User talk:Natuur12/Archive 5

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

Copa Interamericana 1994

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Copa_Interamericana_1994.JPG

Hi Natuur12, there was a serious error. The cup had a different design in some editions. The 1994 edition was designed especially for that year. The photograph was created in an exhibition of the Chilean club Universidad Catolica, 1994 InterAmerican Cup champion, like this: Youtube search "feria cruzada 2012" "feria cruzada 2013". Obviously, the picture was absolutely original. Columna de Razta (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Columna de Razta,
I have no doubt that the photograph is original but the trophy is protected by copyright law which makes it a derivative of non free concent. Natuur12 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=28933 Chilean law: Artículo 71 Q. Es lícito el uso incidental y excepcional de una obra protegida con el propósito de crítica, comentario, caricatura, enseñanza, interés académico o de investigación, siempre que dicha utilización no constituya una explotación encubierta de la obra protegida. La excepción establecida en este artículo no es aplicable a obras audiovisuales de carácter documental. "
Q. Article 71 is lawful incidental and exceptional use of a protected for the purpose of criticism, comment, caricature , teaching, academic or research interest, provided that such use does not constitute a disguised exploitation of the protected work. The exception in this article does not apply to audiovisual documentary works." The photograph was created in Chile. Columna de Razta (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This clause fails com:L. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Hi Natuur12—I need a favour. Would you mind processing this OTRS ticket for me? There should be two e-mails from my personal e-mail address in there, one containing the copyright owners' permission to release the three files under CC BY-SA 4.0, and the other containing my original e-mail explaining free licencing and our strict copyright policies. The photographer—Mark—has just sent in this permission after my having badgered him for a while :-) Thanks! odder (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I marked the related files as permission confirmed. Natuur12 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that was super fast. Brilliant, thank you! odder (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

History logos

Hello, I see you removed my copyvio tag from File:History Logo.svg, because you think it is simple. However, I think it is complex, because of the "H". Can you explain to me why the file is simple, and also the "H"? Thanks! ★ Poké95 01:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pokéfan,
First things First. When we are dealing with widely used logo’s that do have a licensing tagg and all uploaded years ago they should face a regular DR instead of a speedy nomination. Especially when we are talkin gabout logo’s from country’s with a pretty high treshold of originality.
We are talking about a US logo since the history channel is from the US. In the US font’s aren’t copyrighted and the H is just a pretty font which isn’t elegible for copyright. You can compare it with the Bern Western logo where the crown on top is the logo is in fact a nice ans shiny W. Natuur12 (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. It will help. ★ Poké95 07:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js

Hi Natuur12, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js. Thank you for caring about Wikimedia Commons's javascript pages.
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 2 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine.
  1. ISSUE: line 2 character 11: Label 'begin' on 13 April 2016 00:00 UTC statement. - Evidence: { begin : '13 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  2. ISSUE: line 3 character 2: Expected an assignment or function call and instead saw an expression. - Evidence: end : '27 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  3. ISSUE: line 3 character 5: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: end : '27 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  4. ISSUE: line 3 character 6: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 2 and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: end : '27 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  5. ISSUE: line 4 character 2: Expected an assignment or function call and instead saw an expression. - Evidence: corners : [ [38.2,-123.0], [37.2,-121.4] ],
  6. ISSUE: line 4 character 9: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: corners : [ [38.2,-123.0], [37.2,-121.4] ],
  7. ISSUE: line 4 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: corners : [ [38.2,-123.0], [37.2,-121.4] ],

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC).


Code issues in MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js

Hi Natuur12, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js. Thank you for caring about Wikimedia Commons's javascript pages.
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine.
  1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 3 column 6: Unexpected token :

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

Tigerson1995

After this undeletion request was declined, the same editor appears to have uploaded a number of other files with medata including the same statement "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" and no indication of any OTRS clearance. I fear that this editor, many of whose other files have been deleted as copyright violations, either does not understand copyright rules or is deliberately flouting them, so that admin action is required. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I deleted the new uploads and I gave the uploader a final warning. Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I have taken the photographs from my camera and I have uploaded in my university wikipedia page "National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli". Why you have deleted all those photographs ??? If you feel that I have violated any rules, then mention those rules and steps in your wikipedia commons uploader page too !!! --Tigerson1995 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
The problem is that there is significant doubt that you are the copyright holder. File:Melbourne 2006 opening ceremony.jpg has been uploaded here before it was uploaded to Commons for example. Others had "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" listed as the copyright holder in the EXIF data. Both of this issue's need to be clarified and since you uploaded a great deal of copyright violations quite recently and failed to follow the instructions here for a similar case you won't get the benifit of the doubt but rather the oposit. Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that David Beals sock so quickly. I should really request adminship here some day so I can more quickly deal with this cross-wiki vandalism. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there is something urgent you can always find an admin via the IRC-channel. Natuur12 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

List of the oldest buildings in Rhode Island

Hello,

I just submitted an OTRS ticket for the 5 files that were deleted. I see they lacked the required licensing data, but I believe I can provide evidence they should be allowed. They are from a document, Historic and Architectural Resources of South Kingstown, Rhode Island: A Preliminary Report published by the Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission in 1984. This document was cited as the source in the file description and on the page where the images appeared.

On page 2 of the original document, paragraph 3, it states that "This document is based on publicly supported research and may not be copyrighted. It may be reprinted in part or in full, with the customary credit of the source".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceburned (talk • contribs)

Dear Iceburned,
I am not sure if this clause apply's to the photographs as well. It might be better if you ask for more opinions at com:UNDEL. Another option is wating untill an OTRS-agent picks up the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/194776062/194784659

Hi Natuur12 - it seems you inadvertently included a reply to a different topic at the top of the closure... Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my post is correct. I was investigating the IP edits by the IAC-socks including the once made in the in the DR's in which Unfitlouie participated and found out that Unfitlouie was listed at en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. Natuur12 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I thought your the "contract"-related comment was for the item above. I seem to be making a lot of stupid errors today and yesterday, so apologies. I must be coming down with something. Storkk (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm sorry I'm late to this, however, I was pinged less than 24 hours before this copyrighted file -

- was undeleted from a previous deletion decision by Ellin Beltz and was unable to participate in time. Aside from the current tag citing "All Rights Reserved", the file was (a) reviewed by FlickreviewR bot which was, shortly thereafter, deactivated due to chronic malfunctioning, (b) the uploader, at the point of upload, did not point the permissions file to the license tag. As noted by Jameslwoodward "the point of the review is to have the ability to go into court and testify that an independent review absolutely without question established that the license was CC-BY on the date of the review". The two facts I've noted (it was reviewed by a bot that we acknowledge was so faulty we had to deactivate it a few weeks later, and, the licensing link was not correctly directed to the licensing page), taken in tandem, would create reasonable doubt that the image was CC licensed at the point it was uploaded but the owner later went back and changed the licensing terms to All Rights Reserved. (I originally requested this deletion as I'm personally, for offline reasons, aware that the photographer in question never CC-BY licensed this image.) LavaBaron (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
We also have a huma review confirming the license of a file from the same stream. (Though I admit that I overlooked that Jim also pinged you which makes my closing a bit to soon). You really believe that the uploader, the bot and a third independant human rievewer where mistaken? I won't oppose re-opening the DR btw. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
(a) I believe this file was reviewed by a bot which was taken off-line a weeks later due to chronic malfunctioning. (b) It would not be productive of me to speculate on the intentions of anonymous internet users who upload images to the Commons other than to note, as I have, the licensing link was not correctly pointed at the license at the point of upload. (c) The file was not reviewed by a human reviewer; another file uploaded by the owner was reviewed by a human reviewer. As a user of Flickr myself I frequently freely license some files, and reserve other files, particularly ones of higher or historic value.
I won't participate in a new DR given the combative turn my original nomination took; I don't actively seek-out those type of experiences. The image can be kept or deleted at your judgment, I'm simply providing some additional facts because I was pinged. Best of luck. (As I noted, though, I am absolutely aware for reasons other than those enumerated, this was not a freely licensed image whose license has simply been changed in the interim. For reasons of personal privacy, I'm not willing to elaborate on that point and I don't certainly blame you if you disregard it entirely, as I would in your situation as well.) LavaBaron (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Before I decide anything, would @Zhuyifei1999: do me a favour and comment on the technical aspect of the bot? Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The basis of my  Support at the UnDR is that LavaBaron's DR was based on an incorrect premise -- that the bot had looked at the lightbox on Flickr. In fact, although the uploader called out the lightbox as the source, the bot looked at the file page (see my examples at the UnDR). As far as I know, that should have been completely reliable. I note that LavaBaron repeats that incorrect premise above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
My premise is that an image, currently tagged All Rights Reserved, was previously cleared by a bot that was malfunctioning to the point of irreparability. That premise is correct. I don't have a dog in this fight so don't really care if it's retained or re-deleted. I'm simply providing partial information (as mentioned, to the limit at which I'm comfortable to do so) in response to being pinged. LavaBaron (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@LavaBaron: can you point to a specific discussion, log, commit, or whatever that can describe such malfunction near 26 July 2013‎? I searched old FlickreviewR commit history and do not find a single commit after Feb. And with the bot logic ever since I took over the bot, whatever appearing inside {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass}} in any reviewing edit is what flickr image the bot thought the commons image to be. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Unfitlouie as an IAC sock. I too has suspected that they are an IAC sock seeing their unblock request at enwiki. I cannot however say my supiscion since you close that AN/U thread. And thanks also for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air Force One in Havana (25562710754).jpg as kept! ★ Poké95 10:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. But please be carefull when dealing with them. Will show you why if you why if you pay a visit to IRC. Natuur12 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Why are they blocked on Commons for actions on en:WP? Commons, some people vehemently more so than others, will defend Commons' independence from WMF and en:WP at all costs. Yet here, Commons somehow rolls right over? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Privacy violations, onwiki harrasment, off wiki harrasment, block evasion and other forms of sockpuppetry and this involves Commons and Commons users. I can continue if you want but please don't make a fuss about some blocked creepy LTA. Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

