User talk:1Veertje/Archive 2

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

File tagging File:Nellie Bly3.jpg[edit]

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:Nellie Bly3.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

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

Trixt (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Bly died in 1922, any photo of her will predate 1923 --Vera (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vera. To be sure that photo is PD in the US, we need the first publication date, not only the creation date. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote a best selling book about her 6 months in Mexico before the end of the century. Do you really think this picture wasn't published before her death? --Vera (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what I believe. It's important when it was first published and country of origin.--Trixt (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author is unknown, isn't threre an orphan work act in the US like we have in the EU?
I don't think so (take a look at COM:TAG#United States). However, keep in mind that on the EXIF dates there is Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS.--Trixt (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC) P.S image is located here: http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U927198BACME/nellie-bly?popup=1[reply]
Battman started the database of images Corbis took over. That does not give them the copyright. corporations are only people when it comes to political donations. --Vera (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

found a fitting license --Vera (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure that this is the correct copyright status (the image was never published before 2003? Mmhh...), please remove the {{No permission since}} tag. Thank you in advance--Trixt (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
aye, didn't see that part. But I don't have a record of it being published :S --Vera (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lenawee County Courthouse Adrian Michigan.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments nice colors and shadow --Ralf Roletschek 07:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clinton Township Michigan Township Office.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good--Jebulon 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nieuwstraat 34 mortuarium.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Please consider perspective correction before you nominate pictures here.--ArildV 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC) "Correction" isn't always good. But in this case, the transformation would help to remove the cut building on the left. --Ikar.us 21:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ✓ Done --IIVeaa 12:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC) OK, revoke my oppose. --Ikar.us 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC) And promote. --Ikar.us 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note of Thanks[edit]

I'm not inclined to try to figure out how to place my response in the same section as the appearance of my photos on this page, so I will just say that I gratefully appreciate what I assume was your nomination of my photos for promotion to 'Quality Image.' For the record, the Lenawee Courthouse photo had a minor edit from a fellow Wikimedian which removed a partial lampost. I approve of this change and it represents a technique I myself have used.

Hi, I am also the wikipedian who edited the lamppost out of that picture. I also edited the st. Josheph church, which is still awaithing further judgement here--Vera (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tuindersbedrijf Sonnehoeck ketelhuis zuid.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Comment: tilted. --Iifar 08:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Comment:made it 1 degree turn --IIVeaa 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Still not quite straight. --Iifar 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) another .6 turn. --IIVeaa 19:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Good now, QI--Jebulon 14:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished[edit]

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−
Dear 1Veertje,

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

Kind regards,

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

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wateringen - Heulweg Molen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 11:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued image candidates/Set candidate list[edit]

Hi IIVeaa; The Commons:Valued image candidates/Set candidate list is for sets of images, but you nominated only one image.[1] I wonder if you intended to nominate a single image? You need to choose a scope for your nomination, also. In the meantime, I've temporarily removed your nomination.[2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Joseph's Catholic Church Adrian Michigan.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments PLease see annotations. All correctible.--Jebulon 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)✓ Done--IIVeaa 21:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has some overexposure, but is otherwise nice. Mattbuck 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2011-09-28 Gouda 036.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The middle is rather wonky. Mattbuck 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Looks OK to me.--Someone35 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011[edit]

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 English | Nederlands | +/−
Dear 1Veertje,

We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win!

The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall.
Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone!

Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team
 WCN 2011
Sent by Lucia Bottalk in 23:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

provinces template[edit]

Hallo IIVeaa, ik weet niet hoe jouw Template:Provinces of the Netherlands werkt, maar in elk geval werkt het niet helemaal goed, want Limburg wordt op de pagina's waarop het wordt gebruikt, niet afgebeeld. Zou je dat kunnen verhelpen? Dank, Fransvannes (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ik zal er naar kijken --Vera (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed, had niet gezien dat Limburg altijd (Netherlands) als bijvoegself moet hebben.--Vera (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephen_Fry_signature.jpg[edit]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephen_Fry_signature.svg[edit]

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token c796af0e1ebb11b6857039231d7c66d2[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cadzand Dunes.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice! --NorbertNagel 21:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for nominating and promoting, but this image is already QI: since 27 May 2007 to be precise. -- MJJR 08:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Herman Philipse.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Institution:IIG[edit]

