User talk:Basvb/Archive

nummertje vergist wsl

foto: Amersfoort.Hof.13.JPG nummertje vergist wsl; dat je dat eruit haalt, goed gezien en bedankt. JohnBoers (talk)

Het adres klopte niet met het nummer bij het in de lijst plaatsen, dus op die manier kwam het onder mijn aandacht. Bedankt voor alle mooie foto's! Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Termote "vermoedelijk bij Leiden"

Dag Basvb,

Bij een afbeelding van de heilige Theresa staat "vermoedelijk bij Leiden", moet ik hier uit opmaken dat je niet zelf de fotograaf bent. Anders had je toch wel geweten waar de foto genomen is toch? Brbbl (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ik ben zelf de fotograaf van de afbeelding. De afbeelding heb ik 3 á 4 jaar geleden genomen in een kerk waarschijnlijk in de buurt van Leiden, hij stond tussen de vele duizenden foto's op mijn computer welke ik allemaal zelf heb gemaakt, dat is nog wel te onthouden, maar onthouden waar elke foto gemaakt is, nee dat lukt me niet, sorry daarvoor maar de afbeelding kan gewoon blijven. - Basvb (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Middelburg

Hoi Basvb, een mooie collectie foto's van Middelburg! Groet, MartinD (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt, nog 100 te gaan... - Basvb (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vergeet niet van het mooie weer te genieten!;) MartinD (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Er komen nog meer foto's aan (andere steden) tijdens het maken zal ik zeker van het weer genieten - Basvb (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To Do

[1] [2]

Tumuli

Hallo Bas, ik zag een aantal merkwaardige 'tumuli' hier. Allemaal uit de buurt van Wageningen, rijksmonument en van jouw hand. Een tumulus is een grafheuvel, maar dit zijn kerken en andere monumentale gebouwen. Waarschijnlijk is er iets misgegaan met het categoriseren? Ik hoop dat je het niet vervelend vind dat ik je hier op wijs. Vriendelijke groet, --JanB46 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ik heb ze gecorrigeerd, met het verplaatsen van 100 afbeeldingen is iets fout gegaan. Bedankt voor het opmerken. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Koppelpoort Amersfoort Cropped.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koppelpoort Amersfoort Cropped.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 6fb6fd592e9628d1e6e5106822fa76ef

verify

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taro leaf underside, backlit by sun - edit.jpg

Could you please sign your support vote? Thanks, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

done Basvb (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Weert Martinuskerk gewelf.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weert Martinuskerk gewelf.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:De Lelie - Aalten - Winter - 2009.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De Lelie - Aalten - Winter - 2009.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued images

Hello, You wrote "I really don't known what is the valued image process and the differences." The valued images quality requirement is much lower than for featured pictures. The point is to choose a valuable scope. I can help if you are interested. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Westbrabander

Hallo Basvb - is het de bedoeling om Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Westbrabander ook inderdaad aan te melden voor verwijdering? Op het moment is dit een pagina die verder niet op de verwijderlijst staat? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2010/12/25 daar staat het toch? Het is inderdaad de bedoeling al deze foto's te nomineren voor verwijdering. Van ca. 20 heb ik de auteursrechtenschending dmv links kunnen bewijzen. De overige acht ik ook zeer waarschijnlijk dat deze auteursrechtenschendingen zijn. Ik hoop dat de commonsadmins hier goed tegen optreden. De gebruiker in kwestie is overigens op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia oneindig geblokkeerd vanwege het structureel vervalsen van bronnen, maar ik weet niet in hoeverre ze daar hier wat mee doen. Als ik de nominatie verkeerd heb gemeld zou ik het fijn vinden als je dat zou willen corrigeren, ik ben daar niet zo in thuis. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

d'oh... ik had bij "what links here" gekeken, maar had niet door dat er meer dan 50 links waren & dat deze dus op de volgende pagina stond. Excuses, het staat inderdaad correct vermeld. Ik zal er eens even naar kijken. mvg, -- Deadstar (msg) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Heb voor check user gevraagd: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Westbrabander. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Aah, ja ik heb plaatjes neergezet, en geen links. Een checkuser heeft geen zin, het is meer dan 3 maanden geleden dat die accounts gebruikt zijn. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

