User talk:Gerardus/Archief 5

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

File:KMM_Noguchi_01.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:KMM_Noguchi_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 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)‎ | +/−

Ralf Roletschek (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The sculpture is part of the (very large) outdoor collection of the Sculpture Park and is mentioned as such in the KMM's own literature. It is permanently placed in the public space and freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is applicable for such works of art (see Freedom of Panorama: The Netherlands. I have no idea why nobody simply reads what Wikimedia Commons writes about that!. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help replace this outdated license[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done,--Gerardus (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


File:Brokenobelisk.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Brokenobelisk.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)‎ | +/−

MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Twickel[edit]

Hai G, ik zag dat je de categorie had aangepast van mijn twickelreliëf, wat vond je van die klus? Was er zelf nogal in mijn nopjes mee... Duimpje werkt weer naar behoren overigens. Groeten aan jullie beiden, K. --Satrughna (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Category:Willem Kind[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Willem Cornelus Kind 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 <articlefeedback-table-heading-page>, 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)‎ | +/−

--The Evil IP address (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Sculptors from the Netherlands[edit]

Hi Gerardus. Why have you emptied categories such as category:19th century sculptors from the Netherlands? What's wrong with them? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jastrow, long time no see. I seem to remember we discussed this matter some months ago. We can't be sure wether a sculptor is or was active in the 19th, the 20th or the 21st century, we took as an example Category:Armando. Important factors are when he started sculpting and we he stopped sculpting ( and not his birthday or his death). I don't know that for sure and you don't. In the meantime I myself stopped categorizing: Modern sculptors and long since I removed Contemporary sculptors, whatever that may be. Basicly we keep Sculptors from ... What I removed were some thirty names.. not more (A and some B) and I noticed that practically no other countries than The Netherlands and Italy were involved. Nobody is asking for such categories and nobody needs them and I like to keep it that way. On a daily basis I add names to the German, English and Dutch lists so I know what I'm talking about and with so many wrong names, as happened in the past, it's not my favourite work to do the correcting. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Gerardus!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Image has been deleted.--Gerardus (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sculptures in Toronto[edit]

Hello. I would be happy to. Is there a list of his works in Toronto online? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. There is an excellent website describing all sculpture in Toronto (privat initiative?). Sorel Etrog is described here: http://www.dittwald.com/torontosculpture/search.php?Artist=Sorel%20Etrog For other sculptors choose "search by artist". Greetings from the Netherlands.--Gerardus (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
We've had rain every weekend since early April on days I have free time to go out and take photos. If it clears up, I may try this afternoon. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, we had some nice days, but now its raining. Good luck.--Gerardus (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The rain held off, so I got photos of the sculptures in the Davisville neighbourhood (although, I realized upon returning home that I missed one) and one en route (all now uploaded). I'll get the others another day. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sk. I suppose you were "lucky" with the weather after all, bad weather is predicted all over the place. What I got is good (The Al Green as well) and I'm hoping for more in better times. See you,--Gerardus (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Will do. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Happened to be in Ottawa yesterday, where it was pouring rain, but managed to get this and this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You're a great sport. Weather conditions are here in the Netherlands as bad as in Canada so it seems. Impressive sculpture from Etrog in Ottawa. It's hard to make a real choice in his article. Many thanks.--Gerardus (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten about the remaining sculptures. Have been away a lot of weekends these past few weeks, but will get to them over the summer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I just kept faith and refrained from asking for the images. Though, I am anxious to see what you are giving us (me). Thanks for your message. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I took a few photos downtown and uploaded them on July 24. I will next make a return visit to the Al Green Sculpture Garden. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:N%C3%BCrnberg_Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz_Skulptur_1.jpg&diff=37621355&oldid=37599270 I could not find the name and artist of that work in any of my books on Nuremberg, nor on the web. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither could I, but I know his style and this particular work, though not the exact title and year. Nürnberg is not very helpful at all. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


File:Laumeier Sculpture Park.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Laumeier Sculpture Park.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)‎ | +/−

