User talk:Pieter Kuiper

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

Archives: 2008 | 2009 | 2010a | 2010b | 2010c | 2011

Contents

Trovärdighet[edit]

Jag försöker förstå, vad gör att Rebecca G inte är trovärdig medan användarens marionetter är det? /grillo (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Intern evidens, till exempel på File:RioKalle.jpg. Bättre kan det inte bli, hur trovärdig uppladdaren än är. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Förstås, jag borde ha kollat fler bilder än vad jag gjorde. De jag kollade tyckte jag inte att man kunde lita på mer än Rebecca G:s, framförallt för att väldigt många påstås vara eget arbete. Antagligen borde jag ha kollat noggrannare och gjort separata DR:s för de olika bilderna. /grillo (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I know we have disagreed a lot in the past, so it is nice to see that you are a voice of objectivity when you easily could have tried to bury me. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • You even tried to get me banned, in Christmas night. COM:BLOCK says something about disrupting the famed "collegial atmosphere", but I do not care much for that atmosphere anyway. Let us agree to disagree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Hallo Pieter, bei deinem Edit hier ist irgendetwas schiefgegangen. Grüße --Frank (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke, jetzt klappt es. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kadasterkaart1811-1832.png[edit]

Hi, could you take a look on this DR? Trycatch (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Trycatch (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I was not aware that this was online, so now I spent some time looking around in the region where I grew up. Thank you for asking about this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

explanation[edit]

Hi Pieter, Could you please explain why you undid my edit here? Thanks. AMERICOPHILE 17:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there was a source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why I can't see any source! AMERICOPHILE 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Own work from 2005 on the Portuguese wikipedia. You had renamed the file!! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Damian?[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Voidokilia_beach_location_map.png&diff=64843082&oldid=64837581

You aren't "Peter Damian", right? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not - Fæ is mixing up people in his mind. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? Judging from User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Image_stalking and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/86.174.0.217, Fæ might be a tiny bit paranoid (i.e he sees his enemies everywhere). At the very least, Peter Damian had a strong presence within Fæ's mind when Fæ was replying to you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way[edit]

I forgot to mention this before, but when I recently through all of the policies I notice that it says that it is right for people to check for policy related matters even if they are in a dispute with another. So I was wrong when I put a statement on AN before because even if you were motivated by revenge it would still make the nominations 100% appropriate according to Commons policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Image stalking[edit]

You are blatantly image stalking me. Stop. This is at best creepy and if it continues is likely to be seen as harassment. -- (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do not stop threatening me, I will take up your behaviour at the user problem board. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Asking you to stop stalking me is not a threat. I suggest you ask some administrators for advice if you do not appreciate the difference. -- (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You come with accusations of criminal behaviour ("stalking", "harassment"). Stop it, or I will ask administrators for advice on what should be done about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do ask for advice. I have already suggested you do precisely that. -- (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Pieter Kuiper is well within his rights and policy to continue checking your uploads, especially given that your map was deleted as a copyvio. For someone who is "trusted" with verifying OTRS tickets and wanted to become an admin you have a shocking lack of understanding of policy, including but probably not limited to, COM:DW, COM:L, COM:BP and COM:DR. Note this in particular from COM:DR and your posts on COM:AN about closing the DR as no consensus (added emphasis)

The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle.

Not to mention the fact you appear to be less than truthful about the source and method of creating the now-deleted map. You claimed it came from a self creation in Inkscape but I am very familiar with Inkscape and there are reasonable doubts as to your claim:

  • Inkscape-exported SVG files produce PNG files with anti-aliasing, the "inkscape" paths (roads) in all uploaded versions of the deleted map were not anti-aliased (i.e. the roads are "jagged").
  • Inkscape-exported PNG files contain an EXIF field for Software (value set to www.inkscape.org), the deleted uploads didn't.
  • The EXIF data for the versions of the file match the EXIF data produced by Microsoft Paint.NET, which would also explain the aliased paths.
  • If you really were familiar with Inkscape and SVG, then why didn't you export the OSM map data as an SVG file and edit that instead of what looks like a screen-capped "paint" job? For that matter why didn't you just upload the SVG of the original map once you "found it" in your archive? SVG is beneficial for many reasons, including translation and easy re-colouring.

So no, I think with reasonable doubts on the veracity of statements you have made Pieter is one the best people to be checking your uploads, he has a very keen insight in to copyright violations. And this page is no doubt watched by every admin on Commons judging by the amount of times he gets dragged to COM:AN/U, so if you really want more eyes on your uploads, then your posting here will be more effective than at COM:AN for getting the right people (i.e. non Wikipedia Review crowd) looking in to them.

And you can try and besmirch Pieter (not a hard job considering the aforementioned appearances at COM:AN/U) by mentioning his contributions to Wikipedia Review, but anyone with an ounce of sense can investigate the claim and see that he is far from being an active member there (weeks and months between solitary contributions) and he does not appear to be taking part in any so called "tag team". There are en.wiki Arbitrators who are more active there!

And no, to answer all of your bad faith accusations before you make them: I am not a member of Wikipedia Review; I am not, nor ever have been, banned or blocked on any Wikimedia project; I was not told to post here nor was I canvassed in any way; if it wasn't for the recent drama on COM:AN, COM:DR and various admin talk pages I wouldn't have a clue about any of this; I am not here to "attack" or "harrass" anyone; I have had no interaction with any of the users in any of the numerous threads on talk pages, RfAs, DRs etc regarding Fae, Ottava Rima, Fred the Oyster, etc beyond commenting on similar COM:VP threads; yes I have a Commons account; no I don't wish to log in and be hounded by anyone involved or added to somebody's naughty list for stating a perfectly reasonable observation. --86.174.0.217 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Highly amusing, that "naughty list". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/86.174.0.217. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I put it on my watchlist. And Herbythyme already replied as expected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well well well - didn't realise you were on WR. The "naughty list" now has my attention too. (only passing by) --Herby talk thyme 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I should have said but PK is very good at what he does too. Doesn't always mean we agree with each other but I think I have fallen out less with him than some folk on Commons. --Herby talk thyme 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and here is Delicious carbuncle again. Using an account here for the single purpose of stalking someone is not the same thing as being a Wikimedia Commons contributor. -- (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Fæ, I have asked you repeatedly to stop attacking me and stop making accusations. If you have concerns about my editing here, please use the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, present evidence, and allow me to defend myself. I am asking you again to stop or I will ask for you to be blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The history of your contributions over the last four weeks are clear for anyone to see. You have been warned to "disengage" and your continued stalking of me shows that you have no intention of listening to this advice. -- (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems somewhat bizarre for me to make this comment on PK's page but as you are both here I will do so and hope PK will forgive me.

I would like both Delicious carbuncle and Fæ to disengage from each other please. It gets Commons nowhere at all to spend such an inordinate amount of time on such matters. I would prefer not to block either of you but if this goes on I will have to give it serious thought. --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I should not have to defend myself here simply because I placed a link to a request for checkuser on the page where the IP user was most likely to see it. Fæ has been attempting to discredit me with claims that I have been "harassing" (and now "stalking") him for two years, without providing any evidence. I am more familiar with conduct on en.wiki, but over there making accusations like those are considered clear personal attacks and the user would be blocked if they did not withdraw the remarks. I am tired of these constant accusations and I would like the opportunity to defend myself. Am I asking for too much? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Pieter - replied on user's talk page and so (unless Pieter has something to say) this thread is closed --Herby talk thyme 14:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Herbythyme. I was away, otherwise I would have asked Fæ and Dc to take their quarrel somewhere else. I would suggest WR (even Mike Godwin has started writig there now). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

With apologies[edit]

I have hijacked a thread of yours on OTRS here. You are welcome to separate them again however I felt that they were linked in some ways. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is no need at all to apologize. I am very happy with your analysis - the OTRS people are just being too nice. They try to accommodate the wishes of uploaders. And that excellent trait creates a problem. For example, Fæ is even prepared to "verify" the template {{PD-UK-unknown}} for a photo where the name of the author is known, but not his year of death. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes - I have to agree with your summary and I think the community should consider both our views. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

GPS tag[edit]

Where is this data shown in the metadata? Chesdovi (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I do not know the background for your question. Cameras with gps device (and iPhones) include it in the exif. One can also add it by hand to a file page using the template {{location}}. I hope this is an answer to your question. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly removing bot history[edit]

Please do not remove bot histories from images, this is not to the benefit of Commons. You have done this to several images for no clear reason. -- (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Simple cleanup. History is in history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing correct categories is not cleanup. -- (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
What correct category have I removed? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
By blanking the Faebot upload template you are removing Category:Flickr images uploaded by Faebot. -- (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
With this edit, I replaced Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Faebot (temporary category, files will be moved to a useful category within a few hours) ID72157622699312434 by Category:Kherson. That was an improvement. You had not touched your uploads since August. Stop whining about your precious bot categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You blanked {{User:Faebot/upload|date=12:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)|reviewer=Faebot}} in that edit. Blanking useful bot information and categories hampers such upload programmes. If you want to complain about my "whining" I suggest you take it to an appropriate forum where your disruptive behaviour might also be looked at, yet again. Thanks -- (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Making pointy reverts in revenge for my comment here is blatantly disruptive. I suggest you take some time to consider how your actions will appear to be deliberately disruptive. Thanks -- (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Dr D.H.Bawand - National front of IRAN- Speaker.jpg[edit]

Hello Pieter, Could you please have a look at the above file. Is there anything fishy that User:Wvk has applied the {{npd}} tag? The file is in a high resolution and contains EXIF. Could you please remove the tag if everything seems OK for you? Thanks in advance AMERICOPHILE 14:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Probably, uploader's track record was grounds for suspicion. But then it should be done by a regular DR in my opinion. I removed the tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, have a look at Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people. The photo was clearly taken in a private place and Dr Bawand might not like his photo available under a free licence. Therefore I marked the photo as npd. I did not want to come up with a DR to give the uploader the opportunity the mail a permission of Dr Bawand to the OTRS team. Could you please add the {{npd}} tag. --Wvk (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a spokesman! Make a DR if you must. And that is not what the npd tag is for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is what the uploader claims! I didn't find any proof of this claim (see en:wp National_Front_(Iran)#Leaders). Why DR when there is a possibility to mail to Dr Bawand? --Wvk (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That would be a reason for renaming the file, not for an npd tag. Make a DR if you do not trust this. I cannot read Persian, discussing this matter here will not accomplish anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hi, you may be interested in the new developments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slavko Osterc.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Could the Slovenian Library be wrong? Needs better evidence before I change my !vote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Pieter_Kuiper_violates_interaction_ban. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Rd232 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. Was not Woodzing supposed to do that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
He asked me to do it, presumably because of the interaction ban. Rd232 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that Tetra Pak is a source[edit]

