User talk:Robert Prummel

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Commons, Robert Prummel!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak (or your graphics abilities).
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)



Gonzaga...[edit]

Bonjour ! In fact, they are two of them concerned by this detail (I've hesitated and did not do it because of the pattern drawing. Don't worry, I'll do it on both and reload them. Anyway you're invited to have a glance on this : Armorial de la maison Gonzague. The last one is in preparation, it's the brisure of Louis IV de Nevers. Glad to find an aficionado of my pictures ! Nice to speak again with you about that family... Cordially, ℍenry (Jaser !) 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Cher Henri Salome,

I have found the "Araldica Gonzaghesca" by Giancarlo Malacarne in my library. The drawing of the arms of the papal bearer of the gonfalone (page 114) is somewhat sketchy. The gonfalone of the first quarter of the 16th.century may have been painted or embroidered with an incorrect depiction of the ombrellino.
Did you know that the words "ombrellino" and "gonfalone" are often used in an incorrect manner? The gonfalone is a banner. The ombrellino is an umbrella. I have corrected the matter on the English and German Wikipediæ. I have made a correct drawing, at least I hope that it is correct, on the Dutch Wiki.
Other drawings of mine are on:

  • [[1]] A large project with 200 crosses
  • [[2]] A lot of work. Because the rules on copyright are so strict in the Netherlands I can not invoke the "fair use" rule. Everything has to be drawn...
  • [[3]] Was als drawn by me.

The pictures are much smaller and less beautifull than thoseof yours. I work on an old computer... The documents would get far to big and the computer crashes every now and then!

Greetings from the Netherlands,

Robert Prummel

12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Robert ! Fine drawings and great work ! I can see you are specialised in papal pictures. Strange for a man living in a mainly lutherian country or maybe you are catholic ! Anyway, we can see that the appearance was (and is yet) very important within the rites and habits of the Roman Church.
  1. I've done the corrections you have suggested to me and added straps on the cruciferous globe.
  2. I work with nl:Inkscape, a free tool for SVG drawings but I think you need a rather big computer. Have you seen the last Gonzaga blason (#09) : its size is 3 Mb vs the 260 Kb of the #05 and #06 !
  3. I knew about the gonfalone, the french word is gonfalon or gonfanon in which can be found the word fanion, a little flag (like those used by scouts or those fixed on the front wings of a car) - a large one is étendard.
  4. Did you know that the french word baldaquin (as your nl:aldakijn) comes from Bagdad. Originally, it was a silk material coming from there. Now it's first a canopy above a bed like a velum, then a construction of wood or stone above an altar in a church, finally the kind of curtain bearing the coat of arms.
  5. About the Gonzaga, I'm quite specialised in their history : almost 95% of the articles of the Catégorie:Maison Gonzague are my work ! So the main place I would like to see in Italy is Mantova before Firenze, Sienna, Bergamo... and then Venezia and Roma ! Nice trip !
  6. If you can find in your "Araldica Gonzaghesca" some fine and interesting blasons that I have not drawned (maybe from the duchies of Guastalla, Sabbioneta, Solferino, or the principalitys of Bozzolo or Castiglione delle Stiviere) could you scan or photograph them and load on Commons so that I draw them and enrich the armorial !
    Long talk... I must go and visit some town halls around my home fr:Plaisir (Yvelines) to get other blasons for fr:Armorial des communes des Yvelines ! Cordially, ℍenry (Jaser !) 10:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour Henry Salome,
My work on papal heraldry is even more surprising if you knew that I am an atheist! But the heraldry and traditions are fascinating! Your view that the Netherlands are a lutheran nation is somewhat mistaken... In 1965 more than half of the population was catholic. In the last decenia the members of the dominant protestant church have turned their backs on their church in droves and so did the catholics. The view of half of the current population when asked about god or gods is that there "must be something". The are called the "somethingists" (Dutch: "ietisten"). Their taste in religion is a mix of astrology, budha statues, healing stones or magnets and speculation.
On an avarage sunday 20% of the Dutch visit church. Hundreds of churches have been turned into libraries, houses or mosques for the one million muslims. Only the fundamentalist and black pentacost or baptist churches are thriving.
I would like to write an article on the gonfalons and banners draw the arms of the GRULLI family, the heridetary drivers of the "CARROCCIO" of Florence. This cart is shown in their arms and it carries a large civic gonfalonne.
And yes, I might add the oriëntal provenance of the "baldaquin" to the article.
I woiuld like to help you with the Gonzaga arms. The book by Giancarlo Malacarne is a beautifull source and it does contain the arms of many of the members of the Gonzaga family but I could not find Guastalla, Sabbioneta, Solferino, or the principalities of Bozzolo or Castiglione delle Stiviere. There is no index and it is written in Italian. Therefore my first search is not definitive.
There are a lot of cities in Italy that are more fun than Florence! I find Florence to dark, full of tourists and morose. The city is dead... Other towns in Tuscany are full of life! It is like a visit to Versailles or Vaux-le-Vicomte. After the dead gilding of crowded Versailles Vaux is a tonic! Robert Prummel 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Order[edit]