-- fetchcomms 22:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sculptures by Henk Visch[edit]

Thanks for your note. There was a consensus discussion sometime ago that categories pertaining to artists and categories pertaining to their works should be kept separate - thus we have Category:Buildings by architect, Category:Sculptures by sculptor, Category:Paintings by painter, etc. It'f fine if you do not want to participate in that categorization, but you shouldn't undo the work of others, especially when it is so subjective as to which method is simpler. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but perhaps you did not notice the fact that the category is not only used for sculptures by name like "The Man With Two Hats, Ottawa" but for all sculptures by the same sculptor and that is rather confusing. The category can be easily used for even one image from a sculptor without the title of the sculpture in the cat.name. With already 1.500 German and 1.000 Dutch sculptors (and more and more coming every day) that means in the end chaos. Moreover we have a perfect filing system already. But, honestly, I don't intend when consensus is there, to resist. I'm only not sure that all are aware how the category is used. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In Nederland is Freedom of Panorama; de kunstwerken in Wijchen staan op vaste locaties in openbaar terrein. Groeten --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ja maar alleen indien permanent, vandaar mijn vraag. Maar indien vaste locatie, dan ok. Ik werk er trouwens al aan. Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Videopaviljoen in Appingedam[edit]

Hello Gerardus, I have nominated one of your images in a "Most Valued Image Review" : Commons:Valued_image_candidates/P1010614.JPG. May I ask you if this folly by Zaha Hadid is in Appingedam permanently now, to your knowledge? Thanks and regards, --Myrabella (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Zaha Hadid made the folly in a competition for the city of Groningen. The present location became after a big restauration the permanent one and is meant as some kind of a land mark for a business site on the outskirts of Appingedam. One of the other pavillions, the one by Coop Himmelb(l)au is in nearby Delfzijl. Greetings.--Gerardus (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. The review is going on with five images competing for being labelled as the most valued image for the scope "Folly (architecture)", at Commons:Valued_image_candidates#Folly_(architecture). I don't think yours will win, but it doesn't matter, it was nice anyway to learn more about this work by Zaha Hadid. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I more or less expected this message. It's not easy to see the beauty of this folly and to realise the fact that most follies in Paris are removed from Commons. Thanks anyway for trying. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


File:Outside_the_museum.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Outside_the_museum.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)‎ | +/−

Eusebius (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:WLANL_-_Artshooter_-_De_Smart.jpg[edit]

The file has not been deleted yet. I wrote a reply on this page. Teofilo (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

