User talk:Basvb

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

Welcome at by talk page. You'll get your answer faster on my dutch talk page.

See User talk:Basvb/Archive for the archive of this page.


Contents

Pallas of Bellona[edit]

Hallo Bas, een tijdje terug voerde jij in de Kroeg van nl.wiki een aantal zoekplaatjes op waaronder het door jouw bot geüploade plaatje met een beeld van Minerva/Pallas. Na die kroegdiscussie ben ik nog wat verder gaan zoeken, en ik stuitte daarbij op deze pagina, speciaal gewijd aan een beeld van Mars op landgoed Bronbeek in Arnhem. Mij viel de zeer sterke gelijkenis tussen de sokkels van de respectievelijke beelden op. Ik heb met de auteur van die pagina (Niek Ravensbergen) contact opgenomen, en die vond het ook erg frappant. Hij vond de gelijkenis zelfs meer zeggen dan het feit dat er op een schilderij wordt gesproken van ene Bellona. Alles bekeken hebbend lijkt het me best aannemelijk dat de door jou ten tonele gevoerde foto's een beeld laten zien dat eerst bij een hotel in Arnhem heeft gestaan. Maar ook indien niet, lijkt me hier sprake te zijn van een aanknopingspunt. Groet, Apdency (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Leuk verband. Zit er toch een heel verhaal achter deze foto met nog immer onbekende locatie. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(Een jaar later.) Hier vond ik nog een foto met een visuele gelijkenis, vooral wat betreft de omgeving dan. Wellicht nog een aanknoping (qua periode of zo)? Het was in elk geval wel het enige beeld op dat voormalige landgoed, begreep ik, dus een direct verband met Pallas zal er wel niet zijn. Apdency (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

File:AFIAP Certificate.jpg[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the copyright concerns. I was under the impression that scanning and uploading personal documents (the certificate was issued to me) is ok, especially as the symbols and logos used in the document itself had been published on commons before, cf. Category:FIAP. What do you think? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have my doubts about those logo's as well. They seem to be creative enough to be copyrighted. I don't know the FIAP's standpoints towards free licenses for their document. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

For your help in permission template

The Photographer (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks you

Categorien verzetskranten[edit]

Dag Basvb, ik zag dat je Category:1943-10-07_editie_verzetsblad_Ons_Volk uit Category:Dutch resistance newspapers from World War II verwijderd hebt. Is daar een gegronde reden voor? Ik ben van mening dat de eerste een subcat van de 2e is. I.v.m. voorbereidende werkzaamheden voor het wikiproject verzetskranten probeer ik juist alle mediabestanden over illegale kranten in een commonscat (en subcats) samen te brengen. Vriendelijke groeten, OlafJanssen (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Duh, sorry, mijn excuses, laat maar, ik was denk ik nog niet helemaal wakker! Dank je voor de juiste subcategorisering.. OlafJanssen (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ik zal eens kijken straks of ik nog wat andere kranten kan vinden die op commons staan. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Basvb. You have new messages at Jarekt#Parsing_errors's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your odd question[edit]

re: this edit Not sure what you were attempting to accomplish, but the {{void}} template swallows all contents, including multiple parameters. In this case was being used as an temporary editorial aid... just commenting out and around text part of which may be needed later... plus at least one inline comment... something one cannot do with an html <!--- comment structure ---> (like that), but which void handles readily.

  • Bottom line, the template is A) unfinished, B) part of a series of boilerplate licensing templates waiting for experience with a body of images not yet uploaded supporting and within tutorials ready in outline, but not yet added to the wikibook. Once a few of those are finalized, we can resolve redundancies and simplify the system for less wikicapable authors to use at need. The whole has been delayed mightily by a bad accident.

I just returned home from months in the hospital Christmas Eve, so will not be all that productive for a few more weeks yet more. I've no left shoulder joint, seven cracked ribs, a fractured wrist and multiply fractured pelvis, and broken left hip ball joint... and have done more on the computer today from the wheelchair than in the previous six weeks... so your edit-question is in one sense, timely. Best regards, // Frank FrankB 00:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi FrankB,
I'm sorry about the timing, and hope all will be getting better health wise soon. I was working on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls in which the template was listed because of the construction in the void template (duplicate arguments). I now did this edit, maybe that's a bit better, because the text is not lost and as void swallows all content anyhow also not an issue. If you don't like the edits feel free to revert them.
I hope you recover well and enjoy the holiday season.
Mvg, Basvb (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Noharm, no foul... kind of hard to break something vanishing into the great bit-bucket in the sky on purpose! // FrankB 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Dear Bas,

I nominated you for admin and you can find the RFA here. Could you please let me know if you accept the candidacy? Natuur12 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hallo Basvb, vielen Dank für Deine Hilfe bei der Umwandlung meiner Bilderdaten. Ich habe viele Namen aktualisiert und die Aktion heute fertig gestellt.
Alles Gute für das neue Jahr 2015 für Dich. Ich werde mich später (in den nächsten Wochen) nochmals mit Fragen bei Dir melden. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you also for the great work, I see you've allready cleaned up all those files, amazing work. There's now around 350 files still with tables (they didn't match the replace pattern). I think they will be tagged by Jarek's bot somewhere in the future, or I could try to tag them into a specific category. Best wishes for 2015. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−


An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Basvb, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard an it subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons-lr webchat on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Janitor.png Commiserations on your demotion to janitor. Congratulations on your promotion to administrator! Green Giant (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Gratulation[edit]

....a great result for you personally. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of reliable deletionism.png The Barnstar of Reliable Deletionism
Thanks for your help taking out the trash. At this rate I may even catch up with Fastily in the deletion stats... Face-tongue.svg INeverCry 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the star, and thanks for all your work handling these requests! Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It's always nice to see simple, clear DRs. They sort of balance out the ones written in strange gibberish and/or based on convoluted reasoning that're murder to close... INeverCry 17:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File: Paolo Francesco Piva REFS.pdf[edit]

Hi I'm Helen, Paolo has asked me to write on his behalf to overcome the problems he's having in comunicating in English. I'm not sure how to use Wikipedia Commons, so I hope this message gets through.