Ofcourse that is not an order similar to Virtuti Militari. This is only a memory badge of 8th Polish Division, which exist from 1990 to 2000. Oficers had it for three years of good work. Sorry for my english ---Kerim44 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Kerim! Your English looks quitte good! The other images in this category are all real orders of knighthood. A memory badge is certainly a military decoration but it is not in the same category as an order of knighthood. Should we create a category "Memory badge in Poland" for them? I know that there are also dozens of Tsarist and Sovjet-Russian memory badges.Have you seen [4] on the Dutch Wikipedia?

Greetings from Groningen, Robert Prummel 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Please, don't confuse different kinds of orders. There are organizations (like w:Knights Templar) and decorations (like w:Ordre National du Mérite). When they are granted by any government of a COUNTRY, decorations are of COUNTRY, and the matching category name too.

Regarding organizations, it's not so clear. However, in Commons, we are using again the of preposition (see Category:Organizations by country and Category:Companies by country). --Juiced lemon 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


    • Dear Lemon juice,

There is an interesting problem here, you will find that if you take a group of orders, for example orders in Bavaria, there are several categories.

  • In the middle-ages groups of knights and prominent citizens founded several knightly orders.
  • The Bavarian Dukes, electors and kings founded orders; these are indeed the orders "of Bavaria".
  • A knightly order may be active in a region like the ancient "German Order in the Balije of Utrecht". This is not really an "order of the Netherlands" like our state-funded orders of knighthood.
  • In Germany remnants of the old states still exist. Amongst them are the orders of the states that were indenpendant till 1806, 1815, 1866 or 1918. These are not orders "of" Germany like the decorations of the Federal republic. The orders of the Royal family of Bavaria still thrive, are these "Orders of Bavaria"?
  • The point that there are orders that are mere decorations whereas others are orginazations and brotherhoods is correct. But they are both orders. The same goes for the Order of the Garter that combines characteristics of a brotherhood and a decoration of the state (in the gift of the monarch that is).

I started to rearange the orders because of these reasons:

  • If pictures of the the orders of more than 400 states (an educated guess) are to be catalogued the system did not work and could not work.
  • The system of arranging after continent and country works on the English and Dutch Wikipedia.
  • There was a lot of confusion on Wikicommons; civilan decorations listed as military, a strange category called "cross orders" based on the shape, a distinction between orders and decorations and between military and civil awards that did do justice to the characteristics and nature of orders and other honours.
  • The cistercian monks were listed as an order in one category with proper orders of merit. That is not correct but oher war-like orders of monks did exist in Spain. The prayed and fought. Some of hese orders still exist (Order of Our Lady of Montesa) and have evolved through the ages. They are nowadays Orders for nobleman awarded by the Spanish king.

I found the categories "Military decorations in WWI en WWII very usefull. But many of the distinctions there are older or still in existence and should therefore also be listed as orders.