License template categories

Recently, a template with an OTRS reference was created for my photos in another site. As usual, this template was protected (in this case, by you); so I cannot edit it. I have recently spotted a small problem with this template: photos with that template are automatically located in "Category:Photos by Spotter LEVT", but there's already a category with the same purpose ("Category:Photographs by Spotter LEVT"). As I would like to have all my photos in the same category, I request you to change the template so that it includes media with it in "Category:Photographs by Spotter LEVT".--Spotter LEVT (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done please let me know if my edit is correct. Natuur12 (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Perfect now. Thanks!--Spotter LEVT (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your nomination and continued support throughout my RfA that is now due to close. I appreciate your kind words and the time you put in to composing them! ~riley (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome and congratz :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Query

What does this mean for copyright?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, imho it is okay to upload their images using the template {{Attribution}} but when in doubt it is always advisable to contact a Japanese user. Natuur12 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you delete this image? I just realized that it is a third party image. All other I uploaded images are okay. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done as you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I have another question the Imperial Family of Japan website says that anything is based on terms of use is Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. But one thing that's questionable is that they said anything related to the Imperial family is considered third party. I already uploaded some images though.-Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Also if images like that are copyrighted, can I crop out the part that has a member of the family? I uploaded an image has a member of the Imperial family on one side that I don't need.-Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Their website says that their terms of use is controlled by the Copyright Act of Japan which confuses me more. I thought this would be an easy thing because the government changed all copyrights of their websites but somehow the Imperial Household has this extra bit. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Whym: could you please take a look? You do know far more about Japanese copyright law than I do. Natuur12 (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Hipposcrashed: My (possibly incomplete) understanding is as follows. The IHA has made most of their online materials CC BY 4.0 equivalent. However, they chose to exclude depictions of the imperial family from their CC release. Many governmental agencies did the same—most of the works were released but not all. I would consider any photograph by the IHA that depicts the family was not released (thus cannot be used on Commons). For further questions, try COM:井戸端. whym (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Children bodyboarding.jpg

Hallo Natuur12, wilt u astublieft bovenstaande foto (en mijn GP) verwijderen? Ik voel me er erg onprettig bij en heb daarom even specifiek contact opgenomen. Bij voorbaat dank. Mvg, FritsHG (Talk/Email) 18:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry maar je zal een andere moderator moeten zoeken. Je hebt op verschillende projecten uitgesproken geen vertrouwen te hebben in de manier waarop ik knopjes hanteer of wil hanteren. Dat mag, maar dan zal je wel een ander om hulp moeten vragen. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Omdat ik heb aangegeven geen vertrouwen in je te hebben (meer dan een jaar geleden) verwijder je een bestand gewoon maar niet??? Dat is toch raar. Je bent mod om gebruikers te helpen, zonder aanzien des persoons. Sorry dat ik een lange tijd geleden gezegd heb geen vertrouwen in je te hebben. Echter vind ik dit een beetje rare actie... FritsHG (Talk/Email) 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Vorig jaar is vorige maand? Nee, bij deze kwestie spelen er mogelijk privacy issue's en als jij een maand geleden (op een ander project weliswaar) aangegeven hebt geen vertrouwen te hebben in mij als moderator ben ik niet de geschikte persoon om dit soort verzoeken van jou hand af te handelen. Om die reden zal je een ander moeten zoeken en die zijn er zat. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Photos need permission

Hi, Recently I put up several pics on Hamdi Ulukaya's Wikipedia page. Although a permission email was sent to "permissions" from the owner of the photographs, a "Bot" took them down from Commons because the OTRS editors did not yet get through their 72-day backlog of going through permission emails before the Bot did its work. However, not all the pics were taken down. So I took a look at the photo that is still on the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_Ulukaya and noticed that you put a permission tag on this picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_Ulukaya#/media/File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_and_Bill_Clinton.JPG on 28 April, but then one minute later you took it down. I wonder if you can explain to me why you took away the permission, and what needs to be done to get the permission back. In addition, there are several other photos that also need the permission tag so they can be re-posted on the Wikipedia article.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamdi_UNFAcceptance_2015.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Hamdi_Ulukaya.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChobaniLaColombe_224.tif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20160123_ulukaya-hamburg_01_LoRes.jpg

Plus this one that I already mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_Ulukaya#/media/File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_and_Bill_Clinton.JPG

Please note that there is one small difference in the file name of File:Portrait_of_Hamdi_Ulukaya.jpg. The permission email has the URL with an "e" and calls the file a "jpeg" but the correct URL is as above, without the "e".


Thank you, I hope you can help. Eatdrinkmerry (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Eatdrinkmerry,
The ticket is currently in limbo because I never received a reply after I send a follow up question. But there is another problem, the photographs come from several sources.
File:Hamdi Ulukaya and Bill Clinton.JPG -> subject is listed as the author which is unlikely, I need to know who took the photograph
File:Hamdi UNFAcceptance 2015.jpg -> I need an explanation regarding how the copyright was transferred
File:ChobaniLaColombe 224.tif -> false author information or false EXIF. Needs to be cleared up + not mentioned in the ticket
File:20160123 ulukaya-hamburg 01 LoRes.jpg -> false author information or false EXIF. Needs to be cleared up + not mentioned in the ticket
I am afraid that the change that this can be resolved is very slim. Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid watermarked pictures

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ +/−

The image File:Emily Wickersham.jpg you uploaded contain(s) watermarks. The usage of watermarks is discouraged according to policy. If a non-watermarked version of the image is available, please upload it under the same file name. After removing the watermark, ensure that the removed information is present in the EXIF tags, the image description page, or both. Thank you for understanding.

Elisfkc (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: I am not sure why you are slapping my talk page with some irrelevant boilerplate message but please don't do that again. There are no non watermarked free files and removing the watermark could violate the author's copyright. Please don't use this standard message when contacting experienced editors uploading third party files. Natuur12 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I highly disagree. There are many free files that are not watermarked. Look around Flickr and Commons and you will see. Elisfkc (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Than point me out a free file of Wickersham that doesn't contain a watermark. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OTRS issues in Turkish

Hi,

As the request I posted at the Noticeboard is getting old, I'm considering to apply myself as OTRS volonteer to translate (turkish -> english) the problematic tickets (and let more experimented users take decisions), in order to make it definitively clear. I am not a great connoisseur of OTRS work, but if you think it is a good way to do, I will apply soon. Kumkum (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kumkum,
My apologies for the late reply. I saw your message via my phone and forgot about it. I am not sure if the OTRS-admins will grant you access for this purpose but given the comments you made so far you should be skillful enough to handle a lot of cases. The only problem is that you are not really active at Wikimedia Commons so the best strategy would be to apply for the permission queue in general. I believe you have a good chance of passing if you want to help dealing with tickets though translating them alone would probably not be enough. Natuur12 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Natuur12! Some time ago you added to Wikimedia my photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Merhynchites_bicolor.jpg Now I refine species with curators of inaturalist.org, it is another species, not Merhynchites bicolor, but Mecorhis ungarica. Please, correct the Wikimedia resource. Thanks, Katya

Dear Katya,
I updated all the relevant pages. Thanks for the heads up! Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Questionable Copyright

This image [1].--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I deleted the images. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caribia's fate.jpg

You closed this as "deleted" but didn't delete the file and the file is still tagged with {{Delete}}. Please check what you did wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Parc Asterix Attraction 1 by http2007.jpg

Just a heads up, I think you forgot to delete File:Parc Asterix Attraction 1 by http2007.jpg after your decision on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Travel trough time, Parc Astérix. Elisfkc (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Review image

Please review this [2]--Hipposcrashed (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Renaming photo files Guinea-Bissau and Senegal 1973-1974 (Coutinho Collection) ?

Beste Natuur12,

Omdat jij me toestemming gaf om bestanden te hernoemen, wil ik je het volgende voorleggen. De laatste maanden heb ik die Coutinho collectie opgeladen. Naderhand blijkt een aantal aangeleverde beschrijvingen, die ik in de bestandsnamen verwerkt had, fout te zijn. Tot dusver heb ik alleen incidenteel bestandsnamen gewijzigd, omdat ze een belasting kunnen vormen voor Commons. De meeste wijzigingen zijn al wel in de metadata doorgevoerd, maar de bestandsnamen blijven misleidend. Ze zijn nog bijna niet gebruikt. Desgevraagd zei een andere moderator me, dat wijziging van meer filenamen geen probleem was. Het gaat vooral om:

    • Mag ik die namen wijzigen?

Vriendelijke groet, Hansmuller (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Beste Hansmuller,
Volgens mij mag je de bestandsnaam gewoon wijzigen. Het gaan tenslotte om eigen uploads en het corrigeren van foutjes. Natuur12 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Altwied orgel

Beste Natuur12, zou jij mij kunnen uitleggen war het probleem met File:Altwied St. Antonius Orgel (1).jpg en File:Altwied St. Antonius Orgel (2).jpg is? Volgens User:Amitie_10g is de informatie onvoldoede. Bij voorbaat dank, --Wikiwal (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Beste Wikiwal,
Volgens mij bedoelt hij te zeggen dat de mail ontvangen is maar dat er nog niemand mee aan de slag is gegaan. Ik zal zo dadelijk het ticket even oppakken. Natuur12 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Afgehandeld. Natuur12 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Dat was flink! Hartelijk dank! --Wikiwal (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

r-word

Hi, would you please reconsider your list of example critical words created yesterday and quietly remove 'retard'? I have had the opportunity to think about being born with mental disability than most people do due to family circumstances, however I doubt that if this word were used as a form of negative criticism to label a Wikimedian on this project that it would pass unnoticed and not be questioned. I do not recall any past case of someone using it on the project as if it were descriptive of someone's foolish behaviour, so I doubt it is a project norm for this to be acceptable though many contributors might not be aware of how hurtful and loaded the word can be. Please see Retard (pejorative) and it might be helpful to search around about it, for example the post at http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-39-spring-2011/feature/girl-and-word is short and nicely put.