Firstly, some images have been removed despite the emails sent by Paolo regarding copyright; they are listed in the the "files you uploaded may be deleted" and are the following:

  • File:STUDIODADA Brunati spa Mobili In Colore 01.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA Capitello sofa for Felice Rossi.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA Carpets tiling program with OLIVETTI.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA Carpi Bookcase For Tecnodada.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA Fountain for HRH Prince Naif in Jeddah SA.JPG
  • File:STUDIODADA Italiana Coke.JPG
  • File:STUDIODADA TRIENNALE.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA On The Road Tecnodada.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA Pilotis sofa for Felice Rossi.jpg
  • File:STUDIODADA Tecnodada Offices.JPG

Also, could you please explain why the file Paolo Franceso Piva REFS.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests?

Please let me know what documents I need to send to resolve this situation. Thanks very much Helen Rainey

Hi Helen Rainey,
I don't know the situation surrounding the earlier files, it seems that those have been nominated years ago. About File:PAOLO FRANCESCO PIVA REFS.pdf, this was a screenshot of a website. I did not see how this file was going to have any use in a project on Wikipedia and that's why I nominated it as Commons:Out of scope.
Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Defender of the Sisterwikis[edit]

Barnstar - technical works.svg

A technical barnstar for the heroic defense of the Sisterwikis against the dark forces of doom, protecting a unique piece of original vintage 2005 template art for future MediaWiki archaeologists. May this artwork prevail until more than 200 sister languages are needed.

Be..anyone (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)  
Thank you, I'm of course not against a better solution, but until then lets get those 200 sisterwiki links (althought I believe it supports only 40) ;). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Problematic edit[edit]

FYI. Something wrong happen with this edit. --Jarekt (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it, I had this issue multiple times, I was looking for exact matches, but sometimes people have put those exact matches in the description field and with a too generic replace I end up adding a second infobox. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is the same issue with the files below:

--Jarekt (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I've used a bad regex for fir0002's files, is this list extensive? Otherwise I'll go and try to find an extensive list. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes I see now sort of what the regex was, I couldn't find out how to say that it should do a regex from the start of the file (only if there's not text in front of the text to replace). Because there was not really a clear format just "textual short description {template} etc.". Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Budgie Burke Shelley Live.jpg[edit]

Hi Basvb. Please keep in mind that vandalism might also be the reason for issues with the information template. --Leyo 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case it was this edit messing the formatting up, I doubt that could be considered vandalism. (btw sorry for the revert, I misclicked). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/104964935 … --Leyo 00:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Respuesta por Biografía de Carlos Antonio Cifuentes y malos dichos[edit]

Thank you for your kind message Basvb. I did not mean it, maybe it's my bad writing in English, I apologize, I really do not mean that. Best regards.Deucaleon (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it goes both ways (meeting a deletion request is also not a warm welcome so sorry for that). And with both of us talking in a non-native language there will be some small miscommunications. Thanks for your reaction. Basvb (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rowing machine[edit]

Hi, Bas, please close the request. Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a difficult one, I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. I've explained the situation in English and given my view. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Georeferencing[edit]

Hi Bas,

I've used your georeferencing of one of the plans of Haarlem as the poster-image for this new campaign page for the georeferencing. Hope that that (and the hat-tip to you) is okay!

All best, Jheald (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Haarlem is indeed a nice and clear example as it still has its original structures. The reference is not necessary IMO, but ok. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burgplatz Essen, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Denkmal.jpg[edit]

Thank you for closing the request. But the file still had a wrong (PD-old) license. At first, we cannot be sure, that the photographer is 70 years dead, at second, the license needs separate license for US. I replaced the license into Anonymous-EU. I think, that the license is better, at least now another license for US is not required. Taivo (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes Anonymous EU seems to be the correct one. Thank you. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi! Would you delete the second upload of File:Fachada do Colégio Angélica, Coronel Fabriciano MG.jpg, at 18:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)? In this date, I sent the same picture two times by a problem with cache update and I thank if this error be corrected. --HVL talk 18:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we can best just leave it there, that there is one version two many is not a problem. I do think by the way that it would be better in the future to upload new images (so not just a technical modification) as a separate file, allowing us to enjoy two images of the same object. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to delete because I don't see necessity of leave two equal pictures, saturating the history, but in this case there are no problems. I loaded a new file because of the bad quality of the original, but I preserve original images when it is very different of a new. I didn't think about it in the past, so I did the loads of new versions in some of this delete files. Thanks for the tips. --HVL talk 18:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion[edit]

Why were only a few images deleted from all the nominated files by Villacote? See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Melvin Villacote, this deletion process is incomplete. --P 1 9 9   15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Something went wrong, I only looked at the three images from the April 15th nomination. I will fix it by adding it again to the relevant deletion pages. Thank you for raising the issue. Basvb (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What you did not understand[edit]

Let me explain you: The said picture has been used for different events of different times; it is not "reliable". Got it? Best. --E4024 (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that better source and dating would be welcome, a wrong description isn't a reason for deletion. Basvb (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read com:NPOV and com:SCOPE in general. The files is in use and therefor in scope at Wikimedia Commons. Commons doesn't decide which files local projects have to use. If this file is used wrongly please discuss that at the local Wikipedia's. Commons doen't delete files just because they are wrong. There woudldn't come an end to the POV-nominations if we do that. Unless there is a copyright violation this file doesn't violate Commons policy. Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion question[edit]

Hi Basvb, I saw you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:SM UD 3 port.jpg yesterday as delete, but the file has not been deleted yet. Was there anything that needs to be addressed? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. I can't remember the reasoning behind this one, and thus most likely I misclicked the deleted button on this one. I've looked at it again and am still in doubt on this one therefore I've removed the likely incorrect closed tag and put it back on the page. Basvb (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RfD[edit]

You're right. It was one of my first administrative tasks and I might have forgot to delete actually. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[1][edit]

When you ask a question, you're normally expected to give someone time to respond! Fry1989 eh? 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's quite a backlog I'm trying to work at. The reasoning for keeping had two points and I kept it under the "in use" argument, the question is to indicate that if the claim is that it is a duplicate it would be nice to show of what it is a duplicate. Renominating is not much work and you did that so that's fine. Basvb (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why you erase a derived map and not the original?[edit]

You have erased a file derived from [2]. Why don't you erase the original file? Are you afraid of the Croatians attacking you on their wiki? It is ILLOGICAL to erase the way you do! The file on Commons:Deletion requests/File:CityStatesofneolatinDalmatia.jpg was not an "incorrect attribution"....anyway, I know that you will not change your decision: WikiCommons is full of this kind of mistakes/problems and no admin corrects it.........it seems WikiCommons it is full of people who "like" to erase and erase and erase......I give up collaborating with WikiCommons....BD