The distinction between military and civilian is not as clear as some people put forward. Many orders are both military and civil and others changed through the years. But there is, in my view, nothing agains a category "Military decorations" provided that they are als numbered in the the list of decorations. As awards of a state that can be worn they have more in common than divides them; they are institutions of the state, they are awarded, they often have the shape of a silver shield attached to a ribbon. Most refference books do make a distinction between the various kinds of orders.

Did you realise that the term "military order" is ambigious? The Portuguese "Military Order of Christ" is a civilian award...

The Order of Saint John is listed as an order, alongside the modern orders of merit, in all of my reference books.

I did split every category in "orders" and "decorations". In most countries these divisions are clear. There are pittfalls though;The Austrian order of Merit is called "Ehrenzeichen für Verdienste um die Republik Österreich".It is nevertheless an order in all but it's official name. India does not use the word "order" but isn't the Bharat Ratna, the "Jewel of the country" an order of merit?

The category decorations gives room for all the memorial badges, swords of honour, crosses, stars and medals.

I do hope that togther, we can work in good Wiki spirit, we on an accesable, user friendly and correct system of (sub)categories!

With greetings from the Netherlands,

Robert Prummel 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (Member of the Dutch society of Faleristics)

My objections are based on the difference of nature between organizations and decorations. An order is fundamentally a group of people, which I'll call organization because it's not virtual like a simple list of persons. This is a genuine organization with aims, which have some sort of powers, in particular over its members.
More generally, organizations can create titles, ranks and associated insignia. They can also grant awards, in particular decorations. When an organization is “an order”, it can grant decorations which have the word “order” in their name. However, those are decorations, not orders. A fortiori when the organization is not an order, like a government.
Therefore, decorations are awards, NEVER orders.
How to categorize decorations? first approach: like the artificial person who grants the decorations. --Juiced lemon 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Lemonjuice;

The knights of the Dutch Order of the Dutch Lion never meet, They have no specific aim. It is merely a distinction that is seldom worn apart from a small ribbon on the lapel of one's coat. Yet, it is, in every book and in name an order (Dutch:"Orde"). The organizations of people that call themselves knights, the Knights of Saint-John etcetera are also orders.Their order has a different nature. Yet in every book about orders these two kinds are mentioned side by side. Each one is called "The Order of...". A category for what are indeed "true" orders is offcourse a good idea. Their work and prestige merit a category of their own. They are usually called "chivalric orders" or "knightly orders".The latter could also mean an order where the highest grades are ennobled. What name do you prefer? Maybe the number of hits on google will help!

The orders of merit also have some power over their members; the Legion of Honour does have a chancellor and there are instructions about the way they are worn. If a knight is imprissoned he loses his membership. The Dutch orders of knighthood formed "councils of honour" after the second world war.These councils consisting of knights, officers and commanders cleared the orders of those who had not been patriotic during the occupation of the Netherlands. I do not understand your remark that "a government can not create an order", they did and they do. There are hundreds of orders that have been instituted by a fons honoris like a government. You may have your own ideas about what an order should be but all the institutions called "Orde, Ordine, Ordo, Order, Orden, rád, Basilikon etcetera are orders in every book and in everyday life. If people look for the Order of the Dutch Lion" they expect to find it under "Orders" like the Order of the Garter or the Order of Saint-John.

The difference between orders, decorations and medals is clear in most countries. The Garter is an order and so is the order of the Bath. The Victoria Cross is not an order. It's reciepients have no title like "member" or "companion". The medals are a third type of decoration. Usually there is no registrer of the people who have been decorated.It is a question of protocol as well, One wears the orders first, then the decorations like stars and crosses and then the medals are worn.The picture on [5] shows how. This brooch starts wih a decoration and ends with various medals.

