Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:German stamps review delete

Hey Natuur12, thanks for closing this DR. Two questions and a comment:

  1. You closed the request by concluding "Deleted except for the files mentioned by Yellowcard". I, however, was not at all sure about the DPB stamps (meaning all the files starting with "DPB ..."). The drawings seem very old and I think at least a part of them are in the PD, so another discussion about them can be helpful. Have you reviewed these stamps and come to the conclusion to delete or have you deleted them accidently?
  2. I mentioned three stamps that will be in the PD soon, one of them by January 1, 2015. In de.wp we have a wiki page listing up all files that can be restored soon, is there any comparable on Commons? Or shall I add Category:Undelete in 2015 to the DR page although it affects one single file only?
  3. Can you have a look to File:DBP 1963 392 Flora Schachbrettblume.jpg? Obviously technical issues after deletion: File is gone but description page is still visible, link is blue. Undeleting and re-deleting might help. Thanks again, cheers Yellowcard (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I reviewd most of the files. Those DPD files are less than 70 years old accroding to the stamps so at least they are not okey according to the com:PCP. We cannot asume that those files are PD of course. There was a date on every stamp and the stamps looked beyond com:TOO. Maybe you can indeed add the undelete cat and add a note that only those files can be undeleted. And I took care of the last file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Sock

Hiya Natuur! Saw you edit Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neue Wache Berlin.png here and I just have to ask, how can this be his own work when he's in it? All his photos have him front and center or off to side like this, but there's no way he can also push the button to take them. Just asking because as here, he's quite a distance away from a camera; in some of the beach scenes that were deleted because of his sockpuppetry he was dozens of meters from the camera. I have cable releases and I have infrared triggers for cameras, but I don't think what he's doing is self-work - I think his buddy is the actual shooter and the "it's not really my own work" comment in the PDF linked to the ANI discussion at Wikipedia points out that he's thumbing his nose at our process here; this image is just one more. It's most likely not his own work due to him being in the frame and quite a ways from the camera. Especially his images pretending psychological diseases, there was no possible way they were his own photos from the angle and that you could see both hands in the image. I really wish you'd reconsider this situation; he's a sock, we have a pile of unsure licenses from him and PRP strongly urges that we take this one out as well. This statue is by Käthe Kollwitz (1867 – 1945). Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

PS Also please notice small image size, furry nature of statue and sharpness on the guy. There's no camera metadata, we have no way to know if this is a photocomposite or not. Please see the pictures File:Berlin,_Neue_Wache,_interior_view,_2005.jpg, File:Berlin-Mitte,_the_New_Guard_House,_pietá_by_Käthe_Kollwitz.JPG, and Category:Neue Wache - Interior for more images of this statue. The second one is only a few degrees off from the image that Horwitz is claiming as "own work." There is no shortage of images of this statue on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, based on this arguments. I would have deleted the file however I got the feeling that Rus won't agree with a deletion so do you agree with a renomination? Natuur12 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Redensignmonserrat.jpg

There is no content dispute as you incorrectly categorised it as, it is a dispute regarding facts. There are zero sources that Montserrat has a defaced red ensign, and therefore I have removed it's usage on Wikipedia. It will not be allowed to be used unless a source can be provided per policy, which means that your closure "in use so automatically in scope" is invalid. The uploader did not provide a source when they uploaded it, nor have they joined the DR to defend the image. All available sources indicate this image does not exist and is a fake. I would appreciate if you would re-open the DR for further discussion. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it again linking to this statement. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jan Lodewijk van der Weyden

Dag Natuur 12,

Ik zag dat jij informatie over voornoemde BBO-agent op Wiki hebt geplaatst. Weet jij waar en wanneer Van der Weyden is overleden?

Dank en groet, Jelle

DanielTom

Nothing DanielTom said towards me would justify a block, or even an apology, really. The worst he said was "just another baseless attack on me", and while I obviously don't agree with that sentiment, it's not harassment or a personal attack. As for what he said about Cirt, that is grey area. I would have ignored it and let him either realize he wasn't going to get any traction and leave, or continue to dig himself a hole so that a block would be harder to contest. DainelTom needs to drop the stick when it comes to Cirt, but I'm not sure he's done anything to trigger a block since I gave him the warning last night. I don't have any desire to spend any more time on the issue; I don't believe that DanielTom is ever going to change - he's had plenty of chances to and has chosen not to - so I feel trying to talk/guide him through this issue won't work. Whether you unblock or shorten the block or leave it as is, that's up to you. Just wanted to leave my two cents. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

He was not blocked for the comment thowards you but for making a new attack on Cirt of course. And he made a new attack on him. He was warned so he can only blame himself. Natuur12 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sven Manguard here. Reopening of that AN/U thread is not a big reason to block one. Insead, it gives the feel that we are very intolerant to customer complaints. [17] shows he had been unblocked quickly by AFBorchert. It was a very past issue and no relevance now. So that discussion should have died without such speedy closes and blocks. Please let people to make their frustrations at boards like AN, AN/U; they are the only places they can do it. :) Jee 03:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, he agreed to drop the stick so there is no reason to keep him blocked. I hoped that he would nuance his original statement but that is not a reason to keep him blocked. And now I hope that this is they end of this long lasting soap. Natuur12 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pierre Lemaitre

You restored those files; but didn't reopened that DR. I think it need to run a week again. Otherwise those messages need to removed from the files. Jee 13:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you are right. Something urgent came in between. I removed the templates. If someone feels the need to reopen the DR he/she is free to do so but I think that the change that those files will be deleted again is very small. Natuur12 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

At the UnDR, you said, "Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. so imho it is allowed to do a courtesy deletion when the subject wants the images gone."

I stand corrected on the policy or not issue -- there is a valid policy. I apologize for that. I also note that you closed the discussion and restored the images. For the future, though, I think it is a long stretch to take a policy that allows courtesy deletions of uploaders' mistakes and use it to allow the subject of an image to have it deleted. That is the opposite of a goodwill gesture to our uploader. We owe little to the subjects of our images and much to our photographers. If a notable person doesn't like his Commons images, let him furnish freely licensed replacements -- then we might consider deleting the ones he doesn't like. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Portieux catalogs

Dear Sir,

I am quite unfamiliar with the Wikipedia way as to answer a deletion request, reason why I am answering here to your post of June 30th. You ask for some kind of evidence that the deleted files would be "own work". Now what would that be? Would you like to come to Portieux (France) to see if it is indeed? Do you have any knowledge about the legal rights of this catalog? I suppose that both answers will be NO, so please stop abusing the little power you have and reinstate those files. You could also call the factory (by phone, it's listed) to check that out.

regards Chaanara (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, please see com:licensing, com:EVIDENCE and com:MELLOW. If you are quite unfamiliar with Wikimedia you should not accuse people of abusing their power. Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Moin! I am not sure about this category move request: Category:Paleis Koninklijke Moeder Could you please have a peek? Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: It seems that we have two cats about the same palace so im my opinion it should be merged with Category:Paleis Lange Voorhout. Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty, off we go! :) Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shimabara O-mon West.JPG

Did you think File:Sumiya Shimabara-boad02.JPG was copyrightable? I just wanted to check, because, sorry if it was not clearer, but my vote rather meant to say "keep" for the text in the subject being {{PD-text}} (unlike the other two listed). whym (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a borderline case but I would consider the element at the top of the sing com:TOO. Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. If you used such judgment, that's ok for me. I personally have a bit higher threshold, but I understand your (and the nominator/uploader's) view. whym (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FIFA World Cup trophy

