User talk:Gerardus/Archief 3

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

Image:Aliens live Here.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Aliens live Here.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

User:G.dallorto 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a Flickr picture of a contemporary statue in Genoa. There is no Freedom of Panorama in Italy, sorry. --User:G.dallorto 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Angel 1993.jpg [edit]

hi.

i have been to the tel aviv museum again ant the pice u asked about in the back of Image:Angel 1993.jpg is a Alexander Calder pice called "feuille d'arbre" (1974).

if i will need a photo of it tel me. Talmoryair 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Groningen de Vries BdM.JPG[edit]

Hi, ein sehr schönes Stück :-). Aber wer Bianca del Mare? Eine Prominente? Grüsse Mutter Erde 13:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:Rysz Rafal.JPG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Rysz Rafal.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lupo 11:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Image:Otto_Freundlich.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Otto_Freundlich.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

84.57.78.85 04:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Jawlensky-Derp-Werefkin.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.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jawlensky-Derp-Werefkin.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. 84.57.78.85 05:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image was transferred from en.wikipedia with CommonsHelper-tool--Gerardus 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Museumabteiberggarten_franz_west_flause_1998_aluminium.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Museumabteiberggarten_franz_west_flause_1998_aluminium.jpg. This image 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Code·is·poetry 06:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nic Jonk[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

Zojuist een nieuwe Nic Jonk geupload. Ben nu naar Berlijn. Zal kijken wat ik daar tegenkom maar ik ga niet echt op zoek. Die aanslag op je gezondheid, was dat serieus? Groetjes. Brbbl 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Boodschap bij Image:Appingedam_20.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)‎ | +/−

Waarschuwing
Dit bestand kan verwijderd worden.

Bedankt voor het uploaden van Image:Appingedam_20.JPG. Ik heb gezien dat bij dit bestand op dit moment niet vermeld wordt wie het gemaakt heeft, dus de auteursrechtenstatus is onduidelijk. Als u dit bestand niet zelf heeft gemaakt, dan moet u beargumenteren dat we het recht hebben het bestand te gebruiken op Wikimedia Commons (zie het aangeven van auteursrechtenstatus hieronder). Als u het bestand niet zelf gemaakt heeft, geef dan aan waar u het heeft gevonden, in veel gevallen: link naar de website waar u het vandaan heeft, en vermeld de voorwaarden waaronder het bestand volgens die bron gebruikt mag worden. Als de content een afgeleid werk of een auteursrechtelijk beschermd werk is, dan dient u ook de namen en de licentie van de oorsponkelijke auteur(s) te vermelden.

Als er bij het bestand geen auteursrechtenstatus is aangegeven, voeg die dan ook toe. Als u het bestand zelf heeft gemaakt, dan kan u {{GFDL-self}} gebruiken om het het vrij te geven onder de nl:GFDL, {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} om het vrij te geven onder een Creative Commons Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen-licentie, of {{PD-self}} om het vrij te geven in het publieke domein. Zie Commons:Copyright tags voor een volledige (Engelstalige) lijst van beschikbare licentiesjablonen.

Alle bestanden zonder bronvermelding en/of zonder licentie worden een week na constatering van het ontbreken van een van deze twee punten verwijderd, zoals beschreven staat op criteria voor snelle verwijdering (Engels). Als u ook andere bestanden heeft toegevoegd, controleer dan alstublieft of u daar wel een bronvermelding en licentie hebt geplaatst. Een overzicht van al uw uploads kan u bekijken met het hulpprogramma Gallery. Dank u. Siebrand 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Appingedam_20.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Appingedam_20.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

Gerardus 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gerardus, put {{speedydelete}} in the image and it will get deleted quick and without discussion. Regards Mutter Erde 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

blog en Jits Bakker[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

Ik heb een nieuw beeld toegevoegd aan Jits Bakker, en de oude drie van Schiphol genomineerd voor verwijdering.

Ik ben ook een blog gestart, wiki-sculpture.blogspot om meer informatie te kunnen achterhalen voordat ik een beeld upload op wiki. Ik heb er alvast één geplaats, een moderne waarover jij wellicht meer weet!? Nu is het natuurlijk noodzakelijk om de link naar deze blog zo veel mogelijk te verspreiden over internet. Maar eerst...wat vind je ervan?

Groetjes! Brbbl 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brbbl, dit is de eerste keer in mijn leven, dat ik een blog in het echt zie. Ik heb geen idee hoe zo iets verder loopt, maar kan wel zeggen dat het er picobello uitziet. Foto prima, vraagstelling meet dan accuraat. Helaas kan ik je nog niet helpen, jaren vijftig of zestig zou ik zeggen. Maar van wie. Ik ga zoeken. Succes. Groetjes--Gerardus 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC) P.S Ik loop zelf dan nog wel eens zo'n kantoor in, maar krijg zelden een antwoord, als men al weet dat er voor de deur een beeld staat. Ik zeur dan altijd door en dat helpt wel eens.

