Hi, and a warm welcome on commons. Please add the author and a copyright template to Image:Hondekop.jpg Permission to use is not enough. Please note, they need to agree on commercial use of this picture. Best would be PD, GNU FDL or on of the CC licenses. thanx --Paddy 19:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanx a lot and great work! I am very pleased we may keep the picture :-) Keep the good work up. --Paddy 12:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My pleasure, I would have been sorry to see this picture go. It's my favourite Dutch train type, lots of memories attachted to it..;-) And thanks for your patience! MartinD 14:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not my car. It's actually owned by the father of a friend. He's one of those archetypical "rural older man". He keeps all his old cars because "it may be good to have for something". Apart from the 96 he also has two early SAAB 99s and a Volvo 120 slowly sinking into the ground as well as a few more more in more or less running order as well as a barn full with parts. It was good because I tried to find a steering mechanism to my old SAAB 99 he had two of them. Also have a look at http://coolcatcorp.com/millerauction/MillerAuction.html for some real barn finds. // Liftarn
Hey Martin, welcome to the Commons. Hope you like it enough to hang around.
Just thought I would give you a tip on linking to image description pages (rather than having the image show inline). You can do this by typing this:
[[:Image:Example.jpg]]
--> Image:Example.jpg . Providing a link often makes it much easier when you're talking about a specific image.
BTW regarding Category:Female genitalia, I think there is a lot more variety to be had. Although hair & piercings seem to be covered OK, we need women other than white women, older women (I think there are other problems if we ask for younger women :)), various states of the hymen, labia minora and majora, maybe before/after/during (!) childbirth, as well as general diseases (the male genitalia need this as well). Having this kind of variation is really important to reassure women that they are (more than likely) totally normal, and that most people don't have porn star plastic-surgeried genitals! Probably this is a concern for men as well, but I have an idea that in Western culture at least, there is more opportunity for men to discreetly compare themselves to other men (at the urinal). Women obviously do not have this chance. Anyway, this is really off-topic :) cheers!
Thanks for your nice words :) Would it be ok to add just a $ sign? I don't like putting too much English text on these maps because it doesn't make sense on the other language wikipedias. The information is in the caption that it is US dollars Astrokey4414:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for your canal rubble blocking defense picture[edit]
Put the interwikis in the side bar as Arnomane suggested. There doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement on which method you should use. -Mak17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Makthorpe, thanks for your reply on the interwikilink issue. Do I understand coorectly that it would be OK to put a link in the side bar to the most relevant article (in the Wikipedia of a given language) plus a link in the description section of the image itself? In the Image:Plofsluis.jpg example, we now have side bar links to the articles on the canal where this funny contracption is located (English and German), and on the defence system of which it is part (Dutch). It's quite OK with me, I'd be happy to add those links when uploading a picture. It's just a matter of how to ad to the usefulness of the picture. Best regards, MartinD 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's OK in the sense that it is not against any stated policy. However, some people DO feel it is not best practice. Others recommend it (Arnomane for example in the VP thread you commented on). It is not likely it will get reverted, so if you like the way sidebar links look, then use that. If you prefer the language bar method I put in, use that. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Good luck. -Mak15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Martin,
Ik zie het probleem niet echt? De foto's worden toch ook gebruikt op Wikipedia en niet op een fansite? Dat er eindelijk foto's van de spelers beschikbaar zijn is toch juist een goed iets? Daarbij kunnen foto's nu zo nu en dan afgewisseld worden, tevens kunnen er verschillende foto's in een artikel geplaatst worden wanneer deze uitgebreid genoeg beschreven zijn, zodat de foto's niet in elkaar overlopen. Ik zie totaal het probleem niet, ook omdat er al honderden categorieën bestaan van spelersnamen. Waarom worden die aangemaakt? Om verschillende foto's van die bewuste speler in te verzamelen en volgens mij is dat nu net wat ik hier gedaan heb. Zou dat niet de bedoeling zijn geweest, hadden de foto's net zo goed op een grote hoop in de categorie Feyenoord gegooid kunnen worden. Groeten, Knurftendans23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ik denk dat dat per situatie verschilt. In sommige gevallen is een artikel groot genoeg om meerdere foto's in het artikel te gebruiken. Soms werken meerdere foto's averechts, andere keren maakt het een artikel juist veel mooier qua aanzicht. Ik ben het met je eens dat lang niet alle foto's die beschikbaar zijn gebruikt moeten worden, maar de keus laten aan de diverse projecten welke daadwerkelijk te gebruiken moet vrij zijn in mijn ogen. Daarbij kunnen afbeeldingen ook afgewisseld worden zoals ik al zei. Overigens zijn ook niet alle foto's van een even goede kwaliteit en kan het dus zijn dat er nieuwe foto's van een betere kwaliteit toegevoegd worden. Ik ben in ieder geval niet van plan om wekelijks nieuwe foto's toe te gaan voegen als je daar soms bang voor was. Knurftendans00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand09:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. Thank you. Siebrand10:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