I have cropped File:Germany and Argentina face off in the final of the World Cup 2014 -2014-07-13 (13).jpg can you please delet the prior versions. LGA talkedits 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

re: "No reason to delete the file"

Can you clarify please? I see you have OTRS access and can see the email. Is a request by a subject in the picture not enough justification to delete? The image is not in use in any article and was the sole image uploaded by the user. I figured it would be uncontroversial to delete this if someone in the picture kindly requests it. Perhaps there's a deletion policy I missed? -- OlEnglish (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the ticket since it is not in the proper queue. I have acces to all Commons-related queue's but I cannot read this ticket. In that case I have to follow the statements made in the DR. Fo0r courtesy deletions like this the motivation is extremely important. I want the images gone is not a valid reason when the person for higly ranked military personal at public events where you have a great change that you will be photographed. Secondly he posed for the image. And my last reason is that this is one of the better images of the subject on the right. Policy says very little about courtesy deletions. I have a question for you, do you have acces to the permission-queue's at OTRS? I see that you don't have an OTRS flag. Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah I understand. Makes sense that the image also containing a more notable subject would be a good reason to keep it around. The ticket was in the info-en queue as the subject also requested deletion of a draft article on him in enwiki on the same ticket. Hmm, I don't know why I don't have an OTRS flag.. I've been inactive on OTRS for over a year though, so it's possible they've removed me from the user list? However I do still have an account on the system and have recently been active again. I do have access to the permissions queues including permissions-commons and permissions-en. I've already closed the ticket, but I can still move it to permissions if you wish? -- OlEnglish (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not needed but it I will request the OTRS-flag for you since you will trigger a certain filter if you add a ticket to a file-page. Natuur12 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:ATV.svg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ 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 may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:ATV.svg. 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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Dutch inauguration attendees, 2013.jpg & File:Swearing in of Willem-Alexander.jpg

Dear Natuur,

These two flickr images are flickrwashes from the metadata which says they were stolen from another website. Can this uploaders July 24 & July 25 images be deleted? Secondly do you know what to do about the source wbayer.com flickr account? Is it a problem since it is licensing other people's high profile images on its account? W Bayer is not J Lampen in the metadata. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I tagged this image since the metadata said it was a '2013 Getty image' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes those files should ne deleted since the ANP is the copyrightholder and they normally don't transfer their copyright. It is a real pitty since those files are very valuable. I will list them for DR. Natuur12 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help in the DR and my sympathies to your people in the Netherlands in this difficult time. Justice for the MH-17 plane tragedy will be difficult I think since Putin will try to create 'plausible deniability' even if no one believes that he didn't armed the rebels with the BUK anti-aircraft missilies. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Jetsun Pema in India.jpg

I added something in the licensing section. I tried to create a template.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


I have found an image for another article but I am unsure what to do with it. The image is here and the disclaimer is here. Note that it does say that everything on the site is public.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When I read their copyrightstatement here it tells me: . The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. which is a non derivative license and those are not allowed at Commons. I am not entirely sure about the statement of your second image so maybe it is better to ask an opinion from someone else but I would say that the permission listed at their website doesn't include making modification or using it commercially. Natuur12 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Also the template Template:Government India that you, @Hipposcrashed created is incorret. The site http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright does not mention a Creative Commons license, therefore the file is not licensed under a Creative Commons License. A license is a contract. You cant say a licensor agreed to a contract if he not explicitely did this, and pib.nic.in did not sign that contract. At http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright they offer you a different license, the conditions of that license not fulfill Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. We already have a template for this: Template:Attribution-PIB-India redirects to speedy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's July uploads

This user uploaded several July images but I cannot tell if they are free or what is the exact source for them except for one...which I tagged as a copyvio. Maybe you have better luck? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:CGF.svg

Can you check the above file, I belive it may be Recreation of content previously deleted by yourself following Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Bar.svg. LGA talkedits 22:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The file is quite similar but slightly different. A regular DR might be the best solution here. I was just about to go to bed so I will look in to it later today. Natuur12 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Степан Анастасович Микоян.jpg

Dear Natuur,

I don't know if this is a picasawash but if it a derivative image placed on picasa, perhaps it should be deleted? I don't know who owns the rights to this image but maybe you do. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to mark this image if you think it is OK. Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment: I hope this second image is OK as this uploader doesn't seem to know image licenses. I failed all of his other uploads and tagged a few as copyvios...just to have a record on his talkpage. I think only one other image he uploaded passed flickr review in the past...though this image may be OK if you think it is as an experienced Admin. If not, Lymantria may have to look at it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help on the first image. On the second image, its good to know that one other image by this uploader passed review. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

License review request

Could you pleas perform the license check on these two uploads
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak103_by_crimsonfalke.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak74_by_crimsonfalke.png
 ?

Thanks in advance,
--RussianTrooper (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - confirmed the license. Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Hamadania arena.jpg

If this image can be passed, please feel free to pass it. Syria has no FOP so I don't know what is the solution here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a picture of the skyline and there are not many copyrightable parts visible so I think that this one is okay. But like always cases like this are a bit subjective. Marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Post Danmark logo.svg.png

Did you notice that User:Marcus Cyron failed to follow COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? §4? You only deleted the redirect. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnot notice. Deleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpg

Russavia reverted the deletion because I went on IRC to ask for help and he happened to be online.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, deleted it again. Russavia can go to com:UNDEL just like everyone else. Natuur12 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Some images

Dear Natuur,

If you have some time, please consider marking the first image I uploaded here and consider marking (passing or failing) the second and third flickr images below which have derivative images or graffiti in them.

If you have a bit more time, please consider marking just a few images in panoramio human review--if you wish. I marked many flickr images today since I had a bit of time. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Marked the first, failed the second and marked the third since mister Chad is covered FOP in my opinion. The subject is mister Chad and you cannot avoid the grafiti if you want to take a photograph which makes me think that it is DM. But like always in cases involving DM, someone might disagree. ~~

Macaque photo deletion

You have been very quick at closing the discussion without allowing any further debate. I understand very well that this picture has seen trouble before, but it was nominated for a different reason. I am nominating it for deletion because this is clearly not the original picture that is alleged (not determined) to be in the public domain in the US, but a different picture, edited from the original, sourced from a media outlet with no clear statement as to permissibility of re-use.

The prudent thing to do is to discuss the issue on those terms. After all, it's not as if the image was of particular value to the Wikimedia project: there are plenty of other macaque snaps with non-controversial licensing.

I am undoing your edit. Please respect my concern for the fair and lawful use of the image in question and do not re-close without letting some discussion occur. If discussion on the terms of violation that I allege do go astray, then I agree that closing may be re-considered.

Do allow me to point out that "someone read the story in the newspaper" is hardly a valid argument to suppress discussion.

No, this has been discussed to death. No need to to start this all over again. Natuur12 (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

Hi Natuur12, I see that you have protected File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg. Would you in that case please unprotect its talk page? I don't think it's an acceptable situation in a wiki to have both a file page and its talk page fully protected. darkweasel94 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Changed the protection so semi. I see that the file is renominated. Why is it so hard for people to wait untill the media-soap is over. So more drama incoming anyway. Natuur12 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dzhokhar Dudayev, President of the Chechen Republic 1991-1996.jpg

Mister Administrator (and ... ?)