I can't delete files on the Croatian wiki and I do not intend on doing so. For the rest could you please rephrase your questions and opinions in a more constructive way. I'm open to discussion based on arguments, not on one based on attacks. Can you explain to me why the original is free to use, who created it and why did they release it (it might be on the Croatian file but I can't read that). It looks like a (tilted) picture from a professional map/book. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europarl logo.svg[edit]

I find your close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europarl logo.svg somewhat curious. For one thing, a new image was uploaded on April 30. While the new image is more arguable to not meet a threshold of originality, it isn't even debatable at any serious level that the prior logo did meet this level. Krd (talk · contribs), whose opinion I obviously respect, opined after this new image was uploaded, while the rest of the comments (and my nomination) were about the prior version. I think a reasonable close might be to keep the new version but purge the old revisions. For the old version, the claim that it did not pass a threshold of originality is just plain absurd. The older logo was not simple geometric shapes by any remote stretch. The votes offered no explanation of why the image should be kept, despite requests from both me and from FDMS 4 that they explain their reasoning. While I am not a Commons administrator, on :en we put little weight to votes with no explanation, particularly on copyright issues. I provided a detailed explanation of why I believe the old logo meets a threshold of originality and the rebuttal to my argument is "Symbol keep vote.svg Keep". --B (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

B is right here. I didn't see that prior versions exist, and those are clearly above TOO for me. I support to purge the old versions. --Krd 07:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I also did not see the older versions. I've not got a lot of time now so will take a good look later this day. Basvb (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked into it and the older versions are indeed above the TOO and I've thus changed their visibility. Basvb (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --B (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe[edit]

Hi Basvb--I picked an admin at random. Can you have a look at the category Our Lady of Guadalupe and figure out how this should fit under Category:Our Lady of Guadalupe (Tepeyac), which is where I think it should be? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think I'm the perfect option to help out there. On quick view it looks like those should be merged (but I'm not that familiar here on Commons to know what's the best way to do that). Maybe raising it in the village pump will be a good idea. Basvb (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm thanks. I'll leave it be--the Commons affairs aren't that important to me. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HistoricalRomanijainBosnia.jpg[edit]

Why was this image kept? I explained that it has no educational use; it is WP:OR, using a 1860 map, indicating "Romanija area" (a geographical region), "Stari Vlah" (a historical region) and "Romanians" (an ethnic group), trying to connect modern Romanians with the said Romanija region. As per the same, File:StariVlah (1861).jpg should be deleted as well. Also, the borders of the said regions are wrong (enlarged).--Zoupan (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It was kept because 5 different Wikis are using the file and that makes it in scope. If it is wrong I think it is best to discuss it at those wikis and let them remove it from their articles. If they decide to delete it because it is wrong it serves no educational use and it will likely be deleted. Basvb (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kremenchuk Nassa-color.jpg[edit]

Hi, There is no source and should therefore be deleted per COM:PCP. No evidence that this file was taken be NASA. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether something falls under PCP or not is not really a factual thing. The precautionary principle states that files for which there is significant doubt about whether or not they are free should be deleted. Whether there is doubt can differ from person to person. And simply doubting should not be enough, because for all files uploaded as own work there is a small chance that they were taken by somebody else, thus this doubt has to be significant. Also the reaction on the DR page (not by you) about a dangerous precedent is in my believe a bit stretched. That being said I do see that there might be a bit more doubt for this file as I initially estimated and as such reopening of the DR, more opinions or somebody taking the opposite decision is alright with me. Basvb (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I renominated the file. Basvb (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
PCP is a policy and simply doubting is of course a valid reason. This closure is imho negligent. No source = no evidence that the file is free usable. This can bring re-users is legal peril. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Shipwreck spelling error[edit]

Dag Bas,

Er zit nog een spelfautje in dit template: "excevation" moet zijn "excavation" (opgraving). Groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ik heb het in de tekst die je ziet aangepast, de onderliggende parameters aanpassen zou betekenen dat 10,000 files aangepast moeten worden dus ik wilde dan het liefst zowel de goede als de foute tag mogelijk maken, maar ik weet niet hoe dat handig kan. Basvb (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

my nominations[edit]

You're absolutely right, I'll watch my language in future. Thanks for warming. I was simply tired categorizing this hundreds of photos from people who think Wikipedia is hosting. And as English isn't native for me, I don't feel the emotional expression of words quite truly. --Shakko (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the language and also thank you for your nominations, cleaning up the hundreds of selfies etcetera is welcomed. Basvb (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roches Douvres-2.jpg[edit]

I just got aware of the fact that the English Wikipedia accepts these files under a sort of PD-US-only clause (see this discussion). Can you please temporarily undelete the three files so I can transfer them to en.wikipedia? De728631 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And the same goes for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phare planier.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phare Armandeche.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cap Leucate (Aude), light house.jpg. Sorry for troubling you with this. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've temporarily undeleted all the related files (see my log for full overview). There's a chance that I won't be able to redelete them again soon, could you tag them as speedy-deletions, when you are done, linking to this discussion? Greetings, Basvb (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Dankjewel! That was some quick service. I'm going to tag these files for speedy deletion once I've successfully transferred them to enwiki. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @De728631: Actually, I think there is no copyright on these industrial / utility buildings. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Yann:: Well, some of these look rather original to me, so I wouldn't bet on that. You might also want to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Phare de Ploumanac'h. With its medieval style, the latter lighthouse is surely not just a plain industrial design. De728631 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note that pictures of Superphenix and Odeillo Solar System were kept. These seem much more complex than these lighthouses. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2015 (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.
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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jarekt (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Calea Mosilor - Milennium Business Center.jpg[edit]

I agree with what you did here; do we also have to remove the copyvio from the history, or is it OK to leave it? - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've hidden it. I do not exactly know the commons policy for hiding versions but this seems indeed a good idea. Basvb (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's for the best. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salomé Ureña de Henríquez.jpeg[edit]

The author Rafael García Romero was born in 1957 and is presumably still alive. Please delete. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to actually click the delete button earlier on. Basvb (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Republic of Kosovo Assembly Transcript s 2012 10 03 10 4495 al.pdf[edit]

Please see if {{PD-KosovoGov}} may undelete it.--Jusjih (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think it can be: that is the source. Basvb (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Foto van zelfportret van Frans Van Giel[edit]