Hoi Multichill, dank voor de appreciatie, had een beetje het gevoel dat ik zat te dweilen met de kaarn open.;) Ik ga je suggestie opvolgen, maar misschien toch even een waarschuwing: ik ben een vreselijke alfa, en als ik dingen met techniek ga doen leidt dat meestal tot het oproepen van de Wegenwacht en dergelijke. (Zie recent gepruts bij pogingen een subcat aan te maken, weet nog steeds niet wat ik nou fout deed...) Afijn, we knutselen met z'n allen gezellig verder. Groet, MartinD (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is prosocial behavior simply the opposite of antosocial behavior?;) Oh, well.. I'm a blood donor myself, and I think it's a fair deal. I give half a litre of my blood, which isn't really a gift as my body starts making new blood right away, and they tell me my blood pressure and my hemoglobin count, and test my blood for probably a variety of ills. Regards MartinD (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Martin, leuke plaatjes hm? Ik vond die van 'Hier te koop: harsnagels, cadeaus en hypotheken' ook wel erg grappig. En die muurschildering van de rat. Mooi artikel over de kredietcrisis trouwens. Ik had ook al op je gestemd bij 'voorstel etalageartikel'. Tasja (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
Hi! Since I cannot edit on the Dutch wikipedia (no access from mobile ip...), I ask you for a little help. On Jezuïetenmissies van de Chiquitos, the caption on the second picture ("Interieur missiekerk van Concepción") is wrong. The picture shows the interior of the church in San Javier (=San Francisco Javier). Could you fix this? I already had the picture renamed some time ago on commons since it had a wrong filename (with "Concepcion") which caused the confusion. Thanks! bamse (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bamse, will do. Do I understand correctly that the point is that the town is called San Javier, and that the correct caption would be "Interior of mission church of San Javier"? Does this also apprly to the third picture, now captioned "detail of mission church of Conception", so that this hould read "detail of mission church of San Javier"? (See current version of Dutch Wikipedia article.) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the second picture should get the caption "Interieur missiekerk van San Javier" ("Interior of mission church of San Javier") because it shows the church in the town San Javier (which is an hour's drive or so from the town Concepción). The third picture is correctly labeled as is ("Detail missiekerk van Concepción"). No change necessary there. You might want to change "Detail" to something more specific though. As you can see from this picture, the "Detail" is a retablo on the altar of the church in Concepción. Thanks for fixing the caption. bamse (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hadn't understood that the pictures showed two different churches, in two different towns. But then again, Bolivia isn't exactly next door to where I live.;) Would it be OK to caption the first picture "Interior of missioncurch of San Javier" (in Dutch, of course) and the second picture "Retablo in mission church of Conception"? I can add a link to "retable", it has an article on the Dutch Wikipedia. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the captions you suggest are perfectly fine. I gave the last picture here the caption Retablo on the altar in the church of Concepción to express that it is part of the altar, but this caption reads a bit cumbersome. Just go with your suggestions. Main point is anyway the caption of the other picture. Regards and thanks. bamse (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing the captions. Now that you are asking, I red the whole thing and noticed some more issues. Very sorry to bother you again with this article. The village name, at least in Spanish is: San Miguel (with a "g" not "q"). San Miguel, Santa Ana and San Rafael are often distinguished from other towns of the same name by adding "de Velasco" (after the province in which they are located) to the name, so you might want to add those, i.e. "San Miguel" -> "San Miguel de Velasco", etc. The film "The Mission" is not about these missions. It is about Jesuit missions in Paraguay (of the Guarani indians if I remember correctly). You could change the sentence to something like: "De film 'The Mission' uit 1986 met Robert de Niro en Jeremy Irons welke in Paraguay speelt, geeft een beeld van de missiewerk van de Jezuieten in de 17de eeuw in Zuidamerika." (Can you figure out my Dutch? :-) )