Hi, could you explain why the anonymous Flickr account 'Tetra Pak' is a suitable source to be seen as the copyright owner of publicity materials (diff)? Thanks -- (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How could you tag it for "no source"? It is a Flickr pro account, clearly corporate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The account has absolute no such information in its profile. Just because someone has paid Flickr for a pro account does not mean that this anonymous person has a valid claim of copyright. Could you also explain why you are image stalking me again? -- (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Not everything is about you. I have fixed quite a few of this contributor's uploads. And I trust that Flickr does some checking of their pro accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad you trust Flickr, it's a shame that your approach is inconsistent when you blank Flickr information from my uploads. I'll try to defer judgement as to your stalking, evidently you have a long track record for being seen to stalk others and spoil their enjoyment of helping to improve Commons. I certainly feel you are stalking my contributions and the established history of your complaints about me would seem to back that up. If you were to choose to leave me alone, there would be no problem here would there; or do you think I am following you about? -- (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know what your enjoyment is, but you seem to be extremely sensitive. It is easy to see that I had posted on User talk:Tartesauxpommes, and that your notifications there show up on my watch list. These are Swedish photos, I have a special interest. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding a "no source" in cases like this is not the right solution and removing the "no source" tag is not stalking. If a source is provided and you do not trust it you should start a DR and explain why. I think that the easy solution about Tetra Pak is to send them a mail and ask if they can confirm that it is their account. --MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Already done. Thanks -- (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Then I will not send a mail. --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Image stalking Faebot[edit]

Could you explain why you have moved from image stalking me directly to image stalking Faebot? I think you have a problem with harassing other contributors, it certainly feels like you are attempting to harass and spoil any possible enjoyment I might have for contributing to Wikimedia Commons. -- (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæbot is a source of copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You have no justification for persisting with weeks of image stalking me and my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. Your behaviour is anti-collaborative, destructive and you are blatantly stalking and hounding me. -- (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You are flooding Commons by copying images from private Flickr accounts. You do not categorize them, and you do not check the licenses. For many uploads, there is no sourcing. And you are conducting training sessions for OTRS volunteers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. I do categorize and attempt to use hidden backlog categories to manage the exercise. Unfortunately you arbitrarily remove templates and categories which makes the work impossible. At the same time, this acts as a review of licensing as can be seen by the fact that yesterday I converted over 600 of my uploaded images relating to the 19th C. history of slavery in America to PD-100 from a CC license. As for my OTRS work I am not going to discuss that volunteer work with you as someone who has made personal attacks against me in deletion reviews. -- (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that there will be literally hundreds of users who consider I am "stalking" them. That is because, when I find one copyvio, I check the other contributions. That is what many hard working folk on Commons do - it ain't personal for me - it is about legality. --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Herbythyme, I can draw no parallel between your good work and the complaints of Pieter Kuiper's disruptive behaviour in the past here and on Wikipedia. Making personal attacks in deletion reviews is never acceptable. -- (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Pieter is not the perfect communicator and I've said that to him before. However I exhibit the same behaviour in the sense that, having found issues with a user, I pursue them - some would say relentlessly - because that is what is required here. I have to say that if you bot has a history of copyright violation uploads you really should be addressing that to save us all having to monitor it so closely. --Herby talk thyme 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Herbythyme, you are really prepared to support Pieter Kuiper's offensive personal comments about me such as those in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benz Car (1888).jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seumas O'Sullivan.jpg? As can be seen as my working practice, I have no problem in improving my uploads and would raise dubious ones for deletion myself where needed, being harassed by Pieter Kuiper just gets in the way of any possibility for collaborative improvement. -- (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This may sound a little unsympathetic and if so I am sorry but if you consider that being "attacked" by PK you have not had the experience with him that I have had. My failings have been pointed out to me more than once - I have had a number of run ins with PK however he is good at what he does. I do wish he would be a little kinder to folk (though some people would say the same about me). However he is - mostly - good at what he does if not the way he does it. Please do try and see this as less personal that you seem to see it. I'll look harder at those DRs but they seem worth discussion at the very least. --Herby talk thyme 12:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You did not learn much of previous deletion discussions that I started. I see no improvement of your understanding of the copyright standards on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize that you thought you were teaching me a lesson. I thought you only started following me around on Commons after reading and making contributions to an offensive defamatory personal attack against me on Wikipedia Review. In what way does this justify your offensive personal comments about me on Wikimedia Commons? -- (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I often take a critical look at the uploads of admin candidates. That is how I noticed you. And your bulk uploads are very poor. You are prepared to swallow anything, as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valentine's postcard.jpg shows. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a really really simple way of avoiding PK's attention- ensure that licensing is as it should be - 100% correct. Gone to get on with other things now. --Herby talk thyme 12:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:UsElections Obama Latuff.gif[edit]

I have tagged File:UsElections Obama Latuff.gif as it appears to be corrupted.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not corrupted at all. This is just an old-fashioned limitation of the wikimedia software. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Both here and on Wikipedia, I have asked for an investigation of whether you are guilty of outing, and if so, whether you should be banned for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another officious busybody... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't care what you call me, as long as you call me to supper. :)
Outing is bad. If you've outed someone, you should be ashamed, and you should not be editing within the wikimedia foundation. If you've not outed someone, then all's swell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
People are outing themselves. Some of these people use crying "outing!" as a pretext to try to get rid of me. I prefer people being open about their identities. I do not mind people contributing anonymously. But there are problems when some want to have it both ways. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that if someone outs themself, then it's their blunder. Regardless, it's not good to make a thing of it if they didn't intend to do it. But if they're open about it, that could be another story. In general, outing should be avoided unless it's critical to the integrity of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Like for example in File:Wikimedia and the British Library 2011.pdf. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that I was asked at the noticeboard, if I'm so concerned about wikimedia integrity, then am I concerned about your being a stickler for ensuring that uploaded materials are indeed free content (actually that's not quite what I was asked, but I think that was what they were getting at). The answer is, YES, I am concerned about uploads. I used to argue with some of the guys over at wikipedia. But I understand the issue now, and its importance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
On Commons, I am far from the worst stickler for copyright fundamentalism. But instead of bugging newbies, I look at contributions of editors that apply for admin etcetera. Anyway, thank you for bringing my case to AN/I on enwp. A week's block there does not really affect me, but it would be nice to have it lifted. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Above all else, I want the best interests of wikipedia and commons served, and as I am a relatively disinterested party, bringing this matter to their attention will maybe help to resolve this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vraag[edit]

Hoi Pieter, zou jij hier je mening over kunnen geven, want we staan daar loodrecht op elkaar. Alvast bedankt. -- Mdd (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Pieter, bedankt voor je reactie hierboven. Mag ik je nog een vraag stellen over deze bewerking. Ik ben hier een tijd niet actief geweest, en begrijp deze toevoeging niet echt. Het hele idee de vrije licentie is/was, dat je kan voortbouwen op werk van anderen. Zelfs als je een uitsnede maakt, dan maak je echt een ander beeld. Nu lijkt me hier met slecht "Attribution: Rainer Halama" geen recht te worden gedaan aan mijn inbreng. Het hele cc-sa idee is voor mij gelijk delen. Ik zou dan "Attribution: Rainer Halama/Marcel Douwe Dekker" of zoiets verwachten... Maar wellicht mis ik hier iets? -- Mdd (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hoi Marcel, graag gedaan. Het hangt ervanaf of je bijdrage als een "werk" kan worden beschouwd. Bij dat vorige geval ging het om een foto van een voorwerp in een aquarium, en het is algemeen geaccepteerd dat zo'n foto een werk is, met de fotograaf als auteur. Maar voor een scan van een tekening is dat niet zo, dan vermeldt men de kunstenaar in het auteursveld, niet degene die de scan of de reprofoto maakte.
Hetzelfde voor File:André Dekker.jpg. Jouw bijdrage is slechts het maken van een uitsnede. Det is geen werk dat de auteurswet beschermt. Pas als je een collage maakt of iets dergelijks, zou je kunnen spreken van een nieuw werk (het hangt ervanaf hoe origineel het is, en ook van de rechtspraak in verschillende landen). En dan kun je er je eigen licentie aan geven, bovenop de lecenties van de gebruikte fotos. Groeten, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Duidelijk verhaal, bedankt. Zou je over die eerste foto van dat aquarium ook nog wat kunnen zeggen hier. Ik ben toch benieuwd of ik dat werk wel zelf mag claimen? Die foto is onderdeel van deze fotoserie, waarbij deze foto duidelijk een representatie van het werk van de ceramist was. Maar nadat dat in de haaienbak was afgezonken, en er een haai voorbij zwom, wordt het toch wel een iets ander verhaal of niet? Of wat vind jij? -- Mdd (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Pieter, ik moet je wel hebben vanavond. De laatste bijdrage hier (van Jim, 00:15, 1 February 2012) klink mij heel bizar in de oren: We routinely require permission from any place an image has been published. Zou je me daar ook wat over kunnen zeggen, en dan laat ik je daarna de komende twee jaar weer met rust. -- Mdd (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vraag gerust nog eens! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Bedankt, dat zal ik doen. Deze keer heb ik slecht een mededeling. Ik onderschrijf dit commentaar van je volledig. Ik ben zelfs van mening, dat in bepaalde situaties, bepaalde gebruikers met alle geweld gelijk willen hebben. Om dit voor elkaar te krijgen schroeven ze de vereiste steeds verder op, zoals hier we routinely require.... Wat mij als uiterst schofferend overkomt, is de mededeling van Whaledad bij de nominatie [1]: Mdd is the designer of the bookcase, but Viva Magazine and/or the photographer is/are the owner of the copyright.
Dat is gewoon echt oplichterij, want dat is een compleet ongefundeerde bewerking waar geen enkel bewijs voor is. Er is gewoon de situatie dat ik het bewijs niet sluitend heb, en waarschijnlijk heel lastig sluitend krijg. Het lijkt een geval van het bewust geven van misleidende informatie. Nu heb ik natuurlijk van alles gewend, maar dat dit soort praktijk is toegestaan op Wikipedia/Wikicommons is natuurlijk van de gekke.
Nu krijg je waarschijnlijk weinig mee van wat op Wikipedia gebeurt, maar dat soort toestanden is daar al maanden schering en inslag. Eromheen heerst een complete bestuurschaos, dat moderatoren en arbitragecommissie daaromheen niet wil optreden. Moderatoren die dat wel hebben gedaan kregen een serieuze vergeldingsactie(s) voor hun kiezen. Ook Whaledad is duidelijk uit op zo'n vergelding en niet alleen hier, zie ook bijvoorbeeld dit commentaar op Wikicommons.
Nu vertel ik je dit slechts, omdat je hier niet tussen hoeft te gaan zitten. Ik ben eigenlijk van plan de KAST-kast van de week zelf nog maar eens te gaan fotograferen, en die dan over de foto heen te uploaden. De enige reden waarom ik dat zou doen is, omdat die foto zelf momenteel op de Engelse Wikipedia geplaatst is, en daar ben ik heel blij mee. Op het Nederlandse Wikipedia artikel is die overigens weggehaald. Ik blijf het een teleurstelling en nederlaag voor de Wikimedia samenwerking vinden, en overweeg ook me terug te trekken uit die RFD nominaties hier. Ik trek dat gewoon niet. Ik sta wel open voor andere suggesties... en naar dit laatste zou ik je toch nog eens willen vragen. -- Mdd (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Foto's van Nederlands Design op Wikicommons[edit]