Beste Bavb, op 14 November hebt u een bericht op mijn pagina achtergelaten met de vraag om de nodige stappen te nemen op te bewijzen dat het zelfportret van mijn grootvader, Frans Van Giel te zorgen voor de nodige toestemming. Ik heb de nodige stappen ondernomen door de gevraagde email te sturen zoals in OTRS gevraagd wordt. Maar ik heb er sindsdien helemaal niets meer van gehoord, maar de afbeelding is wel al verwijderd. Is er nog iets dat ontbreekt om dit alsnog opnieuw in orde te krijgen? Ik ben ook beheerder van de website fransvangiel.be. Moet daar een bericht komen waarin wij, erfgenamen van Frans Van Giel, verklaren dat wij deze foto voor Wikimedia vrijgeven? Bedankt. Jvangiel (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Kun jij even kijken of deze in OTRS terug te vinden is?
@Jvangiel, Bedankt voor het opsturen van de OTRS-toestemming, ik heb zelf geen toegang tot deze mails, maar heb een andere gebruiker (Natuur12) gevraagd of hij deze mail kan vinden. Als die mail gevonden is dan zullen we de afbeelding terugzetten. Bedankt voor uw bijdragen dmv vrije afbeeldingen. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)s
Is inmiddels gebeurt. Natuur12 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Beste Basvb, de afbeelding is terug vrijgegeven. Bedankt voor de moeite.Jvangiel (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bedankt voor uw bijdragen en begrip. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jan de winter (kunstenaar)[edit]

Beste Bas, Op 14 november is de file Vermurail_over_pipeline_bouw_met_Mercurius_van_Jan_de_Winter.jpg op Commons verwijderd. Deze file was in overleg met de kunstenaar Jan de Winter geplaatst. Kun jij me aangeven waarom deze file verwijderd is? Het kunstwerk is in mijn bezit dus dit kan ook niet de reden zijn. vriendelijke groet Jan

Beste Jan (@Janfromholland),
Bedankt voor het uploaden van dit werk en het bespreken van de vrijgave met de kunstenaar. Om misverstanden te voorkomen vragen we expliciete toestemming van de auteursrechtenhebbenden (Jan de Winter in dit geval). Die expliciete toestemming heeft hij mondelings aan jou gegeven, maar om te voorkomen dat mensen bij vrijgave niet doorhebben wat er precies vrijgegeven word, en omdat op het internet iedereen kan zeggen toestemming te hebben (zonder dat dat zo is, ik ga ervanuit dat het hier klopt, maar we willen zeker zijn) vragen we of de rechtenhebbende expliciete toestemming naar Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries kan versturen. Op Commons:OTRS staat hierover een uitgebreidere uitleg.
Mocht u nog vragen hebben dan hoor ik het graag, het is misschien wat bureaucratisch en strikt met toestemmingen, maar we zien graag vrije afbeeldingen en helpen dus graag daarbij.
Mvg, Basvb (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Beste Bas, De heer de Winter is 76 jaar en zover ik weet een so-called "digibeet". Hoe krijg ik een Declaration_of_consent van hem in digitale versie bij jullie. Ik zit op dit moment in Dubai, UAE en kan niet even bij hem langs gaan in Schiedam. Met vriendelijke groet Jan

Beste Jan,
Dat maakt het inderdaad lastig. Ik zal even wat andere gebruikers vragen wat ze hiervan denken: @Natuur12, @Edoderoo, kunnen we de telefonische toestemming gebruiken, hebben jullie andere ideeen?
Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You might want to ask Mr de Winter to write a letter of consent by hand or with a typewriter. Then you could scan the letter and send it to OTRS by email. De728631 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's a practical option. Some bureaucracy to ensure a common and solid ground for release of works is ok, but we shouldn't make all possible uploads and releases impossible with bureaucratic hurdles. The typewriter (I don't see why a printed letter is not an option) does not remove the difficulty that the uploader has no physical access (other side of the world) to the releaser, who has to send the letter in that case? And as such a letter is easily faked, so I'd opt to not overcomplicate this and use the verbal release via telephone in this case. Basvb (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Bas, hoe kan ik jou, Jan de Winter's telefoonnummer sturen,. zonder dit publiek te maken op deze site. groet Jan je kunt mij evt bereiken op nr (SMS) en dan kan ik je zijn nummer terug sms-en

Beste Jan, Ik heb je nummer even weggehaald, makkelijkste is als we gewoon mailen. Ik wacht nog even op een reactie van Natuur12 of Edoderoo op wat hun handig lijkt in deze, misschien is het inderdaad een optie om de toestemming via OTRS telefonisch te doen, eventueel via Wikimedia Nederland. Zodra we hebben bedacht wat een handige manier is zal ik u even een mailtje sturen (er is een knopje Email this user links onder Tools) en kunnen we het vanaf daar verder oplossen. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bas, Bedankt voor je hulp zover. Groet, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janfromholland (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Een optie is om hem een formulier op te sturen. (Moeten we Wikimedia Nederland even lief aankijken). Als we het goed aanpakken hoeft er alleen een handtekening gezet te worden, de brief in de retourenvelop gedaan te worden en op de bus gedaan te worden. Wel moeten we van tevoren weten of Jan de Winter akkoord is met een dergelijke constructie. Eventuele vertrouwelijke en/of privacygevoelige gegevens gaan dan in theorie niet door de handen van vrijwilligers maar enkel door de handen van de betaalde medewerkers van Wikimedia Nederland. Als het nodig is kan ik een dergelijk formulier in elkaar draaien en zorgen dat het bij Wikimedia Nederland belandt. Natuur12 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Een formulier opsturen kan, ik heb wel vaker verklaringen ingescand in OTRS gekregen, het is nog officieler dan een simpel mailtje ook. Maar als iemand kan verklaren dat Jan de Winter de licentievoorwaarden duidelijk is verteld, en hij er mee akkoord is gegaan, zal het wat mij betreft ook voldoende zijn. Maar ik ben geen sysop op Commons, dus mijn mening gaat niet zoveel helpen in deze. Edoderoo (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rijnbar: photo of cover of "Moord in de Rijnbar[edit]

Dear Sir, I understand your vision. Please remove the photo of the cover of "Moord in de Rijnbar". I agree with that. No problem. It is not important for the the article itself.RomeinsekeizerRomeinsekeizer (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can of course remove the cover myself. So I did. Thank you for your contribution.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Beste Bas, Nu maar ik het Nederlands, Ik heb uiteraard destijds geprobeerd de rechthebbenden te vinden. Met name de auteur t.a.v. van de erven. Absoluut onvindbaar. Ook Nationaal Archief bezocht. De uitgeverij bestaat al lang niet meer. Toen besloten om de prent te plaatsen, omdat de auteur een vriend van mijn vader wasRomeinsekeizer (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ja soms is het onmogelijk om de rechtenhebbende te vragen om de rechten vrij te geven, in dat geval moeten we er helaas echter wel vanuit gaan dat deze rechtenhebbende niet wil vrijgeven. Bedankt voor je reactie en het uitzoekwerk in deze. Basvb (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

