User talk:1Veertje/Archive 4

I'm aware that

• File:Eddie from Ohio.jpg
• File:Electric_Guest.jpg
• File:Michael Kiwanuka.jpg
• File:Eddie from Ohio2.jpg
• File:80th_birthday_of_George_Gruntz.jpg
• File:Mani (band).jpg
• File:Butterscotch_at_Montreux_Jazz_Festival.jpg

should have their source added to it. They are somewhere on http://jeroen.knoworries.nl/photo/index.php, I have difficulties finding them among the 300+ pictures. --Vera (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When do you plan to add valid sources to those images? --High Contrast (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to give valid sources for those images? By now, there is no acceptable source information. --High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked again, and could only find the last file uploaded to his photo site. It seems Jeroen forgot to upload the photographs of one particular night. He just got back from a fairly long vacation, but I've e-mailed him and he said he would look into it. --Vera (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there is still little hope that finally all images liste above get proper sources, isn't it? Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jeroen has found the time inbetween his world travels to upload the pictures of that date. The CC license can't be seen since the software of his picture album got updated though. I've asked him to upload a picture that states there is a CC license. --Vera (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You know that it is your job to bring clear evidence for a free licensing. --High Contrast (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Vera (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 1Veertje:) I noticed there was no action taken after this image was tagged and nominated for deletion: Deletion requests/File:Saakashvili Latsabidze Giorgi.JPG I think it would be appropriate now to keep this image since the nominator has no provided other sources. I would appreciate your consideration. Best,68.4.237.42 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it, but please also look at the notice at the top of this page. --Vera (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted, my apologies. By the way this was also another image I was talking about: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_perfoming_in_Pennsylvania_(Opera_House).jpg Thanks so much for helping! Best, 216.3.101.62 01:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Vera (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DO YOU DELETE MY ARTWORKS ?! This is unbearable! How can you be an administrator, if you don't even think of ASKING, before you delete something?? --Myriam Thyes 22:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold your horses, there is nothing illegal about keeping out copyright violations. In 9/10 cases pictures taken at exhibitions aren't taken by the artist him/herself. Please see Commons:UPOLICY#Famous_people

Once more: As I said, I uploaded my own photos of my own artworks - and I declared this in the upload procedure. You don't have the right to delete them. Undelete them NOW. --Myriam Thyes 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Once more: YOU have to verify that you're Myriam Thyes through the OTRS system --Vera (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wilhelmus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Nice and very valuable. Added in the french WP. Furthermore, I love the melody of this anthem. Did you know that it is the most ancient national anthem in the world (1574) ? To be sung next end of April...--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Info :If you look the first letter of each verse (in red in this version), you will read the acrostic "WILLEM VAN NASSOV". Funny, isn't it ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did know that, but it's nice to see your enthusiasm :) --Vera (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my comments were not for you, as I was sure a dutch lady like you knows obviously that ! :) --Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vera. I came across File:Norderney Hafen Pano.jpg, and I was wondering if it might qualify as a quality image? I don't know much about QI/panos, so I thought I'd ask someone who does. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To nominate an image for QI, it has to be added to the candidate list, it will then be judged based on the image guidelines. They can be fairly nitpciky in there.--Vera (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. High Contrast has nominated it. INeverCry 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Handschrift Brussel p-37-38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Needs to correct some tilt/geometric distortion (easy to do)-- Alvesgaspar 13:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Like this? --1Veertje 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Looks ok. Mattbuck 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! --— Habib M'HENNI ^[Message] 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible to get a more detailed description of the copyright violation in my file? User_talk:WissensDürster#File:Stra.C3.9Fenmalerwettbewerb_in_Geldern_2011_Bild_4.jpg I actually can't remember that well what the picture contained, and therefore don't know what i've done wrong. Thx, --WissensDürster (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a chalk street drawing of Spongebob's Patrick. Chalk drawings in public would be under Panorama freedom, but in this case it's a derivative work of a copyright protected cartoon character. Like, in this case the manufacturer must have gotten a license to produce this derivative work, in case of the chalk drawing most likely not.--Vera (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I really liked my photos, used in several Wikipedias ._. But thanks for the explanation :) --WissensDürster (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question How can you be so sure that the manufacturer of the image you mentioned must have gotten the appropriate license? Deleting or not deleting a photograph on a personal assumption is just plain foolish. Regards. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does manufacturer stand for the legal person who owns the rights of the cartoon or the person who draws the pictures? And is it me who has to have the permission from the painter or the painter from the copyrightholder? --WissensDürster (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright, when it was written at the beginning of the 20th century, was meant for manufacturers, not for the greater public. The one making the drawing should get permission from the copyright holder to do so. Your photograph had 3 layers of copyright Spongebob > chalk drawer > photographer, the first of which didn't get permission, the seccond didn't have copyright protection because of FOP. Like with most street art there are 2 layers, the local creation and the photographer.--Vera (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vera, The image that you have tagged for nomination [[1]]had already been put through a deletion nomination and it was decided to be kept, and since no new evidence or complaints have surfaced, except your opinion, I think that the renomination for deletion is pointless. I strongly disagree on censorship attempts that are based on "suspicion" at best or ignorance at worst. The image depicts a cartoon character in a news worthy event, being that the Leon Hot Air Balloon Festival is the second largest ballonn festival in the world. It takes place on public land and it is a public event, so as a news worthy event or editorial image it is fair game. True, the character has a prominent role, but it is shown as a hot air balloon among others, in its intended context. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read up on assuming good faith before assuming malice –Vera (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you see that I am assuming malice? You are the one assuming a copyright violation contrary to an established opinion that the image is safe. I am simply stating my disagreement about wanting to judge a judged matter. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please ~undone your protection for me insert the OTRS permission. Thanks. Willy Weazley 22:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Vera (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Thank you.Willy Weazley 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! De Porceleyne Fles - Honselersdijk.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made all this pictures by my self, all of them are out of my collection. Thes are all fabrice made badges. So it is NOT a photo of a photo. It is like a photo of a car, house and so one.. of a real item. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't just pieces of fabric, these are pieces of art work made out of fabric. They aren't just utility object but specifically designed to convey a symbolic meaning. Making photographs of 2D artwork doesn't require enough artistic input to even add a layer of copyright to it, so simple badges like this one are in the public domain. --Vera (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem, (if you buy a BMW and made a picture of it.. it is still the desingwork of BMW but you can put the picture up here ). Thes badges are all in relation with the swiss army some are old ones who are no more in use some are also unique one who are relatet to a speciall mission or unit). It not a copy of a picture it is all a Potho /scan of real 3Dimensional Objects i have bought or get in my service. If you think i chose the wrong Licence "Lizen", please tell me what licence you think is correct..bbetter change the licence than delet everything.