José Pirkner[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

Weet jij of José Pirkner een Nederlandse of een Oostenrijkse kunstenaar is?
Ik had trouwens nog een abstract sculptuur aan Alkmaar toegevoegd (bij de rechtbank), komt deze stijl jouw bekend voor? Groetjes --Brbbl (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ik denk een Oostenrijker. De naam Pirkner komt daar nog veelvuldig voor en José maakte in 1976 en 1978 nog werken (altaar, mariabeeld) voor een kerk in Lienz. Er is ook op Dld geen artikel over hem. Ik zag Alkmaar ook, stijl herkennen? Welke stijl?. Groet. Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Ik heb zijn naam nu al gelezen als: José P., Jose P., Josef P. en nu ook nog Jos P. Wel staat er konsekwent: Austrian. Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Ja, ik ben al zijn aliassen ook tegengekomen. Op zijn site schrijft hij het als Jos Pirkner, dus daar hou ik het op. En voor wat betreft de "stijl" van platen rangschikken, materiaalgebruik, hahaha. Ik hoopte op herkenning omdat des of gene al ergens in je boeken voorkwam. Maar helaas, toch bedankt. --Brbbl (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Knap dat je Alkmaar nu toch hebt gevonden. Het aardigst vind ik nog wel dat er al een foto aanwezig was, dat toont zo mooi de groei van ons totale bestand aan beeldhouwers. Vandaag heb ik weer een beeldhouwer aan de vergetelheid ontrukt (Gerard van Remmen) en de reliëfkunst verder benadrukt. Ik zie dat jij er ook weer een had. Groetend, Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hoi, ja die rechtbank kreeg ik, twee weken nadat ik ze een mailtje had gestuurd, door van de afdeling communicatie van de rechtbank. Ik begrijp het ook wel, het is een onalledaagse en niet heel spoedeisende vraag. Alleen wist ze niet wat voor materiaal het was, en ik ben ook (nog) geen kenner. Nog leuker is de oplossing voor een beeldje (waarvan ik nog geen goeie foto heb, maar ik heb hem al wel zien staan) van Havermans. Zelf gezocht in de krantenarchieven van de Alkmaarsche Courant. Jammer genoeg gaan die nog niet zo ver door. Ik heb je Gerard van Remmen gelezen en meteen weer naar die site gegaan "help wandkunst". Ik zie dat ze er weer een paar bij hebben in Utrecht maar nog steeds zeer weinig. Ik zal er ook weer eens wat beter op letten! --Brbbl (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Liep toevallig tegen Pirkner aan en zie hier dat jullie het pas over hem hadden, opmerkelijk. Artikel nu op NL-wiki beschikbaar, aanvulling is welkom! Gr. Ronn (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Ja, ik zag je artikel. B. zal wel meer info gevonden hebben, maar ik zal ook eens wat spitten. Groet. Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wandkunst[edit]

Ik zag Havermans en ging direct ook weer eens bij Alkmaar kijken. HB en de twee mozaieken: twee kandidaten zijn Herman Berser ik (Den Haag, popperige stijl) lijkt me niet juist. Hans Bayens (Noord Holland) zou wel eens de juiste kunnen zijn, was in 1965 zeer aktief met mozaiek. Wellicht vind je hier een aanknopingspunt. Groet. Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoi Gerardus, ik heb gezocht maar nog geen bevestiging gevonden. Maar ik hou het in mijn achterhoofd. Ik had de school ooit eens een mailtje gestuurd en ik was van harte uitgenodigd om de vragen te stellen aan de concierge, die zou me er alles over kunnen vertellen. Ik ben alleen nooit onder schooltijd vrij, laat staan in Alkmaar. PS, is Herman Bieling ook een optie? Dat is de enige naam in de huidige commons categoriënlijst, die wat mij betreft nog in aanmerking komt. Idee om een aparte categorie te beginnen met mozaiek kunstenaars te beginnen? Groetjes! --Brbbl (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Dit blijft een van de moeilijkste onderwerpen binnen de sector beeldhouwkunst. Afijn, je kent ook de problemen bij het ICN met wandkunst. Het is natuurlijk nooit te laat om alsnog een extra categorie wandkunst of gevelkunst (wat is een mooie engelstalige term hiervoor? Wall decoration of zoiets?) te gaan toevoegen, maar waarom beperken tot mozaieken. Dat kan natuurlijk t.z.t. een ondercategorie worden. Herman Bieling had ik nog niet gezien, maar die stierf in 1964, dus dat kan dan al niet meer de juiste kandidaat zijn. Groet. --Gerardus (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, Bieling valt af daar had ik nog niet op gelet. Bedankt. Wandkunst - subkop Reliefs, mozaiken/wandtapijten/muurschilderingen/grafitti. Maar inderdaad, heeft het Engels een naam hiervoor --Brbbl (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Mural art(ists) kan niet, dat betreft alleen schilderkunst. Dan zijn er nog: "wall art", "wall decoration" en "wall ornamentation" evt. nog aangevuld met "exterior" of hetzelfde maar dan "façade decoration", etc. Roept u maar!--Gerardus (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Wat woorden doen. Van File:Rutherford crocodile.jpg werd de categorie veranderd van "bricks" naar "wall paintings" en prompt (d.w.z. meteen verwijderd als copyvio = geen fop). Ik zag het toevallig omdat de afbeelding deeluitmaakte van Cambridge Sculpture Trails. Het gaat hier om een uiterst plat reliëf (= beeldhouwkunst) in baksteen gekerfd (basreliëf ?) en dus dus wel 3-dimensionaal in tegenstelling tot een mural of wallpainting (2-dimensionaal). Alles is weer ok, maar sluit wel mooi aan bij mijn opmerking dat we met het kiezen van een juiste termijn moeten oppassen. Groet,--Gerardus (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Gerard.
Schilderkunst in de openbare ruimte is dus niet FOP? Geldt dat ook voor NL eigenlijk? Ik had trouwens voor Amsterdam ook al een categorie Street art in Amsterdam aangemaakt waarin op dit moment alleen verwezen wordt naar naar de Space Invaders mozaiekjes van de artiest "Invader" [1].
In de UK kennelijk niet, ik kijk daar eerlijk gezegd ook van op, maar veel FOP landen beperken tot architectuur en beeldhouwkunst (3D) als deel van het panorama. In Nederland en volgens mij ook Duitsland, Oost. en Zwits. ligt dat anders. Moeten we de tekst maar weer eens op naslaan. Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Giuseppe Penone - Procedere in verticale 1985.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Giuseppe Penone - Procedere in verticale 1985.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)‎ | +/−