Hoi Pieter, ik vind deze discussie wel interessant, maar ik ga daar niet meer tussen zitten. Nu de rook rond de onenigheid rond mijn werk hier optrekt, herinner ik me ook weer waarom ik die foto's oorspronkelijk heb geupload, en waarom ik daarover op Wikiquote een artikel heb opgezet. Ik wilde hier een voorbeeld stellen. Ik zit al jaren haast te bedelen bij een enkele kunstenaar en ook een stichting rond een overleden kunstenaar, dat ze werk vrijgeven hier. Maar dat schoot/schiet echt niet op. Ik ben als het ware met mijn eigen werk de boel gaan verkennen hier. Nu moet ik wel zeggen, dat ik opgelucht ben dat het allemaal geregeld is nu, maar dit wil ik niet nogmaals meemaken. En ik wens niemand anders zo'n behandeling toe. Over de foto´s die nu zijn verwijderd ben ik nog in onderhandeling met de betreffende fotografen, en dat is alles in de lijn waarop ik hierover eerdere uitspraken heb gedaan. Constructief wel is, dat het nu eens tot de bodem toe uitgezocht is hier. Maar tot zover mijn verhaal.

Mijn intentie op Wikimedia is al jaren om de representatie van bepaalde wetenschappelijk onderwerpen te verbeteren, en sinds een paar jaar doe ik daar wat over kunst en vormgeving bij. Nu is het wel zo dat ik enige contacten heb, en met een generatie vormgevers (die opkwamen in de jaren 1990) ben meegegroeid. Daar zou ik best als contactpersoon kunnen optreden. Over die twee foto's van Barbara Nanning bestaat nu nog enigheid, of ze al dan niet toestemming heeft gegeven. En hierover zou ik contact kunnen opnemen. Met name over keramisten weet ik nog het een en ander meer... Echter, in andere situaties heb ik dat eerder gedaan zonder overleg, en leidde tot scheve gezichten. Ik heb nog wel Tejo Remy benaderd, maar ga dat in het geval van Barbara Nanning niet meer doen uit eigen beweging. Ik was in de veronderstelling, dat foto op Flickr daar rechtmatig stond. Nu weet ik ook even niet hoe oud dat werk is. Maar ik meen dat met toegepaste kunst ergens een termijn van 25 jaar geldt.

Mijn vraag nu is of jij het een goed idee vind, dat ik eens op korte termijn met de ceramiste contact opneem. En wellicht op langere termijn, dat er nagedacht kan worden over een meer "formele status" van een tussenpersoon naar een bepaalde doelgroep. Zoals er coaches zijn voor nieuwe gebruikers, kunnen er ook tussenpersonen zijn, of ambassadeurs naar bepaalde beroepsgroepen. Nu is dat een idee, dat hier enige uitkomst kan bieden. Maar jij loopt hier continu rond en weet wellicht of dit wel eens ter sprake is gekomen hier. Ik ben wel benieuwd naar je mening hierover. -- Mdd (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Inderdaad, de behandeling van mensen die proberen bij te dragen aan Commons is vaak beneden alle peil. Dat wordt ook erg duidelijk wanneer men geëtableerde gebruikers (admins etc) op dezelfde manier behandelt - ze reageren vaak erg verontwaardigd. Men moet het niet wagen zoiemand van "zelfglorifiering" te beschuldigen - dat zou een "persoonlijke aanval" zijn, en reden voor blokkering.
Er wordt wel eens voorgesteld om bijvoorbeeld 65-plussers te werven voor wikipedia en Commons, maar ik zou nooit iemand daartoe overhalen. Het risico dat veel bijdragen gewist worden is erg groot. De regels zijn oneindig gecompliceerd. Bovendien, wat nu toegelaten is, is dat misschien over vijf jaar niet meer. Flickr is waarschijnlijk een beter idee. Of een eigen web site. En dan kun je je eigen licentie kiezen (non-commercial, no derivatives), of gewoon alle rechten aan jezelf houden.
Er is een erg informele steungroep voor Zweedse bijdragen. Raderingsnominaties van afbeeldingen die op de Zweedse wp in gebruik zijn worden gesignaleerd door een bot, zodat we in elk geval op de hoogte zijn. Een aantal commons-actieve Zweden heeft anderen op hun bewakingslijst, zodat we meteen zien wanneer daar een verwijderingssjabloon wordt geplaatst. Soms kan ik helpen, maar vaak valt er weinig te doen.
Het beleid op Commons zou gewijzigd moten worden. Of wikipedias zouden afbeeldingen moeten kunnen tonen die ergens anders liggen. En eigenlijk moeten er grenzen worden gesteld aan het auteursrecht, vooral wat betreft fotografie. Maar ik heb geen zin energie te steken in dat soort discussies; het is verspilde moeite. Groeten, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Deep water wave.gif[edit]

Pieter, I checked with the "main man" in the field - of years ago (Fenton), and he does not know who coded File:Deep water wave.gif. Do you? Doug youvan (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to your comment[edit]

Regarding your comment at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attack_by_User_My76Strat_-_calling_user_part_of_a_.22lunatic_fringe.22, as your comment was not related to the subsection, perhaps we can continue that part of the discussion here on your talk page. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

Thank you for your comment at Commons talk:Attack page, I agree with it. Nice to see we can find some common ground. I hope you're doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I hope you are doing well, don't get too depressed about last night primary results :( /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyright analysis help[edit]

Thanks for your copyright analysis help, at Commons:Village_pump#American_Dialect_Society_organization_logo. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand[edit]

Hallo, Sir

Why do the pictures of the PD items are illegal only due to be taken out of books ?

Or do You know another way to get that pictures except personal visit with camera to museum?

You are welcome.Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 11:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your question is probably about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faraday's iron ring-coil apparatus.jpg. It would be better to discuss it there. But the photo is not old and still protected by copyright in most countries. The alternative is old images like File:Faradays transformer.png (from 1896) or indeed going to the museum, like File:Michael Faradays 1845 Magneto-Optical Electro-Magnet & A Sectored Disc.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Colosseum.svg[edit]

It's my own work! Angelus(talk) 22:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am almost certain that the SVG is based on a drawing made by someone else. I see nothing that suggests that you could make this kind of drawings yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It's only your POV! I can make this kind of drawings by my self! Angelus(talk) 22:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colosseum.svg. I suggest you withdraw your Commons:Administrators/Requests/ANGELUS before you dig yourself even deeper. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jean Baptiste Perrin.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Jean Baptiste Perrin.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)‎ | +/−

Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


File:Jean Baptiste Perrin.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Jean Baptiste Perrin.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)‎ | +/−

87.118.93.143 18:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BoNM - Galactic Republic Hires.png[edit]

Hello. Is now everithing ok with the 100px? --Antonu (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, you eliminated the problem. Thanks, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Interventions on Angelus' work[edit]