'k wist niet dat dat uitmaakte? Nu ja, ik moet op een andere dag eens verder kijken, want er zijn nogal wat bestanden in de aanvraag. groeten, -- Deadstar (msg) 15:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Volgens mij gooien ze na 3 maanden die gegevens weg. Dus als het sokpoppen 3 maanden geleden was, is het niet meer te zien. Daarnaast is wat Westbrabander mogelijk doet geen sokpopmisbruik te noemen denk ik. Hij wisselt gewoon om het jaar zijn account in voor een nieuwe. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ik heb de meeste afbeeldingen bij het sluiten van de nominatie niet verwijderd, omdat alle aangedragen gegevens mij er niet van hebben overtuigd dat deze gebruiker uitsluitend auteursrechtenschendingen heeft geüpload. Alleen afbeeldingen met een duidelijke aanwijzing hiervan heb ik verwijderd. Voel je vrij om een individuele afbeelding opnieuw te nomineren als je een bijbehorende aanwijzing hebt gevonden. Op Commons is het in tegenstelling tot NL.wiki niet ongebruikelijk om een afbeelding opnieuw te nomineren als je nieuwe argumenten hebt. Jcb (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dit vind ik eigenlijk wel heel schandalig als ik eerlijk mag zijn. Het is een fabeltje om te denken dat het mogelijk is om van elke afbeelding waar sprake is van auteursrechtenschending dat ook te bewijzen. Als dan bij een groot percentage van de afbeeldingen van één gebruiker aangetoond wordt lijkt het me niet meer dan redelijk om de betreffende gebruiker te laten bewijzen dat de rest van zijn werk dan wel echt eigen werk is. Er is bij velen afbeeldingen reden voor serieuze twijfel, en het moge gezien de bijdrage van deze persoon overal duidelijk zijn dat hij de boel beliegt en bedriegt. Ik durf er vrij veel om te verwedden dat tussen de andere afbeeldingen nog meer copyvio's zitten. Daarnaast heeft er in de nominatie gigantisch veel tijd gezet, maar da's natuurlijk niet echt een argument. Nouja ik denk dat als er zo omgegaan wordt met dit soort problemen al gauw 5-10% van de afbeeldingen op commons een copyvio is zonder dat dit bekend wordt. Ik dacht dat Wikipedia juist trachtte om met veel zekerheid te kunnen zeggen dat al het werk vrij is en niet gejat van anderen. Maar ach ik denk dat het weinig zin heeft als ik me daar om druk ga maken. Dat is dan maar gewoon het probleem van commons/Wikipedia of degenen die echt enkel verwijderen als er onomstotelijk bwijs is per afbeelding.... Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oja bijna vergeten: Uiteraard heel erg dank voor de melding, en trek je mijn kritiek niet te persoonlijk aan als je zeker weet dat dit de huidige praktijk is. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Onroerend erfgoed