Kröller-Muller[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

In hoeverre zijn beelden in een museum ook vrij van rechten eigenlijk? Ik zie enkele beelden van - zo lijkt het - in het museum. Brbbl 11:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Volgens mij klopt je redenering.

PS Alexander Schrabacq bleek een Karel Appel te zijn

Looking through the open window

, waanner komen jouw/jullie missing links erop? Groetjes Brbbl 06:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Groter had de verrassing niet kunnen zijn, een Karel Appel nog wel!
Mijn missing links? Hoe dan? De instructie hoe een bestaande foto van Commons op te laden, kun je waarschijnlijk aan mij e-mailen, als je mijn adres nog hebt. Of je e-mailt me via Commons, zie hier links van de tekst :Deze gebruiker e-mailen! Ik hoor het wel. Groetjes--Gerardus 06:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Winschoten Nouwens 02.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 informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

License : PD-self added.--Gerardus 08:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token d7e40805ca476dd485b892d1ef0268f7[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Image:MNCARS Lichtenstein 01.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:MNCARS Lichtenstein 01.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image is taken outdoors, as you can see!--Gerardus (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not have writen 'indoors', If I would see something that looks like outdoors. I even asked a friend, he also says indoors. Lots of wall and a roof over it, and the photographer is obviously not outside of that construction. If there is open sides, maybe you know a picture where this construction is visible from further away. Just a link, no extra upload necessary. -- Cecil (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cecil, please take a look at Category:Extension of MNCARS, Madrid. All images you ask for are there and as far as I can see all are taken from the outside. The building is overroofing part of the street/place and forms a few courtyards (still outside and very open). Your friend did not look very carefully, because when you look at the left side of the image you see people walking on the street, passing the building and the folks on the square/courtyard wear coats and it obviously was cold outside. Greetings--Gerardus (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) And Zaqarbal is wrong, he took the images from the outside and the photographed part of the buildings (the courtyard and so on) is still outside.--Gerardus (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have found a plan of the building and learned that this is some kind of inner courtyard. The problem is that this courtyard is inside of the museum building and so it's not really possible to create the picture from the street. You'll have to enter museum property. But I'm still talking with a few people who are more expert than me. If they say that FOP is not that strict (which I hope), I will withdraw the request for the three pictures of that museum. I will know more about it latest on Sunday evening. -- Cecil (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Cecil I quote from the Official museum website: by creating a public square - as sat forth in the building code of the new building and the southwest facade of the current museum - a space in the city and for the city was created.End of quote.

It is obviously a public square.--Gerardus (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, withdrawn. -- Cecil (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maastricht[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

Ik ben bezig mensen te werven uit Maastricht via het forum.mestreechonline.nl. Grappig toch? Ga ook even op zoek naar soortgelijke fora voor Nijmegen e.a. Misschien kan ik ook een paar Flickr fotografen overhalen.

Wat betreft Friedrichpalast. Eens kijken of ze een e-mailadres hebben? :) Groetjes Brbbl (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Friedrichstadtpalast.de afdeling Presse Daar zitten de communicatie medewerkers die alle wegen kennen. Zou jij Nicola Pattberg willen benaderen in je meest zoetgevooisde Duits? Dat van mij haalt zeker niks uit.

Friedrichstadtpalst[edit]

Hallo Gerardus, ich habe Dir auf meiner Disk.-Seite geantwortet. Gruß --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Es gibt ein Ergebnis, siehe meine Disk.-Seite --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FOP in Frankrijk[edit]

Hoi Gerardus, ik ga je niet blij maken. De (gekke) Fransen kennen geen Freedom of panorama dus de afbeeldingen die je in Category:Fondation Maeght hebt gezet zijn helaas niet vrij. Multichill (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC) En ze stonden er al zo lang! Ik dacht (omdat nogal wat Fransen het tegenwoordig zelf proberen) dat ik er mee weg kwam. Nee, ik ben er niet erg blij mee. Maar ik compenseer dat wel weer in Duitsland. Mij maken ze er niet meer gek mee. Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Check this page on this topic, I've done a mass deletion request. - Zil (d) 16:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Balen hè! Ik be zelf afgelopen zomer ook in Frankrijk geweest en zat ook opeens met een aantal foto's die ik dus niet kan uploaden... hetzelfde geldt voor mij voor België! Brbbl (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dit hing al een tijdje boven mijn hoofd. De oplaadsessie is al van mijn beginperiode op Commons (mei 2007). Als je in mijn archief zou duiken van 2007 zou je alle discussies die ik heb gehad over de grenzen van het toelaatbare (Frankrijk/België, Italië, Denemarken en Noorwegen en de USA) kunnen lezen. Kafka, dat was het! Misschien begrijp je nu waarom ik meer kijk naar Duitsland, Oostenrijk, Zwitserland. Voor kunst in de openbare ruimte incl. architectuur is minder plaats dan je denkt. Nl. wikipedia steunt overigens het beleid van Commons volledig. Op en.wikipedia hebben ze er een truc op bedacht, waardoor zowat alles mag (Fair Use), maar dat geldt komisch genoeg alleen voor hen. We moeten het er maar mee doen en sorry voor je foto's. Wat denk je trouwens van Vlamingen, die willen gaan fotograferen en dit nu pas ontdekken? Vorig jaar had ik met zo iemand deze discussie ook. De rampspoed. Groetjes--Gerardus (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dank je wel![edit]