I don't want to start a debate about critical words on a noticeboard, I doubt it would be helpful or result in a policy change, but this does standout as being one that would be unwise for anyone to start using in practice. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fae,
The only point I am making is that stating that someone is acting like a retard isn't a form of harassment. It is a harsh form of criticism and not the kind we should use often if you ask me but that was beside the point. (I can think of less formal and less public situations in which using a strong word can help someone snap out of it) I won’t withdraw what I stated, it is merely an example of a strong word used in a way that isn't harassment and we are not made of sugar. We both know that in popular culture the word is merely used as a synonym for stupid, idiot, loser etc. Perhaps it has something to do with me being Dutch but I am not in the business of censoring commonly used words because somewhere, some people might feel offended since that would be a slippery slope. Natuur12 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll note that we do not aim to censor Commons content, but civility in talk spaces is a requirement (both through the WMF terms of use and our policies with regard to maintaining a non-hostile environment for contributors). If this ever becomes a case, it will come down to whether the intent of the person using this word, or words like it, is to cause offence by labelling a contributor as mentally disabled. The word 'retard' is used with meanings similar to "you're a fool" but usage by responsible adults in almost any context in the modern world is hostile for the mentally disabled. On Commons our norm is to avoid being over literal with words as we have a multi-lingual volunteer base, however if a contributor is repeatedly using words like this that do cause offence to recognized minority groups, especially after it has been pointed out by others, then I would expect administrator action to be requested if the behaviour does not change. Reflecting over changes in language in the last two decades, mild phrases like "you stupid cow" used to be in common use, quite like "don't be a jerk", but now are considered deliberately offensive to all women and are not used in practice, though the identical "slippery slope" arguments were used to defend this type of language; the word "retard" is loaded in a similar way.
It's just not a good example of a word that can be used in criticism, but if you believe that a right to free speech means you would support it being used and don't believe that it creates a hostile environment or is likely to inflame discussion, then this would have to come down to a community choice of how we should best recognize or chose to respect the concerns of minority groups. I'll park this, as I don't want to go into hypothetical debate, if this ever becomes a real case, it may become a useful wider discussion about how "non-hostile environment" is best interpreted and enforced. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Fae,
Please don't twist my words and put words in my mouth. There is also no need to tell me about Commons policy and norms since you know well enough that I am aware of them and our aim to remain mellow.
There is a difference between using a word when you are trying to explain something and when you use it to describes someone's behaviour. I never stated that I would support the use of words like retard in public other than for educational purposes though I would not censor or revdel the comments containing such words unless the person being addressed really wants me to do so. Strong words can be used by friends if someone is angry/sad/emotional and is irrational in a private setting to deliver the message so this person can grab him/self together.
I short, we should not start criticise people addressing them as behaving like a retard but it isn’t harassment. It is merely an ineffective way to give harsh criticism in a formal situation. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Questionable images

All of the images by user Joaotv.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done they indeed seem to be grabbed from the web. Thanks for reporting. Natuur12 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain...

...why the three images are nominated? Erichsens gård is a sign outside on the streets. ...why the image of IQ is derative work, as I took the all three images myself, and the concert ticket is from thefirm "Noorderlicht" which does not exist anymore? ...Why Kastellets images are DW? It is a collection of several publications, but the images are in the public domain.

Will you nominate more of my images? Then please give a better explanation so that I can understand why they are DW. -Rodejong (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't promise I won't nominate more but commented in some of the DR's. Natuur12 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider...

Greetings Natuur! Would you consider reverting your close on File:Marat Sade program.jpg, based on the user's talk page edit here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KFFOWLER&oldid=201322372? He's having trouble with the system, but AGF and there's a very clear statement ": a photo taken by me of my production of the play at the Virginia Museum Theater. I was the producer and director and photographer. It was later published, using my permission, in Robert Cohen's book on Acting. Not being a professional photographer, I did not require Robert to give me credit. KFFOWLER" Thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I found a link to an OTRS-ticket at his talk page confirming his indentity. Therefor I restored it. We really need better tracking of confirmed users. Natuur12 (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Museum of Veterinary Anatomy

Hello, Natuur12!

I see that you made this change on that template. Don't you consider that enough for publishing files with that template? I have read the ticket and I couldn't find a flaw on that. If you still see something wrong, could you please, tell me what should be done?

Thank you very much!—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Teles,
I only undeleted the template after an undeletion request and added the recieved template to prevent a renomination. Though I am not keen of the statement myself since I believe a statement at the source website would be better plus the statement is a bit vauge. Normally I would't be splitting hairs like this but we are talking about a lot of files. But if you believe this statement is okay feel free to accept it. You are probably more familiar with Portugese contract law than I am. Natuur12 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not comfortable with approving the ticket for being part of the same user group involved with that and for not having a large experience with museums files. We had some files deleted and I just want to clarify the issues so we can finally solve it. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Teles: I also noted that the creator of the template is blocked. Perhaps someone involved with this project could ask for an unblock? I hope the block didn't damage the relationship between the University and Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a bit too much IMO...—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
He was renamed from MGromov to Horadrim. The first one was considered improper and blocked. As he was renamed, I have unblocked him.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Forza! en JordySchaap

Hi Nature. (Ik ga verder in het Nederlands. De anderen mogen mijn verhaal door Google Translate halen.) Ik heb net Henk_Bres.jpg genomineerd, afkomstig van Forza! TV. Nu zie ik dat er eerder afbeeldingen van Forza! verwijderd zijn, die ook door deze gebruiker waren geüpload. Maar dat niet alleen, ook een verkiezingsposter van de LPF, enz. Bovendien heeft de gebruiker nu weer een hele rits bestanden geüpload. De uploader heeft ook nergens op nominaties gereageerd, behalve misschien hier anoniem een vaag zinnetje. Kan jij de uploads eens bekijken (want misschien moet álles verwijderd worden) en JordySchaap toespreken of waarschuwen? Heel hartelijk dank als je dat wilt doen. Hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
Ik vermoed dat de afbeeldingen deels van Facebook zijn geplukt gezien de misvormde EXIF en de erg diverse resoluties. Sommige lijken me van andere websites gejat. Zal er morgen even goed naar kijken. Natuur12 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Bedankt. Ik heb er alvast nog eentje genomineerd net. Betrof een screenshot van YouTube. Succes morgen. ErikvanB (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Kijk nou eens wat ik net kreeg voor een bericht. Dat is ook toevallig. Ik had namelijk net de foto uit het artikel verwijderd. Maar die claim moet wel eerst aannemelijk gemaakt worden per email, denk ik. En de cameraman van de video, gaat die ook akkoord? De uploader was in elk geval niet de auteursrechthouder van de LPF-poster en het HAP-verkiezingsbord, denk ik zo. ErikvanB (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Het zou kunnen dat hij betrokken is geweest bij de totstandkoming van de video maar we hebben imho toestemming nodig via OTRS voor alle foto's en dan het liefst van iemand die wat hoger in de pikorde staat en wat meer ervaring heeft met auteursrecht. Bij kleine partijen kan het een behoorlijke lastig zijn om erachter te komen hoe alles nu precies zit omdat een hoop niet goed geregeld is, ze hebben alleen een gebruikslicentie, het auteursrecht ligt nog bij een vrijwilliger of de moeder/vader/zwager etc van een van de betrokkenen heeft eens een keertje een foto gemaakt en alleen gezegd je mag het gebruiken etc etc.
Ik heb overal maar no permission op geknald. Dan krijgt hij automatisch uitleg over OTRS maar normaal verwijder is dit soort series bestanden direct. De kans dat het goedkomt is erg klein. Zeker wanneer de persoon om wie het gaat erg eigenwijs is. File:Bestuur Forza!.jpg is trouwens een goed voorbeeld van een bestand dat vermoedelijk van Facebook afkomstig is gezien de EXIF. Natuur12 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Veel dank. Je hebt gelijk. ErikvanB (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fijn om een topic over mij te openen zonder mij erbij te betrekken, over iemand een mes in de rug steken gesproken. Ik snap niet wat er niet duidelijk is aan eigen werk! Ik uplaod niets wat niet van mij is. Goed, heel in het begin heb ik inderdaad de fout gemaakt als nieuwe beginner met de HAP en de LPF poster, de rest is echter mijn eigen werk. Uit mijn eigen materiaal, gefilmd en gefotografeerd. Ja soms komt het van Facebook, maar dat is omdat ik het op mijn EIGEN facebook pagina en prive profiel heb geulpad en er nu weer van af haal. Ik en andere vrijwilligers werken ons de kolere om er iets moois van te maken en jullie moderators kijken er niet eens naar en verwijderen alles direct. Grof, heel grof en heel pijnlijk. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.83.105.117 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste JordySchaap,
Kalmeert u alstublieft. De manier waarop u uzelf uitdrukt wordt niet getolereerd op Wikimedia Commons. Uw houding tot dusver is ook de reden waarom ik ervoor gekozen heb de bestanden simpelweg te taggen in plaats van met een stappenplan te komen. Ik ben bereid u te helpen maar dan zult u wel mee moeten werken. De richtlijnen op Wikimedia Commons eisen dat de toestemming voor het gebruik van een werk vastgelegd wordt via ons mailsysteem wanneer dit elders gepubliceerd/openbaar gemaakt is voordat het werk geupload is op Wikimedia Commons. Het maakt niet uit uw u de rechthebbende bent of niet. Deze procedure zal doorlopen moeten worden. Er zullen dan waarschijnlijk wat vragen gesteld worden over onder welke omstandigheden de afbeeldingen en het videomateriaal gemaakt zijn en welke afspraken er gemaakt zijn met het partijbestuur. Realiseert u zich alstublieft dat alle moderatoren hier ook vrijwilligers zijn. Per dag verwijderen we minstens tussen de 1500-2000 afbeeldingen omdat deze niet aan het toelatingsbeleid voldoen en dat gebeurt voornamelijk door een groep van 10-15 vrijwilligers. De middelen zijn beperkt en als iemand tekeer gaat en de procedures niet wilt doorlopen is het in veel veel gevallen vrij simpel. Dan is het gelijk klaar en gaan we door naar iemand die wel mee wilt werken. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ik ben kalm, maar wel zeer gekwetst. Makkelijk gezegd. Ik roep steeds om hulp aan verschillende moderators om dingen te verbeteren of te verduidelijken of hoe wat te doen. 8 van de 10 keer krijg ik geeneens antwoord! En de andere keren is het "zoek het zelf uit" of een linkje naar een pagina van +1000 woorden in he Engels waar ik geen tijd en zin in heb om die door te nemen. En als ik in een discussie wat wil verduidelijken wordt er of niet naar gekeken of simpelweg genegeerd en gaan de moderators alleen met elkaar in debat. Ik wil alle procedures met liefde doorlopen, maar dat dit nooit eerder is vermeld stuit mij tegen de borst, dat het nu allemaal opeens is. Maar i.p.v. te discusiieren zou ik dan via de mail of ergens anders een link mogen verkrijgen hoe ik dat kan doen, want dat krijg ik niet. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.83.105.117 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

