User talk:MoiraMoira

Can you please check again this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Staatsiefoto-koningin-maxima---2018---erwin-olaf.jpg

Please read this first or check the website:

1: "The Government Information Service (RVD) expressly reserves all rights to the photographs under this heading. The photographs may however be downloaded and used for editorial purposes by news media, for display in public places, for private use and for educational purposes. No advance permission is required to place photographs on household items intended for public distribution. However, the RVD reserves the right to take action at a later date if it deems the use of the photographs or the manner in which they are made public to be incompatible with the dignity of the Royal House, to have a promotional purpose (advertising) or to be ideological in nature. The RVD will not respond to questions from third parties on whether legal or other action will be taken in given circumstances."

More information? https://www.royal-house.nl/photos/official-photographs

2: "Unless stated otherwise, CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) applies to the content on our website.

This means that the content on this website may be re-used freely, unless indicated otherwise in a copyright notice for a specific section. CC0 does not apply to photos, videos, infographics and other images. This means you are not permitted to re-use or share images, unless permission is clearly stated for a specific image."

More information: https://www.royal-house.nl/copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.adriaans (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MoriaMoria, you're flagging my wikicommon uploads. Why? The site they are from clearly states they are licensed under the creative commons.

I'd like to have my message at the bottom in your archive crossed out, because that message blown out of all proportions. Could you execute my request? MarkMu (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoiraMoira,
template (and any other) messages such as the ones that you put on User:Rvanderlinden belong on the talkpage, not on the userpage. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no affect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching RecentChanges to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sure will come in handy since I do follow up when copyvio images are uploaded on nl-wiki - often promotion articles. I then do take care when having to remove the article involved as nl-wiki admin also to follow up the pics on commons. Thank you for the trust. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to know if you could tell me which file you are trying to have deleted as File:Zbigniew Wąsiel Oslo 2009.JPG does not exist. Did you mean File:Zbigniew Wąsiel ( Oslo 2009 r.).JPG? The deletion request was not created properly and ended up in Category:Malformed deletion requests so I just wanted to know how to clean things up. Thanks--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed that nomination. I've deleted the image mentioned as promotional content. This image is uploaded by a user to promote Zbigniew Wasiel on multiple wikipedias. After checkuser requests many accounts have been found and globally locked. See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Maxxii/blockmsg. Silver Spoon (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I should have noticed that it had been deleted. Thanks for letting me know, I will clean up the malformed DR pages. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the confusion caused by my wrong clicking so something ended up where it should not be. Thank you for your help both. Hopefully next time I will not make the mistake again. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, Commons can be a confusing place. If you have any questions feel free to ask. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi MoiraMoira, op File:Ajax1.nl.jpg is {{PD-textlogo}} van toepassing. Het logo is te simpel om vatbaar te zijn voor copyright. Jcb (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prima - dank voor de feedback. Hoorde bij een reclamemaak account op nl-wiki vandaar dat ik het doorgaf. Is nu nergens meer in gebruik. MoiraMoira (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ik heb het nu genomineerd als 'out of scope'. Normaalgesproken wordt het dan over een week verwijderd. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kijk dat weet ik dan weer voor een volgende keer! Dank MoiraMoira (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I collapsed part of the discussion at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship_2). It wasn't my intention to put anyone off genuinely contributing to the discussion, only to mention the possibility of canvassing (and perhaps by mentioning it, to make it less likely to happen). Another user has suggested that part of your collapsed comment should be left visible (User_talk:Rd232#Jcb_de-admin); I think the best thing would be if you express your views again outside the collapsed discussion, as part of the voting or comments. regards, Rd232 (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some one commented upon my try to give perspective. I suggest you make my views visible again to contribute to a good discussion. MoiraMoira (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not just make new comments, copying some or all of what you said before? This is an easy problem for you to solve, hard for anyone else. Rd232 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You labelled my constructive comment as "hopefully a non-issue". I trust you can restore matters. MoiraMoira (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I labelled the entire discussion (which I started) as "hopefully a non-issue", and encouraged you to make more substantive comments about the broader questions in a more helpful context (outside that discussion). Could you be a bit more helpful here? Rd232 (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. You've moved comments relating to canvassing - the issue I was trying to put aside - out of that discussion, some of which comments aren't even yours. I've had to undo this. Seriously, can you please just write a new comment, or make a vote (with comment)? Is that so much to ask? If you absolutely cannot, then just remove the hat templates. Rd232 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that my writing was meant to be a part of a solution and that I do not prefer to be dragged into matters and become part of a problem so I leave it up to you whatever you feel is wisdom in this matter. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this can be regarded as trolling. When an editor removes comments from their talk page, it is rude to re-instate them, and given the nature of the comments, if you do such things again I will regard it as trolling and harrassment, and I won't hesitate to block you. Please consider this a friendly first, and only, warning. russavia (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification. You are very kind. I'd always liked to be called a trolling person but until now I did not know how to achieve this in all my wikiyears being helpful and nice and caring. I now have succeeded when I least expected it! Also love the harsh warning that I can expect a block. This is all most welcome and surprising and lovely. May I finally remind you to the commons policy in this which clearly states: Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. That perhaps may make you see the light in this matter. Please consider this a friendly first and only answer. MoiraMoira (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the policy states, I regard it as hostile to reinstate comments on a users talk page. Whether they are banned or not is irrelevant. However, in my personal opinion, them being banned only inflames things further. And if editors remove something from their talk page in future, you simply regard it as being received and read. No-one has to reply to anything on their talk page if they don't wish to, nor do they have to leave it there. The easy thing to do is to just leave them alone, and do something that is considered constructive instead. russavia (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• pong*