This is communist traditional censorship. Good soviet (and polish) communist tradition. Congratulation Mister Administrator (and Censor of Wikimedia, new function?). Very good tradition, very good. Yours faithfully. Z Zetpe0202 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zetpe0202: I think the reason for deletion is clear and this has nothing to do with communist traditional censorship. JurgenNL (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

These 5 images

Dear Admin Natuur,

Would you know how to mark these 5 images below? Four appear to be WWII images but are posted on a private flickr account while the fifth image has a poster of Superman.

Thank You and Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Ljubljana - Poštna hranilnica (Cankarjeva 18) - figura dajanja (Ivan Jurkovič, 1927-30).jpg

Hi, Natuur12, what do you mean with this 'File has no source' tag?[18] The source is clearly stated in the description: it's a Flickr stream. --Eleassar (t/p) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I get a 404 error when I follow the link. Natuur12 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This means that the Flickr stream has been taken down since the image was uploaded to Commons, but it's no different than File:Ljubljana - Poštna hranilnica (Cankarjeva 18) - figura varčevanja (Ivan Jurkovič, 1927-30).jpg, which has been reviewed and confirmed as ok - it's just a crop of this one. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Please add this info the the file discription since this is indeed sufficiant eveidence that the file was available under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've added it. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Two images

Dear Natuur, If you have time, please consider marking these 2 images as an experienced Admin.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Marked the first since it looks pretty old and nominated the second for deletion. We need more info to know of that file is okay under UK-fop. Natuur12 (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting dates?

In these couple cases of cleanup, you erased the (misplaced, but correct) date info. Are you aware of it? I semi-automaticly fixed most (all but these few) of these issues caused by my abuse of the Vicuña upload form, immediately after upload. Anyway, thanks for the License Reviews. (Also, Yann said I should apply to be a reviewer. What do you think?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. That might have happened in a few more cases. And I agree with Yann. You will make a good license reviewer. Natuur12 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I went through my reviews and corrected it. Natuur12 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These images below

Dear Natuur12,

Would you mind passing (or failing) these 2 images below as an Admin?

Originally, I had failed them as speedy delete I think since there were few images on the source flickr account but the uploader typed this message here and it may be that he sought the photographer's permission for the images. I failed them long ago...but maybe I was hasty and they should be passed by an experienced Admin like you. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally, if this shirt is OK, please mark it. That's all. Nothing more, thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Image

I uploaded this image on wikipedia but it says I still need rationale. File:Emblem of Queen Jetsun Pema of Bhutan.jpg.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And also I have this image which is my own.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what do you want from me? That's not stated in your mesage. Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WMF uploads

I saw your comments at the DR, and was hoping that you would be able to offer input on the following:

  • File:Multimedia Vision 2016.pdf, a related .pdf file, which also displays the copyrighted image. I have not bothered to nominate this one yet because Peteforsyth is already on my ass about perceived "personal attacks". By the way, FrescoBot borked the file links back in May.
  • File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia.pdf, which contains a fair use image. I pointed out that the fair use file is still present in the newer upload, which was Peteforsyth's cue to accuse me of personal attacks for stating that WMF staff and affiliated people should know better than to do this. It is my opinion that "they should know better" is not a "personal attack". The only reason I even mentioned it is because there are (at least) four WMF presentation files present on Commons that do not comply with policy. It seems they should indeed know better.

Many thanks for any help you can give. I won't be able to follow up on this, and I expect to be blocked for bringing this up. Peteforsyth complained of my "veil of anonymity", but I am not a registered user, and I don't care to register, quite frankly. 172.56.9.221 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't complain about your choice not to use an account, that's no problem at all. But I do think it's distasteful for those who choose not to identify themselves, to comment on the professional capabilities of those who do identify themselves. I agree with your comment on my talk page that I was wrong to use the term "personal attack." But I stand by my belief that there is no need to question the professional qualifications of these individuals, and that it's especially problematic for you to do it if you don't identify yourself, and put your own qualifications up for public scrutiny. Just a matter of basic fairness, as I see it. -Pete F (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not say "personal attack" at all. (I was surprised to find this comment, and thought I must have done something rash.) I said "attack." I do not think an attack is necessarily bad; attacking somebody's professional qualifications is often appropriate, and is not at all a personal attack. So if you take offense, I'm sorry -- but none was intended.
I stand by my statement. I think there is no point in talking about whether these guys should "know better," and I think it's especially distasteful for somebody who chooses not to identify him or herself to do so.
You are, of course, free to disagree. I just want to be sure to state my position clearly. -Pete F (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ĉ = Ĉ

This is why I hate Mediawiki’s misguided unhelpful “esperanto magic” gadget. (And I do use the x-convention in Esperanto when/where I cannot use the proper signs, that’s not the issue.) Anyway, I fixed it, but you may want to avoid this kind of issues in the future in your edits. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The picture Robin_Williams_2.jpg

Hello,
The picture mentioned above was deleted at 15:02, 14 August 2014 due to a Copyright violation. can you please tell me who uploaded it so I can contact him/her and ask if I can get and use it on a private memorial internet wall for Robin Williams ?, Yar (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the uploader is Chris Fiebelkorn. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yar (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Children of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King accept the Congressional Gold Medal on their parents behalf..png

Do you know how you would mark this image...or if it is a US Federal government photo? It is from the photostream of US House Speaker John Boehner. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

nominated it for deletion. This is not a work of the US gov. Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vabadussõja mälestussammas Tallinna õpetajatele ja õpilastele.JPG

I marked File:Vabadussõja mälestussammas Tallinna õpetajatele ja õpilastele.JPG with fair use delete template, but currently this file is not uploaded to Estonian Wikipedia by bot. Doesn't the fair use upload bot function any more, or why isn't this and some other files transferred to Estonian Wikipedia? --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That is strange. However, the bot might be down. Do you want to transfer them by hand? Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion

Thanks for handling the request. I noticed that you didn't restore this file,"The Green Lake" by Czeslaw Znamierowski, 145 x 250 cm, 1955.jpg. Was it a duplicate of one of the files I've requested or was there another reason for not restoring it? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 18:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored it but INC deleted it again since I forgot to remove the copyright violation tagg. However, I doubt that this ticket is valid after having a closer look. It remains uclear how http://www.tamoikin.com/ became the copyrightholder instead of the photographer and/or the artist. You might want to do some follow-up on this ticket. I undeleted the file again so that you can do your work more easely but the current ticket is not sufficient. Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In earlier threads of the ticket, the photographer stated that he took the photos on behalf of the Tamoikin Art Fund (also note his signature in the earlier emails). The Tamokin Art Fund then transferred the copyright back to the photographer, which was confirmed in the most recent thread. Mike V • Talk 18:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but he is likely not the photographer of this file and what about the artists copyright? The pictures of those paintings are derivative works. Natuur12 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see the point you raised. I'll work further with the ticket to sort out those issues. Best, Mike V • Talk 19:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Move this image