--rtc (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Jan Boon[edit]

Hoi Gerardus,

Ik heb de schrijver van de website over Jan Boon benadert om uitsluitsel te krijgen. Maar het betreft toch een andere Jan Boon, die blijkbaar niet eens familie is. Even verder gezocht en dan blijkt dat er op het AD een artikel staat. Groetjes. --Brbbl (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Moin, jammer dat het artikel op nl.wiki is hernoemd in JB (kunstenaar), want nu moeten we deze onbekende JB omnoemen in JB (??). Wat vullen we in? Een oplossing zou zijn JB (kunstenaar) weer terug naar JB (kunstschilder) en de nieuwe JB dan JB (kunstenaar), maar dat is toch niet zo'n gelukkige oplossing. Beeldhouwer (sculptor) kan ook niet. Geboortejaar van onze onbekende JB hebben we (nog) niet. Wat te doen? Groet. Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Tsja, ik zat toch te denken aan JB (kunstenaar 1918-1988) voor de "onbekende" JB en JB (kunstenaar 1882-1975) voor de huidige. Als je dan JB intikt in Wikipedia krijg je de Jan Boon met de DP's naar o.a. deze twee. De schrijver van de "oude" JB heeft overigens een emailadres van de zoon van de "jonge" JB. Ik ga hem een uitgebreidde mail sturen met de vraag of hij wil meewerken aan een artikel over zijn vader. --Brbbl (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're the greatest! Gerard. --Gerardus (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ehm...[edit]

Hello Gerardus! Mr. Barni's works are under © ;-)
109.117.158.37 17:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that his works are not free in countries like Italy and France. But luckily are these sculptures in the Netherlands covered by FOP-NL. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:-)[edit]

Category:Berger Winde (Robert Schad) Herzlichen Gruss --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Andreas, what a lovely surprise. Thanks,--Gerardus (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
And Eberhard, thanks for your Filderspiel in Filderstadt! This is a real "Schad week". Greetings, Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Statues in the Netherlands[edit]

Hello, again. I am unsure why you removed this category from Category:Monuments and memorials in the Netherlands. Statues are the quintessential monument/memorial. Perhaps I am missing something.

Haven't forgotten that I still owe you a trip with my camera to the sculpture park. I just haven't been in Toronto many weekends this past month. But I will. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since my answer is extended to another subject as well I answered on your talk page. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Monuments and memorials[edit]

First off, there was a lengthy discussion. I didn't decide anything unilaterally. But, more importantly, the monument and memorial categories were an absolute mess. There was no consistency in either category, as to what constituted a memorial and what constituted a monument. The categories for the Netherlands weren't much different. While I appreciate that the words in Dutch may have distinct meaning, the distinction in English is far less clear, and category names are in English based on their English-language meanings. Everyone seemed to have their own perceptions as to what the difference was between a monument and a memorial, sometimes informed by the translations in their mother language, but all the perceptions were different (even among native English-speakers), which explained the category mess. It is important to note that for these very reasons, the English Wikipedia long ago merged their monument and memorial categories.