FFD[edit]

Hi Basvb, It may be a better idea to move on from that FFD,
I appreciate you disagree with it and are perhaps unhappy with me reverting but us warring over it really isn't going to achieve anything other than us both being blocked,
At the time I had no idea you were an admin so I apologize for reverting you (Had I known you were an admin I'd of done it all differently ... But now that we've had a big discussion I think it's best we leave for another admin to close)
Anyway you could close as delete then I'd love you forever lol Face-grin.svg
Anyway Thanks & Happy editing :) –Davey2010Talk 22:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This crossed my request at COM:AN/u. I assumed you to understand that I was an admin as admins normally close the deletion requests. I've tried to explain to you several times my concerns in a polite manner as I'm trying to not get involved in any of those negative discussions by trying to be as polite as possible. Sadly we've gotten into one of those negative discussions now. I'll be off to bed in a little bit (and likely not responding the next 20h). I hope you'll use that time to reconsider my arguments and concerns which are purely on the procedures. Saying that you want to step over the reverting and then not taking the first step (in re-adding my closure) doesn't feel as if it is truly an attempt to resolve this issue. This has escalated far more than it should and I feel that I've given plenty of opportunity for it not to escalate by trying to request polity you follow the deletion request procedures all the while only getting hostile and escalating reactions. I hope that with the involvement of another admin we can get to a resolution and hope that the negative escalation of this matter does not harm both of us to much in our enthusiasm to keep up the good work on the Wikimedia projects. Basvb (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Usually at ENWP non-admins can close discussions and as you had no mention of you being an admin I just assumed you were a normal editor...., I don't mean to sound like a dick but I wish you'd added the box the day you became admin as this could've all been avoided, Meh we'll be fine after a few days, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The confusion with not having the admin box is indeed my mistake. I'm of the opinion that admins should be equal to other users as much as possible and at least behave that way, mainly in discussions like this. Arguments should be valued on their value, not on whether they are said by an admin. In line with this I did not add the box, because after all an admin is just a user with some extra buttons and tasks. But indeed it can be confusing if somebody uses the user page as a quick check, thus I've added them now. Basvb (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I totally understand where you're coming from But I'd never ever revert an admins decision not on anything ... Even on EN I've never reverted an admins decision ... I guess Admins comments hold more weight and are alot easier to resolve than with a normal editor, Ah thanks :), As I said at AN I think we've both made mistakes it but it's a learning curve so we're not all perfect ... Well except me I'm bloody God :P –Davey2010Talk 00:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

¿File:ANALES43TAPA.png has been nominated for deletion?[edit]

I don´t know why you nominate this image for deletion. Is the front page of the magazine Anales del Instituto and I was one of the editors in his electronic version. This magazine is made by the University of Buenos Aires, it´s not a commercial magazine and have free license. Please, I ask for remove this nomination.

And in the same magazine says "El material publicado en los Anales podrá ser reproducido total o parcialmente a condición de citar la fuente original". Cita de Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas "Mario J. Buschiazzo", Relatos del Diseño, page 6, ISSN 0328-9796, Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo (Universidad de Buenos Aires), 1983, Buenos Aires, Argentina. --ERodLeir (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ERodLeir, I checked the website a bit better and you are completely right. I'm sorry for nominating the image. I've updated the license and source a little bit. Basvb (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File[edit]

Hi Basvb, Right lets start this all again shall we Face-grin.svg, Right so according to Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions I need to ask you if you'd consider deleting this file and if you refuse I should renominate it ? .,.... But as it all went tits up I'm assuming my best course of action is to just renominate it again? (Unless ofcourse you would delete the file but after all that It would seem kinda silly to delete it ?) Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether something is usable for educational purposes is not purely factual but highly influenced by opinions. My opinion on this matter has not changed, thus given that renomination and asking a second opinion would be fine. However as things are now another user has also answered the question of usability (in favor of keeping) and another admin has reclosed the request (although this should likely not be seen as a decision on whether this is in scope). Please consider given the drama which evolved whether it is wise and constructive to raise this issue again, personally I doubt that. However the decision on that is up to you. Basvb (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to WP:COM:ABF but the !Keeper didn't really put a convincing arguement forward ... He just kept because a door was visible so really it was between me and you, I don't think (I could be wrong!) SS really understood what was being said and to be fair it did get all confusing, My problem is I've nominated hundreds like that image and they've all been deleted and now all a sudden someone has an issue so you can kinda understand why I'm a tad annoyed - It's nothing personal promise :),
Exactly after todays drama I don't particularly wanna create more Face-grin.svg, Today has been enough for one week Face-grin.svg,
I'll probably renominate it sometime in the week when things have died down :)
Thanks for your help - and sorry for reverting you!, Happy editing :) –Davey2010Talk 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TeleTrade Cyprus[edit]

One file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've deleted it now. Basvb (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto.jpg[edit]

Hi Bas,

Zou je in je motivatie in willen gaan op de argumenten die ik heb opgeworpen? Je gaat namelijk niet in op het "publication right" wat we ook in Nederland kennen en de status van het werk in de VS waar een veel langere beschermingstermijn is voor dit soort weeswerken dan in Nederland. Natuur12 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Op deze argumenten is @Vysotsky: volgens mij al ingegaan. Dit deed hij bij de stukjes over "§ 4, art. 12, 1, 2°" en "US Copyright Law". Ik heb van jouw zijde geen (overtuigende) argumenten gezien waarom deze argumenten geen stand houden. Op basis van de argumenten bij de verwijderingsdiscussie heb ik de betreffende wetsboekartikelen nagelezen, en daaruit kom ik tot dezelfde conclusies. Nou ben ik uiteraard geen rechter, dus er valt vast en zeker nog te discussiëren over deze afbeelding, echter met de gegeven informatie kon ik niet anders dan tot een conclusie tot behoud komen.Basvb (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Door te stellen dat het verkopen van een foto telt als een wettige openbaarmaking? Je maakt een grapje toch? Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Natuur, Allereerst even een puntje over de discussie, welke ik graag inhoudelijk houd. In je vorige overlegbijdrage schrijf je: "Je maakt een grapje toch?". Dit komt op mij onprettig over, alsof mijn overlegbijdrage niet serieus genomen wordt, ik zou het op prijs stellen als we discussie puur inhoudelijk kunnen houden. Dat gezegd hebbende meen ik inderdaad dat de verkoop van een schoolfoto een verbreiding van een (verveelvuldiging) van het werk is, zoals gesteld in de wet. Zou je aan willen geven waarom deze aanname niet juist is? Het verkopen van een schoolfoto is het verspreiden van die foto buiten het bezit van de fotograaf en dat dat dan als openbaarmaking wordt gezien acht ik niet raar. Basvb (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Voor de meelezer, we hebben het er net via IRC over gehad en heb besloten het erbij te laten. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tracy.JPG[edit]