Hornet Driver (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a difference between my bike and my copies of the Harry Potter novels, one is protected by copyright, the other is not. I do own the books, but I don't own the copyright and thus can't publish reproductions of them. In the case of the badges, it is irrelevant that you own them.

I haven't nominated them all for deletion, the 2 UN badges are now licensed with {{PD-UN}}, others with {{Pd-ineligible}} - Vera (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case if you say not the item counts, I have just to change the licence, no need to deelet it, then it is the same licence like for example a picture made by USAs NASA. So the desing is by the swiss goverment. What licence is the correct one for goverment desings? Hornet Driver (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there are a few Badges (i don't have uploadet them yet), Swiss air Force Badges I have desinged by my self (I am in Military Duty at the swiss air Force) what licence is correct for them? Thank you. Hornet Driver (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would this one fit ? GNU General Public License (GPL) ? Hornet Driver (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Switzerland-official}} is way more restrictive than {{PD-USGov}}. When a creative work is created during employed transfers the copyright to the employer. There really isn't much to do here - Vera (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I saw that you used this {{PD-Switzerland-official}} now on one of the Badges. Do you think it is possible to restore the deleted ones and give them this Licence? I would use this also for all other badges I havent uploadet yet (also for the ones i desinged in Swiss Air Force Service). Unfortunately I was not fast enough to change them into correct licence before they get deleted, I would bee thankfull (if possible) you can give me advice how I can fix this with the deletet ones correctly. Thanks -Hornet Driver (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's this file you are talking about, whose license I changed not to the before mentioned license but to {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}}. Coa meaning Coats of Arms. As you can see the insignia is an ensemble of COA's. This is an exception rather than the rule and should illustrate how carefully I went over all your badges. I went over them several times this afternoon. --Vera (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'don't understand the difference. this one is is a Coat of Arms who is showing some of the swiss cantons, but it is like all the other Badges a Coats of Arms of a swiss Military Unit, also i don't understand why (with the correct Licence of corse) why this should not fit for all this Military Badges but on the other hand, on the Page about the Swiss air force you can see the Insignea of the swiss air Force (a few of the from me uploded badges are simelar in symbolic to this). I think if this is possible then should be a way to finde a correct licence for this badges. Hornet Driver (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IF you were to click on it, you would see that this file isn't actually hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The English Wikipedia project allows for files that do have copyright protection to be used under fair use, as long as it is done sparingly. A coat of arms is an insignia, an insignia isn't necessaries a COA. I have taken the existence of {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} into consideration when I made my nomination for deletion (deletion is at least a 2 step process, I don't nominate ánd delete, another admin also takes a look). --Vera (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. now i understand this with the insignia. But i still dont understand what's the differend betwwen the coat of arms you made the {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} and all the othe Badges who are to coat of arms. they are all, Badges of the swiss Military, also the badges with the swiss cross you gave a other licence. One of this Licence should fit for them i think. Are they (because they are from the goverment) not the same like a insigne of a canton ( canton zurich for eg.?). Hornet Driver (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be honest here, had you not known about the copyright regulating COA's, would you have ever described these badges as being a form sort of COA? There is no license suited for these badges, otherwise I would have changed the license. COA's are associated with one institution, usually a municipality or other geographic unit. Please stop flooding Commons with copyright violations, or you will be blocked indefinitely. --Vera (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Look I didn't knew before about this COA , i dident know before even that this exist. Then when I saw that you used this for this one badge I was thinking this is the right one for this badges (you can check the time, I used the COA some time after you changed this one Badge to COA). Also I had translatet "Coats of Arms" in my native Langunage German, in German this can be translatet as "Wappen" (some Kinde of Flagg... Like Wappen of Canton Bern) but it can also transferet as a "color/insignea of Weapons.. "Einheits Abzeichen" ..Unit Badge (of Military or Police ) so i was thinking this is correct. How every I think all this Licences and ruls are very complicatet . On one hand pictures made by NASA are free to use but from the Swiss Air Force not. Also I saw for example that Photos of Swiss Car Licence Plates are upoladet under cc , but the desing and owner of the care licenceplates is the goverment too (not only of a Miltary car plate, also every civil careplate in switzerland ). You said this COA fits to.. "or other geographic unitre re". Would this not fit to some of the badges? Some are Relatet to geographic Units, for example FlSt2 has the Gruyere Bird and its homebase is Payerne, Flugplatzkompanie 13 is working only on Meiringen AFB, or the WEF Badges the WEF is relatet to the Town of Davos where the World Economic Forum is held. and so one.. If this would be possible , some of the pictures can get rescued from deleting. Would it be a possible solution if the uploade is made by the goverment it self? I