Freaky Fries (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gefeliciteerd met jullie nieuw aanwinst. Zorg er maar goed voor dan wordt-ie vanzelf groot en sterk! MoiraMoira (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi MoiraMoira, je hebt hier een copyvio tag verwijderd. Het betreft hier echter een afbeelding van een schilderij van deze week overleden Nederlandse schilder JCJ van der Heyden, en de foto is geupload door User:Oscar. Het auteursrecht lijkt me hier toch duidelijk: Opzettelijke schending van het auteursrecht zonder de vereiste voorafgaande toestemming van de maker of de eventuele rechthebbende geldt in Nederland als een misdrijf. Op het schilderij zit ook auteursrecht, en dat heb ik in deze discussie ook al uitgelegd. Zolang er geen toestemming is, is het publiceren van zulk (gedetailleerd) werk een copyvio. Of zie jij dat anders. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it differently that is why I asked an admin here to take a look into it. Afaik this is not outright copyright violation so a speedy delete is out of the question here. I am sure the uploader and admin wil look into matters first. MoiraMoira (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Mdd, Sorry dat ik ff inbreek. Typisch gevalletje OTRS-pending lijkt me. Geef Oscar even de tijd, toch? Groet, Lymantria (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymantria, met het plaatsen van de copyvio-tag hier heb ik aangegeven, dat het auteursrechtelijk niet klopt met die afbeelding. Dat jij als administrator vervolgens hier besluit, dat dit op dat moment een geval van OTRS pendeling is lijkt me (gezien het commentaar van Oscar net daarvoor) een prima oplossing.

Waar ik echter grote moeite mee heb, is de rel die Sir Statler hier en later ook MoiraMoira, VanBuren en RJB (hier) hieromtrent menen te moeten schoppen. Ik heb de situatie Oscar hier allemaal netjes stapsgewijs proberen uit te leggen. MoiraMoira schijnt nu te vinden, dat hem daarmee een groot onrecht heb aangedaan. Dat gaat er bij mij niet in.

Overigens heb ik in de verdere discussie op de OP van Oscar gesignaleerd, dat er een zelfde soort probleem lijkt te bestaan met de afbeelding van dit beeld en bijvoorbeeld de afbeeldingen van de installatie in deze categorie. Ik wil je hierbij verzoeken of je daar verder naar wil kijken? Als je vind dat ik in het vervolg een andere procedure dien te volgen, dan verneem ik dit graag. -- Mdd (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo MoiraMoira, please note http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Partij_Veilig_Maastricht.png&action=history Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the notification, the logo is no longer in use anyway since the article has been removed as not notable itmt. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but it is a existing party? We do not really have Wikipedia's notability guidelines - usually a bit lower since such stuff can be useful otherwise. Can you give me a link to the deletion discussion? Thank you Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal but this was a local split off name for which the made a new name of a now already defunct national (also split off) party that holds no seats anywhere and has been disbanded. See here and here. I never nominate matters here senseless, usually derives from my work as nl-wiki admin when I encounter articles to evaluate and remove after community approval/discussion and then take care the copyvio/out of scope/not notable/permission lacking pics no longer in use are also dealt with here. Kind regards and thank you, MoiraMoira (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single word with "Sassanian" or "Sassanid" was found in this source:

• Sergey A. Yatsenko: The Late Sogdian Costume (the 5th - 8th cc. AD), Ērān ud Anērān, Webfestschrift Marshak, 2003

In conrast, the source says following: "The grown-up men's kaftans on this stone engraving usually had >>two lapels<< in Turkic manner. On the whole, the costume of Sogd in the 6-th - 8-th cc. underwent Turkization in the biggest degree if compared to the costume of any other Iranian-speaking people."