Are you sure that this closure was correct? When the deletion request was created, the page on English Wikipedia used w:File:Tracy.JPG (a different file which was later deleted as unsourced), and the use of the Commons file on Wikipedia seems to be the result of an error (the Commons file started to shine through when the local file was deleted). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I simply looked at the file usage and saw that it was in use on enwiki, I didn't spot that it was a different woman as from the user page, will delete it per that. Basvb (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a simple race condition: I tagged both the Commons file and the Wikipedia file for deletion at 19:26 on 12 March, and the Wikipedia deletion nomination was handled before the Commons deletion nomination. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Hiya! Thanks so much for helping out with the backlog Face-wink.svg. On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helowien.jpg did you perhaps forget to delete the second file covered in the nomination? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did, thanks for the reminder. Basvb (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garnisonkirche um 1827.jpg[edit]

Hi, independently of your keeping decision I was convinced I had to upload other versions of File:Carl Hasenpflug - Garnisonkirche Potsdam (1827).jpg, and I did this last night – your decision simply came in between. Could you now, please, take a look, whether this would be worth now to insert the {{Duplicate}} template into File:Garnisonkirche um 1827.jpg? — Speravir_Talk – 17:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know I feel like the File:Garnisonkirche um 1827.jpg has some more subtility in the details. Maybe a renomination would be an idea, and with that hopefully some more opinions? Basvb (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Oops. I meant File:Garnisonkirche um 1827.jpg as the duplicate and therefore converting into a redirect to File:Carl Hasenpflug - Garnisonkirche Potsdam (1827).jpg. Yes, this has also some slight moiré pattern, but much less, and apart from the preview the latter file itself is in better quality. I could, of course, add the template without asking you, but I thought a question here would be better. — Speravir_Talk – 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes thanks for asking, that's appreciated, and of course feel free to do what you think is best. Zooming in I see indeed that the quality is not higher, although the colors seem more natural. And I see all the weird boxes, which likely is what gives it an illusion of sharpness. Basvb (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, duplicate template inserted. — Speravir_Talk – 00:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Occasion fussballkasten garlando deluxe 8stueckb200.jpg[edit]

What does "per nomination" mean? The nominator created an empty discussion page. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Per nomination is the default reasoning quickdelete uses, there was quite a backlog so I went a bit quick. In this case the images were clear copyvios (small size, no exif) or advertisements with a watermark from fussballkasten.ch accross. Basvb (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Marita Liulia Arabesque and her other art images[edit]

Hi, I have created Marita Liulia's wikipedia page at her request, as her employee.

So I have Liulia's official permission to use the image on her wikipedia page: she herself wanted the images on her wikipedia page.

With Wikipedia Commons, it is difficult to use it to upload images to a person's wikipedia page. I have never before edited wikipedia before, but this page with its photos has been created at Marita Liulia's personal request. You may contact herself if you wish at marita@maritaliulia.com

If you know any other better ways to add images to a person's wikipedia page than Wikipedia Commons, please let me know how to do it.

But please do not remove anything without discussing the image matter with me first. Thank you very much! Gurneys 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reacted on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arabesque Choosing my Religion by Marita Liulia.jpg

Batavierenstraat[edit]

own work Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
own work Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
own work Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Google street view, deletion agreed; will swap with own work Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
own work Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
public domain Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
public domain Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
public domain Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
public domain Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Google street view, deletion agreed Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
public domain Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
own work Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
public domain Sterz (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I've reacted on the nomination page. Basvb (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Paul.thind's reaction[edit]

So I got what you're saying. Can't figure out how to delete it so I'll just let you take care of it. Cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.thind (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your reaction, it will stay up for discussion for at least a week, after which an admin will decide to delete it (or not to). Basvb (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Images from Northern Storm Article by VSBroN[edit]

Hello. I see that my images from the article is getting deleted. I don't know where else to write this - I represent Northern Storm Wrestling, I do all the graphics and images for them. You need permission for using those images in Wikipedia - You can ask me for it. Please bring images back. VSBroN

Dear VSBroN, thank you very much for you reply. On Commons:OTRS a detailed outline is provided on how to show that you are the copyright holder of professional works. In short you have to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an email address associated with the copyright holder (in this case NSW). If you've done that you will receive a reply with a ticketnr. If you tell me the ticketnr. here I can quickly handle the ticket and restore the images. Thank you very much for your contributions to our projects. Basvb (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Cabane des Evadés[edit]