Otherwise the article seems more or less ok. It gives a bit of a simplified view by suggesting that the Indians joined the missions because they were fascinated by the "ideale samenleving". Protection from slave traders and other factors probably also played a role there. PS: I noticed a missunderstanding after reading your "Toelichting bij wijziging onderschriften afbeeldingen" on the article's talk page. I did not mean to replace "altar" with "retablo". From what I understand about art (which is not much), there are many "retablo" on one "altar" The picture shows one of the "retablo". So I'd rather write "Detail of altar..." or "Retablo on altar..." in the caption to make clear where this painting/retablo is located. But that's just nit-picking so you might just as well leave it as is. :-) bamse (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for the changes. The province is called "José Miguel de Velasco" but after town names it is shortened to just "Velasco", so "Santa Ana de Velasco" etc. PS: Thanks for the compliments, I picked up some Dutch living four years in Holland, but that's already some time ago so don't remember much. bamse (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: In the present version it looks as if the movie has little or no connection to the Chiquitos missions so the sentence might be deleted one day. (The Chiquitos missions were part of the Viceroyalty of Peru and not Paraguay.) Maybe it could be modified to say that the situation in the Chiquitos missions was similar to that depicted in the movie. bamse (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Multichill, is OK. Maar het is typisch een klusje voor als je even een half uurtje over hebt, dus ik kan niet echt iets toezegggen qua tempo.;) Maar goed, dit valt ook in de categorie "niet super-urgent". Groet, MartinD (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D't zit eerlijk gezegd hier en daar wel wat spul tussen van wat mindere kwaliteit, om het netjes te zeggen...;0 Maar goed, zolang ik geen signalen krijg dat de harde schijven volraken, gaan we vrolijk verder. MartinD (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Klopt, komt omdat alles wat niet verwijderd wordt op nlwp hier naartoe overgezet wordt. Schijfruimte is het niet probleem. Met verwijderen schiet je trouwens niets op, dan blijven de bestanden gewoon staan, maar zijn ze alleen in te zien door admins. Ik probeer trouwens als ik een afbeelding nakijk de sjabloon veldjes te schonen (zie mijn bijdragen), dan ziet het geheel er een stuk netter uit. Wellicht dat je zin hebt om dat ook mee te nemen. Multichill (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zal ik proberen, hou alsjeblieft even in de gaten wat ik doe en als ik het niet blijk te snappen, trek me even aan mijn jas. MartinD (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik vertrouw eigenlijk nooit op de exif data, je wilt niet weten hoeveel mensen de tijd verkeerd hebben staan. Ik bedoel eigenlijk meer het samenvoegen van info. Moment wanneer de foto genomen is relevant, uploaddatum niet dus dat kan dan weg. Auteur veld voeg ik ook samen. Zie bijvoorbeeld deze edit. Als de datum in iso formaat is (YYYY-MM-DD) dan zie je ook nog eens de datum in je eigen taal. Multichill (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are only recently uploaded photos I'm currently categorizing. Please don't categorize them competitively, at the same time or in other words: as long as they're in this gallery. May I draw your attention to the thousends of images left uncategorized for months and years instead? Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! This shows the back of the building, taken from the opposite bank of a canal. I couldn't make a decent picture of the front of it, there was a gate and a security guard, and I didn't think I would be able to explain convincingly what such a picture would be for. Architecturally, I think this view is better, actually.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your commenting on Village pump in January about this contributor's images. There's a mass DR underway since April 13 with in-depth discussion of the issues at hand. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Retro_beachwear_2010.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Retro_beachwear_2010.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Ik ben nieuw bij Wikimedia Commons, dus moet nog een en ander leren. (Ik zag je mooie uploads en je bent al behoorlijk ervaren hier).Ik heb een vraagje. Ik probeer de foto de ik heb geupload te linken aan een (test)artikel, maar dat lukt (nog) niet. Ik heb ook geprobeerd een thumb nail even hier te zetten, ook dat lukt niet. Doe ik iets fout of komt het omdat ik nog maar heel kort lid ben, is er eerst nog een evaluatiefase, of een andere reden? met groet Kees Recourt (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Kees, Dank voor je complimenten.;) Dat je foto niet verschijnt heeft een reden waar je een hele tijd naar kunt zoeken: de foto die je hebt geupload heeft de extensie ".JPG", het hoofdletters, en je linkt naar een foto met dezelfde naam, maar met ".jpg" (kleine letters). Heb ik ook wel eens mee zitten worstelen. Die hoofdletters komen waarschijnlijk zo uit je digitale camera (is bij bij tenminste het geval); het wordt hier op prijs gesteld als je er, voordat je een foto uploadt, even kleine letters van maakt.