I just wanted to "finish" my upload of sculptures outside the Kunsthalle Mannheim by adding life dates to the sculptors, creating categories for the sculptors and so on, and now I see you have already done that. Thank you! I am especially grateful for the title in Image:Mannheim Kunsthalle Skulpturengarten 3.jpg since I could not find anything helping to identify it at the location itself. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Marl_Gräsel_E03.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.

Thanks for uploading Image:Marl_Gräsel_E03.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Lupo 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Something went wrong when uploading the image (connection fell out). I uploaded again as Image:Marl Gräsel 04.JPG Please delete this one.--Gerardus (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marl Titz 01.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 informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I added PD-self (again). The procedure does not allow uploading without license, but I suppose something went wrong, as my uploading was aborted, but succeeded (?). Regards --Gerardus (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we had server hiccups this morning. Descriptions didn't show up on image pages, and license selections got lost completely. Better check all your upload from this morning until about noon UTC to make sure everything is all right. Oh, and how about placing {{FOP}} on your images of modern sculptures? Lupo 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have problems now with angry French or Italian Users/Administrators as was the case last year, so I don't feel the necessity to add FOP. More and more uploaders from the Netherlands and Germany provide Images from modern sculpture and I really think that the template is useless as these images can be used worlwide. You can better fight against fair use. Regards--Gerardus (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know, these images can't be used world-wide, not even world-wide except France and Italy. The U.S. doesn't have "freedom of panorama" for sculptures, and in the former Eastern Bloc countries, it's for non-commercial uses only. Also not ok in Tunisia, Morocco, Japan, Iceland, ... Lupo 14:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lupo, en.wikipedia can use the images taken in The Netherlands and Germany from modern sculptures. I know the FOP and No-FOP countries. No freedom of panorama is related in the USA to their sculptures not ours and vica versa. And France and Italy can use my images as well. Some people still think that our images can only be used by nl and de.wikipedia, which is not the case. Please give me your reaction. Regards--Gerardus (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
A Dutch or German sculpture copyrighted in the Netherlands or in Germany is also copyrighted in the U.S. A photo of such a scuplture is a derivative work in all three countries. Of these three countries, only Germany and the Netherlands have a "FOP" provision in their copyright laws, which is an exception from the general rule that a derivative work can be published only with the consent of the copyright owner of the underlying base work. The U.S. doesn't have this exception, so the photo is just a plain derivative work and indeed can be published in the U.S. only with the consent of the copyright owner of the sculpture. That is true in the U.S. for U.S. and non-U.S. sculptures alike. And similar for the other "no-FOP" countries. That's "national treatment", as per the Berne Convention.
A U.S. court would first and foremost apply U.S. law, not Dutch or German law. (It might look at D or NL law to answer the question whether something was copyrightable at all, or whether it was copyrighted in D or NL on the URAA date, but any such considerations are not needed for these images). And U.S. law protects foreign and domestic works alike (as per the Berne Convention), and has no FOP for sculptures.
It is true that most uses of these images might be fine in the U.S. under their "fair use" doctrine, but that doesn't make these images "free" in the U.S. (In fact, I suspect "fair use" is the very reason why the U.S. doesn't have a FOP paragraph in its copyright law.)
Cheers, Lupo 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Are you familiar with the "Hundertwasserhaus" case? Austrian FOP image of copyrighted building, fine to publish in Austria. Unfortunately, the image failed the German FOP rules (it was not also taken from a public place), and thus a German court ruled it could not be published in Germany. National treatment again. See Hundertwasserentscheidung. Lupo 14:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Lupo, I was not talking about the publishing side of the FOP-No FOP case. That is the not so very easy side of it all. I was only talking about using the images from FOP-countries in other wikipedias than nl and de. Please tell me: if I see an image from a sculpture (say in Berlin) and allowed on Wikimedia Commons in for instance it.wikipedia, is that right or is that wrong? Can the Italian user do that or not. The FOP warning for outside use is perhaps right, but should in that case be standard procedure and not something I wish to do or not. Regards--Gerardus (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's wrong. It could be used on en-WP, if a "fair use" claim was made over there for it. I don't think it-WP allows "fair use"-like images, so no, it should not be used there. And the "publishing" aspect is relevant. Our servers are in the U.S., run by a U.S. foundation. Uploading can thus be seen as "publishing in the U.S." But I'll readily admit that even the law professionals are unsure whether an upload is a publication in (a) the country where the upload is initiated, (b) the country where the servers are, (c) the country where the owner of the servers is headquartered, or even (d) the country where the uploaded content is viewed. Anyway, some WPs operate additionally under local laws (it-WP being one of them), so they also try to observe the local laws as good as they can. Hence using these images on it-WP is clearly not ok, unless they did have some kind of EDP (exemption doctrine policy, as defined by the foundation) for it.
And yes, I think {{FOP}} should be added to all images of copyrighted things that are published here at the Commons under "freedom of panorama". But I don't know how we could enforce that... Lupo 15:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I will consider your last line, but believe me Lupo the problems you raise are immense! Our wikipedia's are based on languages, not countries. nl.wikipedia for instance is half dutch(FOP) and half Belgian (No FOP) and there are numerous other examples. En.wikipedia is half FOP (U.K. Canada Australia etc.) and half NO-Fop (USA). Take for instance a sculptor like Richard Serra and concentrate on the images illustrating the articles in the respective wikipedia's . You will immediately see that's a great, very great mess. Countries, laws, borders? I don't see it. Regards (and thank you for your time),--Gerardus (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I know it's an ugly mess. One way out would be to use only U.S. law and say good-bye to most photos of copyrighted sculptures and statues. Nobody (not even me!! :-) wants that. So we do the next best thing: we accept such photos if they're free and covered by FOP in the source country of the statue or sculpture, tag them with {{FOP}}, and close our eyes regarding the situation in the U.S. Only if the source country is the U.S. or some other no-FOP country, we really can't look away. Lupo 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again Lupo, thank you for your precious time. Since only a very small percentage of the Wikipedians (< 0,01%) is interested in modern sculpture (or 3-dimensional art in the public space) the subject will never be very popular and a solution is not forsee-able, I rest my case. But I do believe that even the word mess is an understatement. Whether the template FOP will help/protect us very much I don't know. See you --Gerardus (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