I would also note that rijksmonument are, in fact, monuments. They are cultural heritage monuments. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your specific concern respecting rijksmonument? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do respect your explanations and the reasons why, but as there is a difference between monuments (buildings) and memorials(sculpture) and we just shouldn't merge these two very different things. Solving the mess is uk, but not in this way. Oxford dictionary: monument = structure or building. And a rijksmonument (in Dutch) is exactly that. Sculpture is an art form and goes as far as memorials. I still disagree. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not actually the case. If it were that simple, the English Wikipedia would never have merged the categories. In fact, I wish it was that simple. Unfortunately for the case of simplicity, a monument isn't just a building, and a memorial isn't just a sculpture. I don't know what the definitions are in Dutch, but in English that isn't the case. A statue, for example, is routinely referred to as a monument in English. In fact, we had lengthy discussions as to how Oxford and other dictionaries defined the terms in English. I know you may not agree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I do hope that you see a difference between buildings (architecture and structure) and sculpture (art). Whatever the dictionaries say: that is a fact. The two can't be merged is a simplistic way. A statue is a specific form of sculpture dedicated to a person. Simply categorizing it a monument, which is in the end a structure is not the right way. We need some more international expertise. I still disagree. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course I see the difference between a building and art, but they are both monuments/memorials, so the parent category is the same. They have not been "merged" in a simplistic way - they are separated in different subcategories. A statue is a monument to the person it commemorates - the fact that it is also a sculpture is immaterial. Statues should also be categorized as sculptures, but that doesn't change the fact that they are also monuments. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the problem. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem lies in the first place in the fact that you took away from the sculpturedept.: Memorials in the Netherlands and especially in the provinces. Make Monuments in the N. and Memorials in the N. both a subcat of the parentcat.: Monuments and memorials in the N. You get the international link to the other countries on Commons and I get the link to the subcats regarding sculpture. Category:Rijksmonumenten has already the subcats to provinces and cities, just like the sculptures and is already linked to Monuments and memorials, so why not the Memorials? The solution is not what I am hoping for, but I can live with that. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to want to perpetuate a distinction that didn't make much sense and was false in the first place. The reason for the merged "monuments and memorials" category is to avoid these pointless debates over the meaning of "memorial" versus "monument" because there is very little distinction between the terms and there is rarely agreement over what kind of distinction, if any, exists. Honestly, you are dancing on the head of a pin, so to speak. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If you really believe that and I think you do, than my suggested compromise is unnecessary. I'm tired of discussion between partners who come from different planets. The few Users who took part in the discussion earlier this year took the en.wikipedia solution as the right one and all other suggestions from elswhere are nonsense. So be it. I stop catogorizing sculptures in ... and cleaning the mess in related categories. I go on with my sculptors from now on. What a pity, all that work I have done! Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, we struggled with a number of solutions, but because there was no agreement as to how to distinguish between monuments and memorials, the en-wiki solution was adopted (it was the same problem there as well, as I understand). You're asking that the monuments/memorials categories be organized in a way that doesn't make much sense for monuments and memorials, simply because it makes sense from the perspective of the sculptures categories. A lot of memorials aren't even sculptures, so I am not sure that the previous category scheme was that precise to begin with. My inclination would be to simply make "Monuments and memorials in the Netherlands" a subcat of "Sculptures of the Netherlands". It still leaves the oddity of the rijksmonument, but given the reliefs and busts and statues associated with those buildings, it isn't that bad a fit. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's extremely disappointing that you told Foroa that I'd attacked you. I would have thought that our past collaborations would have resulted in more mutual respect than that. I'm puzzled why you want to impugn the reputation of anyone that disagrees with you, or why you blame me for decisions made elsewhere. Your comments to Foroa also suggest to me that you didn't read any of the comments I made above, because you continue to make the same inaccurate claims; you're entitled to disagree with me, of course, but at least you could respond to the points I have made and not keep misquoting the Oxford dictionary. I am sad that our discussion went so badly, and upset that you felt the need to mischaracterize both the issue under debate and my behaviour. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I wrote "aangevallen". In a discussion that can also mean "contradicted" in english and not "attacked". You see, the language barrier is to wide between nativespeaking wikipedians and the rest of the world. Thats what I wrote in the end to Foroa, the lack of global thinking. We have to discuss in english, but that makes the others not anglosaxons as well. Sorry you thought me capable of insulting, that was not the case. To inform you: I left Wikimedia Commons and will be a visitor here now and than. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. But you musn't leave the Commons just because you don't like a global decision about categories. It happens to me all the time (more than once I have argued with Foroa and others about the implementation of Commons norms on Canadian categories), but at a certain point one needs to shrug and move on. The project would be much poorer without your participation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Niki_Garfield.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Niki_Garfield.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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Queen_Califia_1.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Queen_Califia_1.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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Stahlplastik Geb H6 Morgenstelle.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You know better than this[edit]