Cabane des Evadés Why not Bas. As I told you before: it is my own work Sterz (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sterz, The problem for me is that you made a number of false claims, initially, but also in the deletion request in your reactions. Therefore I also don't trust your claim for this image, the image is suspicious because there is no exif data. If you have a version with exif data this could be a way to give more evidence of this file being own work. Basvb (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Vind je het niet een beetje overdreven om te stellen dat er sprake is van "number of false claims"? File:Batavierenstraat Oostzijde.jpg en Seniorencompex Batavierenstraat.jpg zijn dezelfde en Stèle Cabane des Evadés.jpg, van deze stèle heb ik zelf zoveel foto's gemaakt (en verzameld) dat ik meende dat dit ook wel mijn eigen zou zijn (wat ook voor de Batavierenstraat opgaat). Dat is misschien slordig, maar het maakt me geen leugenaar. Dankzij jou wordt ik door allerlei personen publiekelijk voor leugenaar uitgemaakt. Ik heb de moeite genomen om de lemma's, die ik meestal zelf heb gemaakt, de voorzien van foto's. Dat zijn er vele, vele geweest, ofwel zelfgemaakt, dan wel uit oudere foto's (uit familiealbums) zelf gescanned. Een paar keer de mist ingaan, en ik ben een leugenaar. Het heeft me wel de lol in wikipedia ontnomen in ieder geval en bemoei me er niet meer mee. Ik weet niet wat exif data betekent, maar ik heb zoveel mogelijk informatie erbij gezet. Ik heb nota bene zelf nog de contactafdruk van de foto van de cabane en die van de Batavierenstraat heb ik zelf samengesteld uit twee foto's, omdat het huis niet in één keer op de foto kon. Dat de foto vaker voorkomt op internet is logisch, het is een guesthouse. De verhuur bureaus gebruiken mijn foto. In ieder geval, bedankt voor de reacties, die uiteindelijk hebben geresulteerd in mijn afhaken. Sterz (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Beste Sterz, het is nooit mijn bedoeling om mensen onwelkom te laten voelen op Wikipedia en ik zou het erg jammer vinden als uw vertrek het gevolg is van de verwijdering van uw afbeeldingen. Ik heb me puur op de inhoudelijke aspecten gericht en daarbij aangegeven welke feitelijkheden ik over afbeeldingen tegenkwam. Daarbij is door de onjuistheden over een groot deel van de afbeeldingen ook een sterke twijfel bij mij en anderen over uw andere afbeeldingen ontstaan. Als er sterke twijfel over licenties bij afbeeldingen zijn dan worden deze volgens de standaard praktijk verwijderd. Om verwijdering te voorkomen is het dus zaak deze twijfels weg te nemen. Dit kan het best door bijvoorbeeld het uploaden van een versie die een hogere resolutie heeft dan overal elders op internet te vinden is, dat laat namelijk zien dat uw versie de bron is en de andere versies de kopieën. Dit kan ook door de eerder genoemde exif data, exif data zijn gegevens die een digitale camera bij de originele foto's zet normaliter. Zoals de datum waarop de foto gemaakt is en met wat voor camera. Zie ook het artikel w:nl:Exchangeable image file format op Wikipedia (waar het veel uitgebreider uitgelegd wordt wat exif is). Bij de foto van de cabane is het ook mogelijk om een foto te maken van de oorspronkelijke foto + wat ruimte eromheen, zodat duidelijk te zien is dat dit een fysieke foto is in uw bezit. Dergelijke feitelijke verduidelijkingen kunnen ervoor zorgen dat twijfels bij mij en anderen weggenomen worden. Op dit moment acht ik uw uitleg helaas onvoldoende overtuigend om te geloven dat het hier met voldoende zekerheid uw eigen werk betreft. Basvb (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Door niet te insinueren dat ik een leugenaar was, maar dit eerder te vertellen, had je dat kunnen voorkomen. Ik heb je uitgelegd hoe het zat en je hebt je daar niets van aangetrokken. Mijn plezier is vergald en zal geen foto's meer plaatsen. Alle andere onlangs geplaatste foto's, die ik nota bene voor een deel op verzoek heb gedeeld met Oologslachtoffersites, en die ze dankbaar hebben geplaatst (zie b.v. http://www.nmkampvught.nl/biografieen/roelink-nico-hans/ en http://www.nmkampvught.nl/biografieen/hak-jan/ wiens oude foto's uit het fotoalbum van mijn moeder komen). Maar haal ze allemaal maar weg, er wordt toch verwezen naar de betreffende sites. jammer alleen voor Wikipedia. Is dit afdoende voor de Cabane:
File:Cabane des Evadés.jpg
Cabane des Evadés, evidence it is own work
en batavierenstraat
Batavierenstraat 39 t/m 43 Rotterdam
? Sterz (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ik heb nooit willen insinureren dat u een leugenaar bent, ik heb enkel gewezen op feitelijke onjuistheden en aangegeven dat met het volhouden van feitelijke onjuistheden (bij Stèle Cabane des Evadés.jpg) ik twijfelde aan de waarde van uw claims. Het was inderdaad beter geweest als ik eerder explicieter was geweest over welke mogelijkheden er waren om te laten zien dat deze bestanden daadwerkelijk eigen werk zijn. Ik ben in beide gevallen nu inderdaad overtuigd dat dit uw eigen werk betreft en zal er dus ook moeite voor doen om deze bestanden te laten terugplaatsen dan wel te laten behouden. Ik zal ook nog een keer goed kijken naar de andere foto's. Weet u door wie die foto's gemaakt zijn? Of zijn deze op een manier gemaakt waarbij gesproken kan worden van een anonieme publicatie? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dan moet u toch eens wat op uw toon letten als u een ander resultaat beoogd ("You're right, it is a very similar but not identical image. That doesn't change the fact that you have made a great many incorrect claims here on Commons, so either you are a liar or you are very careless with details -- either way we have no reason to believe anything you say. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)"'. Voorts heb ik u gewezen op uw foute veronderstellingen, maar u wantrouwt en persevereert.
Het is nu sportief van u om de discussie op deze wijze te beëindigen, dank. De andere foto's, laat maar zitten. Het zijn over het algemeen vergeten verzetshelden die ik, juist in deze tijd, graag wilde belichten. En foto's geven dan een diepere dimensie, voor de lezers en nabestaanden. De fotografen zijn onbekend; de foto's komen voor een deel uit ons eigen familiearchief. Ik had toestemming van betrokken families en sommige foto's zijn op mijn verzoek ook geplaatst op andere sites, zoals van oorlog-slachtoffers, die wel erg blij waren met de foto's. Er staan verwijzingen bij een aantal lemma's naar die sites, dus het is wel goed zo. Jammer van de andere foto's, maar die komen ook wel ergens terecht; het is niet aan Wikipedia besteed. Ik was gestimuleerd met enthousiaste berichten als "Help Wikipedia mee met het plaatsen van foto's bij artikelen". Ik heb er geen behoefte meer aan om nog meer van dergelijke discussies te moeten voeren met weer een volgende politieagent die mij meent te moeten terechtwijzen en anderen in zijn kielzog meetrekt om mij voor paal te zetten. De beschuldiging van leugenaar lijkt nu te zijn ingetrokken, de lol en het enthousiasme is er van af. Sterz (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank[edit]

Goedemorgen Bas,

Hartelijk dank voor de fotografenster.
Met vriendelijke groet,
--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016[edit]

Hello Basvb. Thank you for alerting me. I'm waiting for the response from the Italian Bar on how to start deleting of those files. --Bella Trovata (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hogere resolutie[edit]

Hallo Bas,

Jouw foto van Ton Sijbrands leek hogere resolutie te zijn omdat ik zelf het beeld had gedraaid en een ander kader had bepaald. Bijna al mijn uploads van foto's van het Nationaal Archief zijn bewerkt omdat op Commons foto's staan die direct in artikelen worden geplaatst. Het ruwe materiaal is daarvoor veelal ongeschikt. Commons is geen opslagplaats van originelen, zoals uit dit geval blijkt, maar een uitgever van voor publicatie geschikte foto's. Al mijn uploads zijn ergens in de Wikipediaruimte gebruikt (of bruikbaar). Ik heb al twee keer een block aan mijn broek gehad, niet omdat ik een vandaal ben, maar omdat ik bovenstaande in de praktijk breng. Er zijn gebruikers die een schijfruimte-opslokkende stapel ongebruikte en (door mankerende beschrijving en categorisering) onbruikbare foto's aan het uploaden zijn, onder het motto dat Commons een opslag is i.p.v. een uitgever. Maar Commons kan door de aanwezige re-upload functie de pure opslag op termijn gewoonweg niet garanderen.