more pic[edit]

hi

i will go next week to tel aviv museum and look for your philip king pic. here r some more of my pic of israel artist in he.wikipedia. most of them r free pic - he:משתמש:Talmoryair/גלריית צילומים. Talmoryair (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

hi i have been to the tlv Museum, yet i didnt find the king's work. Talmoryair (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello T, sorry for the trouble you had in finding sculptures by Philip King. Strangely enough I had the same experience in de famous Kröller-Müller Sculpture Park in the Netherlands. They were listed and nothing could be found. May be there is an exposition (retrospective exposition ?) elsewhere (U.K. perhaps) or in both cases the sculptures were on loan. Thanks anyhow. Regards--Gerardus (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Image:East Coast 089.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:East Coast 089.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

--dave pape (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorieën en MutterErde[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

Wilde je nog bedanken voor het hercategoriseren van de reliefs. Ik heb alle beelden inmiddels in de lijst van Utrecht geplaatst en zal nu beginnen van het categoriseren van de Utrecht beelden op Commons in de verschillende wijken.
Ik zie dat je ook MutterErde vernederlandst hebt. Ik was al begonnen om alle "onbekende" beelden uit Nederland toe te voegen. Dit en Wikiblog kunnen best naast elkaar leven lijkt me.
Ik heb op de blog ook je reacties verplaatst naar het juiste bericht van wikifrits en een dubbelaar verwijdert.
PS. Ik heb de André Volten bij de Stopera gefotografeerd.
Brbbl (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Bedankt Barry, ik doe wat ik kan. Maak echter de nodige (onnodige) fouten. Had nu in Berlijn moeten zijn. Te ziek (migraine). Om me te ontspannen (echt waar) werk ik meestal op Commons. Zag in de geschiedenis van Mutter Erde, dat jij de foto's had opgeladen. Was AV bij de Stopera te doen met dit weer? Groetend --Gerardus (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

De kleuren zullen niet bijzonder sprekend zijn moet ik wel toegeven. Maar ik ben binnenkort van mijn camera verstoken, dus ik behandel nog even gauw alle verzoeken. Beterschap Brbbl (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (en wiki werkt ontspannen)
Barry, ik ben benieuwd naar de foto's. Het verwerken wordt al een heel karwei: ik ontvang op verzoek foto's uit Mannheim (nu Beeldenpark van de Kunsthalle Mannheim), München (nu Beeldenpark van de Pinakotheken München) en Ravensburg en Stuttgart komt er aan. Erg geestig allemaal. Wat betreft je wens t.a.v. beterschap, nee, dat zit er helaas niet in. Nou ja. Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Marino Marini vor der Neuen Pinakothek[edit]