We should change the data in the correct form. - Maikolaser (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2012 (CET)

There were some issues with the source of this file. It was retrieved in OTRS Permission, and I uploaded it with the short cut that I also use for wikiportrait-images (I use this for actually all images form OTRS). On OTRS we received permission from the magazine to use the image, they clearly put the image under ccbysa. Could you please reconsider your deletion template. Edoderoo (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the license statement before making a fuss. 3 words against 3 geometric shapes is very far from original enough to get copyright protection. - Vera (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop asking for verification of permission on files marked with {{PD-textlogo}} as they don't require one. If you think a file is too complex to get this license mark them with either {{Copyvio}} or {{Wrong license}} --Vera (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you tagged to this user a problem with ths permission of three pictures (1, 2, 3). I think that there are no problems with that files because there is a permission on OTRS (that one) which provide that the author of the pictures releases that images in CC-BY-SA. So I think that files shouldn't be deleted. Regards. Restu²⁰ 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I understand what's the problem: I'm an OTRS member. :-) Restu²⁰ 14:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem but thanx for the heads up. The otrs notifications were added by a non-otrs member but the permissions were in order. I forgot to remove the notices on the talk page which I just did. The person in question was cross wikip promo for a not notable person by the way. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Moira, Ik zag dat je twee door mij geüploade bestanden hebt genomineerd voor verwijdering vanwege de licentie. Het om de afbeelding Logo Café De Klep.jpg en Logo huisbier De Klep.jpg. Nu wist ik niet precies welke licentie ik uit de lijst moest selecteren, maar ik weet wel dat beide afbeeldingen rechtenvrij beschikbaar zijn. Kun jij me vertellen hoe ik dan de juiste licentiëring kan selecteren? Groet, Torval (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Als de afbeeldingen rechtenvrij zijn dan moeten de maker en rechthebbende dat *zelf* via de informatie die op de pagina's staat van die afbeeldingen gaan regelen. Dat kan jij helaas niet voor ze doen of ze moeten het helder zelf op hun website hebben vermeld: "Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information,". MoiraMoira (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb hem een email gestuurd met het verzoek om de gevraagde informatie te geven. Ik weet alleen niet zeker of dit binnen een week gebeurt, dus hopelijk gaat alles goed. Torval (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eindelijk ontmoeten we elkaar eens, zonder IP! Leuk. Wel ik wil je bedanken voor het nomineren van mijn bestanden, want eigenlijk heb ik reeds spijt dat ik ze aan wiki heb geschonken. Ik weet niet of het zo bedoeld was, maar je hebt me een dienst bewezen, bedankt. Ik vind het eigenlijk wel grappig hoe je sommige van mijn wijzigingen in WIKI.nl revert, je brengt meer schade aan zonder dat je eigenlijk leest wat ik schrijf!. Leuk in alle geval dat we hier kunnen overleggen op Commons. groeten, Carolus (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wat ben jij beleefd. Die mooie foto die ik voor mijn goede collega Andries heb gemaakt wordt verwijderd, waarom? En geen antwoord op mijn opmerking? Carolus (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss MoiraMoira, why don't you react?Carolus (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomineer niet zomaar een bestand dat zogezegd "niet encyclopedisch relevant is", maar de organisatie waarvan het logo is wél een artikel heeft! En stop met al mijn bestanden te nomineren... Wolf Lambert (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira, zou je er een beetje op willen letten dat je de richtlijnen zoals die op dit project gelden in acht neemt? Hier nomineer je bijvoorbeeld een bestand voor 'no permission', terwijl toestemming helemaal niet nodig is voor een PD-textlogo. En dan dat logo van JAC. Als een afbeelding in gebruik is in de artikelnaamruimte dan is het daarmee automatisch in scope en is 'out of scope' dus een ongeldige verwijderreden. Jcb (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zou opletten, deze persoon heeft de neiging anderen te blokkeren, zonder deftige uitleg.