This image cannot be used on the English Wikipedia. [19]. I tried to used the image in the infobox of princess lalla salma's page but I can't.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This file has been uploaded to a local Wikipedia and not to the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons so you can't use the file there unless someone transfers the file to Commons. However, the file is taken from a website and I can't find if the file is releared under a proper license or not. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you find out if that image is freely licensed and I have suspicions about it because it says that it's freely licensed but if it is, then it should be on the Wikimedia Commons. I think that the uploader may have tried to use a sort of loophole by uploading it onto a foreign language Wikipedia as there are less users on other wikis so they may not be caught. It has happened before as I have taken a freely licensed image from a foreign language Wikipedia and uploaded it onto the English language wiki and almost as soon as I uploaded it, it was flagged as a copyright violation. :If it is freely licensed can you move it to Wikimedia Commons?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the site claims: "Copyright 2008 © www.faroukmisr.net". I can't find any information about a free license so I don't think that this file can be uploaded at Commons. I found another picture at flickr but that one was com:LL. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I found two video's at youtibe and made some printscreens, they are in the cat Category:Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco. They are not great but at least it's something. Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Can this image be moved to Wikimedia Commons? It was created by this cooperation project. The image isn't on the source anymore although it was there when I uploaded it. The creator of the portrait Fanny Hjelm has a page on the Swedish Wikipedia. This linkmay be helpful although the image is already deleted. The image is also public domain because it is a photograph of an out of copyright work.

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And these images [20]

[21] [22] --Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the first image is okay since the source is missing and it may be PD-art but the frame is not free. So if you crop out the frame it shuould be okay. The second one is not okay. The original photograph is freely licened but it is a crop focussed on a derivative work. Third image depends, if the medals are PD than yes, otherwise likely not. Last image, same story. Natuur12 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Pekerman.png

Dear Natuur12,

Can this uploader be banned for uploading copyright violations and the source flickr account for this image be put on a blacklist? I passed this image here but now I see it is a copy vio from an account with 14 images. This uploader has uploaded many copy vios was banned for 1 week...and yet he continues his behavior. Soon someone else will pass his images if I didn't notice this. And please delete this image above which I passed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Blocked him indef, deleted the file and blacklisted the account. Therse is no excuse for uploading copyrightviolatations to your own flickrstream so you can upload them to Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Alex1961 provoking war of editors

This editor Alex1961provoking war of editors. He ignores all the above data from reliable sources that confirm the update on this map. But when he edits this map he use not correct source but other editors also recognize that it not reliable and its findings refute a variety of sources. But it ignores all the arguments of other editors and continues its illegal actions, thus provoking war editors. Look at the discussion page and you will see that my updates and editor Metrancya was made based on specific data from reliable sources but he ignored them.--Hanibal911 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have found the file's talk page. Warned Alex1961 to stop the editwar. Please refrain from editwarring yourself as well. If you can't solve this problem you can ask for help at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Imho, the best solution would be to upload two versions of the map so that the local projects can decide which version they want to use. Natuur12 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

More David Beals

User:Rosa Birdfire - please delete the fan upload and block. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Thanks for the message. Natuur12 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting scan of a contract?

Hi Natuur12, it seems you've recently deleted File:Cooperation contract between Armenian Encyclopedia & IT School signed on 30.09.2011.pdf which is scanned version of contract stating, among other points that over dozen of encyclopedias were released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 by their copyright holder. There are lots of media files here, which referred to that contract, to prove that media is free. Can you please clarify the reasons? Contracts and other legal agreements are not subject to copyright to the best of my knowledge. --Xelgen (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I need a citation to prove that contracts are okay in the source country and the US. This source tells me that contracts are not per definition free of copyright. This is exactly why stuff like this is mailed to OTRS instead of the document being uploaded. However, I see that this file was not listed in the original DR. Someone screwed up the DR's lay-out but that doesn't make the file okay. I can see how this can cause trouble on the short term but I am still not sure about the legal status but I have an idea to solve this. I will undelete the file temporarely and I am asking you to send this to OTRS with an explenation. I can't do this myself since I don;t speak the language. Does this sound like a solution to you? You can link to the OTRS-ticket and a special licensing template can be made. Natuur12 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
For Armenia (source country) contracts are clearly not subject of copyright (See Article 4, point 1 " Non-Protected Works: official documents: legal acts, treaties and the official translations thereof;" original Armenian version is even more clear, having word "contract" in Armenian). My quick search on US laws didn't provide any clear answer in law if they are or they aren't subject of copyright, though.
The specific of this paper is, that it releases free not only past works, but all future works 2 years past publications. That's why it seemed a better idea just to put it here so it can be referred to in future, plus a signed and stamped contract has more legal force and trust (at least in Armenia) compared to E-mail. I'd appreciate if you can recover this file and File:Армянский вопрос энциклопедия (Armenian question encyclopedia in Russian).djvu which was deleted together with contract and I'll get intouch with OTRS team to verify this and about 20 other files, which were uploaded here based on this paper. If contracts/legal statements are copyrightable themselves in US, it may mean there's no way to have this contract here, without additional statement from all parties, and I may have to move this paper somewhere else online, and rerequest deletion later. Thanks --Xelgen (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Did so and thanks for this helpfull link to the Armenian copyrightlaw. Natuur12 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What about maps, and other artworks and Photographs. this file for example contain maps. Geagea (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that maps are covered. Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
According to agreement text whole content of encyclopedias is released under free license. For this specific file and maps, I'd say I believe they are also free, as there are about dozen names of author of maps, and that usually says that those authors were working directly for publisher who released those right. --Xelgen (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It is more likely that the encyclopedia receive permission to use artwork (for educational purposes for instance). The OTRS permission must clarify who owns the rights and do they have the right to release the file to republication and distribution, allowing publication of derivative work and allowing commercial use of the work. Geagea (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This category

Dear Admin Natuur,

Please consider filing a DR on which images in this category violate US FOP. I filed a DR on only one of them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

it seems that Stefan4 found out about this images as well and he already nominated them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Newsanna changing the license to standard

Thank you for turning my attention to this matter. I checked their Youtube channel: [23], they are saying that the channel "was restored" implying that something happened to its content before... Looks like it was restored on a standard Youtube license instead of Creative Commons. Since there is a bunch of images from newsanna, how about I will write to them asking to restore CC-BY on them? Previously, I burdened «icorpus» with such a request and they obliged me, so, let's see what happen, I will share the results in 3-5 days. Regards! --Nabak (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea and sorry for the late responce. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Multimedia project deletions

Hello. With regards:

In the first case, I believe that the file was successfully removed from the PDF by blanking it and then flattening the PDF. There have been some comments about how this method still leaves a file that's extractable in Acrobat, but no-one seems to be able to give the steps to do this so I'm not convinced this is possible. (If it is, then there is another technical solution I could use to delete the images from the PDF, by replacing the slide with a new JPEG edited to remove the file). In the second case, I offered to remove the unattributed file from the PDF, but you closed the discussion before I could do so (and before I could retrieve a copy of the PDF to do this).