Hallo Gerardus, es gibt jetzt zwei Versionen des Marino Marini vor der Neuen Pinakotek: "Image:Marino Marini - Miracolo 1959-60-1.jpg" und "Image:Marino Marini - Miracolo 1959-60-2.jpg". 2001 gab es in der N.P. eine schöne Ausstellung mit Werken Marinis. Habe viel fotografiert, darf aber leider nicht in WP veröffentlicht werden. Gruß -- Rufus46 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some new sculptures[edit]

from my hometown Ravensburg (Category:Nikolaus Kernbach) and neighbouring Weingarten (Category:Sculptures in Weingarten (Württemberg)). Hope you like some of them. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures in Mannheim now with two photos of the "Luftbrunnen" (still not very good: it was a bit late and dark, and a truck and other vehicles were blocking the best views constantly). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC) ...but a lot better now. Thanks--Gerardus (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kategorien für 1 oder 2 Bilder..[edit]

sind nicht sinnvoll. Eine Dorfkategorie, die durch die Anzahl der Bilder gerade so eine Existenzberechtigung erreicht hat, braucht nicht zusätzlich eine Denkmal- und Skulpturen-Unterkategorisierung. In diesem Kategoriengeflecht findet sich am Ende niemand mehr zurecht. Mitgehen würde ich bei einer Aufteilung nach Landkreis-Kategorien, wie dies z.B. bei den Kirchen der Fall ist --Niteshift (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have thought of that possibility, but I think it is too late for that now. You have to consider what is going on in the other Bundesländer, like Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia a.o. You simply cannot start all over again. One year ago it was all chaos and I worked hard on categorizing Sculpture in Germany. Now, with sculpture linked to towns and villages I notice that more images are uploaded. No, not everywhere, but still. What you call Katoriengeflecht does work. I simply know that. Greetings--Gerardus (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Bloß, wo ist der Sinn, wenn man anstelle von 200 Fotos hinterher 100 Unterkategorien hat? Diesen Weg werde ich nicht mitgehen. --Niteshift (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You are looking at the situation now (and you are right), but I am looking at the future (be prepared)! To prevent further chaos you must be prepared and create the categories which are needed then. Too early, may be. I started categorizing hoping for responce and, believe me, I got it. Chaos in categorizing when everybody is doing it on his own way (Categories:Sculptures of camels, sculptures of frogs, statues of nude men, sitting nude statues, all that nonsence). That is what I see happening now and nobody stops that phenomenen. Look in that direction if you want to improve something, instead of stopping preventive action. If you are still convinced that I am going in the wrong direction, well what can I do. By the way I do the same thing with sculptures in the Netherlands. First reaction : busts in ... (name of the town), what about that? Now it goes pretty well. Greetings--Gerardus (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
In the long run we are all dead, so important is what can be expected for the next month or the next year bot not in five years. My opinion is that municipilaties or towns are too small to be base of such a category system. Maybe districts but not municipalities. Not every municipality has sculptures or memorials - or more than one or two.--Notschrei 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(BK)Ich verstehe dein Vorhaben, aber angenommen in einem 200-Seelen-Dorf in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern fernab großer Städte steht eine einzige Statue eines berühmten Menschen, der dort geboren wurde. Sonst gibt es dort nichts Sehenswertes und ein Bild dieser einen Statue ist das einzige auf den Commons existierende. Dass weitere Fotos des Ortes folgen, ist unwahrscheinlich, da sowieso fast ausschließlich Greise dort wohnen, die junge Bevölkerung ist längst weggezogen, DSL ist ein Fremdwort und auch sonst interessiert sich niemand für diesen abgelegenen Flecken (sowas gibt es in MV durchaus). Für diese eine Statue wäre nun folgender Kategoriebaum nötig:

  • Gemeinde -> (eventuell. Ortsteil) -> Sculptures in Ortsteil -> Statues in Ortsteil/Memorials in Ortsteil -> (eventuell auch noch Statues/Memorials in Ortsteil by Künstler xy)