--Carolus (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira, nogmaals het verzoek geen PD-textlogo bestanden te nomineren als 'no permission'. Jcb (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira, hierbij opnieuw het verzoek geen 'no permission' te gebruiken als {{PD-textlogo}} duidelijk van toepassing is. Jcb (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira, Je hebt eergisteren opnieuw een rijtje logos genomineerd als 'no permission', terwijl {{PD-textlogo}} van toepassing is. Het gaat bijvoorbeeld om: File:Beurtvaartadres.logo.png. Ik vind het best vervelend dat ik al langere tijd de bewerkingen van een ervaren collega moet nalopen. Dit zou niet nodig moeten zijn. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira, als je denkt dat deze afbeeldingen auteursrechten schendt, dan graag een normale nominatie gebruiken, waarin je ook aangeeft waarom je denkt dat de CC licentie op de bron-website niet van toepassing is. Jcb (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira, ik weet niet wat precies de bedoeling was van het geknutsel op File:Logo fanfare Overmere.JPG, maar dit is zo echt niet de bedoeling. En nee, vijf woorden en een vierkantje zijn niet vatbaar voor copyright, maar dat proberen diverse gebruikers je al een jaar of wat uit te leggen. Feit is wel dat we op dit moment weer teveel onnodig werk aan je acties hebben en ik vind wel dat daar een einde aan moet komen. Ik verzoek je dringend om niet nog eens simpele tekstlogos te taggen met {no permission}. En al helemaal niet drie keer. Jcb (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jcb, please do not admonish me without reason. The logo is copyrighted. You did choose not to remove it and told me before if in doubt do a regular nomination so I did this motivated since it is not merely text and it is copyrighted as shown on the page and has not been given permission at all. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is clear: We have been trying to explain things to you for the past few years (see this very page) but without result. You insist that five words and a square would be copyrightable, but in none of the involved jurisdictions it is. See also: Commons:TOO#Commons_decisions. Then what happens at File:Logo fanfare Overmere.JPG: You tagged it as 'no permission', after which I kept it and added the right license. Then you tagged it for the second time, this time as 'copyvio'. I of course undid that, because a file that's not eligible for copyright, can in no way be a 'copyvio'. Then you tagged it for the third time, this time again as 'no permission', although permission is not needed for a file that's not eligible for copyright. Then you started pottering with the tag, to end up in a result where the file is no longer visually tagged, but where it effectively still is, being categorized as 'Media missing permission as of 13 December 2013'. You also removed the {{PD-textlogo}} template. I had to clean up the weird code you left. So please don't tell me that nothing happened. If you still think this logo is a copyright violation, you should no longer use 'no permission' and 'copyvio' tags. If necessary, we can enforce that. But a better option would be that you read COM:TOO and start acting accordingly. Still most of your taggings are rightly, but we don't want to keep patrolling your edits every day. Jcb (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoiraMoira, and thank you for your message. I put the other two missing informations, please, I ask to watch if everything is correct.