I noticed that you created Institution:IIG. If this is intended to be used to indicate that the IIG is the author of a file, it should actually be a creator template with the "type" paramater set to "corporation" (even if it is non-profit, it is just for categorization and is probably provisional). The whole thing may sound a bit messy, as the same institution can both create and host document, but creator template can be used to machine-identify authors and institutions to machine-identify location of physical documents. Hopefully, we will come up with a better system some day. -Zolo (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Robert Sheaffer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --Kadellar 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


File:Vulpen inkt.jpg[edit]

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

Vera (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Roos Jonker.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

File:TEDxAMS2011 175.JPG[edit]

File:TEDxAMS2011 175.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Move of the Schaapwei windmill.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Execution of the four conspirators to Abraham Lincolns assasination.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Administrator[edit]

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 ∙ +/−

Een cadeau voor onze nieuwe adminstrator van je collega's

1Veertje, gefeliciteerd! Je hebt nu administratorrechten op Commons. Neem een moment om Commons:Administrators te lezen en plaats gerelateerde pagina's op je volglijst (vooral Commons:Administrators' noticeboard en Commons:Deletion requests), voor je in verwijderen, beveiligen, blokkeren of wijzigen in beveiligde pagina's duikt. De meerderheid van de acties van administratoren kunnen ongedaan worden gemaakt door andere administratoren, behalve het samenvoegen van bewerkingsgeschiedenissen, die dus met bijzondere zorg behandeld moeten worden.

Neem eens een kijkje op het IRC-kanaal: #wikimedia-commons op irc.freenode.net.

Zie de Moderatorenhandleiding (Engels). En check of voeg je zelf toe aan List of administrators en de gerelateerde lijsten op taal en datum.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team! Please excuse me but I'm taking a piece of that marvelous pie. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, there's enough for everybody :) --Vera (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please close delh[edit]

Could you please close your delh in Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009-05 Golice 3.jpg with an appropriate footer, so that it will not spill over to the other following deletion requests in Commons:Deletion requests/2012/03/20. Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mhh. Still not fixed. See what the template delh does to the bottom of the page Commons:Deletion requests/2012/03/20. Please see also the introduction in the documentation of Template:DeletionHeader. The part after the bolded word "must". Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons[edit]

Der is in berjocht fan Sawrte Kees foar jo op de oerlisside fan Wutsje. Groetnis, --86.88.254.29 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your speedy tagging[edit]

Hi Vera, please do not simply add {{speedy}} {{copyvio}}, as copyvio is already a speedy-tag, so speedy+copyvio is redundant; but also do not simply add copyvio, but give hint or better a link that shows why you think that a file is a copyvio. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok--Vera (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments NL[edit]

Beste 1Veertje,

Alle winnende foto's van Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 zijn ondertussen gedrukt als kalenders.

Wikimedia Nederland stelt er hier 100 van beschikbaar voor alle uploaders van de afbeeldingen. Geef op de bijgevoegde link je naam en adres en we sturen je kosteloos een exemplaar toe, als dank voor je deelname! Let op: op = op!! Bestel hier één kalender per adres.

Ook dit jaar zal er in september weer een Nederlandse Wiki Loves Monuments plaatsvinden, als onderdeel van de internationale wedstrijd. Meer informatie vind je tegen die tijd op http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/.
Ook zoeken wij nog vrijwilligers die het leuk vinden om mee te helpen met het organiseren van de landelijke wedstrijd of van locale evenementen (een "Wiki takes..." in je eigen woonplaats dus!). Meer informatie daarover vind je op de wiki van Wikimedia Nederland.

Sent by Lucia Bottalk in 14:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRs[edit]

Hello!