En zo is het centrum van Sint-Truiden wel te zien;) En dan is dit het resultaat.
Het is dus niet zo dat er een evaluatiefase (van de nieuweling of diens foto's) bestaat.;) Schroom niet om vragen te stellen als die mochten bovenkomen.
Wat dat categoriseren betreft: dat is toch wel de bedoeling. Anders kunnen anderen jouw foto's niet goed terugvinden. De beloning is, af en toe, dat je merkt dat een foto (of een ander plaatje) van jouw hand plotseling door een ander leuk genoeg is gevonden om over te nemen.;) Groet, MartinD (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Martin, heel erg bedankt voor de tip! Daar had ik inderdaad nog lang naar kunnen zoeken en het lukt me nu ook. Kan ik dit nog veranderen, bijvoorbeeld door te deleten en een nieuwe upload of is dat lastig/niet nodig?
Ik zal zeker minimaal 1 categorie gaan toevoegen aan de uploads, zodat deze goed terecht gaat komen.
Ik heb op dit moment nog 1 vraagje voor je wat betreft het copyright. Ik zag dat er een verschil is tussen NL en Belgie. Als ik het goed lees mag je voor Belgie niet zomaar beelden/kunstwerken uploaden, ook al staan ze in een publieke omgeving >> moet in een panoramische opname zijn verwerkt??? [1], wat complex verhaal als ik maar weet wat het praktisch betekent. nogmaals dank Kees Recourt (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) >>> Kleine toevoeging, ik lees dat het verschil bij Belgie met name zit in moderne kunstwerken en niet de oude beelden/afbeeldingen die ik fotografeer.[reply]
Hoi Kees, graag gedaan.;) Je hoeft die foto niet opnieuw te uploaden, je kunt gewoon linken naar de versie met JPG in hoofdletters. Over het mogen publiceren van foto's van beelden, in België in de publieke ruimte aangetroffen: ik begrijp dat de Nederlandse wetgeving hier inderdaad ruimer in is. De crux zit hem waarschijnlijk in het punt dat we bij publicatie op Commons niet kunnen verhinderen dat zo'n foto commercieel gebruikt wordt. (Concreet voorbeeld: beeldhouwer X maakt een beeld dat in de Belgische gemeente Y wordt geplaatst, ik maak er een foto van en zet die op Commons, onder een toegelaten licentie, bijvoorbeelde die Creative Commons/GFDL-licentie. Een bedrijf dat ansichtkaarten op de markt brengt vindt dat zo'n mooie foto dat hij plotseling, voorzien van de tekst "Groeten uit Y". Op de achterkant staat iets als "Marktplein van Y, met het beeld "jongedame met opgestoken haar" door X; foto MartinD via Wikimedia Commons". X kan dan zeggen dat op deze manier men geld verdient aan zijn creativiteit. In Nederland is het antwoord dan "Dat is jammer voor jou, maar dan had je je beeld maar niet in de publieke ruimte moeten plaatsen, zie artikel zoveel (Nederlandse) auteurswet". Voor België lijkt de oplossing dan inderdaad te zijn dat je alleen "oud spul" fotografeert (maker 70 jaar geleden overleden, zoiets), of dat je zorgt dat zo'n beeld slechts een zeer klein onderdeel van de totale foto vormt ("de minimis"-regel).