I guess the best venue for this would be undeletion requests, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to revise your closures first given the above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you how to reveal the image in inscape, see this and this printscreen. It is really easy, just open the PDF and you can move the square around. I can't tell you how to do such a thing in Acrobat though but imho that pdf is not okay and I will not just undelete it. And for the second one, if you blank that image the same way as you did in File:Multimedia vision 2016.pfd it will still not be okay imho. And they could/should have know, especially with the first DR that the image is not okay. I appriciate the effort you put into this but the uploader should do his/her homework more properly, than stuff like this doesn't happen. Natuur12 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That's the kind of feedback that's really useful, as it makes it easy to test the problem and the possible solutions. I think the other solution I mentioned has worked properly now. Please could you have a look at [24] to confirm that the copyrighted image has now been deleted from the PDF? If so, would you be willing to undelete both of these files temporarily so that I can replace them with redacted ones, then could you delete the old versions again afterwards? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've written up the solution I think works, at User:Mike Peel/PDF redaction. In general, I agree that the uploader should do their homework properly, but I think we as a community are shooting ourselves in the foot if we simply delete problematic files like these rather than figuring out a solution that means we can keep them. That's particularly the case here, since these slides both describe/brainstorm what is to come for the Wikimedia projects, and also they will be useful for looking back at the history of the projects in a decade's time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It worked so I undeleted the files. Thanks for fixing WMF's uploads. Please let me know when you are done. Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Both files should now be fixed in their latest versions (I got the slide order wrong in File:Multimedia Project Slides.pdf initially, hence the second upload that should be correct). Please could you now delete the old versions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's very rare that I award barnstars, but your responses and actions here definitely warrant one (see below). Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome and thanks for the Barnstar :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tim Cone In 2013.jpg & File:Tim Cone In 2014.jpg

Dear Natuur,

Should these 2 images be deleted as copy vios? They come from a flickr account with few images and appear to be derivative images. Perhaps the flickr account is a flickrwashing account....but Tim Cone is in the Phillipines. I don't know. Secondly the uploader has 9 copy vio notices on his talk page. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • There is also this third image where I just gave the source. Apparently the flickr account owner is the uploader--but I don't know if it is own work or a flickrwash. My question is if the uploader is in Quezon City, Phillipines, how can he take this recent Boston Celtics photos? He made this edit which shows the subject is with the Boston Celtics. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a flickrwashing, the images are taken from the web. I nominated the images for deletion, blacklisted the account and blocked the uploader since he used his own Flickr Account to wash the images. They have the same name. Natuur12 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You Natuur for your investigation. The images appeared suspicious since they appeared to be scanned from a website photo and the source flickr account has few images. I will vote in the DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Foto verwijderd van pagina Marcel Dufour MarcelDufour1984.jpg

Het wordt nu steeds gekker!! De foto waarvan ik de rechten heb omdat ik die zelf genomen heb is verwijderd vanwege wat????SHOWJUMPING (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Beste, u heeft op dit account en op uw andere een groot aantal foto's geupload waarvan u niet de rechthebbende bent terwijl u wel verklaard heeft dat u de rechthebbende/ de fotograaf bent. In meerdere gevallen is dit niet waar gebleken en daarom bent u niet meer op uw woord te vertrouwen. Deze foto paste perfect in de serie foto's die geupload waren met valse informatie over auteur en rechthebbende en daarom zijn deze verwijderd. Er kan niet zonder gerede twijfel gezegd worden dat u hier eigen werk upload gezien het merendeel van uw uploads gewoonweg eigen werk waren. Het wordt niet gekker, u moet gewoon eens de handleiding lezen. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Beste, ik weet dat ik in het begin de fout heb gemaakt door niet de juiste vakjes aan te klikken. Wijt dat aan beginnersfoutjes maar niet éénmaal heb ik daarna beweerd de maker en rechthebbende te zijn van de desbetreffende foto's. Van deze foto beweer ik dat wel want die foto heb ik persoonlijk in 1984 geschoten van Marcel Dufour in zijn stal in Kortenhoef. En nu?SHOWJUMPING (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hoe kan ik dat bewijzen dan behalve dat ik hier nu meerdere malen expliciet stel dat ik persoonlijk de maker ben van desbetreffende foto? Dat heb ik van geen van de andere foto's beweerd! SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Simpel, de standaardverklaring opsturen met OTRS, ondertekenen met uw echte naam (niet uw gebruikersnaam, aangeven of u met uw gebruikersnaam of met uw echte naam aangeduid wilt worden als auteur is wel zo handig overigens) en woonplaats. De email dient afkomstig te zijn van een wat deftiger e-mailadres, dus niet randomdude9@gmail.com of iets in die trant. Men moet het e-mailadres aan u kunnen koppelen. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Zo'n 'deftig' e-mailadres heb ik niet dus ik zou niet weten hoe ik dat moet doen. De foto marceldufour1984.jpg is door mij persoonlijk gemaakt en geschoten. Maar ik zal wel een andere uploaden want van Marcel Dufour heb ik tientallen foto's zelf geschoten en van allen behoren de rechten dus bij mij en overtreed ik geen enkele Wikipedia regel, ondanks dat deze door u op louter vermoedens is verwijderd.SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Heeft u nu de handleiding nu nog niet gelezen? En dit is Wikimedia Commons, niet Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ik heb de handleiding gelezen en heb alles precies ingevuld naar waarheid bij het uploaden van de foto. Dat ik bij de andere foto's uit onwetendheid de verkeerde vakjes heb ingevuld gaat niet op voor deze foto. De vraag die ik heb is dan ook welke indicatie heeft u dat deze foto niet door mij geschoten is? Van geen van de andere foto's heb ik achteraf die bewering gedaan, alleen van deze.SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