Ich habe den Faden jetzt einmal bewusst weiter gesponnen, weil die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass eine weitere Unterkategoriesierung durch andere User erfolgt, wahrscheinlicher ist, als das Auftauchen eines weiteren Fotos. Der Benutzer, für den wir die Sache hier erstellen, wird spätestens nach Durchklicken der dritten leeren Kategorie aufgeben. Zudem würde jedes neue Bild (wenn es denn eines gibt) zusätzlichen Wartungsaufwand erfordern, da der Uploader die Kategorie nicht finden oder gar vermuten wird. Dieser Kategoriebaum wird am Ende für den Nichtfachmann mit beschränkten Fremdsprachen-Kenntnissen genauso unbrauchbar wie z.B. der Biologie- oder Brückenbereich (Beispiel:Iron truss beam bridges in Germany) in den Commons. --Niteshift (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Gemeinde ist kein Ort und auch kein Ortsteil. Jetzt übertreibst du ein wenig. Nicht? And empty categories is not my practise. You can controll that. The discussion goes intentionally the wrong way and you know it. You had your fun and I stop this pseudo-discussion. You only take yourself seriously and not your discussion-partner. Enough is enough. Bye for now.--Gerardus (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Roloff Funnix 01.JPG[edit]

Image:Roloff Funnix 01.JPG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Roloff Funnix 01.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Gerardus (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Roloff Funnix 02.JPG[edit]

Image:Roloff Funnix 02.JPG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Roloff Funnix 02.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Gerardus (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Roloff Funnix 03.JPG[edit]

Image:Roloff Funnix 03.JPG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Roloff Funnix 03.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Gerardus (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

48 Stunden....[edit]

one of my favourites

Hallo, dear Gerardus, the show slowly goes on. I've uploaded about 50 pics of different sculptures of the Skulpturen-Rundgang Schorndorf. Ich hab noch Category:Skulpturen-Rundgang Schorndorf kreiert, damit die Bilder auch dann an einem halbwegs "richtigen" Platz landen, wenn ich zwar Zeit zum (Massen-)Upload per commonist, aber nicht zum galleries bearbeiten habe.

*freundlichstes Lächeln aufsetz* Sag, könntest du vielleicht die Category:Sculptures in Schorndorf aufräumen; nicht alles da drin sind Skulpturen und außer uns beiden interessiert sich vermutlich niemand dafür. <Bestechungsmodus> Ich schenk dir dafür auch noch einige AN NAs, Gogos und Wächter sowie zweierlei arme Konräde. </Bestechungsmodus> *weiterlächel* --Wildfeuer (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Just in time, I gave you 48 minutes an than the curtain would fall. I am very surprised by the quality and the quantity. I hope the rest will be as good as these ones. I have already categorized 1 image (from Category:Max Seiz). I found another sculpture by this man under another name (Max Seitz - image by Schmelzle in Heilbronn)). He lives in Schwäbisch Gmünd and is 71 now (Can somebody make an article on him on de.wikipedia?). He made many sculptures, so I believe, in Baden-Württemberg. You can please me be finding them in the coming year. Since a few weeks I have umstrukturiert Sculptures in B-W in Städte und Landkreise. Now I am working on each Landkreis to find more sculptures, which is not so easy as nobody seems to care (not even the Brunnen). I wish you good luck with the rest of the images. I will do the catogorizing job. Thanks--Gerardus (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Dankeschön für's Lob. That's very encouraging. Du warst ja heute ungeheuer fleißig in Schorndorf, thanx auch dafür. Could you please tell me the name of the image by Schmelzle, maybe it's the same Max who created the Gespräch. Der Name Seitz/Seiz ist hier recht häufig und Max ist auch nicht gerade ungewöhnlich. Einen Artikel über den Gmünder Max werd ich nicht schreiben, (ich krieg ja kaum meine Bilder bearbeitet und hochgeladen, :o{), aber vielleicht korrigieren, :o).... --Wildfeuer (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Just seen it's the same Max. Fine! --Wildfeuer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Moin W., ich habe keine Ahnung was zu schreiben über Max Seiz. His Website is as informative as nothing und ich habe besseres zu tun. So forget it. Un grand merci en tous cas! A bientôt,--Gerardus (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Moin liebe W., ich höre und sehe nichts mehr von dir. Ist was passiert? Lass doch mal was hören. Liebe Grüsse,--Gerardus (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oldambt_003.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Oldambt_003.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

in israel[edit]

hi i took more in pic in israel latley. you can see them on he. wikipedia page here. u coud find the detail in english on the files names. Talmoryair (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yair, I am very impressed by the multitude of (good quality) images you uploaded. Unfortunately not on Commons as the image from the Jacob Epstein sculpture shows. A week ago I tried to transfer the image to Commons with CommonsHelper but failed as the description/license is not recognised by the bot. What can we/you do?? Greetings--Gerardus (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Image:Hakone_open_air_museum_(4).jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Hakone_open_air_museum_(4).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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cantons naming[edit]

Dag Gerardus, Ik zie dat je in de cantons van Zwitserland benamingen gebruikt die grondig verschillen met de gebruikte standaards. De eenvoudigste manier om dit snel en zonder al te veel werk te corrigeren is een lijstje te maken op User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands in de zin van:

{{Move cat|Statues in Canton of Berne|Statues in the canton of Berne}} ... Ik geef die dan wel aan de bot voor executie. Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hallo F., ik was pas aan de vierde canton begonnen, dus ik heb alles gisteravond na thuiskomst handmatig gwecorrigeerd. Helaas drong te laat tot me door, dat niet alleen the moest worden toegevoegd (wat ik begrijp omdat dat kennelijk al de gewoonte was en ik dat beslist over het hoofd heb gezien), maar ook de C veranderd moest worden in een c (wat ik niet erg begrijp, omdat Canton Berne toch eigenlijk beter oogt en klinkt dan canton of Berne - ook dat of lijkt me discutabel). Maar ja dat is kennelijk al jaren zo, dus is het goed (!?!?). Ik zal voortaan beter opletten en dank je in ieder geval voor je bot-aanbod. Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Bedankt. Ik heb de redirects eruit gegooid omdat die toch maar de mensen op verkeerde ideeën brengt. Die "no Title Case" regel in Commons bezorgt flink wat last omdat de verwarring groot is. De volgende schrijfwijzen zijn juist volgens mij: Statues in Canton Berne, Statues in the canton of Berne, Statues in Province Limburg, Statues in Limburg province; Allemaal nogal subtiel dus en uitkijken wat de "gewoonten" zijn. --Foroa (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ja, bedankt en ok. Verwarring alom en ik tuin er (omdat ik erg veel doe t.a.v. categorisering in Nl., D. en Zw., ja ik lijk wel gek!) ook steeds in : wat met monuments en memorials en war memorials etc. etc. en dan nog Denkmäler. De een wil een Kreis, de tweede een Landkreis, de derde City by country. Dan nog het subtiele (althans dat vindt men) verschil tussen sculptures en statues. En heb je ooit gehoord van sitting statues? Trouwens ook mooi: statues of (from) frogs. Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:14411534_7d71aa2a79_o.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:14411534_7d71aa2a79_o.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

-- Deadstar (msg) 10:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bürgi[edit]

Nou, de kogel is door de kerk, ik heb een drietal Bürgi consoles geupload. Ik heb er nog een paar. Maar de teerling is geworpen natuurlijk, nu moet allessss. Ik heb er al één waarvan de beeldhouwer onbekend is. Het boekje gaat niet verder dan 1981. Verder was ik toch even gaan kijken bij het Fortis gebouw. Ergens in de verte staat een zwart beeld. Ik stuur je spoedig een tweetal slechte foto's op, omdat mijn camera het niet haalde, dan kun je aangeven wat van wie is. Wie weet is er binnenkort openbare verkoop (haha) dan kan ik wat dichterbij komen. En er komt een lading Leeuwarden aan.... spannend. Hoogachtend, één van u fotografen in den lande.Brbbl (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC) PS vervelend (understatement waarschijnlijk) dat migraine zo lang kan aanhouden. Ik ken alleen via een vriendin de migraine die 1 dag aanhoudt, vandaar dat ik niet meteen de link legde.

Eerst maar een reactie op Utrecht/Fortis: foto 1 is inderdaad de Killaars. Foto 2 onbekend, ik heb Volten helemaal doorgespit (want dat lijkt mij het meest aannemelijk) maar dit beeld niet gevonden. Er is dus kennelijk nog een beeldhouwer op dit terrein werkzaam (?). Leeuwarden: ik ben benieuwd. Bürgi: ik ga er straks naar kijken. Tenslotte: hadden we maar een fotograaf in Amsterdam/Den Haag/Brabant + Limburg. Zucht! Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Schitterend deze Bürgi foto's.Ik hoop dat je ook nog De Zeven Hoofdzonden vindt. Ikben niet gek op figuratieve kunst, maar waardeer dit (zo verschrikkelijk afwijkende werk) erg. Nog een vraagje: kun je de Lon Pennock foto's misschien toch oploaden in afwachting van latere, nieuwe foto's, zo slecht waren ze toch niet? Groetjes--Gerardus (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Eigenlijk is echt een volledig prentenboek waar je voorbij loopt. Leuk hé! Ik weet waar die zonden staan, alleen kun je daar niet over een werf lopen, zoals bij dezen. Maar ik zal er achter aan gaan. Ik zet die Pennock er ook wel even op, maar ik maak ooit een nieuwe. Het is trouwens een trap van waaruit je de omgeving kan zien. Wikifrits heeft zijn Picasa, ik de blog. Die Picasa is wel overzichtelijker maar ik moet inloggen om een reactie te plaatsen, weer een wachtwoord etc... Misschien moeten we het juist op Flickr zetten, daar kun je ook een gezamenlijke fotoboek maken en kun je veel meer mensen bereiken. Daar zijn ook al fotoboeken voor Openbare kunst. Groetjes Brbbl (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Bedankt voor je reactie. Blogs, Picasa, Mutter Erde... het zijn allemaal goeie initiatieven, maar de grote vraag is inderdaad nog steeds: hoe bereik je potentiële info-verstrekkers. Binnen nl.wiki is te weinig meedenken met beeldhouwkunst, maar toch is dat eigenlijk ons podium! Ik ben zo bang dat zelfs een beeldhouwplatform niet(s) helpt. We blijven denken. Groetjes--Gerardus (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One moment, please[edit]