In principle I do agree with you that the official name of an order, decoration or medal should be our guideline in categorizing them.It will not allways work; if the indian government calls it's highest distinction (in sanskrit) "Jewel of India" or "Flower of India" the fact that it is listed in sources as an "order" could guide us. There is good reason to categorise all Indian distinctions as "decorations" as the Indians do not use the word "order" in their decrees or laws. The Austrian "Ehrenzeichen fuer Verienst um die Republik Oesterreich"" has all the caracteristics of an order of merit.If "it looks like a cow, sounds like a cow and acts like a cow it is probably a cow" as the old American proverb says. Have you got a solution how to categorize the Order of Saint Silvester? I posted the question on your talkpage.

It is late in Europe. I am going to sleep now! Goodnight...

Robert Prummel 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Medals etc.[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for your message. I've been rather worried about the various categories which sit under Category:Awards and have been trying to sort them out - sometimes helped by, sometimes hindered by User:Juiced lemon, although I agree much work still needs to be done. Here are my thoughts on your thoughts, if I understood them correctly:

  • Categorising only by country has its draw-backs, I think parallel systems of categorisation by both country and in this case type can be helpful. This system is developing in this area of the Commons and is similar to what happens elsewhere.
  • For awards that cross civil/military/order boundaries there is nothing problematic with them appearing in all the sub-categories to cover their multiple identities - so the Légion d'Honneur can appear in Category:Civil decorations of France, Category:Military decorations of France and Category:Orders (or sub-categories) if applicable. As these categories already exist there is no need to create them except for the missing countries.
  • As far as I'm aware the batons/ribbons are in the category of the type of award they belong too.... they haven't disappeared.

I hope this helps.

The other problem may be that User:Juiced lemon is quite territorial and even in the 24 hours since I looked at this category seems to have done an enormous amount of work - a lot good, but a lot not what I would have done (particularly in the order category, I don't see how you need to split order "decorations" from their "orders", very confusing). He also does not like to communicate with other editors so I'm afraid making any changes he doesn't agree with will be difficult. I'll keep an eye on the category but must get back to Category:British honour system which originally led me here! Good luck. Madmedea 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Hello Madmedea (how are Jason and the kids?),

Making categories is difficult and sometimes they are arbitrary.In the Netherlands and many other countries there is a sharp distinction between orders, legal bodies with members, and (other) decorations. Then there are medals. If we take the the British system the MBE is an order, the George Cross isn't. The jubileum medals aren't either. Distinghuising between them is normal procedure. The renowned author on this subject, Paul Hieronymussen called his book "Orders, medals and decorations of Britain and Europe". The most important thing to keep in mind is to keep Commons accesable and user-freindly. I could think of dozens of ways to categorize:

  • Orders instituted in the 18th. century
  • Orders awarded in the First World War.
  • Orders and decorations for valour (a problem is that the Dutch language has only one word for valour and courage)....
  • Decorations in the shape of a cross... (there must be 5000 or so)
  • Decorations on red ribbons...

etcetera etcetera...

The nation seems the most usefull way to categorize them but the great thing about Wiki is that we can create simultanious categories at the same time! A page of decorations of the First World War for instance could be usefull.

We have to keep in mind that this is just the picture vault. It is not Wikipedia itself. We are just required to organize things! I fully agree with you that the parallel systems of categorisation offer chances to make meaningfull categories. What about a category "Ladies orders" or "Orders reserved for women" for instance?

The distinction between orders and medals is important though. There usually is a sharp division between them in the legal sense. Greetings,

Robert Prummel 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ribbons[edit]

Hello,

You have begun to categorize ribbon bars, but in my opinion, it's not a good start. First, I don't think it's very useful to categorize these items by country, because they are (near?) always associated with a decoration. However, you can do it if you want, but I recommand you:

  1. to call these items “ribbon bars” in the category names, and not simply “ribbons”, otherwise you'll find them mixed with other types of ribbons.
  2. to classify categories according to their subject, NEVER according to their contents (see Commons:Categories#Categorizing pages). In particular, awards cannot be ribbons, therefore no awards of LOCATION cannot be ribbons of LOCATION.