Sigh. Gerardus, you know very well that the monuments and memorials categories were changed as a result of a consensus reached after discussion. You may not agree with the compromise solution, but it is not up to you to unilaterally reverse changes. You well understand the proper procedures here, and your approach today is not it. Your disruption merely creates more work for everyone else, as I now have spend my afternoon reversing your disruptive edits. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors. Regards.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't agree that the braoder "monuments and memorials" cats be categorized under the "sculptures" cats, then how would you do it? Typically, for other countries, the monuments and memorials categories are subcats of the history, buildings/structures (latter preferred) and culture/art (latter preferred) cats. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
My answer was this last minute destroyed.--Gerardus (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The cat Memorials in the Netherlands is a subcat of the cat Monuments and memorials in the Netherland by province. So, upwards I changed nothing, but by provinces I restored the old situation. A few years ago I wanted to introduce for Belgian sculptures the cat: sculptures in Belgium by province. Not a bad iadea, isn't it. The comment by User Foroa was short: we (the Belgians) don't want that. I left Belgium and came back never again. I don't want to change the whole unilateral situation, what I did was getting the in three years time built construction for sculpture in the Netherlands back. I worked more than three years on this system (for the Neth. and some other countries as well) and nobody asked me how I thought about it. I am very disappointed and that for your comment now as well. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Gerardus, I want to say that I have tremendous respect for you as a contributor to Commons. I am not saying that to flatter you. I am saying what I believe. The project is much better off due to your participation. I also enjoyed our previous collaborations. Given that our past encounters were always cordial and productive, it seems to me that there must be a way to find a solution that maintains the consensus that was reached with respect to the monuments and memorials categories, yet also addresses your concerns about the impact on the sculpture categories. Let's work on that, and see what we can do. it's always better to talk than to fight. I know that you are frustrated (and angry) with me - I am frustrated with you too. :) But surely we can deal with this. As a first step, please explain the negative impact the change has had on the sculptures categories. I know that you provided some details before, but it we should start by making sure we are on the same page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Skeezix, look at the content of say Memorials in South Holland, which I just finished.By the way that was so far all I wanted to change: memorials by province nothing more nothing less. Chose yourself a city and you will see that only sculptures and memorials signs (gedenktekens in Dutch) are involved. Not a single building is shown! Building which are to be preserved as heritage are called Rijksmonumenten and have nothing to do with sculpture. And Rijksmonumenten are properly linked already (Images from Wiki Loves Monuments : 12.500 images). To please you I have made Memorials a subcat of Monuments and memorials. So, much ado about nothing and nothing is harming the overall categorisation. I repeat that for the Dutch visitor of sculptures and subcats: a Memorial is a sculpture as is shown in the now 185 lists of sculpture in the Netherlands by town on nl.wiki (see for instance nl:Lijst van beelden in Rotterdam). That was an enormous job done by several wikipedians during more than two years now and a still growing project. All images from Commons (the greater part) are shown in those lists (sculpture and the subcats) and described. Memorials (gedenktekens) form an integral part of those lists. Thats the why. Greetings, Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm really at a loss as to how to deal with you on this. Given the negative message you left on my talk page today, I'm not even sure any longer that you understand what the issues are. You certainly do not appear to have listened to anything I have said, given your recent comments. I delayed my response to your comment above because I was giving some thought as to how best to address the concerns you have in respect of the sculpture categories in the context of the consensus for the monuments and memorials categories. I was hoping to recommend potential solutions for your consideration. If you stopped taking this personally, stopped leaving overly-dramatic messages on my talk page, and showed an understanding of what it means to work on a collaborative project, I'd be happy to renew these discussions. Seriously, I really hope you can get some perspective on this issue, but at this point you just sound like a broken record. And it is really hard to work with people like that. Sorry. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm to old now to be impressed by empty words and promises. Sorry, I'm not a schoolboy. Regards.--Gerardus (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Keith_Haring_Sculpture_Lever_House.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Keith_Haring_Sculpture_Lever_House.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)‎ | +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:East_Coast_101.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:East_Coast_101.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)‎ | +/−