have still a few badges who i think they are so simple that uploading should not be a problem, but I don't want upload them and you get angry because of this. Hornet Driver (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are license plates published under a CC license, they should actually be filed under {{PD-ineligible}}, since it is simple text on a rectangle. I've changed the license on a handful of your badges to this license, as you can see in your upload history. It could be that there were some badges that depicted a COA, but it would have been hard to judge this based on the description you provided on the badges. this file had the COA depicted in a Wappen (Dutch: Wapen) shape, but in other cases it would be helpful to link to a graphical version in the manned that I just did with that file, or site a government website as a source. If you coud make a list of files that fall under this category, I will have a second look at them. I already looked at the Payerne logo, but can't find it being used by the local municipality, not on their website or on their Wikipedia page. If the government entity were to release the badge designs under a CC license, they would have to go through our OTRS verification system. This is a system where official e-mails are checked and verified. If you choose to go through this process, determining who has the authority to release the copyright won't be easy I think. After getting them to agree, please ask them to fill out the standard verification form, for easy processing. --Vera (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the informations. Oh this OTRS sounds interesting but if I trye this way it will need a long time to get to to the right person and do all this (in switzerland in the Military jobs are made from many differend persons because usualy men in switzerland serve only a few weeks in a year military service). about the "Gruyere Bird " of the FlSt2 its not for the City Payerne it self it is from the Region (see:[2] ). Sometimes on Military Badges is a region given in name and in something in the emblem, for eg. the Armasuisse badge has written Emmen (a Town and AFB) and and behinde the Test aircraft is Mt.Pilatus). Sometimes is no region written on it but the picture implyfy this for eg FlKp20 the sky behinde the MirageIIIS shows the symbols of the flagg of Canton Nidwalden, or Flpl abt3 behinde the F-5 the sky shows Stars of the flagg of Canton Vallis. the hard ones are they with no sign of a region, like ADDC Batman (but Military Skyguide is placed at Dübendorf AFB, also Hard are FlSt11 and FlSt8, theyer Homebase is Meiringen AFB but a Tiger and a swordfish dont help much to identfy this. I can order quit a lot of the badges relate to a region, but how is the best way to do this? Some Badges can be found on the Swiss Army / Air Force homepage too but of corse only a few. And also this will need some time, because i can't spend all day on this topic, so some patience would be helpful. bye Hornet Driver (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FlKp20 still has a fighter yet on it next to the COA, so a COA license won't suffice. Sword fish and tigers aren't the sort of topics one usually finds on COA's in Europe (there are Tigers in heraldry, but those are usually from the tropics). As I said before, we are concerned with copyright, not ownership. If there is a photograph on the army's website of a badge that is either a depiction of COA elements, or not complex enough to get copyright protection, then you can copy the photograph from their website without having to order it.--Vera (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is the consent form in German--Vera (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.I see the problem with that many military badges are in desing too far a way to fit with the COA. A few Badges can be found on the Swiss air Force Homepage and probably used in the same way like the Swiss Air Force Logo on wikipedia,[3],old badges [4] and the FLORAKO Logo[5]. Because there are only this Badges on the page and no collection of all Badges (especaly from the old ones)I put the scans I made of them to the Air Force. Bye Hornet Driver (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed my pictures (as picture saved) past to the military) they will uplode them In some time (I can't say how long it took) then it will be uplodate by the goverment (easy to see as the owner of this desings by the IP-Adress , because the swiss goverment has specila IP Numbers). Hornet Driver (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS verification would still be required. --Vera (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vera. I've now deleted 500+ images uploaded by this user. The user is continuing to upload the same kind of images under the Swiss COA tag. I've blocked the user for 1 day so that we can get this situation figured out without continuous, possibly problematic, uploads. Feel free of course to adjust or lift the block as needed. INeverCry 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the rest of the images you speedy tagged. I hope this user doesn't start back up with mass uploading these patches... INeverCry 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Vera (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..should be marked per {{Delete}} instead of {{Copyvio}} ..as they do not fall under the conditions for speedy deletion. Especially if the cases are not obvious and need a certain review. Regards, --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should be more specific about which DR you're talking about. --Vera (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Packaging images uploaded by User LZ6387 (various images fall below threshold of originality here) ..but I've meant this as a general advice for handling not obvious copyvio's or copyvio's where you are not really sure. Particularly if yourself use the word "possible" within the comment line. --Alexrk2 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no violations of all the files of high-resolution , specifically uploaded the photo without any processing, that would show you: File:SELIGER 2007.JPG and File:SELIGER 2007 (2).JPG. The same can upload and my other own work without any processing . Please remove the template -- Artur Pirojkov (Δ) 20:24, 09 March 2013 (UTC)