If not, please, tell me what I've to put more. Thanks a lot for your help!

Rei Momo (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

docs.drivers24.net tu jest strona, na tym samym serwerze jest ten system. Tworzę do niego dokumentację ponieważ jestem współtwórcą.. Wszystkie zrzuty, które tu będę umieszczał są tylko po to by stworzyć działającą instrukcję.

Hoi MoiraMoira, bedankt voor de waarschuwing. Helaas ben ik niet zo heel goed in het maken van Wikipedia pagina's en zo. De artiest in kwestie (Benjamin de Ruiter) en ik kennen elkaar persoonlijk en van het werk. Hij en ik houden vooral contact over zijn carrière via Facebook in privé. Misschien dat je eventueel contact met hem kan opnemen. Zijn FB-adres plaats ik hier niet, dus je zal hem even moeten zoeken. Toch bedankt voor de waarschuwing. Groeten, Ruurd Woltring (Overleg), vrijdag 11 juli 2014, 13:15:20

Hello, MoiraMoira. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am an user that is blocked and I need to unblock the account. User:MagogTheOgre said me that you did the block, because of a suspecting about my account as sockpuppet of Geógrafo23. Regards. --00:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hoe kan ik zien wat auteursrechtenschending is bij het uploaden van foto's? Ik heb namelijk een pagina op nl.wikipedia.org waar ik graag een foto zou veranderen. Maar dan moet ik er wel één van Google halen. BehhII (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Because you showed restraint, yet also firmness, when dealing with the issue of TBloemink and JurgenNL. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De laatste maanden ben ik actief op wikipedia en heb ook een aantal foto's geplaatst. Nu krijg ik een waarschuwing dat deze zijn genomineerd voor verwijdering omdat ik geen toestemming heb, incl. een krantenartikel en een zelfgemaakte foto. Zie https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oemoemenoe#Kennisgeving_verwijderverzoek. De foto's zijn meer dan 70 jaar oud en de fotograaf is in alle gevallen onbekend. Ze komen deels uit familiebezit, een collectie of uit een archief. Ik heb geen achtergrondkennis hoe ik daar mee moet omgaan. Kun je mij een korte toelichting of een verwijzing geven. En ook wat te doen als de maker onbekend is. Mag ik wel een foto gebruiken die elders op internet in gebruik is. Kan de verwijdering nog een moment uitgesteld worden? Met vriendelijke groeten, Oemoemenoe (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Oemoemenoe, ik heb commons admin Natuur12 gevraagd hiernaar te kijken. Ik heb ze niet genomineerd nu, dat was ene Taivo. Groet, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoiraMoira,

It came to my attention that this picture might not correspond with the description. I should clarify: the picture is made in 1969, digitalized in 2014. The Middelheim biannual is held since 1951. It is not taken from a book, but recently digitalized by me and the artist depicted.

The only online place this picture could be found is his Facebook page.

Is there an important step i am missing?

Greetings, Matthias

Здравствуйте! За что вы меня заблокировали nl.wikipedia.org? --DENAMAX (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moira,

I saw your message about this picture. There is a CC License for this image as you can see in the source file in Commons page. Here the link to the source CC 4.0. If an article related to this image is not good for a specific wikipedia, it will be deleted. But this is a Commons Wikimedia and the image has the proper license. Best regards --Airolo (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moira,

I saw the same message about this file. As you can see here CC 4.0 there is a CC regular License put down the photo, this is the official blog about him. Regards--Airolo (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the check. MoiraMoira (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo no subí esa img.

Beste MoiraMoira, je hebt de foto's op de pagina van Rijk Zwaan aangemerkt om te verwijderen. Dat is nu ook gebeurd. Maar ik begrijp niet precies waarom. De foto's zijn gemaakt door fotografen in dienst van Rijk Zwaan en het copyright berust bij Rijk Zwaan. Rijk Zwaan kan de foto's dus vrijelijk beschikbaar stellen. Een bewijs is daar niet van, hooguit staat het in het arbeidscontract. Weet jij hoe ik dit nu kenbaar maak op Wikipedia, zodat de foto's toegankelijk worden? Het is wel een leerzaam proces, het maken van zo'n pagina. Corianne RZ Communicatie (overleg) 31 aug 2016 10:44 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZ Communicatie (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZ Communicatie (talk • contribs) 09:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beste MoiraMoira. Ik ben de foto's opnieuw aan het uploaden en nu hopelijk volgens de regels van Wikipedia. Ik heb de fotograaf om toestemming gevraagd. Maar ik snap toch niet precies hoe het werkt en wat ik moet invullen. Een fotograaf heeft de foto's gemaakt, maar hij is in dienst bij Rijk Zwaan. Het copyright berust bij Rijk Zwaan en die geeft de foto's vrij. Dan kun je toch invullen dat het eigen werk is? Dat is toch het meest feitelijk? Groet, Corianne RZ Communicatie (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niet doen. Lees alstublieft [[1]] precies door en geef de foto's eerst vrij via de mail vanaf een bedrijfs-internetaansluiting. MoiraMoira (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ga je mij hier ook komen stalken en lastigvallen? Of ga je braaf zijn? --Carolus (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Clive Mendes.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Chyah (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago I blocked this user for 1 day for removing tagging from their own upload. Now they did it again, in combination with the troll nomination as mentioned above. Result: 1 month block for Chyah. Jcb (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx very much. I am currently investigating a whole sock farm operated by this person cross wiki triggered by an article on nl-wiki today and will get back to you about it. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoiraMoira, I saw your tag on the Dave Hakkens picture. Thanks for bringing into my attention this problem. You see, this is a crop taken from a Youtube video that explicitly says that is licensed under a Creative Commons license, right at the License section of the video description. If you follow the license's link at the description, you end up with the Youtube guidelines regarding the use of Creative Commons in Youtube videos. There, in the first paragraph of the article, it says: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY licence." If you follow the CC BY link, you find that it leads to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported; just like the one I stated in the file's licensing. I hope this clarifies the situation and please tell me if otherwise. Mescaicedo (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, ik zag dat er beelden zijn die ik heb geïmporteerd die ook online aanwezig zijn (en dat dit niet de policy is). Het beeld dat ik heb laten staan 'wasteboards squid.jpg wat niet verder op internet is te vinden. Maar ik zie dat het wel genomineerd is om er af te halen. Wat kan ik veranderen zodat er wel een beeld naast het artikel kan staan?--Rogier Heijning (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moira,