Ajbpearce (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Detail Four-Sided Pyramid.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Detail Four-Sided Pyramid.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


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)‎ | +/−

Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hakone open air museum (13).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hakone open air museum (13).jpg have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

Pymouss Let’s talk - 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Pesce papal.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Pesce papal.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


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)‎ | +/−

--Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke[edit]

für das Anlegen der Kategorien zu Horstmann-Czech und Kissel. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Horstmann-Czech habe ich mittlerweile eine Artikel gewidmet auf nl.wiki. Schöne Grüsse, --Gerardus (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Dein Artikel gefällt mir gut. Herzliche Grüße, --4028mdk09 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Artikel muβ noch übersetzt werden auf de.wiki (!),--Gerardus (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Über Hans-Michael Kissel möchte ich auch schreiben aber mir fehlen noch Photos aus Wiesloch, wo sich zwei seiner schöne Skulpturen befinden. Übrigens auch von viele andere Bildhauer wie Lingren, Haase, Pogorny, Szabo, usw. Wiesloch ist eine richtige Schatzkammer für Liebhaber. Siehst du da Chancen kommende Monate?? Wenn es dich interessiert, auch in Heidelberg muβ der Skulpturenpark Heidelberg noch komplett photografiert werden. Grüsse,--Gerardus (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Für Bilder von Skulpturen in Wiesloch stehen die Chancen in diesem Jahr gar nicht schlecht. Ich melde mich dann auf jeden Fall bei Dir. Hast Du da neben Kissel ganz spezielle Wünsche?
Spezielle Wünsche? Nein, Bildhauerei in öffentlichen Raum ist meine Leidenschaft: Meine Seite auf nl.wiki. 70 bis 80 meiner Artikel sind letztes Jahr für de.wiki übersetzt worden, auch von Deutsche Bildhauer (!).
Zum Skulpturenpark Heidelberg - der befindet sich im Garten- und Landschaftspark der Orthopädischen Universitätsklinik. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob das nicht "Privatgelände" ist, d. h. ob die Panoramafreiheit dort wirklich greift. Anderenfalls bräuchte man glaube ich eine Genehmigung des Vereins und / oder der Künstler. Ob man die auch für gewerbliche Zwecke bekommt? Das können vielleicht die Urheberrechtsexperten hier beantworten. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Skulpturenpark Heidelberg befindet sich im öff. Raum und ist für jeder Besucher zugänglich. Panoramafreiheit ist dort also Verwendbar. Einige Bilder sind schon auf Commons.
PS. Nur mal so am Rande: kennst Du eigendlich ´WP:Bilderwünsche? Gerade hier in der Großregion sind einige Fotografen aktiv, deren Bilder im übrigen eine viel höhere technische Qualität haben wie meine, so z. B. User:Randy43, User:Frank C. Mülleβr oder auch User:frank-m, um nur einige zu nennen.
Neine kenne ich nicht. Ich habe ebenfalls Kontakte mit User:AndreasPraefcke in Regensburg und User:Kamahele in Gäufelden. Ich arbeite nicht mehr so oft auf de.wiki und bemühe mich eigentlich nur um Übersetzungen und bestehende Artikel.