Dag, ik zie hier een goed initiatief. Lijkt het niet beter de label op category niveau te zetten zoals in Category:Sint-Salvatorkerk, Harelbeke? In dit geval geraakt het niet in Category:Onroerend erfgoed with known IDs, hetgeen wel jammer is omdat categories beter zijn om lange lijsten te maken. Beste. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Het plan is om het hetzelfde aan te pakken als de Nederlandse Rijksmonumenten, gewoon op alle foto's van een bepaald object en cats over dat specifieke object het sjabloon. Momenteel ben ik bezig met foto's in de lijsten op nl-wiki te zetten. een bot zal straks automatisch op de foto's die ik in die lijsten heb gezet het sjabloon zetten, dus op de categorie kan ook. Maar liefst een en-en-situatie. Zie overigens ook [3], ik heb wat enthousiastelingen gevonden om met foto's aan de slag te gaan. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 100813 Watertoren Noorderbinnensingel Groningen NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 17:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 100921 Oude Rijksweg 3 Vries Dr NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 11:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 20100103 Kasteel Hoensbroek gemeente Heerlen 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice --Ralf Roletschek 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Douanegebouw-Kornwerderzand-516528 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoekelum Bakhuisje - 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 18:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Koppelpoort.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support - Good quality, well composed, very informative.--MrPanyGoff 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sunset Agta Beach Resort - Biliran Philippines.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tilted?--Ankara 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC) *The black line seems only 1 mm lower on the left then on the right (I doubt whether that's a straight line), so maybe very little tilted, sadly I'm not able to correct that. Mvg, Basvb 12:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I uploaded a new version. Regards--Ankara 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Lovely. --King of Hearts 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kasttel, buitenplaats, Heukelum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The crop above is a bit tight, but otherwise good.--Jebulon 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cannenburg Vaassen.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Beautiful --Schlaier 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Veldkruis in Rumpt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. sharp main subject --Herzi Pinki 06:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Soest30-birkstraat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice still life --Mbdortmund 14:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Huize 't Stort - 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments white is partwise blown out, but that's imo not too disturbing --Carschten 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagtlust-detailhek-9070.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Goed.--Jebulon 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Interieur middenbeuk.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good, except for the windows -- Pro2 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! De Oude Horn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schaloen .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Wiki Loves Monuments!

	WLM super uploader
	Thanks for uploading already more than 100 photos to Wiki Loves Monuments! Keep going, like this mill at Kinderdijk :) Effeietsanders (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bedankt, het verbaasd me wel dat er nog niemand meer heeft. mvg, Basvb (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 15-Westkapelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments super --Mbdortmund 02:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renswoude - Dorpsstraat 34 - 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good and useful -- MJJR 20:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Perspective distortion correction

• 
• 

Da ich mir nicht sicher bin, ob du mein Deutsch komplett versteht, mache ich es wohl am Besten auf Englisch (auch wenn meines schlecht ist). I've removed the perspective distortions at two of your images, because you wrote you don't know how to do that. So I tell you how I do it (with freeware): Mostly I use the program ShiftN, which is fast and relatively reliable. If it don't work good, I either adjust the values of ShiftN or use the perspective tool of GIMP. Maybe it helps you :-) Viele Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC) PS: If both do not work, we have the Fotowerkstatt in the German Wikipedia.

Vielen dank für die hilfe (I'm better in reading German then in writing it). And thanks for the explanation. I'll try it out on some other pictures i made. But first I'll upload the 1000s of monuments pictures I've to upload this month for Wiki loves monuments :P. Mfg, Basvb (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WLM 2001 Thanks

Hello Bas, Thank you very much for noticing my image File:Balcon Benjamin Cusson Lodeve.jpg. You had nominated it in QIC, but I have removed that nomination... bacause this pic was already a QI! It was very kind of you, anyway. I wish I was a little less busy in real life to contribute more in WLM 2011, but I'll try to upload some new pics until the end of the month (not 1000 like you however ;-) Have a nice day, regards, --Myrabella (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kasteel Renswoude en onderdelen - 52.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Very nice, but needs perspective correction. -- MJJR 20:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Hmm than I've to learn that first :P Mvg, Basvb 22:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)  Done and  Support now --Carschten 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sint oedenrode (54).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me--Lmbuga 19:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vieux-Pont sur la Sioule de Menat (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good image, but poor contrast and clarity--Lmbuga 19:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Agree, but good enough for QI IMO.--Jebulon 07:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kasteel Renswoude en onderdelen - 61.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Very nice, but needs perspective correction. -- MJJR 20:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)  Done --Carschten 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Too much sky to me, but QI--Lmbuga 12:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vieux-Pont sur la Sioule de Menat (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good image, but poor contrast and clarity--Lmbuga 19:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Agree, but good enough for QI IMO.--Jebulon 07:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kasteel Renswoude en onderdelen - 61.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Very nice, but needs perspective correction. -- MJJR 20:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)  Done --Carschten 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Too much sky to me, but QI--Lmbuga 12:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bestandsinformatie

Hi Basvb, Zou ik voor toekomstige uploads het volgende alsjeblieft willen doen m.b.t. {{Information}}:

• "Permission" leeg laten tenzij er een bijzondere situatie is met OTRS of iets dergelijks. Als het je eigen werk is dan kun je dit aangeven door "Source={{own}}" en een licentie eronder te plaatsen. Het veld Permission is optioneel. Gelieve weg of leeg laten indien er geen nuttige invulling voor is.
• De "talk" link in Author. Dit zorgt er momenteel voor dat geautomatiseerde systemen jou zullen vermelden als "Auteur: Basbv (talk)". De link naar je overleg pagina heeft niets met de auteur te maken. Mocht je inderdaad de bedoeling hebben dat mensen jou overlegpagina vermelden bij het gebruik van het bestand, gebruik van de "attribution" parameter op {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, niet het auteurs veld.

Bedankt voor je vele uploads! Ik heb je account bij deze de 'autopatrol' status gegeven zodat uploadcontroleurs jouw bestanden overslaan. –Krinkle^talk 22:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dit is wat er gebeurd als ik commonist gebruik. Vind het verder eigenlijk niet zo heel interessant of er nou wel of niet een overlegpagina bij staat. ik kan de own bij permissions weghalen en handmatig mijn naam intypen ipv drie tildes. Maar zoveel maakt het allemaal niet uit toch. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Breda Grote Kerk; u.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Is it really a picture of 1976 ?--Jebulon 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC) AGF I would say, the uploader has more old church pictures. Mvg, Basvb 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hôtel de Fontfreyde, rue Jules Guesde

Thanks for clearing up the mix-up and the creation of this category. I didn't realized there was 2 hotels of the same name in Clermont... Cheers. Sylenius (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

At first I thought the hole French article (I read Montferrand, but it said: NOT in montferrand) was wrong :P. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anúncio

Caro Basvb/Archive, já estamos na recta final do Wiki Loves Monuments 2011!

A partir de hoje, a organização do Wiki Loves Monuments alargou o âmbito do concurso de cerca 5000 monumentos (classificados/protegidos) para cerca de 30000, fruto da parceria com o SIPA - Sistema de Informação para o Património Arquitectónico. A densidade de monumentos perto de si agora é bastante superior, pelo que recomendamos que saia de casa sempre com a máquina pois é bem possível cruzar-se com vários imóveis válidos para o concurso. Procure na lista quais calham em caminho!

Para mais informações, regulamento e ferramentas de ajuda, consulte o site oficial em http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.pt

Messagem enviada em 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC) usando Lucia Bot, se tem alguma dúvida por favor contacte um dos organizadores.

What? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monument historique Clermont-Ferrand (172).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit dark (stone of Auvergne...) but good. Interesting detail, needs in itself a better description IMO --Jebulon 14:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de Fontainebleau 2011 (78).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Vassil 07:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Basvb, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de Fontainebleau 2011 (74).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some overexposure in the sky. Mattbuck 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)  Support Good quality, don't see OE. --Carschten 11:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Basvb, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Dear Basvb, We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win! The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall. Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone! Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 23:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hagbølle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice! --Ralf Roletschek 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ooijen (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Monument_historique_Clermont-Ferrand_(64).JPG

File:Monument_historique_Clermont-Ferrand_(64).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Sammyday (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Den Haag - Wassenaarseweg 80 v2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oisterwijk-KVL-5826-rm519948.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gröbbemolen van Frielink te Fleringen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks a bit tilted to the right. --Quartl 16:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Not a problem to me, could be like that in reality, and makes the photograph more dynamic. I'd promote if there's no objection. -- Rama 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nicolaas Kerk Vlieland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good and nice --Albertus teolog 23:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dutch WLM

Hi Basvb,

I went quickly through your 250 best and selected a few (below). In general, the quality is way better than in my own country... It is a pity that some photos aren't better because of the camera's limitations.