De procedure die u dient te doorlopen is u uitgelegd. In plaats van de handleiding door te lezen begon u te schelden. Het is volkomen normaal om eerst de regels door te lezen voordat u ergens aan wilt deelnemen. In dit geval het project Wikimedia Commons. Het doorlezen van die handleiding is uw verantwoordelijkheid en die van u alleen. Als u daarna nog vragen heeft zijn er zat mensen die u willen helpen. Mocht u onvoldoende kennis van de Engelse taal hebben zijn er ook zat mensen die u willen helpen maar mensen gaan inderdaad niet herhalen wat lang en breed uitgelegd wordt in de handleiding. Als u de handleiding niet door wilt nemen is er weinig wat ik voor u kan doen. Er staan momenteel 800+ mensen in de wacht die de handleiding wel doorgelezen hebben en wel een mailtje gestuurd hebben. Vindt u het dan zelf eerlijk tegenover die mensen om hun wachttijd te verlengen omdat ik met u bezig ben simpelweg omdat u geen tijd en zin heeft om de handleiding even door te nemen? Op Commons:OTRS wordt de hele procedure uitgelegd. Op die pagina staat ook een link naar deze tool die u heel makkelijk kunt gebruiken om een email te sturen waarbij alle details correct ingevuld zijn. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Gröninger Orgel

Beste Natuur12, nog een vraag: is de mail van Jean-Charles Ablitzer voor File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (1).jpg t/m File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (13).jpg al binnen? Vriendeljke groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Wikiwal,
Ik kan helaas geen bijbehorend ticket vinden.
Mvg. Natuur12 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank! Dat is vreemd. Ik zal de auteur vragen de mail nog eens op te sturen. Groet, --Wikiwal (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank voor je moeite! Ik ben blij dat het uiteindelijk wel gelukt is. Groet, --Wikiwal (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Graag gedaan! Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you look into this

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=202384753 and this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Seller_holding_rifle.JPG&action=history The editor above you blocked before has reverted 3 times in 1.5 hours my improved description of the photo with no improvement of their own. It seems like they are doing it for amusement. Thanks 172.56.12.50 06:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I rather remain uninvolved regarding this debate though I have to say that I am sorry to see that you got blocked at en-wiki. Regarding original research. This is a Wikipedia rule and it doesn't apply at Wikimedia Commons. We have plenty original research and we need it since we wouldn't have so many high quelity files as maps, COA's, flags, species etc if we would have a rule against it. SchroCat however has the right to blank his own talk page.
Regarding this edit summary. He was never banned but blocked. For a non wikiholic the difference is probably merely artificial but a ban is more severe and often requires community consensus while a block is most of the time imposed by a single admin. But it is best not to confuse blocks and bans at en-wiki.
I hope this helps you out but there is not much more that I can do besides giving you the advice to stay mellow and try to smooth things over after your block expires. Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opmerking over verwijdering van AholdDelhaize en AholdDelhaize_merken.jpg

Beste Natuur12,

beide afbeelding zijn vrij te downloaden op de website van AholdDelhaize(.com) waardoor ik geen probleem zie met het gebruik op wikipedia. Misschien kunnen we aan hen de vraag stellen?

Alvast bedankt! Maarten De Moor (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Maarten De Moor,
Dat een afbeelding vrij te downloaden is betekent niet dat deze afbeelding voldoet aan ons licentiebeleid. We hebben dus toestemming nodig van de rechthebbende van al die logo's. En die toestemming zal vastgelegd moeten worden via ons mailsysteem. Als je akkoord gaan met de vrijgave van hun logo's onder een vrije licentie kunnen ze blijven, gaan ze niet akkoord moeten ze weg. Bedenk wel dat toestemming voor gebruik op Wikipedia alleen onvoldoende is. Natuur12 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license

Hi Natuur12, thank you for taking care of the situation of Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license. According to your suggestion, we have asked the museum communication to add a note on their website about the GLAM project we are working on. You can read it at: http://mav.fmvz.usp.br/index.php/en/ (section News). Is this enough to solve this issue definitely? If so, could you please erase the reference to problems with licensing on the template, please? Thank you! Joalpe (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joalpe,
Which account will be used for upload the photographs? If I know which account will be used I can leave a note at the accounts user page and everything would be fine. The template could use some rewording though. It isn't unthinkable that people believe that all the files of the museum are released under a free license if they haven't read the statement at the website. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Natuur12. Thanks for the advice about the template. The idea is that the template will be linked to each individual work we upload --this is the reason we have used the expression "This media was produced...". Perhaps, we can make a link to the museum statement, which will clarify potential doubts.
  1. User accounts that will be used to upload the photographs are: Horadrim, Sturm and Joalpe.
  2. Could you please delete the note on the template about insufficient information?
Thanks for your help! Joalpe (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I will take a look later today when I am in a more private setting. I need to prepare some documentation regarding the OTRS-ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Joalpe,
I asked them to confirm if the accounts are indeed authorised. (Just a matter of formality) But you can start uploading. If a community member complains, just blame me ;). I told them that we might contact them again after everything is uploaded for one final confirmation. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for taking care of this. Who is "them", the Museum? We have uploaded some images; thanks again! Joalpe (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Them is indeed the museum. Natuur12 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate images

I uploaded this image only to find the same one. But the file sizes are somehow different.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
I am not sure why the file sizes differ but I tagged it with {{Duplicate}}. This way it should be resolved. Natuur12 (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 10 start screen (16337613651).jpg

Was DM the core issue with this one? Because I can still easily rectify its few contested de minimis sections. I was looking for a verdict on the license of the image. czar 21:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit that it was a bit of a cheap trick to only go for the DM argument since the question if it is DM or not is easier to answer than the licensing question.
In my opinion we can trust Microsoft Sweden that they have the right to license the intellectual property of Microsoft. Though, asking for clarification via email is preferable since the screenshot also contains a lot of elements that might not be original Microsoft works. Like the background picture. While Microsoft itself probably is quite knowledgeable about copyright we have to be careful when dealing with daughters especially when the stream is run by someone specializes in communication. Natuur12 (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A heads-up

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Wire Issue27v14.pdf as keep. I am letting everyone who weighed in there know that it has been nominated for deletion, again, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Though I am a bit to busy to follow a discussion of this complexity. Natuur12 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam anthem instrumental version .mp3 file.

Hi, why you have deleted .mp3 file of instumental version of Vietnamese anthem? Regards, Pachidensha (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pachidensha: could you please provide me with a link to where the file was located before it was deleted? Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (3).jpg

Beste Natuur12, File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (3).jpg was in een reeks File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (1).jpg t/m File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (12).jpg maar is nu verwijdert. Misschien heb je dat over het hoofd gezien? Vriendelijke groet, --Wikiwal (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuus, die heb ik inderdaad gemist. Heb het gefixed. Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank! De groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

KonaKart

Hi,

Just to be sure: You added a OTRS ticket to File:KonaKart Logo.png. I'm surprised because I tag it as textlogo and only ask a permission for File:KonaKart logo.jpg because I don't know if the palm tree is bellow COM:TOO or not. Are sure that you add the OTRS to the right logo? Pardon me if everything's OK.

Sincerely. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The correct logo is tagged. And well, it certainly is above TOO in some jurisdictions so a formal release sure is welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hi Natuur12, Re this [3] - Are there any websites that allows you to see what images are being used outside of the Wikimedia project ?, I'm just intrigued :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
It's hard but you could use tinyeye or reversed image search via google but you will never cats all usage like incoming links from another wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ahh right I wasn't sure if there was some special website or tool that could help or whatever, I've had TinEye installed for years in Chrome and never even use it! , Ah well thanks for your help anyway :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Screenshot wikiwand.JPG, please revert

I don't think, my work Screenshot wikiwand.JPG falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. That's, why I removed the speed deletion template, set by user Brimz and dropped a not at User talk:Brimz. Brimz ignored my friendly request to use normal deletion and put back speedy deletion, which I consider as a very unfriendly act!
Please restore my file, so I have the chance to upload a modified version without the disputable map. And please let me know, why you deleted and did not use the normal deletion, which would have given me the chance to discuss (and eventually solve the problem). Thank you in advance, regards --J. Lunau (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the file because file clearly violates our licensing policy. Derivative of google maps and de minimis doesn't apply to printscreens. Natuur12 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please revert, I will upload a new screenshot without google maps --J. Lunau (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No I won't revert. But you can upload a new printscreen without google maps of course. Natuur12 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand? If I do a complete new uploade, I have to do ALL already done work again (file description, valuated image, setting all links...) If you will not revert, I have to talk to other Admins and complain! --J. Lunau (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, since you are threatening me we are done here. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Natuur12, as I already wrote above: I don't understand, what's going on! It was not my intent "threatening" you in any way, sorry. After your "No I won't revert" the only chance to save my work is, to ask other Admins for help. I am really sorry, how our conversation and this case turned out, regards --J. Lunau (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you need a copy off the file and the file description I can provide it to you if you give me an email address I can send them to. You don't have to mention it publicly, you can mail it to Special:EmailUser/Natuur12. (I wish I could just mail the info to you right away but the Wikimedia software doesn't allow me to send attachments when using the mail this user function.