Grüsse,--Gerardus (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dann sollte es auch mit den Skulpturen im Skulpturenpark kein Problem sein. Ich melde mich auf jeden Fall wieder bei Dir. Grüße, --4028mdk09 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Artikel Hans-Michael Kissel ab jetzt auf nl und de.wiki. Schnell, nicht? Grüsse, --Gerardus (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Atemberaubend schnell. :-) Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ich habe auf nl.wiki schon angefangen. Alles klar! Alles wunderbar! Grüße, Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Gerardus, bis auf "Berta Benz" von Pit Elsasser habe ich jetzt die Bilder von Skulpturen in Wiesloch alle hochgeladen. Ich hoffe, Du kannst mit dem einen oder anderen der Bilder etwas anfangen. Herzliche Grüße und frohe Osterfeiertage, --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC) PS. Ob ich die letzten noch hochlade weiß ich nicht, da die Qualität relativ miserabel ist bzw. immer Leute im Weg standen.
Ich hatte jetzt die Vorwahl. An einige meiner Artikel auf nl.wiki habe ich schon oder kann ich noch weiter(ge)arbeiten(t).

Ich glaube das jetzt alle Skulpturen im öff. Raum in Wiesloch auf Commons sind und hoffentlich brauchen Kollegen auf andere Wiki's auch deine Bilder. Danke für deine Wünsche. Ebenso. Grüße, Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Alle Skulpturen im öffentlichen Raum? Nein, ich denke da gibt es noch eine ganze Reihe mehr. Da läßt sich bei Gelegenheit sicher noch etwas machen. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Stolpersteine in The Netherlands[edit]

Je zult het al wel ontdekt hebben: ik weet niet hoe ik een ondercategorie Tilburg moet maken. Help je even? Groet, Kattiel (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Uitgevoerd. Ik zag gisteravond op Berlin-TV Demnig, die in 1 straat 65 steentjes legde, betaald door de bewoners van de straat. Mooi he? Wat een vervelende complicatie nu weer met het beleid van Eindhoven. Ook in Oude P. woonden mensen uit Nieuwe P. en elders en van Oude P. naar Westerbork gedeporteerd. Dan de steentjes toch in Oude P. en niet bij het officiële adres, waar men misschien al langer dan een jaar niet meer woonde? Jammer. Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Havmannen.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Havmannen.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


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)‎ | +/−

--Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Louisiana03.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Louisiana03.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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Louisiana_6_Jul_01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Louisiana_6_Jul_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 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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Louisiana02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Louisiana02.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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Oslo_Serra_sculpture.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Oslo_Serra_sculpture.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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Louisiana02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Louisiana02.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)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Vigelandsparken.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vigelandsparken.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)‎ | +/−

178.232.124.8 11:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Oslo_Gormley.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Oslo_Gormley.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)‎ | +/−

89.8.242.183 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Skulpturlandskap03.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Skulpturlandskap03.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)‎ | +/−

176.11.170.226 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Skulpturlandskap01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Skulpturlandskap01.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)‎ | +/−

176.11.170.226 22:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:MdS01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:MdS01.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pyramidian.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pyramidian.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Suvero03.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Suvero03.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Suvero02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Suvero02.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:East_Coast_133.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:East_Coast_133.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:East_Coast_134.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:East_Coast_134.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Storm_King_Calder.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Storm_King_Calder.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)‎ | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)