• p1: better than then the recent FP candidate. Reflections on car and antenna cropped on top of lighthouse should be corrected
• p2: nice composition and mood. A shame that it is not sharp (poor exposure choice)
• p3: for me, the best among the 10 finalists
• p4: something different! A pity that image quality is not better
• p5: Vermeer again?...
• p6: nice composition and colors, especially the white tree. A pity that the tree at left is cropped
• p7: correct picture, composition is nice. Exposure choice is not the best for dof.
• p8: could be much better with a larger dof. Automatic mode?...
• p9: better than the one in the 10 finalists. But it is a bit noisy, the sky is burned and dof could, and should, be better.
• p10: very nice mood and composition, one of the best. Pity the noise in the sky and the too imposing foreground (should be slightly cropped).
• p11: nice composition.
• p12: nice composition, good quality.
• p13: nice mood and composition, I don’t like the cropped stone at right.
• p14: nice composition. A pity that the verticals are tilted.
• p15: nice composition and colors.
• p16: good framing, but I don’t like the excessive manipulation

Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I can agree with you on most of the points, for the p3 among the best finalists, it could indeed be the best, but I think in a competition where it's about monuments a picture of a monument as a hole has a big pre. The p4 indeed has something, but it also seems a bit blueish. I think for p9 vs the one in the finalists that the one in the finalists is as an composition more interesting, with the tree bringing a sort of mood and the white grave marker. But that hole series is good, to bad it all has noise. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keersluis Diemen-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Weak support. Nice composition, acceptable technical quality.--ArildV 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Re: File:Peresechenie2011-1991.jpg. You say, "Indeed, light and disturbing background". I would like to ask you for an advice. How should I do to make a quality photo of this very persin in this very situation? The background is one of the aims for this photo. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainly the picture right behind her is disturbing, but lets discuss it on the QIC page, I see you started a discussion. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

QIC is inactive now. You mean, I'd better find some other angle? Something without b/w photo backwards?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jep directly behind the person the picture is disturbing, but there where some other remarks. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, clear now. I could take some other angle.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Basvb for your helpful review on my QIC. PierreSelim (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grotewerf 21 28154.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--ArildV 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dromedaris met de Bocht.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice atmosphere and composition --Haneburger 06:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hege Wier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

File:Monument_historique_Clermont-Ferrand_(55).JPG

File:Monument_historique_Clermont-Ferrand_(55).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Sammyday (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Template: Onroerend erfgoed

Bas, ik zag dat jij de initiator was van dit sjabloon. Is het mogelijk om dit sjabloon zó om te bouwen dat naast de monumenten ook de bouwkundige gehelen kunnen gelinkt worden. Bv. 1= Monumenten; 2= Bouwkundige gehelen of zoiets. Voorbeeld: zie Lijst van onroerend erfgoed in Aarschot waar ik in deze foto van het begijnhof het nummer heb moeten wijzigen omdat de link anders verwees naar monument 22156, gelegen in Hasselt, en niet naar bouwkundig geheel 22156, nl. het Begijnhof in Aarschot. Groeten, Sonuwe (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Monument historique Clermont-Ferrand (6).JPG

Hi,

I checked a lot of the photos you've taken in Clermont-Ferrand and I “met” you very often during these last days.

First of all, I would like to thank you warmly for these pictures depicting this city. I think you did more for the Monuments Historiques of CF than any French contributor living in the city: that's really great. And for me, it was easy to check your photos thanks to the perfect references you put to the Mérimée database.

Therefore, I think you did a little mistake with this photo. In fact, when you look at it carefully, you can see that the building is located on 8 rue Philippe-Marcombes and that is not a Monument Historique. It appears that you had a doubt when you uploaded your photo ([4]). For me, there's no doubt and I wanted to tell you that.

I hope you'll keep on doing the great job you did for WLM2011 during the forthcoming WLMs.

Groete, Pymouss Let’s talk - 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed that was the one I was doubting about very much, I even asked a frenchman to help me on translating the descriptions in that street. I bet that the real monument is the building in the yard from this one then, thanks for checking it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments NL

Beste Basvb,

Alle winnende foto's van Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 zijn ondertussen gedrukt als kalenders.