Hello. I noticed you put some templates of deletion on several images which were created by User:Angelus. I'm sure you are acting in the best Commons' interest, but I would please ask you to make more explicit the motivations why you labeled them to be cancelled. I personally know Angelus and I have to tell you he's one of the best and dedicated graphics around in Wikipedia and Commons, and a very kind and collaborative person. He lived this as a personal attack and this demotivated him a lot, to the point he's thinking to abandonate the whole project, which would be a real damage, further than contrary to the inclusiveness policies that as a wiki movement we are trying to put in place to attract and retain editors. Therefore, I would please ask you to contact him and explain the motivations which are underlying your edits and procedures to save images from cancellation. Thanks a lot.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was quite clear about the reasons for my deletion requests. Angelus is often claiming work by others as his own, for example in his message above about File:Colosseum.svg. That is not nice, not honest, and not collaborative. If he wants to keep working here, his approach will need to change. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I read your motivations and I have to say that if you are right, you're right. Indeed, I'm not sufficiently expert about graphics to have a technical say about how you decided it is not original work. I'm only struck by the fact that he assertively sustained he's perfectly able to build images like the ones he's uploading, and having seen him on work, I can easily believe him. But as I said, I would need to understand more in order to have a final opinion. What I feel more contentious is "If he wants to keep working here, his approach will need to change.". THIS is not nice, IMHO, and not conform to our rules about relationships among users. No one is individually entitled to decide whether a user can or cannot work on a wiki project; collectivity can, in the case h/she insistently and intentionally violates the rules, and I can't see sufficient or shared evidence in this case to justify such an attitude. Therefore, I would please kindly ask you to revise your own attitude, also, because IMHO it is not helpful. We need talented people here, and Angelus is. Did he make something wrong? It needs to be proved, and until then, innocence should have to be presumed (it is the founding principle of any civilian juridic system). Is it proved? The user gets an official reprimendum, and in any case the measure has to be directed to get him in, and not out the wiki projects. Please regard this as an attempt of conciliation, which it is. I'm trying to understand a situation, saving rules, and a talented user.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I repeat: Angelus is often claiming work by others as his own. There is plenty of proof for that, see his RfA. A particularly egregious example: on October 15 last year, Angelus uploaded File:Real Barnstars.jpg as own work with a CC-BY license requiring that it be attributed to him, but in fact he had taken the photo is from http://www.etsy.com/listing/53702771/3-vintage-barn-stars-primitives-by-domus Such behaviour must not be condoned on Commons. You should stop your wikilawyerig about innocent until proven guilty: this is a clear case of a serial copyright violator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the original image (it was deleted), but I have no problem in believing you. However, I still feel uncomfortable about your attitude, which I perceive as angry and sharp on me also, even if I clearly said I'm trying to understand and conciliate. Again, what I'm trying to do is to understand and conciliate, you don't need to talk to me like this. I'm not "wikilawyering", I'm applying good sense and Wikilove, while trying to understand. And I still think that IMHO your attitude is not the best, but it is a personal opinion. I consider Angelus a very valuable contributor, and he is, to the point that he gained several awards on it.wiki, including the "2011 Award]". He's a rollbacker, autopatrolled and file mover user on Commons, quite the same on it.wiki, and he recently was candidate to become an administrator. I cannot believe that he managed to have this level of acknowledgment without that his supposedly "stolen" work has been exposed. I simply can't understand, there is a huge cognitive dissonance to me.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Les Prix Nobel en 1953[edit]

Once you have that book, it would be great to go through other laureates of that year and do the following: if the Commons photo matches the original, add a verification note (e.g., published in 1954 in Les Prix Nobel en 1953, page xxx), maybe scan and upload a better version, if time permits and if it's worth the effort. Your scan might be of much better quality than the web copy. It is a rare opportunity to have a hardcopy of this series. The relevant files could be

Two other laureates of 1953, Winston Churchill and George Marshall, are well covered, and I thus won't bother with their photos. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it will be useful to upload scans from the book to document publication of these photos in Sweden at the time. I just did Zernike, and I will continue with the rest. (I also got 1951 and 1952.) But the quality is much worse - I assume that the Nobel foundation has the negatives. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

scheißegal → "nicht relevant"[edit]

Thank you very much. The word "scheißegal" isn't so good, the word "nicht relevant" is better. Thank you very much :-) Greetings --Messina (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I wanted a strong word, and I had checked that here that it was not completely unacceptable; I aimed for something like "struntsamma" in Swedish, but this was a bit over the mark then. Anyway, provenance is nice to have and often essential for knowing the copyright status, but here it does not matter: these old posters are their own source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Each poster has a date, (it's on the poster) which can be seen. For that it doesn't matter, where they come from. I'm very glad. Nice to read your notice --Messina (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Stars for Bernadotte[edit]

Hello, excuse me for disturbing you, I'm dunkirk flanders, I am researching the kings of Sweden and especially on Charles XIV John and his son Oscar I of Sweden.


I read your intervention on page Jimmy 44 [[2]] and your source that I find very interresting. the source is telling us that this is an Oscar added that the constellation of the truck (Karlavagnen) I do not dispute but Oscar I of Sweden Oscar I of Sweden had two coat of arms because if you look at the first photo (arms of alliance with the arms of his wife) there are no stars and the second photo, coat of arms (left) in the church Riddarholmen there is no star either.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Tullgarn_Vapen_2011a.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhkyrkan.H%C3%B6gkoret_mot_v%C3%A4ster.jpg

What do you think about the fact that it had two coats of arms--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your help Good day to you cordially

Thank you for reminding me of that. That source link is a summary in French of a long article by Hans Hildebrand. The page of interest is here. Hildebrand refers to the 1874 book "Svensk Heraldik" by Klingspor & Schlegel who described the Pontecorvo coat-of-arms as having a raven and seven stars; already then this was so established that even experts did not remember that it was an eagle, and that there were no stars. So it is interesting that you found such clear documentation in Riddarholm church.
Hildebrand does not know how the stars were introduced. His article is about the State CoA, not about Oscar I's heraldry. On the following page he tells about two proposals in 1844 for the CoA of the union (with Norway). The minority had a proposal with the seven stars.
I am not a heraldry person, but if I can help you with anything because I have easier access to sources here in Sweden, I will be happy to help. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for this other source, look at me I just found this but it is for Oscar II.http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=det+svenska+riksvapnet&start=110&um=1&hl=fr&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHNY_frFR367FR367&biw=1024&bih=641&tbm=isch&tbnid=ZK__yoCOdUBvqM:&imgrefurl=http://postvagnen.com/forum/index.php%3Fmode%3Dthread%26id%3D11941&docid=zU7s6r_UzNlTqM&imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/2397146932_56d4fe4b53.jpg&w=438&h=500&ei=WhlaT9v5Koa38QPxucXoDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=773&vpy=241&dur=1422&hovh=240&hovw=210&tx=147&ty=121&sig=106970413894028886767&page=6&tbnh=141&tbnw=125&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:110

Yes you could help me for two things I can not find in France please.

1) Charles XIV John of Sweden became Crown Prince in 1810 whether he could coat of arms as Prince.

2) Oscar I of Sweden was Duke of Södermanland of 1810 to 1844 I can not find a source for his coat of arms could you help me again.--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help good weekend

I am not certain whether I understand your first question, but here is the seal he used as Prince of Pontecorvo. I will try to find something more about Oscar. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, I misspoke myself, I resumed Charles XIV John of Sweden, Prince of Pontecorvo's 1806 and 1810.

In 1810, he became Crown Prince of Sweden, and that is what interests me he had a coat of arms as Crown Prince from 1810 to 1818?

Excuse me yet but my English is not exellent

good evening to you--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You can write in French, I can read it, but it is a great effort for me to write it.
Of possible interest to you: File talk:BernadotteArmsCropToShield.jpg.
Oscar I's seal is here; unfortunately, the photo only shows the handle. But there is a description: Oval platta av silver med graverat vapen för svensk kronprins som är hertig av Södermanland (Oskar I). Fyrstyckad sköld: tre kronor, folkungalejonet, det norska lejonet och Södermanlands grip, hjärtsköld Bernadotte och Vasa. Skrafferade färgangivelser. Skölden krönt av kronprinskrona. Sköldhållare två krönta bakåtseende lejon, stående på trappstegsformat postament, tre steg. Nedanför skölden hänger Nordstjärne- , Svärds- och Serafimerordens kedjor med tecken.
Instead of trying to translate, I linked some of the elements.
And this one was for Karl-Johan as crown prince. Or for Oscar, the museum is not quite certain, because of the ducal coronet. There is also this one "probably Karl Johan": "Oval platta av stål, däri graverat vapen med skraffering för de heraldiska färgerna, sköld av fransk typ delad med stolpe, tre kronor, folkungalejonet. Runt skölden hänger kedjor för Nordstjärne- , Svärds- och Serafimerorden, nederst, svärd för riddare med stora korset av Svärdsorden. Däromkring vapentält med skraffering för blått, strödda öppna kronor. Tältet krönt med svensk kronprinskrona. Enkel kantlinje." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour Pieter, et MERCI pour le blason de Charles XIV John c'est exactement ce que je cherchais c'est vraiment superbe.

Pour Oscar 1 pensez vous que le blason pourrais être cela, j'ai demandé a mon ami Adelbrecht de le faire par rapport à cette source http://www.wermlandsheraldik.se/vpl/1896/kronprins_gustaf.htm

Coat of arms of Oscar, Duke of Södermanland.svg sans les étoiles


Qu'en pensez vous un grand merci encore pour votre bonne journée--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, File:Coat of arms of Oscar, Duke of Södermanland.svg seems to be consistent with the description of Oscar I's seal; "fyrstyckad" means that it is diagonally divided in four, and the four partial arms are the ones listed (but I do not know in what order they should be). The only descrepancy that I can see is that the description on the seal mentions two more orders: the Order of the Polar Star and the Order of the Sword.


Bonjour Pieter, nous avons un petit problème, regardez vous aviez trouvé cela pour Charles XIV John http://emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=39108&viewType=detailView

et moi sur le même site j'ai touvé cela http://emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=7&sp=3&sp=Slightbox_4x5&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=1

qu'en pensez vous ?--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, your link does not work; you need to describe the object or give the url in the little box under "Länk till föremålet". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


oh désolé là ça va mieux http://emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.t1.collection_detail.$TspImage.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=7&sp=3&sp=SdetailView&sp=1&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F

desolé--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, also that link gives an error. It is probably easier if you describe the object. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


je vais essayer autre chose http://emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/moduleBottomContextFunctionBar.bottomNavigator.next&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=5&sp=3&sp=Slightbox_4x5&sp=200&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=220

dites moi si cela fonctionne http://emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=RedirectService&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=2&sp=3&sp=Slightbox_4x5&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F


sinon taper Serafimersköld Karl Johan dans le site avec le tampon de karl Johan --Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The description worked, it led me here. It is perfect, the most official depiction that you could ever get of the CoA of Karl Johan as a crown prince. There is also a description: "Framsidan målad med svart färg, därpå målat vapen krönt av svensk hertigkrona, sköld kluven med mantelsnitt nertill: tre kronor, Norges lejon och Folkungalejonet. Hjärtsköld Bernadotte. Runt skölden hänger kedjor och ordenstecken för Serafimer-, Svärds-och Nordstjärneorden samt band och tecken för Karl XIII:s orden, nederst svärd för Riddare med stora korset av Svärdsorden. Upptill vitt textband med guldtext: "SVERIGES SÄLLHET", nertill text med guldfärg, till v: "CARL JOHAN// SVEA RIKES KRONPRINS",till h: "UTNÄMND D:21 AUG: 1810"."
But you mentioned a problem. What problem do you mean? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Non plus aucun problème je vais garder cette description qui est parfaite je vais demander à mon ami Adelbrecht de le faire en SVG, je vais le faire voir ensuite

mais il n'y a pas que Karl Johan http://emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=RedirectService&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=2&sp=3&sp=Slightbox_4x5&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F