Wederom dank voor de toelichting Martin, dat is een duidelijk verhaal en ik zal er rekening mee houden. Er zullen ongetwijfeld twijfelgevallen zijn, maar dat zien we dan wel. vriendelijke groet. Kees Recourt (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WhisperToMe, I'll put it on my todo-list. Please allow me some time, however. On the other hand, as far as I can see these buildings are just ordinary office buildings, with no particular architectural value. ;) Best regards, MartinD14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop you a line. In the meantime, do you have a more specific address of KLM Cityhopper? "Schiphol-Oost" covers rather a large area (about 500 x 500 meter, according to the map). They might not have a separate headquarters: they're a subsidiairy of KLM, covering the short-haul routes. SkyTeam's address might also prove a bit elusive: the Schiphol WTC is a building of some 200 meter, I would guess, used by a lot of companies. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some Google maps searches that I did to try to find the cityhopper building, I found a lovely building called "KLM Health Services" along Stationsplein Zuidwest. This Google map shows its position - I think that would make a great photo for the Commons - building has KLM Inflight Services and some other department that I can't read on the building. There's also the KLM Jet Center - that appears to be the commuter terminal - If you want, see if you can get a shot of the Schiphol Group Main building - http://www.wtcschiphol.nl/assets/routediscription.pdf shows where that is in relation to other schiphol buildings
Hi WhisperToMe, I managed to take a number of pictures, please see the latest additions to my user page. Martinair and Transavia are in the same building (not really a surprise, as they are both KLM subsidiairies) so they have the same picture. SkyTeam is somewhere in the WTC, but I couldn't find out where exactly. But the picture does show "WTC Schiphol".;) I'm afraid the weather was not that good, but in February in the Netherlands it rarely is. Nevertheless, I trust you will find these pictures helpful. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking these photos! They will be very helpful in articles about Schiphol Airport! I am now going to add them to the various Wikipedia articles! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added the Schiphol photos to various articles across the Wikipedias.
Anyway, I found that there's another place at Schiphol that needs a photo - Arkefly's head office, however, is at "Schiphol-Rijk"
Some news - I did some research on Martinair and Transavia. They moved into Transport relatively recently, and that building won some environmental awards. I'm glad we have a photo of it! Anyway, I got the addresses of the old head offices of the airlines.
Martinair: Havenmeesterweg 201 1118 CD Schiphol Centrum (in English it is named Schiphol Center) The Netherlands
Transavia.com: Westelijke Randweg 3, building Triport III 1118 CR Schiphol Airport
I'm not sure if markings are still on the building, but when you go to get Arkefly, it might be worthwhile to see what is on those two buildings WhisperToMe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know where those buildings are. The old Martinair head office is close to the main freight terminal, Transavia was next door to Martinair, but apparently has been in the Triport building for some time. I'll take a look, but I don;t think those buildings can be described in more flattering terms than "just office buildings". Beech Avenue is in Schiphol-Rijk, a cluster of office buildings (and a hotel) just to the south-east of the airport itself. I'll get back to you as soon as I have managed to visit the sites. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, but it's raining now, the weather forecast for the next days is awful, and it's just under an hour by bike.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, is the Convair Building the same thing as Building 70? If so, it seems like KLM Cityhopper has been in the same building since its founding...
Hmmm, Wikimapia says that the Convair Building is Building 102...
Okay, I just found the answer to my own question. Building 70 can't be the Convair Building because development on the Convair Building didn't begin until the late 1990s. I wonder where Building 70 is...
Hi WhisperToMe, the weather was much better this weekend.;) I have uploaded four pics, please see my user page. As to the Amsterdam Airlines building: this should be the correct address, but I couldn't find their name on it. As to the ArkeFly building: it didn't have their name on it, but the small orange sign to the right of the picture says this is the one. (As the sign said ArkeFly and not Arkefly, I've used this in the filename.) As to the former Martinair office: I'm fairly certain this is the building, but it didn't have the Martinair name on it anymore. As to Building 70: it has been pulled down, probably pretty recently. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the photos, MartinD! Now I am going to add them to Wikipedia articles - It's too bad that Building 70 is gone, but thank you for getting the rest of them! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a civil engineer, but it's something to do with the machine that is now digging a tunnel for the new metro line in Amsterdam, see nl:Noord/Zuidlijn (unfortunately in Dutch) and Category:North/South Line. If I had to make a guess, this marks the beginning of the two tunnels that are being dug from the Central Station to South Station. Delays to date: ginormous. Cost overruns: you don't want to know. Nobody wants to know. Nobody knows, actually. Several billions of euro's at the very least. Cheers, MartinD (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wij hebben je panoramafoto van de Groene Bedstee Arnhem op internet gevonden en wij zouden deze graag gebruiken om op een grote bouwkundige wand te plaatsen. Daarvoor hebben wij echter een bestand nodig met een hogere dpi. Hoe zou ik jou kunnen bereiken om deze foto eventueel te verkrijgen? Via internet krijg ik geen hits met contactgegevens van jou. Hoor graag of dit mogelijk is.