Please provide rationals that led to your decision (examples: [3]; [4]). Please sign such comments. Why did you not wait 7 days to close those DRs? Thank you in advance for helping. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the reason why you have decided to delete those images before the minimum-7-days-DR-run, please? --High Contrast (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

files of Helmut Diez[edit]

Hi 1Veertje, there is no need to delete the files that are used in the article about Helmut Diez (Category:Helmut Diez). He himself wanted those pictures to be used here freely and he is the owner of the copy right. So there is no problem as far as his rights are conerned. Sincerely --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, it is one thing to be ok with the images being used on Wikipedia, it is another to make them public. Is Helmut aware that the current license used for the images grants third parties permission to use them, even on a commercial basis? Please take a look at Com:OTRS and arrange for his permission to be send trough there. --Vera (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hints. I'll try to send his permission through there, probably next week. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I've redirected an email sent by Mr. Diez to the mentioned address. Mr. Diez is aware that the current license used for the images grants permission to use them to anybody, even for commercial purposes. Hope that's enough. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rameshng[edit]

I see that you have raised Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rameshng and you closed the DR yourself as well. Can you please let other administrators close the DRs which you have raised (unless there is a difference of opinion) --Sreejith K (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks like an attack[edit]

For me, it looks like targetted attacks. Are you an admin who is try to help or has an intention to track down everything which you seems be dont like? Why dont you help with a way of saving Files? I can see some of the images got deleted even without notifying me in the Talk page.--Rameshng (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack, you invited me to go back through your history of files. You did get notified of the deletion of files that were copyright violations. Not every copyright violation gets a discussion because they are simply that obvious. Most of the now deleted work viol copyright law by being derivative work. I explained every speedy deletion on your talk page. As you can see I went through the trouble of pixalating the portrait that was prominent in the car picture. --Vera (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion[edit]

Hi Vera, don't worry, I warned the uploader that I had asked for speedy deletion of these images, via Wikipedia in French. Cordially, Alchemica (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Vera (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BB-deletion[edit]

The picures nominated for deletion where printscreens. Just part of the big brother homepage where used - like a quotation.--Ezzex (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

photographs and text, by default, are protected by copyright. There is such a thing as a fair use policy, but fair use isn't allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Please take a look at Commons:Image casebook to learn what kind of images are welcome and which are not. --Vera (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its idiotic to delete a picture that is just a small scale version. of the original. How can we get any picture from tv, film etc. if we should wait 70 years after the death of a copyrightholder? - Early silent film era?? This is not satisfying at all.--Ezzex (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are just small Facsimiles.--Ezzex (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our hands are bound tight when it comes to copyright. But there is an idealism to sticking to it: by creating a database of images that are free of copyright we are creating an invaluable database of free teaching material. If you don't like this, there is always wikia. Articles on tv and film can be illustrated often by unofficial photographs fans have made. If you search flickr.com for photo's that have an Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license you might find something. You could also find amateur pictures on Flickr and request the author to release his/her copyright (be polite). I'm highly doubtful that the photographs of Paula Bracht amd Synnøve Skarbø are your own work. Especially the latter one looks like a screenshot. Please accapt that pictures can't be released from their rights unless you've made them yourself. Claiming the works of others as your own is a vile infringement of the copyright of the maker since it doesn't even give them any credit. --Vera (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wma2010.jpg[edit]

Hi Vera, I see that you have deleted my picture "Wma2010.jpg"... but i took this photo myself! Kodaly (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??--Vera (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't deleted the photo, I have nominated it for deletion. As you can see here, the photo can be found outside of commons. Now, you also claimed that the photograph of Audrey Hepburn is your own work, making your other uploads suspicious. I will look into it further --Vera (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for Audrey (but please read below). For WMA I'm very surprised, really! I'm the author. I was in Arena from the beginning, and I take this picture with my bb. Ciao Kodaly (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll assume good faith --Vera (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

file:AudreyHepburn leggings.jpg[edit]

I'm sorry, I was wrong to indicate the copyright, but now it's expired or not? In many other similar photos (pre 1964) there is this template. Can you check? Thanks Kodaly (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain
This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart and the copyright renewal logs. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (70 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ українська ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Flag of the United States
Flag of the United States

I even tracked down the author --Vera (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argentina Product Export Treemap.jpg[edit]

The file File:Argentina Product Export Treemap.jpg is taken from the The Alas of Economic Complexity, published under a by-nc-nd licence, which doesn't allow commercial use or derivative works.--Underlying lk (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footer says it's CC-BY-SA--Vera (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's only valid for the website, the atlas is by-nc-nd, you can see it clearly from the page linked above.--Underlying lk (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been published twice: Once under CC-NC-ND in book form, and then on the website under CC-BY-SA. The same graph can be retrieved on the website, making it acceptable for Commons. --Vera (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with the exact version that can be found on the website. --Vera (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Machen book image[edit]