You left a comment on seven uploads from me that you suspected a breach of IP rights. On the same page I explained that I have permission from the copyright holder. I have also uploaded the text I was sent in accordance with the free license format and have it also available in PDF. Where would you like it sent to satisfy your questions on the rights of these pictures? Best, Qudz --Qudz (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moira,

Even though I presented you with all kinds of proof that I have permission from the copyright owner, you still deleted the picture, without any motivation at all. This is not very polite. How can I ever contribute with pictures, if you will not even accept the license Commons suggested in the first place. Again, the permission: I hereby affirm that I am Rolf Weijburg, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright both the work depicted and the media as shown here: https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/155.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/602.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/784.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/217.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/749.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/777.jpg https://weijburg.nl/images/portret1.jpg

and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Rolf Weijburg, Copyright holder November 4, 2017 . I can also present it in PDF.

Please at least answer my communication... --Qudz (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Qudz: We have no way of knowing if you really are Rolf Weijburg. You have no idea how many people claim they are Elvis here. Anyway, please see OTRS for more information on how to send permission. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hedwig in Washington,

I am not Rolf Weijburg. As I mentioned he is the copyright holder and he gave me written permission. Could someone please help me figure out why the pictures are being deleted, although I added the written permission to the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qudz (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC) --Qudz (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

How are you? Im asking with respect to the post removed on jcb's wall (Nipponese Dog calvero). How extensive is his abuse on nl wiki? and cross wiki? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very extensive and cross wiki and for years. MoiraMoira (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain, why are you continuing your harassment against me in DutchWiki? [2] [3] Thanks. --A.Savin 17:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MoiraMoira FYI Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  21:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this website doesn't own the copyright over this image, please revert my flickrpass and fail this image. I am not Dutch. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, youre telling me to do something about this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rob_Swanenburg_portretfoto.jpg

The change you suggest is:

If you created the content yourself, enter Own work as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example,

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.htmlGFDLGNU Free Documentation Licensetruetrue

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0CC BY-SA 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 truetrue

You may select the license of your choice.

or

This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.enCC0Creative Commons Zero, Public Domain Dedicationfalsefalse

to release certain rights to your work.

But when I go to the editing page https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rob_Swanenburg_portretfoto.jpg&action=edit it already says: |source=Own work and:

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0CC BY-SA 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 truetrue

So what am I supposed to do? I find this all hopelessly complicated. I am not even sure this is the right way to send a message. Why isn't there a decent reply button? Thanks for helping out. (If you're Duthc, lets communicate in Dutch please.)

Thanks again. Herbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmblank (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb de licentiehouder om opheldering daarover gevraagd, en dit is zijn reactie daarop:

"Beste Bart,

Dit is de link waar de oorspronkelijke foto op stond:

https://nieuwedockumercourant.nl/2016/07/28/106jarige-woont-nog-steeds-zelfstandig/

De foto is door het (recentelijk) vernieuwende uiterlijk van de site weggehaald, waardoor deze er jammer genoeg niet meer op staat (bij mij in ieder geval niet meer).

Er is echter wellicht bewijs dat deze foto van deze link komt: op de Wikiapagina van Eelke Bakker staat er bij deze link '27 juli 2016' als datum, dezelfde datum staat bij de foto op de Wikipediapagina van Bakker. Dat was de originele datum van uitgave tot een update op '22 juni 2017', wat nu weergegeven is op de link.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jim"

Bart Versieck (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoiraMoira,

You proposed four of my pictures for speedy deletion because of EXIF copyright tags. Please see

• Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2015/01#Can_I_upload_my_photos_that_have_copyright_data_in_the_EXIF?.
• Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2015/06#If_an_image_has_a_copyright_notice_on_it,_does_that_mean_it's_copyrighted,_or_not?

Met vriendelijke groet, Alex P. Kok (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MoiraMoira: een opkikkertje voor jou. Grts. :-) Lotje (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hall MoiraMoira zonet verwijderde ik je van de lijst met de opmerking: vertrokken. Mocht je van mening veranderen... dan hoor ik het wel :-) Lotje (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]