Vriendelijke groet,
Bas Enters
Hoi Bas, ik heb geen grotere versie van deze, van 9009 pixels breed. De foto's die ik gebruikt heb om deze panoramafoto van te maken heb ik, na ze aan elkaar geplakt te hebben, weggemikt, vrees ik. Je zult het hier dus even mee moeten doen. Je mag deze foto gebruiken volgens de Crative Commons-licentie van Wikimedia, wat ongeveer inhoudt dat gebruik gewoon toegestaan is mits met vermelding van de naam van de maker ervan. Ik zou het leuk vinden om te horen hoe hij gebruikt wordt; de term "grote bouwkundige wand" vind ik intrigerend.:) Kun je hier mee uit de voeten? Met vriendelijke groet, MartinD (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WhisperToMe, I have just uploaded a picture of the Corendon office, see File:Corendon office Lijnden.jpg. As to the office of Nippon Cargo Airline: I think it is at the cargo platform of Schiphol airport, and not visible from a public road. I did find a building of a company called Nippon Express, but I think they are a road haulage company. Anyway, one more airline company headquarters covered! Regards, MartinD (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WhisperToMe, I'm afraid this anonymous user might be correct. A number of years ago Martinair and Transavia had buildings next to each other. Additionally, ownership of these companies was, to some extent, in the same hands. This pic [2] seems to suggest that the Martinair building is not the one shown in my picture. So, it looks like I've mixed up the two buildings. My apologies! Best regards, MartinD (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, the one that is probably the correct one is even more boring. ;) I'll add it to my to-do list. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WHisperToMe, my apologies for having taken so long. I've been to Schiphol twice since January but was in a hurry to catch a plane (and it was at 4.30 AM or so). Yesterday I had time to take a look, but I'm afraid that the building I have linked above has been demolished. On this spot there is now the new baggage handling centre. On the other side (to the northwest of what is now called the Transview building) is a building from where catering trucks depart, on the ground floor, and 7 stories of what probably are offices. I can upload a photo, but at it is likely not to be a picture of any former Martinair office... Best regards, MartinD (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve added a portuguese description and a translation of portuguese to english of the depicted poster, as you requested. Hope it helped. Tm (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. I just made a little correction to the text as i initially misread it as "Recusai a mentir ao roubo e o crime que nos querem obrigar a aceitar. Agora todos os dias são de luta." instead of the correct one "Recusai a mentira, o roubo e o crime que nos querem obrigar a aceitar. Agora todos os dias são de luta.". Translated to english (and in bold the corrections) it reads now "Refuse the lie, the theft and crime that they want to force us to accept. Now all the days are days of struggle." instead of "Refuse to lie to the theft and crime that they want to force us to accept. Now all the days are days of struggle." Tm (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open![edit]
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.
Dear MartinD,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Ik ben een website aan het ontwikkelen op de Route des Alpes en ik heb hier je foto's van de "Cime de la Bonette" ontdekt, die je hebt samengesteld met AutoStitch.
Ik had graag een complete montage 360 noord + zuid opnieuw gedaan, zou je me willen voorzien van je originele foto's zodat ik verder kan gaan met dit werk. Het eindresultaat wordt u uiteraard toegestuurd en staat onder uw credit/auteursnaam.Bij voorbaat dank voor uw reactie.
Met vriendelijke groeten
DB DidierB91 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Didier, I think you are referring to these two photos?