With regard to the message you left on my talk page, I admit that I don't understand "a stylised picture of a 3D artform is still protected". A book is a "3D artform"? Would replacing the image with a "flat" image of the book's cover, such as the second one here solve the problem? Deor (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one would be OK. The trouble with 3D objects is that there is some level of artistic skill involved in photographing them, making the photograph a work that has copyright. --Vera (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC) The first one would be OK too btw. --Vera (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm pretty much a neophyte at this. I'd like to replace the current image with the one on this page (ignore the date of 1923 in the heading; that's the date of the U.S. Knopf edition, not the edition pictured). All the descriptive and licensing information, categories, etc., would be the same as those at the current File:House of Souls 1906.jpg, except for the link to the source. What's the best way to go about it? Should I upload the new image as a separate file with a different name and just let the old one be deleted, or is there a way to edit the new image into the current file page to replace the image now there? Deor (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to ask questions. On the file page, when you scroll down, you can see a link to "upload new version". If you click on edit at the top of the page you can change the source information. The website it came from isn't all that relevant in this case. Maybe it's better to mention the publisher. After that I'll delete the old version from the version log with my admin powers. --Vera (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done and thank you. Deor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of the User:Fry1989[edit]

Hello, I am concerned about the behavior of User:Fry1989. The fact that he tries not to let others upload new versions of its files. But this time I uploaded a new version of the File:Flag-map of Georgia.svg. This version is better that the map of Georgia is much better and the colors of the flag in the description. But Fry1989 uploaded the previous version (which is the author of it), in which a map of Georgia is bad, and the colors are not as in the description of the flag. He explained to boot a previous version of that card is worse than his version of the flag and the colors are not needed only in my head. Then again, I uploaded his version, and the next day, he loaded his own. And it was until April 4 (today), because today he loads his version has not written anything. The same thing happened with the file File:Switzerland EU.svg, where he also uploaded his version without explanation. Please, help.

Sincerely, D5A (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified him that edit warring isn't appreciated. Please take a look at the instructions yourself. --Vera (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what template did you use? this is a strange combination of links to en.wp and Commons pages. Rd232 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried finding the Commons template for edit warring, but couldn't find it. I copied the text from the EN wiki template. Is there a Commons template? --Vera (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Message templates lists those templates. There doesn't seem to be one for edit warring! I will make one, as it should be adapted for Commons, and translated. Rd232 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll translate it into Dutch :) --Vera (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Here it is: {{Dont editwar}}. Maybe hold off on translation though - I've posted at Commons:Village_pump#Template:dont_editwar for comments, and it might get tweaked. Rd232 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK--Vera (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning party Fry. I want to tell / ask two things:

1. Since my version (at least in the flag-map of Georgia), better than the version of Fry, can I upload my version of the files / file? 2. Know it is important or not, but I want to tell you that Fry deleted your alert.

Sincerely, D5A (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, do you see this message? D5A (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote on his page again, but than removed it shortly after. It might be better to ask the Commons:Disputes noticeboard for help. I've only been an administrator for less than a month and don't feel up for the task. At first I was confused about why you had contacted me specifically, but than remembered that I'm at the top of the list of administrators since I'm the only one that has a username that starts out with a number. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help, I mostly deal with copyright issues. --Vera (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. D5A (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

???[edit]

Hello!

Your accusation is not true! I have never done that. Please apologize for it. --High Contrast (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with a speedy delete it should be converted to a DR and explain why on its talk page. -.- --Vera (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please look closer: you have warned me with an automatic message with the text: "Please do not remove deletion request tags from images before an administrator has closed the debate". I have never done that. Please apologize for this incorrect accusation. --High Contrast (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YOU are hiding every form of criticism I post on your talk page. YOU are not taking me serious. --Vera (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have never posted any criticism on my talk page - just automatic message that were partly incorrect. And no, I do take incorrect accusations serious but obviously you don't. --High Contrast (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Nacelle Audouin Dollfus DSC 0204.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Yann 04:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1Veertje/Archive_2&oldid=201796284"