You will need to get the valued image status again though. Natuur12 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, VI is not the most important thing, but all the other stuff to this file. There was a del-discussion after that I already added lots of Licensing-templates. BTW, the screen shoot does not show any google logo, so no one could tell, if the very small map is google-map. But to avoid any problems in future I already have prepared an actual screen shoot without any google-map. I suggest to restore the complete file, so I can upload a new version without any google map. This hopefully will solve the problem and the screen-shoot can be used again in articles about de:Wikiwand --J. Lunau (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that file would be a different file than the one that got the VI-status. You can't just "transfer" the VI-status to a new file. Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No Problem, I will remove VI-Template for new upload and do a new candidature. --J. Lunau (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done
Will mail you when I am at home. Currently not using a private device. Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer, a new version of the screenshot is already online and VI-Promoted. No further support needed. --J. Lunau (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

PD-CAGov

Hello Natuur12, back in July 2015 you helped clarify the source and permission tag for uploading an image that came for the City of San Diego as PD-CAGov (File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg) for the Wikipedia article Cross Border Xpress. I was the founder and main negotiator for the Tijuana cross border terminal from 1986-2006. I obtained two more pictures from the City of San Diego to help clarify the "rapid development" of the Ejido Tampico between 2000-2006, and the Sinaloa drug tunnels dug from there and around the Tijuana airport (drug tunnel corridors) into Otay Mesa, San Diego which is covered in the Wiki articled but hard to visualize without images. I used these photos from the City of San Diego (same source as the TwinPorts image already used) as the base images to create two new images to help the reader see the rapid development and the reach of the Sinaloa cartel in and around the Tijuana airpoprt, which permission tag do I use?? Template:PD-CAGov as was used with the File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg as the base pictures are Public Domain. The descriptors on the images I added to identify landmarks and drug tunnel corridors. Simply would like to make sure I use the correct source and permission tag for the two new uploads. Thank you Rnieders (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rnieders,
As far as I'm aware that should be the correct tag. When in doubt, you can always ask for help from editors more familiar with the details of US copyright law in com:VPC. I'm European so in general I am more familiar with European law. Natuur12 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the information on com:VPC, I will ask there, and also thank you for your help last year. All the bestRnieders (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

US emblemen

Hoi, je hebt zojuist een hele rij DRs van unsourced bestanden als 'keep' gesloten, maar totaal zonder in te gaan op de nominatie-reden. Dat is zonde van jouw tijd en van mijn tijd, want nu moest ik ze opnieuw nomineren. Er is nu nog steeds niet bevestigd of deze emblemen wel echt zijn, of een hobby-creatie. Jaarlijks moeten we duizenden nep logos/vlaggen/emblemen enz. verwijderen. De enige manier om dat een beetje controleerbaar te houden is niet afwijken van onze regels voor bronvermelding. In een geval gaat het overigens om een 3D object, waarbij niet duidelijk is waar de rechten van de fotograaf liggen. Dat bestand heeft dus twee problemen. Jcb (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

hoi Jcb. Er was allereerst geen consensus voor verwijdering en ten tweede hebben we altijd nog com:INUSE. In ieder geval een deel van de bestanden is in gebruik. Welke regel omtrent brongebruik heb je het precies over? We hebben com:EVIDENCE maar dat gaat over bewijs over de auteursrechtelijke status. Niet over bewijs over de echtheid van een embleem. Mocht een van de afbeeldingen een auteursrechtenprobleem hebben, by all means. Nomineer hem gerust opnieuw maar dan omdat het bestand een auteursrechtenschending is. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
De PD licentie is alleen geldig als het embleem echt bij de overheid vandaan komt. Zo niet, dan geldt het auteursrecht van de (onbekende) auteur. Dus ja, we hebben per definitie een copyright-probleem als niet vast is komen te staan dat dit de officiele emblemen zijn. com:INUSE is daardoor volledig irrelevant. Jcb (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Maar dat is niet de redden waarom je de bestanden nomineert en ze hebben een bron "31 AW/PA". Je nominatiereden is incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{no source} gebruiken wij als door het ontbreken van de bronvermelding niet bekend is wat de auteursrechtelijke situatie is. De tekst '31 AW/PA' kan iedereen er op goed geluk opplakken, dat is geen bruikbare bron. Bij de door mij genomineerde bestanden van dit type die door andere behouden zijn, was dat voor zover ik langs heb zien komen steeds nadat ze een hyperlink hadden geplaatst naar bijvoorbeeld een pagina op army.mil, waaruit de authenticiteit van het bestand bleek. Jcb (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Waar waarom nomineer je die bestanden dan met een scope gerelateerde reden en niet een die betrekking heeft op de auteursrechtelijke status van de bestanden? Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Het ontbreken van informatie over de herkomst is een reden die betrekking heeft op de auteursrechtelijke status van de bestanden. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nee want er zijn drie mogelijkheden. 1) het bestand is echt en daarom geen auteursrechtenschending 2) het is een hobbyding van de uploader en die heeft er een PD-tag opgeplakt en daarom is het geen auteursrechtenschending. 3) het is een neppert gejat van elders. Nu, we weten allebei dat misschien ergens vandaan gejat zonder verdure motivatie onvoldoende is om een bestand te verwijderen. Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(Zoals je zelf kunt zien) hadden de bestanden een PD USgov tag. Die is hoe dan ook alleen geldig als het embleem authentiek is en dat zal dus vast moeten komen te staan. Overigens zijn afgelopen maanden door diverse verschillende admins honderden van deze bestanden zonder verdere vragen wel verwijderd, jouw beslissingen wijken daar als enige van af. Jcb (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Een goed voorbeeld van hoe het wel moet staat inmiddels hier. Bestand is behouden, maar dan wel na het oplossen van het probleem. Jcb (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, dat er een aantal collega's op de autopillot verwijderd betekend niet dat er wat mis is met de manier waarop ik die DR's sloot. En hier wilde ik het verder bij laten. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Er is de afgelopen weken hier uitvoerig discussie over geweest op diverse overlegpaginas en daaruit bleek dat de betrokken ervaren collega's het er gewoon mee eens zijn dat deze moeten worden verwijderd. Ik kan me voorstellen dat je het hier verder bij wil laten, maar laat dan voortaan dit soort DRs gewoon open staan. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Nogmaals, jij had een verkeerde reden opgegeven. Basta. Natuur12 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

OTRS issues

I'm trying to take on the massive backlog in permissions, particularly Commons.

I see that you handled one of the items mentioned in ticket:2016072710010682 but the original email list three images.

The second File:Wikland Plakat.jpg was deleted by the you because of a problem with the license. The deletion was on 29 August, while the permission email was on 27 August. My guess is that the image was uploaded earlier under an inappropriate license and deleted, missing the fact that a better license had been sent in.

A similar issue applies to: File:Der-rote-elefant allgemein.jpg (although not deleted by you.)

I'm happy to restore the two other images if my guess is correct that the initial licensing agreement was inappropriate and it was missed that an acceptable license was sent in on 29 August. Please let me know if I'm missing something.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Spilbrick,
I was about to pick up that specific ticket back than and already undeleted File:Wikland Plakat.jpg but than I realised that it contains third party logo's which means that the ticket will be a tough note to crack. Since I already had a couple of complex tickets back than I deleted the file again and left the ticket for someone else. Feel free to proceed as you see fit. Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I restored the image that was not problematic, and left them a note about the one with the logos asking if they could provide the image without the logos. Thanks for explaining.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

Regarding your comment that this is becoming bad practice... My bad practice, JCB's bad practice, whose? I want to follow good procedure, so please clarify so I can get better in how I upload. Thanks.--Trilotat (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that the way Jcb deals with insignia’s that have no source is bad practise. Those uploads have been here for years and can easily be fixed so there is no reason to just tag them with no source only to delete them himself 7 days later. You didn’t do anything wrong and follow the correct procedures. Natuur12 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi - would you be able to reupload this deleted file to the English Wikipedia under fair use please? Ollieinc (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I will make it happen but please give me some time to read in on en-wiki fair use policy. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ollieinc: I asked someone more familiar with EN-wiki than I am to help out. See EN:file:Snapchat logo.svg. Natuur12 (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No jokes?

If anyone mentions hair surely it's inherently funny, only time it's not is if some arbitrary authoritarianism is enforced like NK's Kim does with his hair. -- Mentifisto 18:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

True but on second thought I found it a bit harsh to make jokes when someone is about to lose his tools. Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I was joking about the rationale for doing so, not Kanonkas. -- Mentifisto 23:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand your rationale and I am not saying that you where wrong to make a joke but I had some second thoughts on mine. That's all. Natuur12 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Thanks for your very reasonable review and actions, they are very much appreciated. I do have one question. At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Piotrus in your review, with which I wholeheartedly agree otherwise, you mention "The edit war was wrong though but regarding the edit war, both parties where in the wrong." I thought that a single revert did not qualify as an edit war, and unless I am getting old and forgot something, I do not believe at any page I did more then a single revert. I tried following en:WP:BRD. Is Commons definition of edit war or understanding of BRD different? Can you clarify for me how did I edit war? Thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Sakai Cockpit A5M.jpg and File:Karel Eichler.jpg their edit history show that there was more than one removal of the no source tag and such things should be avoided. In short: don't be bold at Commons. We prefer to stay mellow. See Commons:For_Wikipedians#Cultural_differences and Commons:Don't be bold. Natuur12 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I stand corrected. At one of those I indeed reverted twice, for which I do apologize, my only excuse is that the other party refused to explain things in edit summaries or talk so I tried to ask a question again in edit summary. In hindsight, I should have tried at talk again. Hopefully the tempers will cool down now. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Saliasilesiaband.jpg

Er zijn landen waar dit zeker niet onder de TOO zou zijn, maar in de meeste landen wel. Als je om die reden de tag verwijdert, zorg er dan wel voor dat er A. een bijbehorende licentie in komt te staan, bijvoorbeeld {{PD-simple}} en dat het bestand B. verdwijnt uit de onderhoudscategory (Category:Images without source), anders blijven we er met elkaar mee bezig. Jcb (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We hebben het hier over Polen, niet Australië ofzo. Towarzystwo Akademickie Salia Silesia is de bron. Had je trouwens ook zelf op kunnen zoeken door op het artikel te klikken waarin deze afbeelding gebruikt wordt. Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Rue de Stalon Luik (7106732571).jpg

