User talk:Biccie

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


Recent uploads[edit]

I did a few edits like this and hope they are right. If not, let me know, please. Regards -- RE rillke questions? 22:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at http://www.leidenarchief.nl/lei:col1:dat43878:id127 and notice "CopyrightCreative Commons Naamsvermelding-Gelijk delen" which was what I used and still think is the better way because the owner says so. Biccie (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Mhm. There was no link to the license/source image. I will add a note to all of them. But I think they are flat/2D and therefore the tag is right, I think. -- RE rillke questions? 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Rembrandstraat_10_Leiden.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rembrandstraat_10_Leiden.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pbech (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry dat ik deze afbeelding voor verwijdering heb moeten voordragen, maar helaas is het erg onduidelijk of de afbeelding onder een geschikte licentie is vrijgegeven. Groet, Pbech (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (nl:Overleg gebruiker:Paul B).

OK. Misschien ben ik te snel afgegaan op het Wiki-karakter van de Reliwiki en heb daar uit geconcludeerd dat dit bestand was gelicenseerd onder de Creative Commons-licentie Naamsvermelding-Gelijk delen 3.0. Nader beschouwend: omdat er geen naam maker vermeld wordt zou betoogd kunnen worden dat het bestand valt onder het algemene uitgangspunt van Reliwiki, d.w.z. dat zij de beginselen van de Creative Commons onderschrijven, en dat het dus niet verwijderd hoeft te worden. Ik laat dat verder graag aan de specialisten over. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

De Reliwiki is erg vaag over de precieze licentie, maar waar ze er wel iets over zeggen, gaat het wel steeds over niet-commercieel gebruik, en wordt op één plek de CC-BY-NC-licentie genoemd. Die kan op Wikimediaprojecten niet worden gebruikt, omdat die licentie in principe geen commercieel gebruik toestaat, en alle licenties waaronder je bestanden hier kunt uploaden, juist wél commercieel gebruik toestaan. Jammer, want het is op dat artikel een prima foto. Pbech (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Lutz Jacobi.jpg[edit]

This media has been deleted. Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | français | italiano | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Tiếng Việt | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lutz Jacobi.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY) or BY SA (CC BY-SA) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request. Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Beste Lymantria, sorry voor deze fout, die bij gebruikmaking van de Wizard uploaden niet gesignaleerd wordt. Ik was in de veronderstelling dat de Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) wel toegestaan was. Als het fout is, dan is het bij http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diederik_Maarten_Samsom.jpg ook fout gegaan! Het is wel jammer dat dus ongeveer iedereen de officieel beschikbaar gestelde foto's van PvdA'ers kan gebruiken, maar dat dat op de Wikipedia niet mogelijk is. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ter aanvulling: bij Samson heb ik ook de verkeerde licentie (zonder NC) opgenomen. Dat was me kennelijk te subtiel. Nogmaals sorry.Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lammenschanspark.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lammenschanspark.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Michiel1972 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Eerder reageerde ik met:

Please take notice of File talk:Lammenschanspark.jpg. According to the advice given in Copyright help regarding File:Lammenschanspark.jpg there should not be a problem now that the owner of this picture is the Municipality of Leiden. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Verder verwijs ik naar het hier gestelde: In principe zijn werken die door de openbare macht zijn vervaardigd niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd, tenzij het auteursrecht uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Dit is geregeld in art. 15b van de Auteurswet 1912.
Het gaat derhalve niet om het vinden van een free copyright, maar juist om te vinden dat het auteursrecht niet is vrijgegeven. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Het verbaast me dat er verder niets met deze kwestie gedaan is en dat de nominatie voor verwijdering n.m.m. ten onrechte nog steeds aan deze afbeelding "kleeft". Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: release should be confirmed by COM:OTRS, JuTa 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC) (zie Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lammenschanspark.jpg Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nederlands paviljoen Biënnale van Venetië.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nederlands paviljoen Biënnale van Venetië.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

124.149.151.113 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems 124.149.151.113 missed most of the pictures in the Category:Venice Biennale pavillions with his or her deletion request. Which I think is a good thing because the FOP-arrangements in general and in Italy especially are much too complicated to accept such request that miss all substance. For example 1: the pavillions are in a closed off park where you have to pay an admittance; for example 2: the pavillions are property of foreign countries that use them especially to show off their works of art including their architecture; for example 3: these pictures are not used per se on sites in Italy but among others on the Wikipedia for the Netherlands, where these rules of FOP do not apply. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Brandspuithuisje Vrouwenkerksteeg Leiden detail.jpg[edit]

Hoi Biccie. Bij welk rijksmonument hoort bovenstaande foto? Zou je, (evt. met hulp van deze lijst het juiste nummer willen toevoegen aan de afbeelding middels: {{rijksmonument|nummer}} Alvast bedankt! Pompidom (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deze afbeelding hoort er ook bij. Kan het zijn dat ze niet eens een rijksmonument zijn? In dat geval, zou je de bijbehorende categorie willen verwijderen? Pompidom (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Het gaat om rijksmonument nummer 25645 en dat heb ik nu toegevoegd aan beide afbeeldingen. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Bedankt! Pompidom (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:Jan Marie Ravesloot.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Jan Marie Ravesloot.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Thuresson (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Author and source are allready there. I don't understand your problem. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. Thank you for the upload. Thuresson (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Franciscus Raphelengius.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 00:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use this page[edit]

From now on please use Overleg gebruiker:Bic on the Dutch Wikipedia


Zie voortaan Overleg gebruiker:Bic op de Nederlandse Wikipedia


Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kromhoutkazerne[edit]

ik heb de licentie van de foto's die door Jannes Linders waren gemaakt aangepast. Die waren gepubliceerd met enkel de voorwaarde de naam van de auteur te noemen. Daar hebben we het {{Attribution}} template voor. Creative Commons is een licentie vorm waar voor gekozen moet worden door de auteur, en dat is hier niet het geval. Bij deze laat ik even weten dat dit template bestaat. Het verschil is dat bij een Creative Commons licentie er ook de voorwaarde aan hangt dat bij publicatie de licentie vernoemd wordt, op die manier wordt elke publicatie op zichzelf een bron van vrije kennis. Denk jij trouwens ook dat de kazerne op deze foto te zien is? --Vera (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Beste Vera/Veertje. Dankjewel. Er is nog veel te leren. En ja, bovenin zie je de Kromhout Kazerne. Regards, Bic (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)