Wikimedia Nederland stelt er hier 100 van beschikbaar voor alle uploaders van de afbeeldingen. Geef op de bijgevoegde link je naam en adres en we sturen je kosteloos een exemplaar toe, als dank voor je deelname! Let op: op = op!! Bestel hier één kalender per adres.

Ook dit jaar zal er in september weer een Nederlandse Wiki Loves Monuments plaatsvinden, als onderdeel van de internationale wedstrijd. Meer informatie vind je tegen die tijd op http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/.
Ook zoeken wij nog vrijwilligers die het leuk vinden om mee te helpen met het organiseren van de landelijke wedstrijd of van locale evenementen (een "Wiki takes..." in je eigen woonplaats dus!). Meer informatie daarover vind je op de wiki van Wikimedia Nederland.

Dienstwoning

Dag Bas, ik zag dat je de titel van het bestand 'Dienstwoning' hebt veranderd. Terecht natuurlijk, alleen het is niet de dienstwoning maar de (voormalige) aula! Die vergissing heb ik indertijd via de beschrijving proberen te verbeteren omdat ik niet weet hoe te hernoemen op Commons. Helaas is dat je kennelijk niet opgevallen. Misschien kun het alsnog rechttrekken? Verder gaat het behoorlijk fantastisch met de rijksmonumenten! Vr. groet, JanB

Oke ik heb hem hernoemd. In het vervolg kun je bij onjuiste titels, of erg onduidelijke (dienstwoning zit eigenlijk op het randje ik denk dan meer aan "16 sept 2010 huis.jpg") even iets op mijn overlegpagina (op nl-wiki) zetten, dan hernoem ik ze, maar er is ook een Template:Rename denk ik. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bedankt! --JanB46 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in Poland

Hi, can you tell mi what's the point of edits like this? Category:Manor in Krępiec is already a subcat of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Poland. Yarl ✉ 15:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I copied all images from Poland from WLM tot the Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Poland because most of them (by default after the upload campaign) were uncategorised. In some cases like the one you linked that is wrong, so it can be deleted again. This was a one time move together with adding this cat to the upload campaign. Now all images can be moved down in the category tree. Any cases where I've added the category and there is allready a subcategory of it the Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Poland can be taken off. Greets, Basvb (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a question as well: why did you take the Identifier away from this monument and some others? If they are no monuments they should be deleted from WLM 2012 as well. If they are monuments the Identifier should be kept? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case Identifier is useless, because it's already in church's category. Polish template {{Zabytek}} automatically adds categories, if you keep Identifier in image desc, in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Wadowice will be church image and church category, what obviously doesn't make sense. Yarl ✉ 16:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be double, it's not giving any problems when it's double and that way the bot can pick those images up. Please keep the {{Zabytek}} template on the images as well. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Commoner's Barnstar
	Thank you, Basvb, for your amazing help with starting UploadCampaigns for the countries joining Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 last night! You have done a great job that helped to start the contest in such a smooth way, and I appreciate you being there! odder (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guess thats my nr. 1 commons barnstartthingy. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding to WLM-US

I was in the process of doing all you suggested, but please give me a minute before reverting again. One think I didn't (don't) understand - why not add the category directly, and how else to do it? Smallbones (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but shouldn't the user himself indicate he wants to upload it to the contest? The categorisation should be done using the {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|us}} template, this will automaticly add the image to the relevant categories. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked and will wait until he responds. I thought he asked the question indirectly at en:WT:NRHP by placing the photo there. Turns out it was somebody else. You said

" If you want to add an image to the contest please use the {{Wiki Loves Monuments|us}} template, not a direct insert into the category, and please make sure ID is provided. "