After a deletion discussion I initiated you deleted this image but it was restored a year later and I don't understand why based on the summary from the log. As far as I can determine the reasoning is still valid. Can you tell me or do I have to ask the deleting admin? Ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The law regarding FOP changed in Belgium. They now have a FOP-provision which covers 3D works, architecture and 2D works as long as they are designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public place. The new law became effective in July of this year and since than most deletions because there was a problem concerning FOP have been undone. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant. I was not aware of that change I shall have to refresh my FoP knowledge. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Unam_sanctam.jpg

Nach dieser Löschdiskussion sollte die Datei dringend umbenannt werden. Der Name suggeriert, es handle sich um eine der berühmtesten päpstlichen Bullen des Mittelalters, aber das trifft nicht zu. Leider wurde die Löschung dieser nicht einzuordnenden Schrift des 16. Jhs abgelehnt, umso dringender ist die Umbenennung. Gruß, --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hans-Jürgen Hübner: you can request a rename using the template {{Rename}}. If you find this template to complicated for whatever reason you can also do a suggestion for a new filename at my talk page and I will rename the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I must admit, I don't know what kind of document we see on the jpg. So, as long as nobody has found out, we should give it a more neutral name and ask the person who has done the upload, what he or she had in mind. Something like charta_16th_century e.g. might be less missleading? Could you do this? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hans-Jürgen Hübner: I renamed the file. I doubt contacting the uploader will help since he is aware of the mistake and has done nothing to correct it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right. Thanks for having renamed the file. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kaartnbds.jpg

I would say it's really obvious that you should leave this closure to somebody else. Even so obvious, that I have reverted the closure with the rollback. Jcb (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Normally we block editors for re-opening DR's without discussing it with the closing admin and bringing up new evidence. I will reclose the DR and you will not reinstate the deletion request. You are starting to wear out the patience of the community. If you want I can bring it up to AN/U. Natuur12 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Tag on template

Hi, Can the deletion nomination tag be removed from Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, done. Automated scripts are one thing but the moment you can't use them you easely forget to do the job manually ;) Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:Landmarks by country

Please undo your closure of this request. There was consensus and a lot of work had already been done to empty the entire category tree starting from this one's parent, Category:Landmarks. Those categories used to have many more entries in them. Although this was an old request, you can see that there was discussion about two months ago describing our efforts. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done my bad, I thought the debate died out. Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It was just taking a while for us to recategorize everything. I will make it a point to finish this work soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I finally finished with this CFD, so you can close it again if you like. That would finish off the last CFD for August 2011. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I cloded it. Tnx for the heads up. Natuur12 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab

Hi Natuur12,

may you please clean up your uploads from Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 taken from the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab Flickr stream? They description contains much unnecessary cruft (Example). --Kopiersperre (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
I cleaned up the worst using visual change. The only irrelevant info left are the poem-quotes and some left over but fixing those will take me a couple of hours which means that the extra effort isn't worth the benefit in my opinion. Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Osório Caveirão

Hello, by surfing from Gunnex talk page, I found this DR, it seems you deleted some files, but they have been re-uploaded by the user (exemple), see also this, I've no OTRS access. I'm wonder if there is really a ticket. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there is but it is in Portugese so there is not much I can do with it. Natuur12 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
If there is a ticket, it is somewhere in a list, waiting to be reviewed, isn't it? or must I put a note in the OTRS noticeboard? Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It is waiting to be reviewed but it could take a while since the OTRS-backlog is huge. (To much shittickets that cost a lot of effort without gaining any new files.) A post at the OTRS-noticeboard wouldn't harm and could speed things up. Natuur12 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File deletion

Hello. I have not logged into my account for ages, but today, willing to upload a few images, I have seen the deletion warning another user left me regarding about the deletion of editor destacado.png, which was am image I created myself ages ago using Gimp to condecorate featured editors on the Spanish Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter, 'cause I don't work on that wiki anymore, but it would be good to know how the heck can I be accused of copying an image I created myself. Greetings from Mallorca. rafax (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear rafax
The file was deleted because I believed it to be a commercial logo. But since it is merely a "personal file" I will restore it. My apologies for the inconvenience. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. Because the file was restored I was able to read about your comment concerning the threshold of originality which I didn't know about as I am not too much into the policies of commons and I beg your pardon for that. Thank you very much indeed for your work and time. rafax (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi Natuur12. I hope you don't mind my posting here. I like to keep things out in the open. I want to apologize to you for my attitude and behavior toward you. I blew the Montravia case out of proportion. I could've handled that much better. You and I, and Ellin, have always worked so well together, that I would be very disappointed in myself if I allowed my inappropriate behavior to ruin that friendly relationship. I was also snarky over the Krd case, which was another over-reaction on my part. I need to work on my reaction to these situations and be much more reasonable and respectful in communicating with fellow admins and editors. I hate to be at odds with people like you who I've always liked and respected. Going forward I will definitely work on stepping back and thinking things through a bit before just jumping in and acting like a jackass. This also goes for Nick, who I owe an apology to as well. I'm certainly not proud of how I handled either of these situations, and I plan to work on my temper and communication so I don't repeat this unworthy behavior. lNeverCry 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear INC,
You are always welcome at my talk page and a little disagreement isn’t going to change that. I do accept your apologies of course and my apologies that I didn’t realize that my Dutch directness was inappropriate. I hope we have to work with each other for a long time.
Regarding the Montravia-case. This would be a case book example of how that new privacy policy stuff makes working with each other on cases like this harder :(. Natuur12 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad things are OK between us again. I never feel good when the dust settles and I realize I've mistreated an old friend. lNeverCry 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Commons User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vraag over afbeeldingsgeschiedenis

Hallo,

Ik heb een vraagje en hoop dat je me kunt helpen. Laatst heb ik deze file geupload: File:Sander Jan Klerk at Paleis Het Loo 2016.jpg

Graag wil ik deze zwart wit hebben en hij is nu goed zoals ik wil. Echter, in de fotogeshiedenis, by "previous versions" zie je nog steeds de foto met de kleuren die ik niet wil. Nu ben ik bang dat op ieder moment in de toekomst iemand zomaar daarop kan klikken en dat hij dan weer vervangen wordt door de verkeerde versie. Kun je die kleurenversie weghalen uit dat lijstje?

Ook is de ongeknipte kleurenversie geupload als een losse file, die mag ook weg.

Ik zag het na het uploaden pas ivm een verkeerder monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GvWinkelhof (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Alvast bedankt!

Keep up the good work.

Mvg,

GvWinkelhof (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Beste GvWinkelhof,
Ik ben helemaal vergeten om antwoord te geven op deze vraag. (Bekende verhaal van een berichtje op de telefoon lezen en denken van ik geef later wel antwoord.) In ieder geval is het nu geregeld. Mvg. Natuur12 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Enorm bedankt! Ja, zo bedoel ik het, super. Haha geeft niet, kan gebeuren. Ik had al rekening gehouden met een latere reactie omdat hierboven staat dat je het druk hebt in real life. Fijn weekend!

Mvg, GvWinkelhof (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Pixabay

Due to the movement of Category:Images from pixabay => Category:Images from Pixabay the homecat of this template should be changed. You have protected it some time ago. Could you kindly change it, please? Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Natuur12!
Hi Natuur12, although we have disagreements in the past and the present, I would like to thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. Especially of being one of the admins helping to solve the long-time disagreements between Colin and Fæ. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
   ★ Poké95 01:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the best wishes to you as well! Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Wishes!

Best Wishes, Natuur12!
Hi Natuur12, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the best wishes to you as well! Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry.

Hello Natuur12,

I would like to apologize to you, @Steinsplitter and Jameslwoodward: for how I acted at UD. I understand now that you were just trying to help, and I should of took it when I had the chance. I also understand how users are busy at times, so it wasn't my right to criticize. I hope you, and the users I pinged have a MC and many more. -- MCMLXXXIX 14:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, appologies accepted of course. And I should remember that I can't be direct at Commons ;). Mery Christmas . Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2017 !
Remember:
  • Look sweet...
  • Eat everything...
  • Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr...
  • Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments...

-- With best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the best wishes to you as well! Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorieën verwijderen

Ha Natuur12, ik heb zitten prutsen met (de benaming van) twee categorieën die ik heb aangemaakt. Maar als ik het goed zie kan ik zelf categorieën niet verwijderen? Het gaat om Category:Begraafplaats Wilgenhof (Nieuw-Vennep) (dat ligt in Hoofddorp...) en Category:Begraafplaats Taxushof (Nieuws-Vennep) (ja, speechless....) Ik heb voor beiden reeds de correcte categorie aangemaakt: enig idee hoe ik deze foute categorieën verwijder/laat verwijderen? Prettige kerstdagen btw, Ecritures (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ecritures,
Ik heb de categorieën verwijderd. In de toekomst kan je verwijdering vragen door {{Speedy}} te gebruiken. Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Dankjewel, ik had geen idee hoe dat in z'n werk ging/gaat. Ecritures (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Natuur12!

Happy New Year!