Quel dommage qu'il n'y a pas Oscar I, merci encore de votre aide sans vous je n'aurais jamais pu trouver tout cela, je suis content merci encore bonne journée --Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour Pieter, j'ai demandé à mon ami Sanglier T de réaliser le blason dont vous m'aviez donné la Source pour Charles XIV John, Prince Suédois, j'espère que ce blason est correct à la Législation héraldique de votre beau pays. 100px


Un grand merci encore pour votre aide bonne journée à vous--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


File:Sir CV Raman.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sir CV Raman.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)‎ | +/−

Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Towards wiki-stalking/harassment[edit]

Please see the discussion, thanks. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor you. So sensitive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Pieter, please, stop being a dick. At least treat legitimate complains as worthy of a real response rather than just sarcasm. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Foul language, _that_ is harassment! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, m:dick is a principle that has been on meta more than you have been on this site by over 2 years. It is older even than me by a few weeks. I would kindly ask you to have a read of it. Regards. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I was blocked for this. Quod licet Jovi... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It's one of many highly offensive terms that the internet denizens seem to think is perfectly OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pieter, I have closed Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Towards_wiki-stalking.2Fharassment. Please take heed of the comments in this mate. russavia (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You must take heed of the instructions for moving files. Look at the chaos you cause here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

A kitten for you!

theMONO 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So cute! Thanks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a duration of 1 day[edit]

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: I closed an AN thread which discussed both you and User:とある白い猫 on the basis that there would be hope that you would both stay away from each other, and that you would both begin to collaborate in a healthy environment. This also included a section which was discussing a block for you. Whilst とある白い猫 is ultimately responsible for their actions, your baiting and trolling in this situation has not gone unnoticed, and it is unacceptable that you have continued to go back to とある白い猫's talk page and continued to bait and troll them whilst they are blocked. Surely you know better than that.. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

russavia (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock me[edit]

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "I did not do anything wrong, and there was no interaction ban"
Decline reason: "After all the issues on AN/U you continued to inflame the situation with this comment on White Cat's talk page, just because there is no interaction ban does not mean you have the right to continue to hound White Cat. Your unblock request does not deal with the reason why you were blocked and I feel you will continue to inflame the situation since you fail to see what you have done, therefore your unblock is declined Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

He (and Fä) kept going on with accusations of lying and racism. I did not lie and I am not guilty of racism. If expressing my objections against baseless damaging accusations is seen as a valid block reason on Commons, there is something really wrong. --Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Use wikitable[edit]

Hi Pieter. What do you think about creating a template for tagging images of tables in analogy of Template:Use TeX (images of formulas)? --Leyo 08:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference. Aside from other advantages, TeX looks always better or at least as good as images of formulas. For tables this is not really true. Like that table of Curie points: the wikitable is so long that it affects the layout of the wikiversity page rather poorly. The table as an image gave a more compact layout. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If sortability is not important, then you can have the same using a wikitable. However, my question was more general. --Leyo 11:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand that. The problem is that once there is a template, some people will start tagging any tabular image with that template. For example files in Category:Symbol charts. (As an example, some people tag signed images by notable artists with {{watermark}}.) Image files have some other advantages besides layout. Even the disadvantage that they are more difficult to edit may have an advantage: there are always pranksters that change small details (in dates, or in TeX formulas). With an image file, that kind of vandalism is more difficult. I do not regard the presence of tabular images in Commons categories as a problem. And in manya cases, the best alternative might not be a wikitable, but some kind of graphical representation. Or a TeX table. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I see the problem. Maybe inappropriate tagging could be minimized by choosing a self-explanatory name and by adding a clear description.
I am talking about images of tables that where uploaded by users who most probably just did not know how to create a wikitable or TeX table. Often, they show JPG compression artifacts (example) or even spellchecking mistake tags. --Leyo 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is a very poorly done table, and it would be best to replace it by a wikitable. And a multilingual template might be very helpful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you got a suggestion for a self-explanatory template name? Convert to table, Convert to wikitable (in analogy to Template:Convert to PNG), Use table, Use wikitable, Bad table (in analogy to Template:BadJPEG), …? --Leyo 13:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked how many there were: Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression has now 3650 files, and there are almost 3000 in Category:Images which should be in PNG format. In the template name, I feel that one should avoid "Bad". Other than that I do not have any better suggestions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a draft version of Template:Convert to wikitable and Category:Images which should use wikitable. Could you please have a look if you agree on the content (and layout)? --Leyo 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is good that you gave two examples, as I find it difficult to imagine what the consequences might be. For one of these, File:Newland's Octaves.jpg, I do not think that it should be replaced by wikitable code. It would be complicated, it would clutter the source of the page it was on, and make it vulnerable to editing mistakes. I do not think it should be nominated for deletion either. Would not SVG be a much better replacement? A good SVG is also easily editable and translatable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I tagged it also because IMO there is a lot of distracting formating in this table. A simple wikitable would be more understandable by readers. I don't see a reason for the thicker lines by comparing the table to e.g. the original publication or random websites. BTW: There is an SVG alternative.
My goal is to phrase the text of the template in a way that users only use it in appropriate cases. --Leyo 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The original publication would be the best replacement. But what if someone would tag that one with Template:Convert to wikitable? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The table should certainly be kept due to the historic relevance. I think this should be made clear in Template:Convert to wikitable/doc. --Leyo 10:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I now created the doc. Please review the section This template should not be used for. --Leyo 23:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

thomas d art works and photos[edit]

first, i'm the manager of thomas dellert. second, frankiboi is thomas dellert the artist, who done all the art works!!! so please, stop all your requests. ---Sebarts (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dellert_Dellacroix

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

hi, i see your comments about these mass deletions nominations, and agree. i think it's time to enforce wp:before, it's a better standard; i have a little essay about fixing licenses.image rescue squadron. Slowking4†@1₭ 00:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Especially admins should be expected to know some basics of copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You really don't understand the difference between a complaint and a personal attack do you? -- (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You are doing an awful lot of complaining and attacking, Fæ. In fact, that seems to be about all that you are doing on Commons these days. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have made over 7,000 edits this week, despite being elected as Chairman for the UK and having a death in the family. As an off-wiki website has made me a target of anti-gay related abuse and demonization, it is no surprise that I might have something to say about the sad trolls and stalkers that use it to make cowardly off site personal attacks. Well done for distracting me from your long term pattern of abusive behaviour against other editors. -- (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
My condolences on your loss. But a more accurate number is [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/F%C3%A6&offset=&limit=250&target=F%C3%A6 250 edits since April 18. A very large proportion is complaints and attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I hate funerals, and as my niece was just 20, it's going to be ghastly. You forgot to look at Faebot. -- (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that is a good reason for feeling that the whole world is rotten right now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated London News VS The Illustrated London News[edit]

Hi, I just saw that yesterday someone tried to rename the category Illustrated London News to The Illustrated London News. I have checked the enwiki article and some images where the title is visible, and it seems to me that the change was correct, so I was going to finish the category renaming. But then, I have seen that you undone some of those changes, and I don't know why, maybe I'm just missing something. What's the matter about that recategorization? Lobo (howl?) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:The Illustrated London News is a red link. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
So? Why not rename the category to that one? Lobo (howl?) 03:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think the article makes any difference - who cares? To do this, one would need to move all those files - a bot job that someone needs to give a command for. And it risks breaking links (from wikipedia articles and from elsewhere). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I care, now we have many images aiming to the red link category with the article, so we have to move a lot of images anyway. It's not necessary a bot command to do so, it's easy with Cat-a-lot. About breaking links actually the link to the category from enwiki was aiming to "Category:The Illustrated London News the last time I saw it, so someone should check the links anyway. There is work to do no matter what name remains. Lobo (howl?) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to do it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I did it, now Category:Illustrated London News redirects to Category:The Illustrated London News and is empty. Lobo (howl?) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering....[edit]

if it is only yourself who gets to call other "ignorant", "pure stupidity" and/or "absurd". Reason being, one could easily apply all 3 things to your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parliament of Georgia. Food for thought perhaps? russavia (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is silliness to worry about an architect's rights on File:Tbilisi parlament night.jpg. Only in the distorted Commons universe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Pieter_Kuiper[edit]

You might be interessed by this thread. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of responding at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grande roue à Toulouse (coupée).jpg, calls "Mommy, that boy is harassing me! Help me!" Pathetic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked you for two weeks. You've been warned and blocked multiple times in the past for your disruptive behavior; it's pretty obvious you haven't learned anything. FASTILY (TALK) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The real reason you blocked me is of course retaliation for this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Did I? Funny, I didn't actually notice you had commented until you pointed it out just now. Sorry, but no, this was a impartial block. Have a good day, FASTILY (TALK) 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You read the AN/U notice board about me but not about yourself? Hard to believe... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "Nominating suspected copyvio's is not "intimadation/harassment". Certainly not when the uploader is an admin. How could I intimidate? I do not have any powers to delete or to block."
Decline reason: "Pieter, your unblock request doesn't address the issues which were noted at the AN/U and which Fastily has blocked you for. If you are willing, and able, to adequately address those issues, I would sincerely consider a shortening of the block, or an unblock. russavia (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

Ridiculous: Russavia (we makes nonsense DR's, see notification above) is under a 1-year block at enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to send you a lolcat, but apparently no one's uploaded an appropriate one. Suffice to say, this is Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is Commons, where admins will block for pointing out copyright violations by admins. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's safer to do this through IP and not as an intermediate response. At least it wouldn't make the affected admins feeling that your requests is your way to show disagreement with their actions. -- RE rillke questions? 13:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked you again because you have clearly learned nothing from your previous block. This grossly inappropriate nomination, combined with your constant harassing/badgering of editors at ANU has made it very clear to everyone that you need more time away from the project. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "I had alerted PierreSelim that his upload File:Wild Hyacinth certainly cannot by a hyacinth. He responded, but did not do anything about it. So I made a DR to rid the depository of this botanical disinformation. Then an admin friend of his immediately closed the DR, which is against the rules. You should have reopened the DR and admonished Léna instead of blocking me. You are more interested in protecting the admin club than in improving the image depository."
Decline reason: "Your behaviour recently has been trollish at best, and more generally simply confrontational and abusive. I don't think any admins have issues with speedy keeps when presented with completely illegitimate deletion requests. Was a DR really your only answer? This is a wiki, change it yourself. You say "[we] are more interested in protecting the admin club" - that's not true, "we" simply want Commons to be calm and free of drama. You have again and again and again and again been brought to AN/U for the same thing, over and over. Your behaviour like that is not you caring about copyright, it's you trying to find a way to get your own back over some perceived slight. You were banned for 2 weeks for the same thing, and when you come back you do it again. That is not acceptable. This will keep reoccurring, and I expect the bans will get longer each time, until you finally either change your behaviour or are simply given up on as a lost cause. Take the time, change for the better. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