Hier ging overigens iets anders fout. In no time nadat je het origineel had geüpload werd mijn bewerking gewist, zonder dat daar iemand van in kennis werd gesteld. Ik had geen kans om mijn mening te geven. De procedure moet op dat punt worden aangepast, vind ik. Bijvoorbeeld, door het invoegen in de normale DR-procedure, zodat de betreffende uploader de tijd krijgt zijn mening te geven.

Groet, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wat denk ik vooral fout ging is dat zowel ik als de verwijderend moderator de fout maakten dat dit niet een duplicaat was, maar een bewerkte en bijgesneden versie (en dus hogere kwaliteit). Daarnaast voelt het inderdaad ook onnatuurlijk om veel oudere afbeeldingen te verwijderen, simpelweg omdat er een nieuwere afbeelding is met een hogere resolutie. In die gevallen zou ik liever een soort samenvoegknop zien, waarbij de nieuwe afbeelding bij de beschrijving van de oude afbeelding ingevoegd wordt en juist de nieuwe een redirect wordt. Dus eigenlijk enkel een soort "upload nieuwe versie van deze afbeelding". Dat het ruwe materiaal van het NA ongeschikt is voor gebruik ben ik niet met je eens. Commons hoeft inderdaad niet starrig te streven naar een volledige overname van archieven, nieuwe en verbeterde versies die archiefversies overschrijven zijn wmb dus ook een goed idee. Ik heb nu een tooltje gemaakt waarmee het mogelijk is om ipv willekeurig elke afbeelding (alles) van het NA, enkel geselecteerde (dmv een zoekquery) afbeeldingen over te zetten. Voordeel daarvan is dat deze afbeeldingen dan beter gecategoriseerd kunnen worden. Zo heb ik een 80-tal foto's van Sijbrands geüpload, deze zullen zeker niet alle 80 gebruikt worden, maar ze staan wel alle 90 netjes gecategoriseerd en een enkeling kon direct toegevoegd worden. Het is in dit soort zaken denk ik altijd een afweging tussen kwaliteit en kwantiteit. Ik merktte dat het met de hand per afbeelding uploaden van de NA afbeeldingen mij meer tijd kostte dan ik het waard vond (5 min per afbeelding), en heb geprobeerd dat proces sneller te maken, met zo min mogelijk kwaliteitverlies (in beschrijvingen). Waarmee ik dus iets meer voor kwantiteit kies, maar niet teveel ten kostte van kwaliteit. Aan de andere kant heb ik de indruk dat jij kwaliteit veel belangrijker vind, en elke afbeelding persoonlijk aandacht wil geven, dat moedig ik zeker aan. In dit geval was het natuurlijk vrij vervelend dat die kwaliteit verloren ging met een door mij geïnstantieerde verwijdering, hopelijk is dat nu goed opgelost, ik heb er in ieder geval van geleerd om volgende keer toch een stuk zorgvuldiger naar duplicaten te kijken. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Ik geloof niet dat we een goede oplossing hebben voor dat samenvoegen. Er is een template Superseded maar ik vind het nogal aanmatigend om van de een of de andere afbeelding te zeggen dat hij beter is dan de andere. Wat is beter? Zelf gebruik ik de mogelijkheid van other version, zoals hier, maar dat laat zich waarschijnlijk niet eenvoudig programmeren, iets waar jij waarschijnlijk naar kijkt. Er is ook een template Other version maar daar heb ik in het geheel geen ervaring mee, dus of dat bruikbaar is, weet ik niet. Wat dat overschrijven betreft heb je een van Commons afwijkende mening, merk ik. Overschrijven is wel in feite een algemeen gebruik, maar als het er op aan komt staat de hele meute op zijn achterste benen, en wordt er met de guidelines gezwaaid. Het wordt nogal hypocriet benaderd, de een kan rustig zijn gang gaan en de ander wordt neergesabeld. Dat ruwe materiaal is in soms wel bruikbaar maar veel van die scans zijn nog voorzien van bijvoorbeeld de plakkertjes waarmee ze in de archiefmap vast zitten. Het is lelijk om zo'n foto in een artikel te gebruiken. Zo zijn er wel meer voorbeelden. Die 90 afbeeldingen van Sijbrands zijn een goed voorbeeld van mijn en jouw benadering. Ik zoek een of twee foto's uit knap ze op en zet ze op commons, meer zal waarschijnlijk nooit gebruikt worden, en jij zet er 90 op zonder je er druk om te maken waar ze gebruikt worden. Ik gebruik commons als een uitgever en jij gebruikt commons als opslag. Ik heb er geen oordeel over, maar er zijn hier ook mensen wiens uploads in de miljoenen exemplaren lopen. Wat heeft dat voor zin, vraag ik me dan af. Groet, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Help requested (bot)[edit]

Hi Basvb, we need your kind help with this request. The interested cluster of images is the most important donation from a famous photographer. Thank you! --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Marco Chemello (BEIC): I'm just now reading this. With what specifically do you need my help, seems that there is some well going discussion there and the topic does not seem to be too closely related to my activities. Basvb (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Basvb, Avicennais has already taken care of my request. If we'll need further help, we'll recontact you. Thank you! -Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk)

+ Wereldkampioenschappen Dammen 1952[edit]

Here many pics for WK. PLz, in Commons!--145.255.3.164 16:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, That's some wonderful material (also for the short biographies in there). Sadly I think this can not be uploaded to Commons, because I don't see that it specifically freely licensed and it is also (not yet) in the Public Domain. Or did you find something indicating it is under a free license? Although it likely can not be uploaded I really want to thank you for pointing out this relevant and interesting material. Basvb (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hunneschans[edit]

Ja, er ging kennelijk iets fout, dit was de bedoeling. Dank voor je opmerkzaamheid. Gouwenaar (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)