It is really beyond me why you think having a high resolution copyright violation makes it any less a copyright violation. --Vera (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's my work and I photographed these tickets -- Artur Pirojkov (Δ) 22:45, 09 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking a picture of a copyrighted work does not give you the copyright. --Vera (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to would take pictures of the car I need a permission of its owner or the manufacturer :-) ? , and If I want to take pictures of the building I need permission to the architect :-) ?. Copyright is applicable here at the pictures and not something that I photographed. -- Artur Pirojkov (Δ) 23:30, 09 March 2013 (UTC)

Utility objects, such as cars, are not copyrightable. Wheater or not you can publish a picture of a building depends on the local freedom of panorama legislation. These are 2D graphic designs that you didn't make, yet want to reproduce. A car can't easily be reproduced, copyright exists precisely for objects that can be copied. --Vera (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want, you can delete, You do not please him. -- Artur Pirojkov (Δ) 23:50, 09 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop. If you are talking about the logo it consists of simple geometric shapes, and hence not the author did not apply Template:PD-textlogo If you want you can put and the Template:Trademarked -- Artur Pirojkov (Δ) 23:50, 09 March 2013 (UTC)

All the pictures uploaded by me are taken by myself using my own camera. Your accusation of copy vioaltion is totally groundless. Please provide the URL that you think my uploads are violating. Otherwise, please get my photos back.螺钉 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you were to read the note I left on your talk page. Your photographs featured copyright protected Product packaging, making them not fit for Commons- Vera (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vera, Instead of provocative threats it would be more helpful if you could specify exactly which images you regard as being possible copyright violations and why. Paul venter (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vera, well your like-minded censors deleted my image #REDIRECT[[6]]and I am really not pleased considering the fact that your opinion and your friend´s are partial at best. Furthermore, it is very interesting how some of you erect yourselves as defenders of Commons´s policy and delete other people´s valuable work left and right, alleging all sorts of violations, and yet you turn a blind eye to your own violations of Common´s policies, specifically the one relating to the Project Scope. You have many, many images that are wasting valuable storage space with images that are clearly “out of scope.” Anyone who visits your gallery will attest to that. And different than you, I provide a link that if you read it, will convince you of how you violate with impunity the rules of the game. [[7]]. If I were to nominate en masse your out of scope images, I would at least be threatened with a block, or blocked. As Julius Ceasar once said: “Ceasar´s wife must be above suspicion.” --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Veertje, could you kindly check whether this image has a permission. Prima facie it doesn't seem to have one, despite uploader not being the author. On the other hand, most uploads of this uploader have OTRS permissions and this one seems to come from the same dutch institution. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first upload was done by User:Katrienhuybrechts, User:Ingejooris only overwrote the file with the OTRS ticket. I've protected this file for a week so that Inge won't continue this edit war. As it looks the me, she knows the author personally. That doesn't mean she is associated with her publisher. She has to go through OTRS to keep her uploads up. --Vera (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen, you've already found the OTRS ticket. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was buried in the edit history. --Vera (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:HBS-Craeyenhout 05.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Het Hele Westland.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Veertje, I've started a discussion related to Tomascastelazo's behaviour at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Tomascastelazo. I've mentioned you as a target of his inappropriate comments. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Vera (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Dag Vera, Ook voor jou een ster van verdienste. Pas toen ik Fae een wikilove stuurde begreep ik wat je bedoelde met liever een sterretje dan eten en katjes. Je hebt je ster wat mij betreft helemaal verdiend! Microtoerisme (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Veertje, could you take a look at this image, as it is sourced to a Dutch archive. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The award ceremony for the World Press Photo have been held in NL for ages, that doesn't give them or our archive the copyright though. GaHetNa doesn't have a lot of CC pictures. If this was taken from their website, it is likely to be a derivative work, like this --Vera (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, deletion seems necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madam! I had uploaded the above file on 12 May 2012. I was austonished to see that it was nominated for deletion by an User:Rahul Bott on 25 April 2013 here. Although I have already given my clarification there yet I am afraid that they can delete it. Since you hold a responsible post of administrator on wikicommons your intervention is immediately required in this matter. Hoping for the justice. Yours Krantmlverma (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madam Veertje! Thank you very much for your kind cooperation and justified comments on the above file's notification, although its problem has not been fixed as yet. Today I have uploaded this file of Prof. Rajendra Singh, former chief of R.S.S. in India. After uploading I found it is blurry. Would you please help me to improve it? For that I will be again thankful to you. Krantmlverma (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispite what some television shows might pretend, photographs can't just be "enhanced". There is some confusion about the authorship of the original photo though. Just because you own a photograph, doesn't mean you own the copyright and thereby the right to release that copyright. That copyright lies with the person that held the camera when the picture was taken, or with the company he/she was working for. --Vera (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veeertje Madam! Thank you so much for helping me. Since my son Swadesh Gaurav had taken all the photographs of the release ceremony with a manual camera. All of snap shots are with me. I have added the desired information and uploaded a new version of higher resolution of the same image from my personal laptop pictures. Kindly check it and fix the problem. Krantmlverma (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baptisten kerk Sneek.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

And also:

• File:Doopsgezinde Kerk Sneek.jpg
• File:Ichtuskerk, Sneek.jpg
• File:Interieur Doopsgezinde Kerk Sneek.jpg
• File:Nieuw Apostolische kerk Sneek.JPG
• File:Noorderkerk Sneek.JPG
• File:Witte Kerkje Sneek.JPG

Yours sincerely, Vera (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste 1Veertje, Ik ben niet heel handig met fotobewerking. Lukt het jou om de foto van David Cohen [[8]] zo te bewerken dat de foto er normaal uitziet? Met vrindelike groet, Vysotsky (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ik heb 't een beetje druk met WLM dingen, je kan denk ik beter een request achter laten bij het graphics lab --Vera (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veertje Madam! Since my son Swadesh Gaurav had taken all the photographs of the release ceremony with a manual camera. All of snap shots are with me. I have added the desired information and uploaded a new version of higher resolution of the same image from my personal laptop pictures. As suggested by you hereinabove I have given this information to you and accordingly edited the file also. But today I found another User:Sitush nominated it for deletion. Since you are the administrator here on wikicommons here I need your help to review this case otherwise it would be very difficult for me to contribute here. With regards Krantmlverma (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion inside the DR. --Vera (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suster 1Veertje - your request is done. Pls visit the lab to check the svg's. --Maxxl2 - talk 14:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliment. You made a lot of those signs yourself. What was wrong with the ones you requested? --Maxxl2 - talk 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found these a bit too difficult. The others were mostly just taking work of User:Arch and adapting it. Could you adjust the color scheme for Ermelo? I tried to change white > yellow, black > blue and blue > other blue myself, but the result isn't looking very well :S. --Vera (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I purified the colours a bit, probably a bit to much. I'll try to change a bit later today. By the way, isn't it a pitty that Arch has stopped contributing here. Is there a chance to encourage him to rejoin? --Maxxl2 - talk 16:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a real pitty. As far as I can tell, it was because of just one DR. I could sure use his help since I'm getting 100+ photographs of these shields mailed to me this week from the company that produced them. I could ask around to see if anyone in Wikimedia Nederland knew him--Vera (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope Arch will return soon. I like his graphic style but more I admire his photos. Regarding the monument shields I was sure there was only one standard blue for the squares and a white background and the shades of white were caused be deterioration. BTW, I changed the colours using a text editor and just replaced the colour values: white #ffffff>#f7f9b0, blue #214478>#20336e and black #000000>#20336e. This way is more simple then using Inkscape. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any help in the future. --Maxxl2 - talk 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the blue/white was originally meant for buildings that shouldn't be shot during war time, but in popular culture grew to designate rijksmonumenten (federal/national monuments). These shields are for the municipal monuments, whose photographs can compete in WLM this year for the first time. There is still a long way to go to complete the lists of these monuments though, since every single municipality (~410) needs to have their website searched or even contacted and has their list in their own format. You can see our progress here. --Vera (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may want to look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Your_help_is_requested, as a comment might help. --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1920 election poster SDAP.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Tekstman (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vera.