--Juiced lemon 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lemon Juice,

Ribbon bars is indeed better although some of them are samples and not realy bars. I will rename them ribbon bars and categorise them. I got through the entire civil and military award series. My findings were:

  • Lots of civilian orders and medals wrongly categorised as military (example French "Order of Arts and letters).

Several pins of local sportclubs, diploma's of an exhibition, wiki-barnstars (some of them jokes) amongst the entries in the categories. That was my point in categorising as "orders and awards" ;if you categorise as awards the congressional medal of honor will end up next to "employee of the month" and a pin for the most prolific knitter of the women's guild of Saint Olav. All the illustrations orders of Knighthood (“Orden”) of Austria were in the category orders and none of them in awards.

  • Several hoaxes in the category:the "Imperial Order of Santa Rita" for example. I banned them to the category "Humor".
  • Several militay decorations are listed as civil.
  • Lots of orders of knighthood of a mixed or military nature (Order of Maria Theresia, Military Order of Willliam, Order of the Iron Helmet and more )were not listed as military decorations.

A lot of dubble entries. They were removed. As a rule I kept the largest image and where colour differences were obvious, allways difficult in ribbons because they fade, both were kept.

  • Due to language problems the names of orders and their insignia were often llisted as “medal”. Example; Roemenia’s “Order of the Star”.

Yours faithfully, Robert Prummel 12:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In Commons, only administrators can delete files, and they comply with rules to do that. As a normal user, you cannot decide to delete any file for whatever reason. However, you may request the deletion of a file. And if you empty all the informations from an image page, this is vandalism. --Juiced lemon 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am so sorry! I carefully chose photographs that were posted twice. I will not interfere in it again. Robert Prummel 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Use templates to request the deletion of media files. {{duplicate}} has been made for the duplicate files case. --Juiced lemon 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will do so. I find these tags very difficult to find. They are hidden soewhere in the user pages I believe bit it is quite a struggle to find them.Robert Prummel 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)





Decorations of COUNTRY[edit]

Category:Garden gnomes are decorations..., garden decorations. When used alone, the word “decoration” is ambiguous; its meaning can be anything, except an specific award. That's not the case of the expressions w:Military decorations and w:Civil decorations, which are also articles in the English Wikipedia.

As we have already the Category:Military decorations structure and the Category:Civil decorations structure in Commons, I think we don't need a new structure for decorations: any decoration can be classified either as a military decoration, either as a civil decoration, either as both of them. --Juiced lemon 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yet the late duke of Norfolk was awarded "The Terrotorial decoration", Sotheby,s auctions sell "Orders medals and decorations" (no gnomes in that auction), orders are also a category in architecture (Doric order). People who are looking for the Order of the Garter will not type the word "award". They look for an order of knighthood.

Wikimedia commons is larger than the English Wiki. In most countries orders, decorations and medals are the normal vocabulary. An order is also a decoration. That is true.But orders stand out as a class of their own. In my country only officers and the higher echelons of society are awarded an order of knighthood.Others , NCO's and civilians have to be content with decorations and medals. There is nothing wrong with the category decorations but in "awards" the orders get muddled up with sports prices, journalistic prizes and Golden globes... The military decoration category is valuable in its own right. So is the category "Decorations of World War I" or II.

I can not object against dividing the decorations in military decorations and civil decorations. None of the categories are removed so there are several mays to find a picture of an order now; you can start with "National symbol" or "award" (but who will?) or with "Orders" and in both ways you will get to the picture that you need. remember that Germans, French, Italians and Dutch start looking from their own Wiki and these, and other Wiki's, do not use the word "award", they think in terms like "Orden, Ordre, Ordine, en Orde.". In Dutch the word "award" is translated as "prize". It can only mean (sports)tropy. Language is allways a difficult barrier;where the English use courage and valour we only have the one word "moed". I think that the orders category will get people to the picture that they are looking for. The subcategories follow the system of awards as used by many governments, serious books and auctioneers. I was amazed to find many fine pictures of orders of knighthood hiding under the "award" tag.Important orders were hidden under Polish or Chech names and the insignia were called "medals". That way it is difficult to find them. I believe that we should concentrate on building a system to find the right picture. Leave the battle of words to the various Wiki's. In a few years time up to 12 000 or so orders and medals (Germany alone listed 4072 different ones in 2001) of some 300 countries will be hown here! Robert Prummel 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)