So do not encourage Fæ at al to take any DR to AN/U! Last time I did not respond at the drama board - you guys blocked me. This time I did respond - I got blocked again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A minor point of order of events, it was Pieter Kuiper that spontaneously identified and targeted the image in question @16:21, 3 June 2012 on AN/U, I had not mentioned any of my uploads on that thread before PK brought it up.
By the way, I object to being called a "Queen" by crafty use of edit comments. It is no secret I am gay, but you should try to avoid name calling that will be seen as offensive unless used jokingly in the context of me having a friendly drink with you, in a gay bar, knowing that you are openly gay too. If you persist, this will be seen as part of deliberately creating a hostile environment. Thanks -- (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Pieter, I'll be revoking your talk page access for the remainder of your block if you continue to use this privilege to attack/belittle other users. For the millionth time, Commons does not tolerate such behavior. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Compare with Fæ's expression here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Kuiper (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 June 2012‎ (UTC)
Hi Pieter Kuiper, I think that it would have been more helpful to retract this. While I am inclined to defend your privilege to file deletion requests, there is surely no tolerance left for any slurs or remarks as this one which only helped to generate more drama. Some courtesy and respect towards other contributors is essential for a collaborative environment as we have it at Commons. How do you think to move forward at Commons? --AFBorchert (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
What slur? What some like to call "dramah" is a conflict about criteria for deletion. On Commons, it seems that even when an admin cannot distinguish a weed from the labeled bulbous flower, that the image is so precious that his friend may speedily close a DR. Many DRs are about scope, but it is exceptional that uploads by admins get deleted as out of scope. Blocking the nominator sends a clear message with chilling effects.
Way forward? The cabal has made it impossible for me to upload any photos or drawings to be used by the encyclopedias. Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Edits like [3] and [4] (edit comments!) or nominations like this were neither helpful nor collegial. (As familiar as you are with our projects you should know that it is possibly to fix such a misidentification without deleting the file.) Nevertheless, I strongly dislike any chilling effects that could harm our project. But we possibly have these effects on both sides, i.e. on those who contribute by uploading files and those who go through the contributions checking whether they are copyvios. Courtesy and cordiality are required on both sides. And not everyone starts here as a copyright expert who, for example, understands immediately the definition of artistic craftmanship. Few people do. In such cases some kindness and patience is required. You do not need to do that yourself but you should not heat up this unnecessarily either. In summary, I would like to look forward to you continuing your work here at Commons. But at the same time I would like to see you on a path that turns towards collegiality and less towards a combative direction. Even if you are not an admin, you are one of the seniors here with considerable knowledge of copyright law and our policies and as such you have some responsibility to grant cordiality even if it is not always given to you. So I am going here to ask you again: How do you want to move forward at Commons? I would like to help to get you unblocked and a statement of yours could help in achieving this, I think. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I made the DR days after I had notified PierreSelim and after he had responded. He did not act. To me it looked like Forget-me-not, but I have no idea whether it is a cultivar or a wild species. What should I suggest for renaming? The uploader did not seem to think it was worth fixing. Better to delete the misleading material. File:Unidentified plant mai 2011.jpg has no encyclopedic value, so out of scope. Lots of uploads are deleted for such reasons, some talk pages are full of red templates. Why should an admin be treated differently? If anything, they should be less sensitive than newbies.
In his position in Wikimedia UK, I believe that Fæ must be expected to be careful with copyright. It should not be terribly difficult to distinguish between own work and work by others. The default is that work by others is protected by copyright. If one does not know enough about exemptions, one should not upload. Fæ referred to "craftmanship", but in that same section COM:FOP#United Kingdom it explicitly mentions murals as not being exempted from copyright. I find that exasperating. I am sorry, but I cannot be kinder and gentler than in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Funky chicken graffiti on Dog Kennel Hill.jpg. Again, that nomination was after Fæ had dismissed my concerns. For days, nobody of the AN/U regulars had done anything about the obvious violation of copyright. Why not? Is everybody waiting if I will have the guts?
Way forward: the rule at AN/U should be should be that the DR is the place to respond. And as it says in the notification template: "Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination." Would not that solve all problems? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Apple logo needs new PNG[edit]

The rasterized Apple logo File:Apple_Computer_Logo_rainbow.png has an error in the second stripe, on the right side. The top edge of the stripe doesn't extend all the way to the right edge of the logo; the green stripe kind of cuts down into it. The SVG renders fine, so it must've been something in your conversion to PNG? I'm not in a position to fix it myself, so if you get a chance... —Mjb5280 (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that green notch. Apparently the .png that I found was a rendering of en:File:Apple Computer Logo.svg. That file had been there at least since 2006, and there had also been an .eps file on the web ([5]). That same error is also in this version of File:Apple_Computer_Logo_rainbow.svg. So my .png is a derivative of an .svg file that is on Commons. Its usage should be replaced and it should be deleted. Unfortunately, I cannot do anything about it right now because they have blocked me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I assumed you created the PNG yourself from the SVG File:Apple Computer Logo rainbow.svg, and the error was in your rasterization. But I see what you are saying; the error was in an older version of the SVG, someone else created the PNG from that, and you just happened to find and upload that PNG, not realizing there was an SVG. I also didn't consider that maybe the PNG isn't needed at all since the SVG exists. It's not a high priority; you can do whatever's needed when the block is lifted. —Mjb5280 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't make CommonsDelinker replacing this file (PNG) with the better (SVG). This is just one of the oddities: On the one hand SVG should be supported one the other hand we get buggy SVG-rendering so they don't dare to allow us replacing PNGs with SVG. -- RE rillke questions? 13:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have started replacing usage on the wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been blocked for a month, so why invite me to comment at the DR? But I think you are wrong because this was free in Sweden on the URAA date. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments here can be transcluded/copied to the DR --Herby talk thyme 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't notice that you had uploaded one of the images before nominating them for deletion. I will make sure to have your talk page on my watchlist until the deletion request is closed or your block expires (whichever is earlier) so that I will notice any comments about the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You say that your problem is not with the photos (which in this case are securely {{PD-Finland}} as well as PD-US, possibly also published in the US in 1939), but that the text would be protected by copyright. Well, the bulk of the text is not legible, and the headlines are not creative. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Revenge deletion requests[edit]

Hi Pieter. You're current MO is:

  1. You interact with someone and you don't agree with this person on some topic
  2. You scan this persons uploads for something that might be wrong (really wrong or might be remotely wrong)
  3. You nominate this file for deletion

This combination of steps where you seem to try get revenge on people is not acceptable. Let's make this really simple. You have two options:

  1. Agree to not do this anymore. You'll be unblocked
  2. Continue this behavior. Expect more block in the future

It's up to you. Multichill (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A significant number of people here have double standards. Have a look at User talk:KVDP for example, and one can imagine that KVDP feels being bullied by Dingley & Carnildo. Compare that with their votes on my block. Deletion requests can have many motives. Quite often it is some ethnic conflict. Has anybody been blocked for that kind of nominations, when the DRs were generally justified? My motivation is that admins must not have different rules for others than for themselves. I have never deleted anything. All I can do is to call attention to a problem. You guys are shooting the messenger. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Multichill: it's about time you realised that the course you've adopted is not sustainable. If I may make a suggestion: instead of using IPs to continue the same behaviour, why not start a new section on this talk page to list possible problems you find. There are enough people watching this page that any plausible problems should be tackled in the appropriate way. If you can do this, I can see a way back for you, whilst not being prevented from identifying problems. Rd232 (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:CSE110Lecture20120510.ogv[edit]

Ok, File:CSE110Lecture20120510.ogv. I emailed my colleague at UCSD. He had not given permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Do me a favor and forward me a copy of that email. In all good faith, and for the betterment of the project, I should very much like to see it. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You have the guts to ask me to forward to you an email message sent to me in confidence? You do not realize that I would never do that without his permission? You know who it is, you can ask him yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, no, I don't think I know who it is you're referring to. If you are unable to provide some sort of proof of this correspondence, then the simple conclusion is that you are a liar. That said, I'll ask once more nicely: please send me a copy of that email. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
How much attention do you pay in class? I corresponded with professor Howden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
WTF, who's that? For the last damn time, please show me that email. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You would need to subpoena me for me to surrender the correspondence. But then you would need to divulge who you are... I corresponded with Bill Howden, prof. W.E. Howden, his contact details are at http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/howden/ - I encourage you to write to him. Coming clean to him with an apology might be good for you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you're clearly unwilling to provide some sort of evidence that such a conversation between a you and a representative of UCSD has ever occurred, let alone verify that evidence of permission is required, I suppose I shall have no choice but to discredit that particular claim and deem you a liar. At any rate, I suppose I should be thanking you for finding that particular copyright issue; as always, I invite users to review my contributions. For the record though, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt throughout your whole behavioral fiasco, and was actually considering adjusting the block I placed on your account, granted that you could bring yourself to at least try and behave properly (difficult for you indeed, I know), but I suppose you can't teach an old monkey new tricks, can you, professor? ;) Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. PK considers an email private - standard practice - however provides contact details for Fastily to approach the person and yet Fastily calls PK a liar. Surely it is very very simple to contact the professor to establish the truth of the matter - I am happy to do so myself if Fastily is not interested. Either PK is a liar (I have concerns over his behaviour but I don't see real doubts about his honestly) or not. If he is that is one thing - if not then Fastily is very much out of order.
I take it I can contact the professor? --Herby talk thyme 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course you may. But what is the need? I am a real person, Fastily is just an anonymous account. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Either you are lying or you are not - it seems unfair to not be certain maybe? --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You guys are wonderful. Just to be "fair", you are prepared to accept the declarations of anonymous drive-by uploaders of dubious photos as proof of copyright, but you require evidence for what I say. I took Fastily's recording and disseminating of the 40 minute lecture personally. If some of my students had done something like that in my class, I would want to know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so you admit to socking, professorhead; well thanks for that :) Anyhow, I think I'm quite done here, so I'll hereby be extracting myself from any further matters that have to with you. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 12:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Messrs Gay UK.jpg - blatant flickwashing by Ash[edit]