Col de la Bonnette north
Col de la Bonnette south
I'm sorry, but I don't have the original photos anymore. I always come back from holidays with rather a lot of photos (several thousand...), and after stitching them together I keep the end result and throw away the individual photos. I hope you can still use the panoramics as I have uploaded them. Obviously, you can use them under the usual terms of Wikimedia Commons. With kind regards, MartinD (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dag MartinD, ter informatie, ik heb flink wat materiaal moeten verwijderen en heb een waarschuwing gegeven aan de uploader, zie User talk:Dendermonde vroeger & nu. Ondanks jouw tips en adviezen - waarvoor veel dank - gaat het uploaden door. Misschien kan iemand helpen met het publiceren van het materiaal op een andere manier, buiten de Wikimedia projecten, maar ook dat kan problemen opleveren vrees ik. Met vriendelijke groet, Ellywa (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellywa, ik heb de indruk dat je waarschuwing geholpen heeft, zie zijn bericht op zijn overlegpagina van 13:50 vandaag. Dat is mooi, hoezeer ik de teleurstelling van deze meneer ook begrijp. Met vriendelijke groet, MartinD (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi MartinD, Hier voegde JopkeB de categorie voor onbekende locaties toe. Maar voor jou is het vast een peulenschilletje om te achterhalen in welke bibliotheek dat was? Groet, Apdency (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Klopt, was in Uithoorn, ben daar (toevallig) vrijwilliger. Maar ik vond het niet zo van belang om te vermelden waar het was, het ging me om deze vorm van "ondanks Corona toch nog een beetje open kunnen zijn". Overigens zijn we inmiddels al weer vertrokken uit dit gebouw, was een tussenoplossing in afwachting van nieuwbouw die inmiddels betrokken is. Hoe regelen we dit verder? Zal ik JopkeB een berichtje sturen? Groet, MartinD (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ik kan je redenering volgen, voeg soms zelf ook bewust geen informatie over een bepaalde scène toe, zoals bij een wethouder die sprak bij de lokale intocht van Sinterklaas. Hij heeft die functie, heet zus en zo, zei iets in een microfoon en dat is genoeg, vond ik.
Wat verder nog te regelen? Tja, leuke vraag. Er bestaat dacht ik geen categorie voor niet-relevante of om een andere reden bewust weggelaten locaties. JopkeB mag iets verzinnen. Dank, groet, Apdency (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Het kan interessant zijn voor iemand die een foto zoekt van de (voormalige) bibliotheek in Uithoorn, temeer daar dit de enige foto is die ik het van dit interieur kan vinden. Daarom wil ik graag deze extra informatie toch toevoegen. Akkoord? JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ik vind het prima! Maar dit was dus een tussenoplossing, we mochten tijdelijk in een leegstaande winkel intrekken. Ben nog wel bezig met een foto van het interieur van de nieuwe lokatie, wat er (al zeg ik het zelf) heel gezellig uitziet. Maar dat hangt nog op toestemming van zowel de stichting die de bieb runt als de interieurarchitect. Mvg, MartinD (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dank voor je snelle reactie. Ik heb aan de beschrijving toegevoegd: "Dit is een tijdelijke lokatie van de bibliotheek in Uithoorn, Noord-Holland." en heb de categorieën daarop aangepast. Als er foto's zijn van de nieuwe bibliotheek, kunnen we een eigen categorie voor Uithoorn maken (iets met "libraries", meervoud). JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dank je wel! Tegen de tijd dat ik het akkoord heb voor die foto meld ik me bij je, is dat goed? De foto die ik wel heb (geen auteursrechtproblemen want genomen vanaf de openbare weg is "Uithoorn library exterior.jpg". Mvg, MartinD (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interieur bibliotheek Uithoorn Ik heb inmiddels toestemming ("van iedereen die er iets mee te maken heeft", aldus mijn contactpersoon); dit is hem. Ziet er best gezellig uit. Mvg, MartinD (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]
2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
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!
2008
1900
Resolved
Col de la Bonnette north
Col de la Bonnette south
![[2]](http://www.google.nl/imgres?start=339&num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1280&bih=919&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ywt2K5VzCxCKQM:&imgrefurl=http://straatkaart.nl/1118CB-Havenmeesterweg/media_fotos/kantoor-martinair-schiphol-centrum-2lJ/&docid=ts8pS-yeJVdXTM&imgurl=http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/25324118.jpg&w=3008&h=2000&ei=OfriUO2_LYfV0QXX14DgAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=397&vpy=165&dur=2052&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=156&ty=124&sig=112987977686106078896&page=11&tbnh=154&tbnw=238&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:70,s:300,i:214){kind=link}