The Orders, Decorations, and Medals Article Award[edit]

ODM article award.png
For your work in the field or orders, medals, ribbons and other types of awards, I award you the
Orders, Decorations, and Medals Article Award.
May we enjoy many more of your contributions!
Siebrand 21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Image:Ridderorden onder het Turkse wapen 1918.jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:Pour le Merite op witteachtergrond.jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:Gallipoli-star-BBen Co..jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • But the uploader on the English Wiki released all rights and gave it a GNU. I stated GNU and copied the adress, name of the author and original licence. What words do you want added? I am at a loss on how to please you.... Faithfully yours, 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)~


Image:De Orde van het Verheven Portret Turkije.jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Image:Legionair Orde van Verdienste Verenigde Staten.jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Illustratie_uit_Piccarts_Verborgene_Antiquiteiten_1660.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Illustratie_uit_Piccarts_Verborgene_Antiquiteiten_1660.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


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

Gouwenaar (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Emperor Agustin I kroningsportret.JPG[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Mifter) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 04:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Copyright violations[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Stop hand.svg

Hello Robert Prummel,

You have uploaded several images that are copyright violations and you have done so despite our requests not to do so, and despite our instructions. If you do not stop uploading pictures that are not free, your account will be blocked. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.  Sdrtirs (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The two images came from the Thai Wiki and I gave the original licence. The Thai uploader gave a clear licence. What was wrong with these two pictures?

Robert Prummel (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


Image:De_keten_van_de_Orde_van_Jehova_van_Zweden_1606.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:De_keten_van_de_Orde_van_Jehova_van_Zweden_1606.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

German War Merit Cross[edit]

Hello! I found that you made this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kriegsverdienstkreuz_1939.jpg The file is very good because it shows all the versions at one glance. But: The file shows the KVK 2nd class in SILVER. From my own knowlegde and from the internet I never found a silver KVK 2nd class. As far as I know, the 2nd class was the same colour as the "Medaille" (lowest class), and only the KVK first class and the knight's cross was silver. For example pictures look here: https://www.weitze.net/detail/10/Kriegsverdienstkreuz_1939_2_Klasse__92110.html 125.162.47.86 06:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Grote Keten van de Orde van de Unie[edit]

Keten

Bonjour, je suis dunkerqueenflandre, je fais des recherches sur Grote Keten van de Orde van de Unie j'ai problème pour identifier quelques blasons : le deuxieme sur la gauche en partant du bas et celui au dessus de Den hagge les couleurs sont elles bonnes ?

merci beaucoup bonne journée--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Cher Dunkerque,

Les blasons sont ceux des départements de la Rouyame de Hollande. Les couleurs sont exactes.

En partant du bas en droit ils sont les départements de Gueldre (Gelderland avec deux lions), Frise (Friesland), Maasland (le blason de la Haye avec une Cigogne blanche, Groningen (Groningue), Zeeland - Brabant - Overijssel - Utrecht - Drenthe - Oost-Friesland (Le Département de la Frise -d'Est, Mantenant partie d'Allemagne), et Holland ( Le département "Amstelland"). Malheureusement in ne reste pas une collier de L'Ordre de LÚnion dans la Musee "Het Loo".