"Volgens mij belazerd u de boel". Dat zei Wikiklaas ook en ook die moest die woorden terugnemen en excuses maken. In uw geval gaat dat niet anders zijn, ongeacht de titel die ik heb gegeven aan die foto. Indien nodig kan ik u nog tientallen foto's van mijn man (Marcel Dufour)uploaden en van allen zal ik dan beweren dat ik de maker ben. Dan kunt u weer gaan zeggen dat u denkt dat ik de boel belazer en zal ik daarover een officiële klacht indienen die u dan weer als lid van de klachtencommissie zelf kunt behandelen. Zullen we kijken wie uiteindelijk de leugenaar is cq de boel belazerd want ik heb er schoon genoeg van om door jullie Wikipedia of Commons medewerkers onterecht voor leugenaar uitgemaakt te worden. SHOWJUMPING (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Er is geen "klachtencommissie", Wikimedia Commons heeft niet zoiets als een Arbitragecommissie. U heeft alle mogelijke uitleg gehad maar of u begrijpt het beleid hier niet, of u heeft het beleid niet doorgelezen of u wilt het niet snappen. Natuur12 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ik begrijp het inmiddels heel goed, vandaar dat ik alleen foto's upload waarvan ik de rechten heb. Dat is voor u blijkbaar nog steeds niet goed genoeg want zelfs dan beweert u gewoon doodleuk dat ik de boel belazer. Ik heb alle vragen die me gesteld werden bij het uploaden naar waarheid ingevuld, heb toestemming gegeven om de foto vrij te laten gebruiken door eenieder die dat wenst. Daarmee heb ik voldaan aan de eisen en is het nu aan u te bewijzen dat ik de boel belazer zoals u stelt aangezien we nog steeds in een rechtstaat leven waarbij het gebruikelijk is dat degene die beschuldigt daar ook het bewijs voor aandraagt. Degene die beschuldigd wordt hoeft in Nederland nooit onschuld te bewijzen. Daar hebben we ons mooie grondrecht voor. Ongeacht wat bedrijven of sites in hun bepalingen opnemen, de Nederlandse wet zal altijd het laatste woord hebben in dat soort gevallen. Het zou voorwaar geen slechte zaak zijn als dat ooit een keer aangekaart zou worden want dit riekt naar machtsmisbruik.SHOWJUMPING (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Nee, en ook het vriendelijke verzoek om dit soort betogen niet hier neer te gooien. U begrijpt nu dat u daadwerkelijk de fotograaf moet zijn om iets te uploaded maar alsnog zitten er tegenstrijdigheden in uw verhaal. Op Commons worden er pak hem beet 1600 bestanden verwijderd per dag en de verwijderingen van deze foto's waren vrij routine aangezien er door de tegenstrijdigheden in uw verhaal gerede twijfel is of deze bestanden wel geupload mogen worden op Commons. Wat gerede twijfel op Commons is, dat is een lastig begrip maar in dit geval zal het merendeel van de admins het er waarschijnlijk wel mee eens zijn dat er bij uw uploads sprake is van gerede twijfel. De Nederlandse grondwet en alles is niet echt relevant aangezien Commons gebaseerd is op het beleid vanuit de WMF en op het rechtssysteem uit de VS. Wanneer u het beleid dan oneerlijk vindt, dan is dat jammer maar het is wel de enige manier om de stroom van 10.000 foto's te managen die dagelijks geupload worden. Wanneer daar tegenover zet dat het meeste werk door 15 a 20 admins gedaan wordt zal u hopelijk ook wel begrijpen dat er niet altijd bewijs van juridisch kaliber hoeft te zijn om aan te voelen dat er te veel twijfel is ovr een bepaalde foto waardoor deze beter niet gehandhaafd kan blijven op Wikimedia Commons. En laat ik u wel waarschuwen dat het niet echt gewaardeerd wordt op Wikimedia Commons wanneer mensen woorden zoals machtsmisbruik in de mond gaan nemen of hele betogen beginnen af te steken over de grondwet in hun eigen land. Lees de reeds gegeven uitleg nog eens goed door en volg ook gewoon de procedure via OTRS voor uw afbeeldingen. Als eenmaal gevalideerd is wie u bent en dat alles in orde is, dan is er al een heel hoop opgelost. Wanneer het management van een artiest bijvoorbeeld een foto upload dient het management ook eerst te bewijzen dat zij de rechthebbende zijn. Dit is allemaal niks persoonlijk maar dit is hoe de dingen hier werken. U maakt het echter elke keer nodeloos persoonlijk omdat u niet mellow blijft zoals dat op Commons genoemd wordt. Ik heb u nu al meer hulp en uitleg gegeven dan normaal gesproken het geval is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • In het geval een site gericht is op Nederland (wat onweerlegbaar bewezen kan worden in het geval Commons/Wikipedia) dan geldt voor die site de Nederlandse wet. Het komt regelmatig voor dat sites huisregels dan wel algemene bepalingen opnemen die door de rechter naderhand ongeldig worden bevonden omdat die niet stroken met de Nederlandse wetgeving. Ik deel u dit alleen mede omdat u blijk geeft te denken dat omdat het een Amerikaans bedrijf betreft deze daarmee ook onder de Amerikaanse wet valt. Dit is zeer zeker niet het geval.

Nu ga ik u eens opsommen wat er hier voorgevallen is de laatste dagen en waardoor mijn idee van machtsmisbruik/hetze zeker een grond heeft.
Het begon met een pagina die ik maakte Marcel Dufour. Al vrij vlug werd er toen gevraagd om een bron voor de resultaten die daar werden opgesomd. Dat kon ik goed begrijpen want iedereen kan wel van alles opschrijven dus heb ik gezocht naar linkjes die dat konden aantonen maar omdat het al te lang geleden was zijn die (nog) niet te vinden in de archieven. Om toch aan te kunnen tonen dat alles correct was heb ik scans gemaakt van krantenartikelen die dat bewezen. Dat waren er nogal wat omdat ik bij bijna iedere prestatie een ander artikel moest scannen. Dat ik daarmee ook het copyright overtrad had ik geen benul van en is mij later uitgelegd. Maar het was ondanks die overtreding wel genoeg bewijs voor de moderator om het als bewezen te achten en een bron verzoek verder achterwege te laten. Zo ver niets aan de hand, ik had geleerd dat ook scans van krantenartikelen onder dat copyright vallen en plaatste die dus niet meer. Probleem opgelost zou je zeggen.
Daarna was de volgende die ik plaatste aan de beurt. Henk van de Pol kreeg als mededeling dat het hier propaganda dan wel reclame betrof en er werd gevraagd waarom een lijst van beste prestaties werd weergegeven. Dat vond ik een hele rare vraag aangezien juist bij sporters een ere-lijst (palmares) zeer gangbaar is op Wikipedia. Ook in dat geval heb ik wederom aangegeven waarom die lijst daar stond waarop ik als antwoord kreeg dat ik niet naar andere pagina's op Wikipedia moest kijken want dat waren dan pagina's die niet opgevallen waren maar desalniettemin ook niet toegestaan. Dit blijf ik verwonderlijk vinden maar die pagina is nog in behandeling of deze op Wikipedia hoort of niet. Daarna kwam de pagina van Carry Huis in 't Veld in zicht en werd een heel stuk tekst verwijderd omdat deze niet volgens de regels van Wikipedia zou zijn opgesteld. Ik was het daar niet mee eens maar heb de verandering zo gelaten omdat ik het verder onbelangrijk vond of die door mij geplaatste tekst er wel of niet bij mocht staan. Daarna was het de Bianca Schoenmakers pagina waaraan werd getwijfeld of die wel thuis hoorde op Wikipedia aangezien het een 'beginnend' amazone betrof, aldus de moderator van dienst. Dit sloeg nergens op omdat Bianca al jarenlang een van de beste amazones van Nederland is. Toen ik dat als antwoord gaf werd gesteld dat dat maar een mening was, hierbij volledig voorbijgaand aan het gegeven dat ze al jaren een van de meest winnende amazones is en die prestaties op zich al genoeg zijn om haar bij de besten te scharen. Zo werkt dat nu eenmaal in de sport, wie het meeste wint is de beste. De volgende fase was de profielfoto's, die werden allen verwijderd Marcel Dufour, Carry Huis in 't Veld, Henk van de Pol en Bianca Schoenmakers. De reden werd me op den duur duidelijk en die was dat van twee van die foto's de rechten bij anderen lagen en ik dat niet juist had ingevuld bij het uploaden. Mijn fout die ik erkend heb en ben toen andere foto's gaan plaatsen waarvan ik wist dat die rechten wel bij mij waren of bij de persoon wie het betrof. In het geval Bianca Schoenmakers werd me toen gemeld dat ik een leugenaar was en dat Bianca die foto niet zelf gemaakt had. Naderhand bleek dat toch wel het geval te zijn. Vervolgens bij de foto van Marcel Dufour hetzelfde verhaal terwijl ik die nota bene zelf heb geschoten. Daarvan werd gezegd dat ik de 'boel belazerde'.
Inmiddels heeft Bianca per mail al laten weten dat de door haar gemaakte selfie beschikbaar is voor het publieke domein. Maar ook bij Carry wordt me sinds vanavond wederom gevraagd met bronnen te komen voor de resultaten die er staan opgesomd op haar pagina. Ook daar heb ik wederom aan voldaan en nu op een wijze zonder scans maar een link naar de database van de overkoepelende hippische sportbond. Toen me klip en klaar was wat wel/niet verstaan wordt onder copyright heb ik tot tweemaal een foto van Marcel Dufour geupload, heb alles naar waarheid ingevuld maar word dan toch beschuldigd van het belazeren van de boel. Dat zijn beschuldigingen die ik niet pik daar het hier gaat om open schrijfsels die voor eenieder te lezen zijn en ik niet valselijk wens te worden beticht van de boel te belazeren of te liegen over de makers van foto's.
Ondanks dat alles dat ik uitgelegd heb, na de uitleg over wat precies het copyright betreft en hoe strikt Commons/Wikipedia daarmee omgaat, waarheid bleek te zijn wordt wederom gevraagd om bronvermelding. Ik ben dus wat pagina's afgegaan en constateerde dat bij die pagina;s niet werd getwijfeld aan het waarheidsgehalte en er niet om bronnen werd gevraagd. Bij mij de eerste keer nog te begrijpen maar na de overduidelijke bewijzen dat alles klopte die eerste keer ( Marcel Dufour ) ontgaat me de reden waarom daar nu bij Carry Huis in 't Veld wederom om gevraagd werd. Dit kan nooit als reden hebben dat eerdere resultaten van andere pagina's niet waar zijn gebleken want juist het tegendeel was het geval. Gaat dit nu standaard worden bij alle pagina's die ik nog ga maken over ruiters en amazones wiens prestaties niet meer terug te vinden zijn in online archieven omdat die (nog) niet zo ver teruggaan in de tijd? Ik hoop dat u nu begrijpt waarom ik langzamerhand op dezelfde toon reageer als die tegen mij wordt aangeslagen door de medewerkers van Wikipedia, zoals leugenaar en de boel belazeren.SHOWJUMPING (talk)