Natuur12, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


File:Charlotte with Paul Billets.jpg

Seems my photo was deleted without much reason as i have not broke wikipedia policy. PaulBillets (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear PaulBillets,
For files published elswhere we need a confirmation via com:OTRS. However, you are on the photograph and this is not a selfie which means that we need the photographer to send in a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this something you normally do? Its my photo taken w my personal camera but you delete it? never heard of this type of policy. PaulBillets (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's standard procedure. Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to the policy please? PaulBillets (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:OTRS#When_contacting_OTRS_is_unnecessary and Commons:Project scope/Evidence. Natuur12 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's for images posted on the web, no? Seems you're not really assuming good faith by just assuming a copyright violation. PaulBillets (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, you are in the photograph, it's not a selfie and therefor we need a release from the photographer or we need evidence that that photographer transferred the copyright to you. Natuur12 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thx for improving the record on my files, its appreciated. However it worries me that we get so close to damaging a very valuable resource - guess thats the price of people power. Pleased to see its been fixed and again thx for your calm and friendly assist. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Daniel.lopez.17

What kind of renditions of the CoA did these images use? An offical one, from the websites of the ministries, or the File:Coat of arms of Colombia.svg. If our own, self-drawn image was used, than the images could be restored as longe the logos itself are threshold of originality (which I assume is the case).--Antemister (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Our own. Thanks for the link. (I noticed that Fry also mentioned this link but if you only link the word is it's pretty easy to miss the link.) I will restore the files somewhere later today/this week but feel free to go to com:UNDEL in the meantime. Natuur12 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Antemister: restored them. Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, thank you (although the images are not that professionally made). At this occasion, a different request: User:Mr Patriotic was blocked indefinitely because of being "cross-wiki-image-file-pov-pusher" (what a word...) But his images remained here and will spread out slowly again. I have checked the images (have contributed much on that topic), all the flags are completely fictional (and the two maps are useless POV). Could you delete them speedily, or does it a long-lasting formal DR?--Antemister (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Antemister: I deleted the images. There is only one way to fight a POV-pusher like him/her and that's to nuke their uploads on sight. If he/she is back, just let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Exact replicas

Hi Natuur12, I just stumbled upon this category and found two of the images were exact copies of two older ones: File:Sea Potato or Heart Urchin - Dorsal View - Echinocardium cordatum.JPG is an exact copy of File:Sea Potato - Dorsal View - Echinocardium cordatum.JPG; File:Sea Potato or Heart Urchin - Ventral View - Echinocardium cordatum.JPG is an exact copy of File:Sea Potato - Ventral View - Echinocardium cordatum.JPG; there has only been a superfluous addition to the filenames. Can you correct the situation (I guess deleting the newest files and making redirects of those names to the older ones)? Thanks, Wikiklaas (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected them. Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate files in uploads by Erfgoed Leiden

Hi Natuur12,

As part of a first batch upload by Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken, some files have been uploaded twice due to a change in naming conventions. It concerns ca. 10 files; this is one of them (complete list available): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FileDuplicateSearch/ErfgoedLeiden_Gezicht_op_de_Lakenhal_aan_de_Oude_Singel.jpeg The name with the access number is the correct one. What would be the best way to handle this? Should the files be removed, or can they simply be redirected?

Best, --AWossink (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ideally the ones without access number would be deleted, as they show up in the category page first, so duplicates are rather prominently shown. It concerns images 2-10 in Category:Media_contributed_by_Erfgoed_Leiden_en_Omstreken . Thanks, Erik Zachte (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@AWossink and Erik Zachte: I redirected the files. The files haven’t been here for long but you never know if there has been some external usage on non-WMF wiki’s, in publications in the PDF format. Hopefully I didn’t miss any off them but if I did, please let me know. You can always use the template {{Duplicate}} but if you do there is a risk that deleting admin rather keeps the old version instead off the one with the correct file name.
Some duplicates were already redirected back in December but the files without the access number were kept. Therefor I renamed those files so the names off the photographs are unified again. Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Natuur12, Thank you for your swift action on this! Future uploads from Erfgoed Leiden should have consistent naming, so this issue is not expected to occur again. Thanks again! Best, --AWossink (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion in german WP:Kurier

You are a child? You're only 15 years old? Poisoned lies about you? --87.179.10.57 13:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm 24 and my age is listed at my NL-wiki user page. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sharingan

Hello Natuur12,

Do you think the designs of the images in this category is too complex? It's not own work, it's from an anime called Naruto. -- MCMLXXXIX 04:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Tricky one. Some are likely below com:TOO but a lot of them contain ancient or scientific symbols. Compare File:Mangekyou Sharingan Sasuke (Eternal).svg with this for example. And file:Mangekyou Sharingan Shisui.svg is merely a ninja star. I believe that most off the files are below com:TOO in the US but I'm not sure about Japan.
On they other hand. Are we sure that those emblems aren't just some fan made emblems? Natuur12 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure. Naruto is known to have filler episodes, but I haven't really witness those. -- MCMLXXXIX 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not they're own work, they recreated the images from the show using drawing software. @Jameslwoodward: Thoughts? -- MCMLXXXIX 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. I watch a lot of anime but not this one which makes it a bit tricky to judge if they differ enough from the original (my opinion: toss this anime in the fire :p). Perhaps @Whym: wants to take a look as well? He is one of our most competent editors when it comes down to Japanese copyright law. Natuur12 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I think they are borderline in the USA, probably above the ToO in some European countries, but Japan I don't know. If you hang a {{Delete}} tag on them all, there will surely be some discussion with more participants than here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong person on the picture, thats why delete requests

Hello. Please check https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Il_solamente_tuo_Mike_Horn.jpg. Thanks. --KurtR (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, another admin will take a look in due course but now I do understand your deletion rational. Natuur12 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bergshoeff/Den Boer

Hoi Natuur12, ik heb per ongeluk zowel File:Burgemeester W. den Boer.jpg als File:W. den Boer.jpg geüpload. De eerste kan weg. Tot overmaat van ramp blijkt de bron ook nog onjuist want de afgebeelde persoon blijkt burgemeester nl:Ad Bergshoeff te zijn (zie ook [4]). Dus de overgebleven afbeelding zou ik daarom graag hernoemd worden. Kun jij dat regelen? - Robotje (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robotje,
Het is geregeld. Ik heb de oudste upload behouden. Natuur12 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Het is dus File:Burgemeester Ad Bergshoeff.jpg geworden. Bedankt. - Robotje (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Jouw actie

Natuur12, ik ben erg teleurgesteld in de manier waarop je je voor het karretje van derden hebt laten spannen. Want waar ging het nu helemaal om? Twee files in een onderhoudscategorie. Als je mijn uploads had nagekeken, had je gezien dat er geen reden was voor zo'n extreme actie. Ik zou toch van je moeten kunnen verwachten dat je als scheidsrechter de dingen wat afstandelijker beschouwt en dat je de zaken in perspectief probeert te zien.

Bovendien ben ik teleurgesteld in het feit dat je hier zegt dat ik ook op je Nederlandse discussie pagina kan reageren, maar als ik dat doe wis je resoluut mijn reactie. Inconsequent. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Beste Jan Arkesteijn,
Er is je een vrij zware maar vooral bijzonder duidelijke sanctie opgelegd. Je mag géén afbeeldingen overschrijven wanneer het niet op je eigen uploads gaat. Doe je dat toch en maak je gebruik van het recht om jezelf in de voet te schieten, dan zijn de gevolgen voor jezelf. In dit geval een blokkade van 1 maand en daarbij moet ik wel zeggen dat ik hiermee nog heel soepel ben geweest. Ik weet wel dat menig mod veel langer blokt bij een herhaalde overtreden.
Je speculeert nu over wat ik wel en niet bekeken heb en je gaat voorbij aan de uitleg die ik je op je overlegpagina gegeven hebt. Een maatregel/sanctie heeft overduidelijk een beperkend karakter. Dat betekent dat je bepaalde dingen die andere wel mogen niet meer mag met als gevolg dat je ook geen goede of neutrale bewerkingen meer mag doen wanneer een bepaalde bewerking onder je restrictie valt. Anders is het geen maatregel/sanctie want die slechte bewerkingen mag niemand doen. (Immers, maatregelen hebben een beperkend karakter.) Je bent geïnformeerd waarom deze restrictie is opgelegd. Namelijk omdat de goed/fout ratio vrij slecht was en omdat je weigerde je neer te leggen bij onze richtlijn. Het is dan ook onnavolgbaar dat er geen reden voor deze blokkade was of dat ik me voor het karretje van derden heb laten spannen. Jij, en jij alleen bent verantwoordelijk voor het eigen handelen.
Wat betreft je tweede alinea, ik stel nergens dat je op mijn NL-overlegpagina kan reageren als je een probleem op Commons hebt. Wel staat er op mijn GP dat je me op NL-wiki aan kan spreken als je daar wat nodig hebt. Jij had echter wat nodig op Commons en die categorie berichten valt er niet onder.
Je bent geen beginner en je bent ook niet dom. Hoe bestaat het dat je dan toch niet lijkt te beseffen dat je een sanctie niet even naast je neer kan leggen. Natuur12 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ik denk dat je de betekenissen van policy en guideline verwisselt, Natuur12. Je spreekt over een guideline alsof het een policy is. Eerder schreef je ook al: "because a significant amount off overwrites were against policy", er is echter geen policy op dat gebied. Maar ja, ik weet ook wel dat a significant amount of overwrites were against guideline zwak klinkt. Laten we wel wezen, als het overschrijven van bestanden zó wordt veroordeeld dan had de gemeenschap dat al lang via het gebruikersprofiel aan banden gelegd. Ik ben er bij het ontwerp van Commons niet bij geweest, maar het zou mij niet verbazen als men de overschrijf-optie juist als een positief kenmerk zag in plaats van een te bestrijden overlast. Ik wens jullie succes, want ik ga er van uit dat jullie nu de andere gebruikers op dezelfde manier het vuur aan de schenen gaan leggen. Dat zijn er nog heel wat, met Fae als absolute topoverschrijver. Ik hoop niet dat je daar een maagzweer aan overhoudt.

P.S. De mate waarin een maatschappij een uitzichtloze sanctie als gerechtvaardigd beschouwt geeft een indruk van haar beschaving.

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Een teleurstellende stilte. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Writers from the Netherlands to be categorised by name

As you like. But it is not "nonsense".

These categories existed for Belarus, Russia, Ukraine.

I added France, Italy, Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands.