This is quite important, as I have promised the folks at WP:NRHP (the group that's been taking photographs of these sites for over 5 years now, and who set up the tables) that they would NOT have to use the new upload procedure, but they can use any procedure that they're used to using. So how to do this with a regular upload method? Also using refnums is fairly uncommon in the project and are actually quite hard to get in our tables. Is there a way to waive this for regular contriburors? MultiChill has a bot that adds them in later, but I think most folks there think that refnums are for database folks, not photographers or historians, who form the bulk of the project. Databases should of course make things easier for us, not harder! Smallbones (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that you should advice them to use the "upload photo"-buttons in the lists. The other option is to manually add the {{Wiki Loves Monuments|us}} template. Pictures which are added to the lists will get their ID automaticly, so for those there will be no problem, but it would be nice if also the double pictures (not in the list) will get an ID template, this way it would be possible to build tools which use all images of a certain monument. I think you should really encourage the people to use the WLM-US upload campaign (for most users it will be easier). The problem is that when users do not add the WLM template the pictures will not show up in the category for the competition (we can't make magic happen). I don't know how you found this picture, but I doubt that you or somebody else will spot all the pictures from monuments, certainly not when that will be 1000's of pictures. But the "upload photo"-button should be a very good alternative. Greets, Basvb (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, it will work like this. Please check this meets the minimum requirements of the international WLM. For WLM-US we can NOT require that editors use the upload button, newbies will because that's the only method we've told them about. But experienced editors have their own ways of doing things and most are not going to change for a contest. Other upload methods give much greater flexibility. There would not have been a WLM-US if we did not have the cooperation of these folks. I speak as the WLM-US coordinator on this.

So, I will tell them that to enter the contest they must add the {{Wiki Loves Monuments|us}} template to whatever method they use to upload. Refnums will be optional for now. If needed for individual photos to enter the international contest we can always get them later, or perhaps even wait for the bot. It may seem obvious to you that refnums are better, but it is not obvious to experienced editors here. Please respond and then I can post the details in the appropriate places. Smallbones (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems a good way to me. There are also countries where no identifiers are available, so althought refnumbers would be very nice, pictures without are allowed in the international contest I think (I'm not the one who can decide that, but I think they are allowed). But I think it's important that the user somehow indicates that he wants to participate in the contest adding the {{Wiki Loves Monuments|us}} is the normal way to indicate that (either automatic or manual after uploading). But when you are sure that a user wants to participate it's ofcourse not a problem when you help them by adding this tag. I hope all will go well with this information. I've to go for today but I will jump into my archives the next days to upload the pictures from NRHP sites in there. Greets, Basvb (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have checked this out earlier - I'll strongly recommend refnums. Smallbones (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and again my excuses for the to fast revert. Basvb (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you.

I'm trying to upload a few thousands images to WLM. Not many compared with the amount some people uploaded in previous year.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe last year a french user achieved 3000 pictures, you're allready at 900. - Basvb (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think some people got a lot more than 3000, but I can't remember where the statistics were. Anyway, I'm afraid I don't have more than 3k photos.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Every picture is very welcome. Greets, Basvb (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Category

Hi, Basvb! Yes, I think that category can be deleted without problem. Thanks for noticing it. Greetings! --Racso (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but I forgot which category you mean. Greets, Basvb (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates

Hi. If template {{zabytek}} is in category: Category:6 Kościelna Street in Wadowice, we don't need it on the file page. Przykuta → [edit] 08:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

After WLM 2011 we removed all templates from filepages, if these existed on category pages. Przykuta → [edit] 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be the best to also keep them on the file pages, but if this is the way you guys do it everywhere then I wont change it. Greets, Basvb (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thx and test this: Commons:VicunaUploader ;) Przykuta → [edit] 09:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Onroerend erfgoed - Template:Onroerend geheel

Hallo,

Ik zie dat jij ooit template:Onroerend erfgoed hebt aangemaakt. Nu bestaat er op de website 'Inventaris Bouwkundig erfgoed', waar deze tempklate naar verwijst, naast een nummering van gebouwen ook een nummering van gehelen. Aan het nummer alleen kan je niet zien of het een gebouw of een geheel betreft. Sommige mensen durven die nummering wel eens door elkaar halen. Zo zie je vaak dat een huisje, een gebouw, in een begijnhof het nummer meekrijgt van het Begijnhof, een geheel. Als je dit nummer in template:Onroerend erfgoed zou invoeren kom je ergens totaal elders terecht.