Dit is denk ik waar het mis gaat. Dat u een conflict heeft op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is vervelend maar daar heb ik volgens mij niks mee te maken gehad en dat conflict is dan ook iets waar ik me niet in verdiept is. Commons is een ander project dan de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia. Ik heb hier enkel gekeken naar de auteursrechtelijke status van de afbeelding. Dat staat dus los van wat er op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia gebeurt. Nu spreek ik toevallig Nederlands ben ook de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia actief maar voor hetzelfde geld waren die foto's verwijderd door een Australiër of een Duitser om maar even twee voorbeelden te noemen. Het is dan ook niet helemaal fair om te impliceren dat ik mijn macht zou misbruiken terwijl ik gewoon mijn taken uitvoer op een project wat niets met de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia te maken heeft. Dit conflict zal u dan ook daar op moeten lossen en dit conflict moet al helemaal niet naar Commons geïmporteerd worden want dit hoort hier niet. Het enige wat er hier toe doet is de auteursrechtelijke status van die afbeeldingen. En ja, Commons werkt heel anders dan de normale gang van zaken in Nederland. Wat de boel belazeren betreft, die foto is of eigen werk of een selfie en niet uw eigen werk. Iets klopt er dus niet en dat is mijn inziens ook een vorm van de boel belazeren. Want selfie + eigen werk zoals de foto nu impliceert is niet het geval. Dit is bijvoorbeeld vervelend wanneer het om zaken gaat zoals portretrecht.
Commons is overigens geen op Nederland gerichte website en een rechter heeft weinig tot niks te maken over welke foto's niet toegelaten worden. Gezien u nog steeds het beleid op Commons niet lijkt te begrijpen of niet lijkt te willen accepteren lijkt discussiëren hierover me dan ook vrij zinloos want u haalt twee dingen door elkaar.
Voor nu volstaat het denk ik dat u uw conflicten weer mee terugneemt naar de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia, waar deze begonnen zijn. Ik hoop dat ze dan daar ook opgelost kunnen worden maar ik wil u nu toch met klem verzoeken mij buiten dit conflict te houden. Ik ben hier geen onderdeel van, nog wil ik dat worden. En conflicten op een ander project zijn nooit een excuus om hier een dergelijke toon aan te gaan lopen slaan. Ik hoop dat het nu duidelijk is dat u hier twee zaken met elkaar verbindt die niks met elkaar te maken hebben, enerzijds het conflict op nl-wiki en anderzijds de auteursrechtelijke status van de afbeeldingen hier. Natuur12 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Eylem 2010.jpg

Dear Natuur,

Is this image the flickr account owner's own work or a flickrwash? I cannot tell. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked 6 images from her flicr-account and they don't appear elswhere before the upload date. I agree that this file looks suspicious but I marked it since there is no clear evidence that this file is flickrwashing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I forgot to check the Blacklist so I guess that they are scans or manipulated. I nominated it for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This DR

Should these images be kept or deleted? Its a difficult issue but if you are willing...feel free to vote to keep or delete in this DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a difficult DR but I am not familiar with the law in Ecuador to close this one but I tend to agree with Russavia. Maybe the DR should be left open a litle longer so more people can give their opinion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Another probable TekkenJinKazama sock

Natuur12, I've been dealing with TJK and his socks on the en wikipedia for a while and apologize that it's now impacting commons. You blocked a bunch of his socks (and also helped me confirm one on the en side). He's on a different sock now, பிரதீக் (talk · contribs) that categorized on en as a sock of a different user (who is actually a sock of Jin, I'm working on getting that corrected). They've just uploaded an image with an OTRS number (File:Feature_poster_of_Mumbai_125kms_3D.jpg). Jin has used false OTRS claims in the past and I'm questioning this one. Would you mind taking a look? Sadly, Jin would be a highly productive editor in an area that can use them but they don't care about things like copyright, consensus and working with others. Jin does as they want and the rest be damned. My apologies for any trouble that has been pushed over here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. The OTRS-ticket was fake so I deleted the image and I blocked the account. I asked a checkuser to take a look at this latest sock. I also nominated some of his uploads for deletion since those are likely not his own work. Thanks for letting me know and it is always sad to see when people who could be useful contributors do not respect copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: , Gamer Singh and Boss Of America are puppets as well. After consulting a checkuser she gave me the names of those two puppets. Natuur12 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the heads up! Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Got a new one for ya. Karanvir Bohra (talk · contribs) created Bohra Karanvir K (talk · contribs) who promptly uploaded the same movie poster. Between that and the new socks contributions on the english Wikipedia, it's an easy match. Joy - I thought Jin had slowed down their socking of late. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. If we keep blocking him and keep deleting his uploads without paying attention to him he will quit eventually. Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ik zag dat je daarjuist het logo van De Sims 3 verwijderde, vanwege com:TOO. Daarom vroeg ik mij af of dit logo wel gebruikt mag worden:

Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Mag ook niet gebruikt worden. Dit logo is dusdanig ingewikkeld dat het auteursrechtelijk beschermd is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Maar ik veronderstel dat deze wel mogen?:

Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

De kans is in ieder geval al een stuk groter al ben ik vrij zeker dat nummer 3 niet oké is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Dus het ligt eigenlijk aan het diamantje (het tekeningetje vooraan)? In dat geval vraag ik me af of zoiets als hier mag: Enkel het eerste deel, het tweede hoort er niet bij? Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Twijfelachtig maar ik zou zeggen dat het kleurpatroon in de 3 te ingewikkeld is maar ongetwijfeld denkt een ander hier anders over. Dit soort dingen zijn vrij subjectief. Natuur12 (talk)
Oke, heel erg bedankt voor de uitleg. Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Uitnodiging prijsuitreiking Wiki Loves Earth op zondag 5 oktober in Naturalis

Geachte meneer/mevrouw,

Hierbij nodig ik u namens Wikimedia Nederland u graag uit voor de prijsuitreiking van Wiki Loves Earth op zondag 5 oktober in Naturalis. Deze wedstrijd leverde maar liefst 1.395 foto’s en geluidfragmenten op, allemaal gemaakt in de Nederlandse Nationale Parken. Verder zal Wikimedia Nederland informatie geven over het ‘Project Natuur’. De komende jaren willen we de informatie over de natuur op Wikipedia aanvullen en verbeteren.