This is a crop of http://www.flickr.com/photos/clearbrian/179717673/ by clearbrian/blondon1234, who had released it on a non-commercial licence, which would preclude a direct upload to Commons. Yet the crop was uploaded by Ash (talk · contribs) in December 2009, and it was confirmed by Flickrbot that it had the commons-compatible licence cc-by-2.0 on the Flickr account "gayspunk". The bot did not detect that Ash had listed a different author. And as "gay spunky" left a notification on the Flickr page of the original 31 months ago (compatible with December 2009), everything points to commons-account Ash being identical to flickr-account gayspunk. This is a blatant case of a deceptive violation of the Flickr license by one of the instigators of the kangaroo trial against me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

um... you do know why User:FlickreviewR exists, yes? It's because Flickr users can change the licensing on Flickr at any time. The point is precisely that when that happens, and User:FlickreviewR has confirmed the license, we can resolve contradictions by saying "oh, OK, it was changed later by the Flickr user". You have given no evidence that the Flickr user originally released it under the current (on Flickr) NC license, and I don't believe you either have any or can get any, not least because it very probably wasn't. Addendum: to be slightly clearer... yes, gayspunky might have changed the licensing from the original licensing of clearbrian/blondon1234, with FlickreviewR confirming gayspunky's incorrect license; but I don't think anyone can now prove or disprove that hypothesis, compared to the alternative of clearbrian/blondon1234 changing the license after upload to Commons (possibly even in response to gayspunky's notification, who knows). Rd232 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Um, check the URL. User:FlickreviewR confirmed that the image was available under CC-BY here but Pieter Kuiper noticed the CC-BY-NC-SA licence here (different Flickr URL). It was uploaded to the BY-NC-SA location one day after taking the photo, so it seems plausible to assume that the BY-NC-SA location predates the BY location. There is no evidence that the image was once hosted under a free licence at the BY-NC-SA location. It is unfortunately that User:Ash didn't specify the Flickr upload date & time when uploading the image. I'll create a deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, the "can't prove/disprove" conclusion I reached above probably requires deletion under COM:PRP, even if we didn't have the date-based evidence you just added. Rd232 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
@Rd232: All photos by clearbrian/blondon1234 seem to be NC. I cannot find any of his work directly uploaded to Commons, so nothing indicates that he ever changed a license. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristian Digby 2009.jpg which indicates that Ash controlled the gayspunk Flickrwashing account. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Barrowman and Gill - 30 June 2007.jpg - more Flickrwashing[edit]

AshleyVH uploaded via the gayspunk flickrwashing account a cropped frame of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fooAVXpdVE (at 0:43), a movie uploaded to YouTube by MrsHarkness1. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File:The British Museums latest major exhibition, Treasures of Heaven.jpg[edit]

Photo of a publicity banner where this photo is prominent. The Flickr account has some connection to the museum, but there is no explicit permission for the photo of this reliquary. It would be nice if also the original photo could be uploaded to Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the same reliquary photo is shown in this British Museum press release. According to them, New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art holds the copyright. --Avenue (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest someone raises a DR. De minimis might be argued, or it can go. I doubt it is of great educational value as it has not been used. -- (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) In either case, there also seems to be a typographical copyright which lasts for 25 years. Not permanently installed, so FOP doesn't apply. It doesn't seem to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" anyway. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've raised a DR for this photo. --Avenue (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Tate Britain North Gallery Jaguar.jpg[edit]

The installation by Fiona Banner was not permanently located; the exhibition ended January 3, 2011. Clearly, the {{FoP-UK}} template cannot apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why {{FoP-UK}} would apply as it seems to have been a temporary exhibition. However, this is a plane. Wouldn't it mean that it is a utilitarian object? Unlike some other countries, the United Kingdom doesn't seem to provide copyright protection for utilitarian objects. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It is an installation made by an artist, it is in an art museum, so it is art. Compare with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duchamp wheel.jpg which was deleted. That was just a wheel, but this plane was polished. This is not free enough to use for selling postcards, I believe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Duchamp's Wheel is not a direct comparison. Though Duchamp used a mass produced bicycle wheel in his sculpture, there were other elements (the stool) positioned and incorporated to make it a unique creative construction. Banner's aeroplane is the original mass produced object, untouched apart from being chromed. The mechanical act of chroming a mass produced object is not a creative work of itself. -- (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The installation is conceptual art. It was discussed in the art sections of the press. You knew that, it is why you made the photo, you are not really into the kind of airplane spotting that Russavia does. You also added the {{FoP-UK}} template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a modern art installation, Banner specializes in extreme art forms and this instance falls outside of any copyright act or case law that would stop photographs being the property of the photographer. I took this photograph in an open free gallery considered a public space and FoP remains the most appropriate licence. As for having a random dig at Russavia, that was quite unnecessary and irrelevant here. -- (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Or Mattbuck documenting trains. That is no dig. And again, I must advise you to read carefully and slowly the {{FoP-UK}} template. Please notice the words "permanently located". And now I am off to the museum Vandalorum. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are fond of saying "read it carefully" to me. Every time I read it as sarcastic, and I point that out to you, yet you persist presumably you enjoy my reaction or you want to be seen as setting a sarcastic tone to every conversation. FoP applies. This was a mass manufactured product in a public place. We do not delete photographs of buildings just because a couple of cars are visible on the street, even if they have been given custom colours, or indeed, have special custom chrome features. -- (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Me discussing with you here is useless. This should go to DR. Because selling postcards of this installation would need permission by the artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tate Britain North Gallery Jaguar.jpg. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

File:National Front at London Gay Pride 2007.jpg[edit]

COM:DW, infringes on the copyright of the National Front. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This should be an obvious case, right? Arbcom at enwp encourages a review of Fæ's contributions. But at Commons, Fæ succeeds in avoiding scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I guess it should be deleted. Request started. I must say that I do not know much about the arbcom case over at English Wikipedia, so I have no opinion on whether it is relevant here. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#English Wikipedia Arbcom attempting to extend its authority to Wikimedia Commons? And I also noticed that Fæ has been recently reuploading as own work images that previously had been uploaded via the gayspunk account on Flickr. Images that were deleted via OTRS. Not very transparent. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indef[edit]

I've blocked you indefinitely because you've simply resorted to socking around your original block to continue your inane campaign for retaliation against imagined slights. Since vandalism and sock-puppetry is the path you've decided to take, you may rest assured that any future actions you might take along this route shall be treated as such. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone filed Commons:Deletion requests/File:UCSDCSE110Lecture20120508.ogv and you are blocking me. Because you were wrong? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Nay, and only because you were fool enough to believe that you could sockpuppet around your block and think that we wouldn't notice. -FASTILY (TALK) 10:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Blocked Indefinitely
This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Denniss (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Regardless of what anyone says, I don't think you are a bad person. You've annoyed me some in the past, but nothing major and mostly just standard Wiki stuff that in retrospect I would not consider a big deal. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway, it is the interminable copyright terms that are annoying. And the selective way the laws are translated into rules for Commons. And people without respect for the creative work of others, which Commons:Deletion_requests/File:James-franck-fig-1.jpg now shows a brilliant example of - pressing a camera shutter deserves copyright according to --/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 , but he says that the scientific work of James Frank is "simple" and "below the threshold of originality. I doubt he understands it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Working as IP[edit]

Hi Pieter Kuiper, in case that this was not an imposter: Please avoid this. While I find your current block unjust I do not think that it would be in any kind helpful for you to evade this block. Even worse, it could put an end to the current development at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Pieter Kuiper that currently tends to find a majority supporting an unblock. I suggest to use your talk page instead as before in case you find any uploads that should be discussed. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How can an IP blocked in 2009 for being used by Pieter Kuiper for avoiding a block, ever be considered a possible imposter in 2012? It strains any credibility. -- (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You change usernames more often that that, you mean? How many accounts have you used? And what accounts on Flickr are yours? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I see you are not bothering to deny that this latest IP was yours along with the significant number of ducks we have seen you use since you were blocked. Perhaps you could save the admins a bit of time and just list the IPs here as you use them? Cheers -- (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
And Fae, I see that you are not bothering to deny that you have used multiple accounts here and on en-wiki and some of them may or may not have engaged in some dubious activity related to some of your Flicker accounts. Perhaps you could save everyone a bit of time and just list all your damn accounts, here, on en-Wiki and any related Flicker accounts, as you use them? See how this innuendo bullshit works? Thanks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I had listed File:Barrowman and Gill - 30 June 2007.jpg above and it was deleted, but that is not really a transparent process. Uploader did not even have a chance to respond. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, admins have always the option to speedy the deletion of a file if it appears to be a copyvio. In these cases, the uploader has not necessarily the time to react before the file is deleted. This is not uncommon. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Info[edit]

Sprot for now given the puppet account attacks. --Herby talk thyme 07:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Norris Wolfenden.jpg[edit]

Was kept by Fastily without explanation. Without any justification for {{PD-Old}}. Fæ's OTRS "verification" has no value. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Damkaer's statement in the DR is fairly clear that the work was unpublished during the photographer's lifetime, and it sounds to me like Damkaer may have effectively received the posthumous rights attached to it, inherited via several people. In that case PD-old doesn't apply of course (it requires publication), it would be PD-self... So I've done that, with explanation. Rd232 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Margaret and Elizabeth.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Margaret and Elizabeth.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)‎ | +/−

DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As you probably are aware, I cannot take part in the DR. But this photo is PD-70. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Stefan4 has covered that in the DR. If you have anything to add, you can do so here. Rd232 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation by admin INeverCry[edit]