Hoe gaat het met U ? (Difficult to say for French, but very funny....)

Could you please have a little look to this image and to the file description, please ?

When he sent the photo to the French Geographical Society in 1882, the man sent a letter too (please see below the file), where he explains himself (in french) that he is Dutch, and not German, even if he was born in Darmstadt, Germany.

The NLWP says that he is Duits, and this is wrong, even if he is van duitse bloed .

My practice of dutch language is very low, and I'm not able to correct the NL article, and the subsequent categories.

Do you think you could take a moment to update this ?

Thank you in advance, and...Tot ziens !

--Jebulon (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you managed to fix it yourself! --Vera (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dag, ik raakte op commons verstrikt in de naamgeving Menaldumadeel - Menameradiel. Uitgaande van de Nederlandse naam op de Nederlandse wiki, en van de officiële Friese naam op Commons, heb ik een paar dingen ad-hoc opgelost ==> Commonscat op de nl-wiki aangepast van Menaldumadeel naar Menameradiel en de nl:interwikilink op commons naar nl:Menaldumadeel aangepast. Ook heb ik op commons de categorie voor de kaarten uitgebreid: In Category:Maps of Menaldumadeel staan nu de kaarten met onderschrift Menaldumadeel bijeen, en dit is nu een subcategorie van Category:Maps of Menameradiel. Kun je hiermee akkoord gaan? Vr. gr. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben zo vrij geweest om de categoriën van de kaarten samen te voegen en category redirects aan te maken. --Vera (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zag 't, is goed. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 't is niet helemaal goed : Category:Locator maps of neighborhoods in Menaldumadiel ==> Category:Locator maps of neighborhoods in Menameradiel. Gecorrigeerd --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vraagje: Ik categoriseer veel plaatjes in Commons en gewoonlijk zet ik gelijk de bijl in naar mijn ogen onjuist geplaatste categorieën. Maar hier doe ik eerst even een stapje terug:

Category:Stepped gables in the Netherlands

Die van Dordrecht zouden namelijk naar Zuid-Holland moeten. Maar belangrijker is de vraag waarom de Dordtse trapgevels een andere naam hebben dan de overige in Nederland. Als dat niet zo is, kunnen ze eerst naar Category:Stepped gables in Dordrecht en die op zijn beurt weer naar Category:Stepped gables in South Holland. Zie ik dat juist? --Stunteltje (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Een Dordtse gevel is een subtype trapgevel die niet per sé in Zuid-Holland voor te komen: het is een type trapgevel die werd gemetseld door metselaars uit Dordrecht. De meesten staan wel in Dordrecht omdat het een meesterproef was, maar niet allemaal. --Vera (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puik, met mijn dank. Vandaar dat hij ook elders te vinden was. Dat zorgde er voor dat ik het al vreemd vond. Ik blijf er dus af. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esta fotografía es mía y Luis Losada Pescador la ha colgado después de mí en su página web. Es decir, es de mi propiedad y yo la he dispuesto en Wikipedia y él la ha cogido de allí para colgarla en la otra web suya.

Les ruego que no borren la foto y me expliquen qué tengo que hacer para explicar esto bien.

Muchas gracias.