Het programma voor de dag
  • 15:00 - 15:15 Ontvangst
  • 15:30 - 16:20 Museum bezoek
  • 16:30 - 17:00 Prijsuitreiking Wiki Loves Earth en informatie over het Project Natuur
  • 17:00 - 17:30 Afsluitend drankje
Adres Naturalis
  • Pesthuislaan 7, Leiden
  • Telefoonnummer: 071 568 76 00

Vindt u het leuk om deze prijsuitreiking bij te wonen? Dan kunt u zich hier inschrijven! Deelname is gratis. Plaatsen voor deze prijsuitreiking zijn beperkt, geen inschrijving en bevestiging betekent geen toegang tot het museum!

Als u vragen heeft, kunt u deze e-mailen naar info@wikimedia.nl

Alvast bedankt en wij kijken ernaar uit u te ontmoeten op zondag 5 oktober in Naturalis.

Met vriendelijke groet, Namens het Project Natuur team,

JurgenNL (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ethan Coe, I cancelli dell'Eden.jpeg

Hello, the file in the subject has been deleted due to missing permission. I sent the message with the permission from the publisher to permissions-it@wikimedia.org on July 31, and forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on September 2nd: could you please double check? Thanks, Pietro (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ones OTRS has processed your email the file will be undeleted, OTRS has some backlog so it can take some time before someone answers your email. Files with OTRS-send will be deleted if the ticket is not processed within 30 days and that is what happened. Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently deleted File:David Kieth pins a medal on Darcy Overbey.jpg -- an image I recently uploaded.

My recollection is that this was a clearly PD image.

No robot or quality control volunteer left a warning on my talk page, so should I assume that the description was vandalized, and you didn't notice; that I made an ordinary human error in applying the appropriate license, and I didn't notice, and that the robot or quality control volunteer who flagged it for deletion is one who doesn't leave uploaders a heads-up?

I request you take another look at the image. If my recollection is correct that it is a clearly PD image, I request you undelete it. If you don't believe it is clearly PD I request you email me the last version of the {{Information}} template.

Thank you Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The image doesn't appear at the given source. That's why it is deleted. However, if you think that you can fix this I will undelete the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ба-Арманьяк Шато д'Эсперанс.png

Просьба восстановть файл! Разрешение на использование файла получено тикет #2014082210006395. Спасибо! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinyaev (talk • contribs)

Checked the ticket you mentioned, undeleted the file and added the ticket to the file discription. Natuur12 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete MY photo?

You deleted my photo of Michel van Oostrum at the FC Emmen page in Dutch. Why? You say I violated copyrights. How? It is my OWN PICTURE, you idiot! You seem to have found it on some blog and concluded I took it from that blog. Did it occur to you the writer of that blog may have taken it from Wikipedia AFTER I uploaded it there? I will upload it again soon and I expect you will not delete this photo taken by ME again. Thank you. 94.213.109.82 08:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

GLAM Wiki toolset

Hello,

I am going tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock Finnish time to a GLAM wiki toolset training arranged by Wikimedia Suomi (Finland). For that we were asked to contact some bureaucrat in order to get added to GLWtoolset user group (beta). Is this possible by leaving this message here? --Urjanhai (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Urjanhai: That's possible but you will have to create an account at beta. If there are more people who need this right that have already created an account feel free to leave a list of names. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am only one participant of this training and I do not have any list of the others, and if it is someones duty or right to leave some list of the participants somewhere, I guess it is not my duty or right as a participant but of those who are arranging the course. I am new to this whole and only got an advice to "contact some of the following (...) bureacrats (...) in order to be added to GWToolset user group" without knowing more exactly what this means, because the very idea to take part to the course was to learn what GW toolset is all about. (There was another training about commons yesterday, but because I have been using commons for 4 years already, I did not travel there and therefore may have missed some initial information about the GLAM Wiki toolset that was given beside the training on commons.
But now, however, I created an account there.--Urjanhai (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I granted you the "GW toolset right" at beta. Good luck with your training. I'm off for now. Natuur12 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kolorowo 32.jpg

Hi, why this image isn't eligible for speedy deletion? --ThePolish 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

See reason number 7 here. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Triepeolus monardae - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ashmeadiella xenomastax - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ceratina arizonensis - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Osmia rufohirta - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Megachile montenegrensis - Mounted specimen - Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucznik 1930 r. widok od pd. zach..jpg

Good day for you Mr. Natuur12

Excuse me please, but why you deleted file: Bucznik_1930_r._widok_od_pd._zach..jpg of the photo from the commons (4-th September 2015)? This photo dates from 1930 year and from my private archive. Please answer to me on my email: kultura@powiat.cieszyn.pl With the greeting Łukasz Konarzewski

Dear Łukasz Konarzewski,
Photographs from private archives are often problematic. In this case we don't know when or even if the file has been published before. We need evidence of the photographs publication date in order to determine the copyright status of the file. Now we have to assume the worst case scenario meaning that we assume that the work is unpublished and the author unknown. And unpublished works with unknown authors are protected for 120 days after creation in the United States.
Kind regards,
Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Natuur,

thank you very much indeed for your answer. The photograph of this case is about 85 years old and is made by unknown author. This photograph was published two times at least in: Zamek Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w Wiśle, Kraków 2005, s. 48-50 ISBN 83-921543-0-4 - publisher - Fundacja Międzynarodowe Centrum Kultury in Kraków; and on http://www.mapakultury.pl/art,pl,mapa-kultury,129972.html – publisher - the portal of Narodowe Centrum Kultury in Warszawa (polish state's cultural institution) in 2014 year

In the polish low, the intellectual works (also the photographs) are protected for 70 years. After this time the ownership of copyright belong to current owner. I thougt so it is legal.

With the greetings and wishe - have a good day Łukasz Konarzewski

Dear Łukasz Konarzewski,
I believe you are misinterpertating the Polish copyright law. In Europe there is something called the publication right but this only counts for works that are unpublished. I don't know if the Polish law has a provision like this but being the owner of a photograph which has been published doesn't make you the copyright holder. For now there is not enough evidence that the work is anonymous which complicates matters. We do have {{PD-Poland}} but it is really hard to prove that an image like this is really published without a valid copyright notice before 1994. I am not saying that this file is de facto a copyright violation but providing enough evidence that this file is not will be a tough challenge. Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natuur12/Archive_1&oldid=303807076"