User:INeverCry is closing DRs early, to protect poor Fæ. Maybe because he uploaded copyright violations himself? Indeed: he failed to indicate the author of File:Cubist_Salome_by_Wilde.jpg in the infobox. The US license is obviously false insufficient as the byline lists Moscow. And the dates of Nicolás Yarovoff or Nikolai Yarovoff are 1880 - 1958. This cannot be kept on Commons. By the way, User_talk:Fæ/Pieter_Kuiper shows how much Fæ's uploads need scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The US license is not "obviously false" - it was published before 1923, it's therefore {{PD-1923}}, end of. The question is whether the work is a US work, i.e. whether the photo was first published in that book or earlier published in Russia. Balance of probabilities is that it was first published in Russia before making it into the book. Sent to DR accordingly. Rd232 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you spend time with people or people's work you don't like?[edit]

I am just wondering. And don't say it would be because you want to defend Commons. It would be so great if you could stick to what you did here or there instead of blaming other users for their imperfection. -- Rillke(q?) 21:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per COM:AN discussion I restored talkpage access now, so PK can reply to you. Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes I get irritated by double standards. Fæ's listed his upload File:Gay Pride London 1991.jpg as own work, although he was a subject in the photo. So I made a DR. Fæ's reaction was not according to the instructions: focus on copyright arguments, not on the nominator. A few delete-!votes later, he came up with a story.
Do people believe there was a "verbal waiver of copyright"? Really? I mean on the street, in the demonstration, 20 years ago? Making such a claim is overdoing it. And does the photo look like the subject posed for a friend he gave his camera to have his picture taken?
Yet the deletion debate is prematurely closed (within 24 hours), by a friendly admin, who clearly is not interested in such questions being raised. The friendly admin is then defiling my user page, edit warring over it. Is that in accordance with meta:BLP? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You've burnt too many bridges, and gone after Fae too often, to expect a good response. For future decision-making, you might want to compare the DR you raised via IP Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay Pride London 1991.jpg with the DR I raised based on your comments above, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cubist Salome by Wilde.jpg. Rd232 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
As to the copyright question: it's not exactly clear what would be legally necessary to achieve transfer of copyright by verbal agreement (and of course it's A's word against B's anyway, if it comes down to it). Real-world cases might be interesting. Rd232 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
What Fæ should have claimed of course was that there had been an implied transfer of copyright. Can you give any credibility to his claim that there had been a _verbal_ contract mentioning anything about copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What he actually said was verbally passing copyright. As I said above, it's not clear what verbal statement might be required to do that. Not necessarily one that mentions any legal terms - it could be as simple as "will you take this photo for me with my camera?" - "sure, there you go"? Some of the transfer there is "implied", maybe, but some is verbal. Without some real cases about how these things work, this is pointless speculation and nitpicking. It's certainly credible that Fae asked someone to take a photo with his camera and that it was assumed that the photo and all its rights would belong to Fae - no expectation by anyone of anything else. Rd232 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If that was all that was said, I would say that the claim in the infobox that there had been a "verbal waiver of copyright" was false. As for real cases about how such pictures "of me, with my camera, taken by a friend" work, see File:Me on msn.com (2959294086).jpg. But that is not an upload by a wikimedia insider. I guess that real case will be deleted now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it will be deleted, and I have done just that. But not because of what you are spouting here, but because it is an obvious copyright violation of MSN and advertisers, etc. You know, you aren't making any friends here Pieter, and if you were to drop your trolling attitude, the community would likely be inclined to let you return. Keeping on with the trolling attitude, will only lead to access to your talk page being revoked (again). russavia (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pieter, under UK law, this type of "please take my photo" issue has a long precedent as being a 'work for hire' (even if no fee is involved) and as such, copyright resides by default with the person commissioning the photo, not the photographer. It's reasonable to question this, but your attitude is way excessive. Your behaviour gives the appearance of chasing the opportunity to delete something, more than it does to be about maintaining standards. When coupled with your past harassment of Fae (this isn't too strong a term) it's not credible for you to hide behind any show of innocently defending Commons.
I can't understand why you don't yet have a strong topic ban on any interaction with Fae. I would not oppose editors seeking a simple indef ban of you, just for that issue alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
re topic ban - well I suppose it's partly because this behaviour hasn't been specific to Fae (though at this point he certainly the most prominent), and partly because we didn't want to stop him raising copyright concerns, just to stop him raising them in a way that causes such strife. Rd232 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
under UK law, this type of "please take my photo" issue has a long precedent as being a 'work for hire' (even if no fee is involved) - Does it? If you could document that at Commons:Transfer of copyright that would be very useful. Rd232 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Thanks, moogsi (blah) 06:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up[edit]

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

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

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

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you message, and I applaud odder's initiative. But I am still blocked, basically because a bunch of admins cannot deal with deletion requests of their uploads. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian_Crown_Prince's_Crown[edit]

Bonjour Pieter, j'espère que vous allez bien, pourriez vous s'il vous plait lire cette article et me donner votre avis:

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Norwegian_Crown_Prince's_Crown


si la couronne était pour le Prince Carl, il devait avoir un blason lorsqu'il était en Norvège ou bien alors il pouvait la mettre sur son blason ?

merci de votre aide bonne journée cordialement

Hi Dunkerqueenflandre! It was a long time ago that I looked at these things. Commons has File:Kronprins Karl (XV) vapen.svg, which is based on this painting. But I am unsure if this helps to answer your question. Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


Bonjour, Pieter si vous regarder cette photo :And this one


vous ne trouver pas que la couronne ressemble à cela :

http://www.google.fr/imgres?um=1&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHNY_frFR367FR367&biw=1024&bih=612&hl=fr&tbm=isch&tbnid=xQlIBe_IxEengM:&imgrefurl=http://luxpresso.com/photogallery-lifestyle/incredible-crown-jewels-from-around-the-world/8924/17&docid=JnV99dY3fBDwpM&imgurl=http://images.idiva.com/media/photogallery/2011/Nov/norway_600x450.jpg&w=600&h=450&ei=40CoUcXjJOrE0QWT8YDQDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=549&vpy=269&dur=2141&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=176&ty=118&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=202&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:108


bonne journée Pieter --Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how strong the connection is between heraldic symbols and the physical crown jewels. The most distinctive feature of the heraldic representation of the crown is the Vasa sheaf (le faisceau Vasa, Swedish Vasakärve). It is in the crown for the crown-prince of 1650: http://www.kungahuset.se/specialwebbsidor/temasidor/kronprinsessparetsbrollop/brollopsdagen/kyrkan/insignierikyrkan.4.40e05eec12926f263048000321.html (see photo). Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte wanted to connect to this symbol of the first Swedish royal house in his heraldry. Maybe it was a bit too Swedish for Norway when a new crown was made for the crown prince? I am just guessing here, I do not know much about it. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


Drottning Desideria[edit]

Bonjour Pieter, je suis embête pourrais tu m'aider s'il te plait j'ai téléchargé ce blason (sceau de la Reine Désiré) 150px tiré du livre de Arvid Berghman Dynastien Bernadottes vapen och det svenska riksvapnet sorti en 1944 comme tu peux le voir si tu cliques sur l'image on veut la supprimer pourrais tu me dires ou je peux trouver que les images de ce livre sont libre de droit.

Merci Pieter bonne journée à toi--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem. It is a "simple photo" and {{PD-Sweden-photo}} applies. Sorry, I cannot write this in the DR as I am still blocked. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup bonne journée à toi--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Einsatzgruppe.jpg[edit]

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

Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Anonymous, more than 70 years old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Louise des Pays-Bas/Lovisa av Nederländerna[edit]

Bonjour Pieter, excusez moi de vous déranger, j'ai lu avec beaucoup d'attention le livre d' Arvid Berghman Dynastien Bernadottes vapen och det svenska riksvapnet.

Hélas, je n'ai pas trouvé tout ce que je chercher, Lorsque Louise des Pays-Bas épouse le Prince Charles (futur Charles XV de Suède) le 19 juin 1851, elle devient Princesse mais surtout Duchesse de Scanie, pourriez vous me dire ou pourrais je trouver ses armoires entant Princesse royale Duchesse de Scanie.


MERCI encore une fois pour votre aide bonne journée à vous--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:I am blue.jpg[edit]

Hi Pieter Kuiper, Since you participated in previous discussions. I thought it would be interesting for you to go through Commons:Deletion requests/File:I am blue.jpg :) --Wilfredor (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg 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)‎ | +/−

LGA talkedits 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Donald Glaser 1.jpg[edit]

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

JuTa 12:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Michael_Myers[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Michael_Myers has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Alan Liefting (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Mcmillan postcard.jpg[edit]

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

Cube00 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by User:Fæ. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Melbourne Gaza protest (Latuff cartoon).jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Melbourne Gaza protest (Latuff cartoon).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 may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk 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)‎ | +/−

Vera (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Er is niets mis met die foto. /194.47.95.146 13:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Ernest Lawrence.jpg[edit]

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

Taylor Trescott (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Garage_sales[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Garage_sales has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

File:William Henry Bragg 2.jpg[edit]

File source is not properly indicated: File:William Henry Bragg 2.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 was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:William Henry Bragg 2.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:William Henry Bragg 2.jpg]]).

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

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

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

--Y.haruo (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


File:Chadwick.jpg[edit]

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

Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bortzells did lithography, it is a company, just like Esselte, these are just the printers. Would not have been difficult to look up. Anyway, this kind of photographs from before the 1960's are free in Sweden, also when the photographer is known. By the way, I had demanded that the Wikipedia Foundation remove the libelous note on my user page. I had forgotten about that, but I really want this removed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the contents of your user page. I really don't see why that template should be there. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. At least one decent person on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Chadwick.jpg[edit]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tiresome repetitive DR. The original publication is in "Les Prix Nobel" of the year in question. That series never mentioned the photographer. /83.254.240.191 15:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That publication seems to be something which must be prepared before the prize is presented. Therefore, the publisher can't send a photographer to take pictures of the laureates, so the pictures in that publication presumably come from some earlier source, unknown which. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Of course it is made afterwards: "Les Prix Nobel is published in October the year after the award is made." http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/publications/lesprix.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Monkey Miss Sam prepared for Little Joe 1B flight.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Monkey Miss Sam prepared for Little Joe 1B flight.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)‎ | +/−

Revent (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)