--Mariamartinezlopez (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you posted is a cropped and low resolution version, leading to doubt about you being the owner. Under the precautionary principle this picture is likely to be deleted. --Vera (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 1Veertje, please only use {{Copyvio}} for obvious cases. Commons:Freedom of panorama is never obvious, so please don't ever use it for FOP (or lack of FOP) cases. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obviously not under FOP, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-076.jpg --Vera (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dag. Zou je je ajb van User_talk:Multichill#Monumenten_en_duiding op de hoogte willen stellen. Zou je daarna templates als deze willen nalopen omdat het gebruik van dit symbool mbt rijksmonumenten onjuist en misleidend is voor de lezers. Dank en groet Sonty (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zou je om het centraal te houden een evt. reactie op Template talk:Rijksmonument#Gebruik van blauwwit schildje in templates willen plaatsen? Dank Sonty (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Veertje, U hebt het initiatief genomen om afbeeldingen van Leuk2 te verwijderen, die het copyright voor Wikipedia gekregen hebben: Luchtfoto's Estec en Orphanage (Aldo van Eyck) en 4 Diagoon-tekeningen (Herman Hertzberger). Omdat de correspondentie met alle copyright-bezitters in het Nederlands gevoerd is, lijkt het mij verstandig, deze correspondentie aan iemand bij Wikipedia te sturen, die de Nederlandse tekst (met toestemmingen) kan volgen. Voor het verkrijgen van een dergelijke email-adres zou ik u erkentelijk zijn. Vriendelijke groet Leuk2 (talk) 11:30 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Voor het verifiëren van auteursrechten via de e-mail hebben wij het OTRS-systeem, dat heeft een algemeen e-mailadres maar heeft ook Nederlandse vrijwilligers. Ik heb een keer een blog post geschreven hoe dat werkt. --Vera (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De luchtfoto's van Estec en Orphanage (architect Aldo van Eyck) horen bij de meest beroemde foto's van de Nederlandse architectuur in de 20ste eeuw en zijn een belangrijk onderdeel van de architectuurstroming Structuralism (architecture). Met tijd en moeite heb ik sinds 2009 ervoor gezorgd, de copyrights voor Wikipedia (Public Domain) te verkrijgen van de copyright-bezitters. Dat is gelukt. Met uw verdachtmakingen (I strongly suspect) suggereert u, dat ik gelogen heb bij de gekregen permissions. Wat mij vooral stoort is, dat u met uw verdachtmakingen een van de beroemde foto's tot 'deleten' gebracht hebt en dat de andere binnenkort eveneens uit Wikipedia verdwijnt. U nam het initiatief en had de 'macht' voor al deze acties. U zou de lopende actie ook kunnen herroepen en de afbeeldingen weer terugzetten. Vriendelijke groet Leuk2 (talk) 14:00 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Er was geen ferivicatie van de licentie, daarom verwijs ik nogmaals naar het OTRS systeem. Verwijdering van materiaal met tweifelachtige auteursrechten-status is nodig om dit een bron van vrije materialen te houden. Verwijdering is overigens geen solo actie: ik heb de foto's genomineerd voor verwijdering, een andere administrator heeft vervolgens het inderdaad tweifelachtig genoeg gevonden om het materiaal te verwijderen. Verwijdering is overigens niet permanent: achter de schermen staan de bestanden er nog wel. Als de licentie is geverifieerd via OTRS zullen ze weer teruggeplaatst worden.--Vera (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS systeem. Gisteren heb ik de verwijderde Estec-luchtfoto opnieuw geladen met de nieuwe naam "File:Estec.Aldo van Eyck.1c.gif". Tegelijkertijd heb ik een email gestuurd aan "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" met de copyright-correspondentie en de permission van de copyright-bezitter. De correspondentie is alleen te begrijpen door mensen, die de Nederlandse taal kennen. Misschien komt de correspondentie bij u terecht. Ik ben benieuwd of het nieuwe OTRS systeem werkt. Leuk2 (talk) 21:30 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nee, ik ben wel een keer gevraagd om bij het OTRS-team te komen maar ik vind 't te veel gedoe. Ik zit wel in OTRS voor het afhandelen van Wiki Loves Monuments monumentenlijsten, maar sinds de migratie naar het nieuwe OTRS kan ik er niets meer in vinden :S --Vera (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste 1Veertje, Wat is de reden dat je de foto van M.C.Escher die ik in de aula van begraafplaats Tolsteeg aan de Maansteenweg 1 in Utrecht heb gemaakt nomineert voor verwijderen? Vr. gr. Antoine.01 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gelieve de discussie te voeren in de DR --Vera (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vollenhove, ruïne Kasteel Toutenburg in park Oldruitenborgh RM520762.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice --Poco a poco 22:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oudgemaal en Schoorsteen te Poortvliet, Tholen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Insufficient description, but QI IMO--Lmbuga 15:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sint-Hippolytuskerk, Hervormde kerk.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! De Maria kerk in Wierum 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Havenlicht Stavoren.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 21:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zwartendijksterschans.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 35973-Domkerk Interieur.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Many flaws to be corrected first, before (possible) promotion, IMO. Lens distorsion (barrel): the extrême left pillar is not straight. Chromatic aberrations: around all light sources. Color: strange color distortion on the wall in background. Noise: noise is normal in an inside picture, but I think it is here a bit strong. All correctible, I guess.--Jebulon 17:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)  I did some work on this --1Veertje 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Acceptable now, IMO, thank you--Jebulon 09:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muiderpoort te Muiden vanuit de lucht.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 17:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 7940-Onze-Lieve-Vrouwetoren.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Halicki 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 517275-Emile van Loonhuis.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Halicki 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 526452-Fort Pampus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Could be a good FP candidate, IMO.--Jebulon 09:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 14916-Muurtoren aan de Oosterwalstraat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment The roof is slightly tilted to the left and some CAs are visible. Problems easy to fix imo. --JLPC 16:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)  Done --1Veertje 19:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Better now.--JLPC 10:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Vera. I asked the [Desk] - "how to cancel one image (old version)" - to eliminate this clear mistake I made, posting a dark version of the current version (historical example of rural architecture in the North part of Italy). I was told that is possible to eliminate a mistake, but only an adiministrator can do it. Thank you very much for your help. User: Esploratoreludwig