Hi Gerardus, before you fill this cat: Category:Relief in Landkreis Göttingen. It schould be renamed in Category:Reliefs in Landkreis Göttingen. Right? Regards from Berlin Mutter Erde (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC) ME, you're absolutely right. Ich mache das gleich in Ordnung. Grüsse und dankeschön.--Gerardus (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, I feel so relieved now. It was your fault sowieso. Grüsse--Gerardus (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL :-) Mutter Erde (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Blöd natürlich, aber was bedeutet das. I don't understand this way of making a conversation (too old perhaps??). Grüsse--Gerardus (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very sorry. I thought this was a joke. en:LOL = means "Laughing out loud". I had to laugh because of your German/English mixture. Und es war sehr freundlich gemeint :-). Best regards. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I hoped it to be a joke, but also feared some kind of sarcasm. As far as the use of different languages in one sentence is concerned: some approve it, some regard it as foolish and I, well I like it. A conversation in Dutch/German/English/French why not. Keeps me awake. Schöne Grüsse noch--Gerardus (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like it too :-). Btw: Do you dare to put the works from nl and sv (FOP?) into the new Category:Coosje van Bruggen? Mutter Erde (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well of course. All works since 1976 are made by the two of them. She deserves better! US images, I don't touch them anymore. I'm really sick of the Commons policy on that issue and the Fair Use practice on en.wikipedia of them if they like an image. Luckily there are enough images in FOP countries. Au revoir.--Gerardus (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you have found a lot of works within minutes. Thanks. So let keep the little secret from sv. I'm also sick about these debates. Best regards Mutter Erde (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas[edit]

Hallo Gerardus, ein Tipp für den Fachmann: Ich denke es wäre sinnvoll, diese Karten in einer Kategorie zusammenzufassen: Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Moin Ies, warum sollte ich das tun. Ich helfe gerne, aber wozu diese Karten?? Und warum ich?? Erlautere mich bitte. Grüsse--Gerardus (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Gerardus, ich bin zufällig darüber gestolpert und hatte im Hinterkopf, Du würdest Dich für Karten interessieren. Ich hatte vermutet, Du wüsstest bezüglich der Kategorisiereung z.B. was zum Autor. Hmm, sollte ich Dich mit einem anderen User mit ähnlichem Namen verwechselt haben? Sorry! Grüße, -- Ies (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vockfey Denkpyramide.jpg[edit]

Hallo Gerardus, can you please translate the description of this picture into Dutch language? Thank you. --Niteshift (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ===Warum sollte ich das machen? Wer ist an die innerdeutsche Geschichte interessiert? Warum in meine Sprache? Warum nicht in Englisch? Erklärst du das erstmal bitte. Grüsse.--Gerardus (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Denkpyramide = Denkmal = Memorial. Oder nicht?--Gerardus (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Es ist schon so, dass viele deiner Landsleute hier in den Sommermonaten unterwegs sind. Ich glaube schon, dass sie die Bedeutung dieser "Bauschutt"-Pyramide interessieren könnte, weil nur Wasser und Strand könnte man ja auch zu Hause haben, man sieht sich ja schon mal an seinem Reiseziel um. Denkpyramide ist kein gebräuchliches Wort, sondern ein Eigenname. Aber richtig, es ist ein Denkmal. Sorry for using the German language again. Greets Niteshift (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
I have done what you asked and translated the German description into Dutch. For the results: see the image involved. Grüsse--Gerardus (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, many thanks. --Niteshift (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Josefov, josef II.JPG‎ und Image:Josefov josef II decret.JPG[edit]

Hallo Gerardus, danke für Deine aufmerksame Kategorisierung. Ich habe dem Kaiser Josef sein Dekret nach Deiner Vorgabe ebenso kategorisiert. beste grüsse --Lysippos (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Moin Lysippos, right you are! I have done a lot the last two days in the Czech Republic, but I am seeing now that more has to be done. Practically nothing is interlinked and many is linked in a wrong way or to a false category. I hope that linking in regions will help a little. So few people want their images to be found by a greater audience. Wish me good luck. Greetings--Gerardus (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)