Je vous prie d’accepter, Monsieur, l’expression de mes meilleurs sentiments,

Robert Prummel

File:Ster Orde van het Britse Rijk.jpg[edit]

Dear Robert, I wonder whether it was possible to rename your picture File:Ster Orde van het Britse Rijk.jpg to clarify what it shows. Wikipedia users/authors/editors who are familiar with the Order of the British Empire are aware that this picture shows the breast star of a Knight Grand Cross (GBE) of this order. Many users/authors/editors who are not familiar with the Order of the British Empire, however, are using it also for Knight Commanders (KBE) of this order. Do you think there is a chance of renaming the picture to avoid such errors? If anyone wants to see what the KBE Breast Star looks like, an example can be seen here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4cKn-7BpzUg/T74F9RLahZI/AAAAAAAANQk/IsniN6BHCHY/s1600/IVE.jpeg KBE and GBE are different things! Anyway, thanks to you for donating such a brilliant picture! Best wishes, Cyan22 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I declined the move request of File:Ster Orde van het Britse Rijk.jpg because such a change would effect more than 200 pages that connect to the file. A clear description should suffice rather than doing such a major move for a minor reason. INeverCry 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
A valid point. If people only ever read such descriptions!!! Cyan22 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Robert Prummel (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Eugénie de Leuchtenberg[edit]

MERCI beaucoup pour votre aide bonne journée--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Jean Bart[edit]

Bonsoir et Merci beaucoup pour le blason de Jean Bart c'est parfait bonne soirée à vous--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

collier espagne[edit]

bonjour et un grand merci pour votre bonne journée à vous--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Maximilian Gritzner Bavière[edit]

Bonjour Robert, je voudrais savoir s'il vous plait si Maximilian Gritzner a réalisé ces trois ordres de Bavière :

1. Order of St. George 2. Military order of Max Joseph 3. Order of merit of the Bavarian Crown.

Merci pour votre aide bonne journée à vous --Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


bonjour et merci beaucoup c'est parfait bon weekend à vous --Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of the Federal Republic Nigeria wit three ribbons[edit]

I've had made a file with the Grand Commander ribbon derivated from your file, with the proper attribution. I hope you dont mind and agree with it. Although, If you can improve it (Im an amateur in this issue), it would be better. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


File:Commandeurskruis van de Orde van de Heilige Michael Beieren.jpg, author permission by email[edit]

Hello,

Relating to your question in the Village pump (Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/07#What is the right template?) I remain somewhat concerned that the email discussion on the file description page of File:Commandeurskruis van de Orde van de Heilige Michael Beieren.jpg may pose a privacy issue. I have raised the matter in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible privacy issue. MKFI (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Commandeurskruis van de Orde van de Heilige Michael Beieren.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Commandeurskruis van de Orde van de Heilige Michael Beieren.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)‎ | +/−

Asclepias (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)



Order of Saint Olav version 1847[edit]

Bonjour Robert je cherche une image de l'Ordre de Saint Olav version 1847 crée par Oscar I de Suède auriez vous une image car celle ci on ne voit pas très bien dans cette version de 1893 Keten van de Orde van Sint Olaf 1893.jpg

Merci d'avance, bonne journée à vous cordialement--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wapenbord van François Mitterrand in Stockholm.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wapenbord van François Mitterrand in Stockholm.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)‎ | +/−

Meerdervoort (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Orde van de Volksrepubliek Bulgarije drie graden.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Orde van de Volksrepubliek Bulgarije drie graden.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Orde van de Volksrepubliek Bulgarije drie graden.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Multichill (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Vrijheidskruis der Tweede Klasse met Rode Kruis Decoratie.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vrijheidskruis der Tweede Klasse met Rode Kruis Decoratie.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)‎ | +/−

INeverCry 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Ik onderwerp me aan het oordeel van luokan Vapaudenristit die daar, gezien zijn naam, vast niet zomaar een bezwaar tegen heeft! Robert Prummel (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Admiraal Togo voor zijn vlaggeschip.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Admiraal Togo voor zijn vlaggeschip.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)‎ | +/−

Herostratus (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a download from the Japanese Wiki. I understand that it has been deleted there.... What a shame! Never the less we have to accept that the source is gone. It may have been unacceptable to Wikipedia Commons. Robert Prummel (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Waffen-SS Long Service Award 8 year FRONT.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to licensing Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:Waffen-SS Long Service Award 8 year FRONT.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file description page.


Deutsch | English | español | français | polski | svenska | +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)