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Algemene begraafplaats Naaldwijk (5).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit curious as to why you would withdraw an image which was being promoted. Also, if you wish to withdraw an image the best way is to change /Nomination (or whatever) to /Withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it more as Mattbuck pressing the wrong button. He motivated his "promotion" as saying that he doesn't like the composition much. I tend to actually agree with him. --Vera (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't the one who promoted it, that was Ralf Roletschek - he just didn't set the parameters right, so instead of adding to my comment he added it to parameter 3 which doesn't do anything (think I'll do something about that). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now modified the templates so that if a 3rd parameter is called, it brings up a big red warning. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Veertje,

You nominate 22 pictures today as QI candidates. No offense, but many of us think that more than 5 nominations a day per nominator could be judged as "flooding". Could you please have a look to the QIC discussion page, there is an interesting debate, even not very new... And could you please consider, next time, to nominate not so many images ? Thank you very much.--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok-Vera (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/− Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear 1Veertje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Hoi, je bent nu de derde NL-er die dit bestand tagt, maar alle afbeeldingen van het Fairphone-project zijn CC-BY 3.0. Dat staat ook gewoon op de gelinkte site. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. ) Foto staat niet op de site van fairphone, en de licentie die jij noemt can ik niet zo 123 op hun site te vinden. Als dat wel ergens op de site staat, link dat dan in de bestandsomschrijving, zoals het OTRS template ook meld.
2. ) Het flickr account van Fairphone heeft voor deze foto een cc-by-nc licentie, wat niet compatible is met commons. --Vera (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

http://www.fairphone.com -> As a research project of Waag Society, Fairphone received funding from Stichting Doen and the NCDO. Fairphone won the ASN world prize in 2011. Since Fairphone operations started as a social enterprise it has received funding from Bethnal Green Ventures and Waag Products.

Source: Waag Society (fairphone owner): http://waag.org/en/project/fairphone-product --> See msg footer of photo link "(c) fairphone 2013" --> CC BY-3.0-nl

For more info about this, read comments in my administrator request.

Cheers, Alan ^(talk) 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even ter aanvullende informatie, op het moment van uploaden stond deze afbeelding in de slide-show waar CC-BY 3.0 onder staat. De afbeelding is geüpload door een administrator met OTRS toegang. Dat is dus iemand die vertrouwd wordt door de gemeenschap en goed thuis is in auteursrechten. Vervolgens heeft een andere administrator met OTRS toegang (ikzelf) je tag weggehaald. Wat je dan echt niet moet doen, is het bestand opnieuw taggen. Deze tags mogen alleen gebruikt worden voor gevallen waarin input van de gemeenschap niet nodig is. Als een administrator de tag weghaalt en je bent er nog steeds van overtuigd dat het niet goed zit met de auteursrechten, dan is de enige mogelijkheid die je nog hebt het starten van een normale DR. (Ik vind persoonlijk dat het niet nodig zou moeten zijn dat ik dit nu aan een collega-administrator moet vertellen.) Jcb (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]