Best Palamède (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It is nonsense. Please undo the nonsense edits that you have done. Natuur12 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is now more difficult to look at writers via the tree of categories. For instance, if I would be looking for a female writer of which I only would know the name is something like Bourgogne, I would have to look in 4 categories: Writers from the Netherlands, Writers from the Netherlands by name, Female writers from the Netherlands and Writers from the Netherlands to be categorised by name. That is a bit too much: 2 categories should be enough. (Moreover: it's a bit stupid to construct 470 categories that each contain only 1 image -mostly not from the most important writers.) I would also favour returning these 470 images to the category Writers from the Netherlands. Vysotsky (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Antoine Roux

Hallo Natuur12, dit is een typisch voorbeeld van een category die verwarring schept vanwege Antoine Roux (1821-1887) en meteen ook de reden waarom ik er persoonlijk de voorkeur aan geef om de datum van geboorte en overlijden meteen in de category te vermelden. In dit geval zou dit dan Category:Antoine Roux (1765-1835) worden. Lotje (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Beste Lotje,
Allereerst denk ik dat je dit beter bij Rama (de aanmaker van de categorie) neer kan leggen. Ten tweede lijkt die verwarring me wel mee te vallen want de categorie heeft een duidelijke omschrijving. Natuur12 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File renaming

Hallo Natuur12, meen je dat File:CCF02112009 00000.jpg dient hernoemd omwille van #2? Lotje (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ja. De huidige naam heeft niemand wat aan. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Only me again Category:The Muse (1917), vreemde filenames vind ik. Lotje (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ik zie geen dringende noodzaak om de bestanden te hernoemen. Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of file

Hallo Natuur12, een file zoals deze, zou een rename zinvol zijn? Ik bedoel bv. File:Schlossgarten Schwetzingen - Domitian.jpg Lotje (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Er is niet zo veel mis met de oude bestandsnaam, dan is een hernoeming niet nodig. Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Quasi dubbele files

Nog een vraagje: File:The Triumph of Titus Alma Tadema.jpg en File:Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, RA, OM - The Triumph of Titus - The Flavians - Walters 3731.jpg worden deze als duplicates aanzien? Lotje (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nee want ze hebben andere kleuren. Beide mogen dan meestal blijven zodat de gebruiker zelf kan kiezen welk van de twee bestanden ze willen gebruiken. Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


File:Sint Jobshaven 1913.jpg

Today I saw that this picture was undeleted. Thank you! Hanhil (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Alamy / PD-old

Hey Natuur. Kun jij zeggen of deze afbeelding een probleem kan zijn? Het is een repro van een oud schilderij, 1838 of iets later. De foto is in bezit van Alamy, een fotobureau. Groet, Sander1453 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sander,
De foto zou onder {{PD-art}} geüpload kunnen worden maar het gaat hier wel om een stock foto waar ten onrechte een hoop geld voor gevraagd wordt. Dat kan eventueel een risico zijn voor de uploader. Natuur12 (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Okee, dank je. Sander1453 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you to have made the renamming I've asked on File:Stèle de Kermaria.jpg

Ik dank u voor de bestandsnaam zijn veranderd.

(sorry for the google translate, my dutch is so bad now....) --Cangadoba (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank

Voor het afhandelen van het OTRS-ticket. Ik had geen mails binnengekregen ... anders had ik uiteraard wel gehandeld. (@Vysotsky ook) Trijnsteltalk 22:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Trijnstel,
Die mails kwamen dingen onder een nieuw ticketnummer. Vandaar dat je geen mails binnen kreeg. Mocht je de overname als vijandig beschouwen, laat het me gerust weten. Dan doen we het in de toekomst anders. Natuur12 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Neuh, ik ben niet zo wraakzuchtig. Dacht enkel dat er een bug zat in de OTRS-software. Maar gelukkig is dat niet zo. Trijnsteltalk 22:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

File:لوگو.jpg

Hallo Natuur12, Milli Istihbarat Teskilati werd tot 2 maal toe teruggedraaid. Volgens deze gebruiker: embleem mag niet gebruikt worden; copyright. Klopt dit?? Lotje (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ik vrees dat BrimZ gelijk heeft. Ik heb het bestand genomineerd voor verwijdering: Commons:Deletion requests/File:لوگو.jpg. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Inmiddels is er een (ander?) bestand met dezelfde naam geupload. Lijkt mij ook een copyvio? Elly (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ellywa: het gaat om een andere afbeelding. Heb hem genomineerd. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

PD Albania Exempt

Hi. You undid my improved changes to this template by stating I need to receive consensus? From whom? Kj1595 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kj1595: you need to find community consensus. Natuur12 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. How do I go about doing that? Kj1595 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You can start a debate in com:VPC proposing your modifications and if that doesn't work you can try a formal request for comment. Natuur12 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the disclaimer footer for the time being. The current template is pretty much the same as the original with some minor changes I had made including updated sources. Kj1595 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You deleted a picture

Hi!

You deleted pictures added by me, e.g. [5] even if there was a valid license information included in the original file. How and where should the license information be told if that was not enough? --Jjanhone (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jjanhone,
I deleted the file because you never followed the License review procedure. If the source breaks or the source website goes down we can no longer hoste files from sources that contain material under various licenses without such a review. Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
So Google Photos is not a good place for donating photos, it should be done only via Flickr, is that correct? Licence review procedure is new concept for me, need to study that. --Jjanhone (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
So should I have asked people to review my photos? How do I do it? It would be nice if this could be done automatically at the same time you are uploading a photo. --Jjanhone (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: It seems that I made a mistake. My apologies for that. I thought your statement about the license referred to information about the file back when there was still Picassa and missed the license in the comment section at google hangout. I have undeleted the files.
That said. A license review is still important. You can ask for a review by adding {{License review}} just below the licensing template. I will add the template so you can see what I mean. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh thank you! Is this correct? [6] --Jjanhone (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: almost. See my fix. Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! And how do I know if my files [7] have been reviewed already? --Jjanhone (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: when a file is reviewd the text displayed changes into "This file, which was originally posted to <source>, was reviewed on <date? by the administrator or reviewer <user name>, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jcb DRFA

To be honest, I think we have got into a situation where a DRFA is inevitable and certainly needs to be carried out with better competence, analysis and fairness than the AN/U report by Yann. However, I don't think your closing remarks are incorrect. There was "no consensus" to have a DRFA. The community was evenly divided. It is wrong to say "is certainly some consensus" what I think you meant was that you think ten or eleven "support" votes are sufficient grievance to warrant a formal discussion. In which case, say so, rather than pretend we reached any consensus.

The correct response to this lack of consensus (as the UK government should have realised over Brexit) was that (a) we were being asked the wrong question and (b) some of the facts that led to the complaint were bogus. I would much rather see an analysis of the work that Jcb and other admins are doing, and to locate areas where they make mistakes and try to improve procedures, policy and best practice so they do not occur (or become rare). I think there is quite some problems with our tagging, bots, speedy deletions, mass uploads, etc, where Jcb exacerbates the problem, but also where he's being made a scapegoat. Possibly that analysis would conclude that Jcb is too much of a liability or too careless. But a DRFA right now just says that the problem is all with Jcb and the best thing Commons can do right now is get rid of him. We miss a chance to fix systemic issues. You will just get polarised votes at your RFA. Those who have long disliked him because of some admin decision or because of russavia or whatever other grievance, will come out the cupboard to support. And those who think that highly productive admins should be kept regardless of how many times they mess up (and we have seen that before) will oppose. And there will be a handful of people unsure either way.

Unlike some previous DRFA, we do not have a specific crime (AFAIK) that we judge is too bad. It seems we have an accumulation of decisions, comments, attitudes, silences, no-apologies, etc that individually probably do not warrant losing the bit. How do you propose to present this impartially? How can we compare this to another admin in terms of accuracy and competence? A complaint made is "all admins make mistakes". So how do you intend to show Jcb makes proportionally more mistakes than the admin community as a whole? Given that voting is evil how will you prevent a DRFA being simply a case where you upload the "evidence for the prosecution" and then the Commons Jury starts voting before Jcb an begin a defence? Is the case against Jcb really so clear-cut that you want to skip the community discussion phase and jump straight to a vote? -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Colin,
You can find the draft here: User:Natuur12/Jcb. I do understand your concern but a DRFA seems unavoidable. I could also wait until the discussion escalates further and the surrogate DRFA would only cause Jcb more grievance. Yes, there are many cons to a formal DRFA but I rather do it like this giving him enough time to prepare his defence giving him the change to clear his name than to let everything continue as it does. If I don’t start the DRFA someone else will and history learns us that DRFA’s usually tend to start without giving the accused time to write a defence before the voting starts.

The last time the debate went to a DRFA for Jcb one was started while we are searching for alternatives greatly harming Jcb’s ability to defend himself. And this way that won’t happen again. The DRFA will nog start until Jcb prepared his defence unless he doesn’t respond. Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:Natuur12/Jcb. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this could be mentioned if needed, if it is not done yet:

Oliv0 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Oliv0
I noticed those examples and I choosed not too include those. In the first example I'm not sure who is at faulth since google translate does a horrible job for translating Hungarian. Secondly, there were some experienced admins who believed that the accuser was at faulth. Currently Jee is working too resolve the confusing about OTRS.
In the second case Jcb could have merely missed the memo. When he became an admin that wasn't part of Commons policy and later the policy was changed without informing all admins about this fundamental change or a note at com:AN. It would only be problematic if Jcb would delete files because there is a resolution restriction after he was informed about the policy change. Needless too say. Jcb merely nominated the file for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Btw. Could you please ask Hungarikusz Firkász too add babel user boxes? If Jcb would have new that he doesn't speak English on forehand the situation might have turned out differently. Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Natuur12, I am surprised at your note at BN. It takes a lot of guts to promise something, and then later admit that you are unhappy with your ability to do it or desire to follow through with it. There are others who are promising a DRFA so perhaps we will still have this drama. And perhaps some of the discussions that may now occur, will come to nothing, and Jcb will still go to DRFA. I think then, if there is a recent example of people working in good faith to find a holistic solution but then fail solely because Jcb refuses to engage or to change, then any DRFA will be much more clear-cut and less divisive. -- Colin (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oliver Kehrl

Hallo Natuur12,

entschuldige, doch leider bin ich Deiner Muttersprache nicht mächtig.

Warum hast Du hier den Löschantrag entfernt? Der hochladende Benutzer:Ubierwerk ist eine PR-Agentur, die Werbung macht für diesen Kandidaten, einen lokalen Politiker. Das Bild wird in Köln überall für die kommende Landtagswahl im Mai diesen Jahres plakatiert. Es ist davon auszugehen, das ein professioneller Fotograf das Bild aufnahm. Dieser müsste folglich der Inhaber des Urheberrechts sein und nicht die PR-Agentur, eine Gesellschaft. Was denkst Du? Danke und beste Grüße --Benutzer:WvB (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Werner von Basil,
I hope it is all right that I respond in English. I kept the file because this is the largest version available. But based on this extra information you provided I'm going too delete the file. Thank you for the extra effort. Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Natuur12, thanks for your friendly answer. Best regards --Benutzer:WvB (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natuur12/Archive_5&oldid=243245087"