Daarom heb ik de vrijheid genomen om jouw template te dupliceren naar template:Onroerend geheel. Zodat ook die nummering kan gebruikt worden. Kun je misschien eens kijken of ik geen beginnersfouten heb begaan.

mvg, Donarreiskoffer (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ziet er zo gauw niet verkeerd uit. Je hebt enkel nog niet Category:Onroerend geheel aangemaakt. Basvb (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear Basvb, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 21:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Termotebeeld.jpg

File:Termotebeeld.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Termote Meisjeskop.jpg

File:Termote Meisjeskop.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Termote Meisjeskop.jpg

File:Termote Meisjeskop.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Termotebeeld.jpg

File:Termotebeeld.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons-Kandidaten

Hallo Basvb, schau Dir noch einmal den Fendt-Traktor an. Ich habe das Dach etwas dunkler gemacht. Das Metalldach rechts ist aber in Wirklichkeit sehr hell und lässt sich nicht noch weiter abdunkeln. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really like the edited grey (seems to unnatural on the other hand), I see you have putted it in Discussion, so we will see what others think about it. Basvb (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! UTRECHT Viebrug, Rijksmonument 47073 ZUID.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I removed some tilt, should be QI now. --Smial 23:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weert Martinuskerk gewelf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good.--ArildV 21:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:1961 match Koeperman Sjtsjogoljev.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:1961 match Koeperman Sjtsjogoljev.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:1961 match Koeperman Sjtsjogoljev.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Lymantria (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Houd er rekening mee dat de zoekfunctie ook niet-vrije afbeeldingen oplevert, zoals volgens mij deze. De CC-BY-SA staat keurig in de rechterkolom bij foto's die wel bruikbaar zijn, die kun je ook ingeven bij de zoekfunctie. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I checked everything again and asked Mathonius to speedy delete everything which wasn't free. Basvb (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Utrecht Abel Tasmanbrug Rijksmonument 514202.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some noise, but otherwise good quality and nice expouse.-ArildV 15:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viebrug 47073 NORD.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NHKerkWindesheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --Rjcastillo 00:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagtlust9313-rm468129.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 04:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vlissingen oranjemolen.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --The Photographer 18:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! HortusBrugOost.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Very good light and comosition. I added a few categories to the file page. --Slaunger 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zbommel 9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 08:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goliath Poldermolen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Lovely composition, colors and light. The noise in the sky is improvable, but acceptable for QI for me. --Slaunger 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The windmills of Kinderdijk.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good colors, light and composition. --Slaunger 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grote Kerk Breda - ceiling 20120913-37.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Not the sharpest, but still good (imo). - A.Savin 23:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boerderij 's-Gravenbroekseweg 21. Vooraanzicht. Reeuwijk. Zuid-Holland.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks like a QI to me. --Esquilo 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Texel - Fort de Schans-065.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Cool! --Ximeg 11:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lijkenhuisje.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perspective problem, please see the note --The Photographer 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)  Info QI now, I love the constrast between the sky and trees --The Photographer 12:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waverveen, NH kerk img 9871e.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your comment at Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/nl

I moved your comment to the discussion page, as is Wiki-custom. Feel free to change what translation you feel is wrong there. Dutch is obviously not my native language, English is. Not many people are helping translate at POTY so we have to do it ourselves. Thanks for your input. - WylieCoyote (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well no translation is better than the current translation, so that only leaves me to revert the hole translation, presenting this to readers is shameful, i've translated all other pages for the POTY contest, but as village pump message you can use the english version if the dutch one is not good enough, you know that the current version is not even understandable? Basvb (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm the original editor, I'll blank it if it's really that bad and offensive. Apologies if I offended you that badly. My computer-translator must need updating. - WylieCoyote (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not offensive, but using machine translations just doesn't work. As example I've translated the dutch text on User:Basvb/RCE to english using a machine translator:

When the uploads of the RCE are occasionally photo series of dozens, sometimes hundreds, photos of the same monument. It is sin (in terms of time and attention to the other monuments) to list them all by hand to process hundreds of times by pressing the green button identification. This series can be fine with a bone and replace.py processed. Well I try in many places all the monuments with many pictures out of it, so that everyone can get to work quietly with the rest. But given the high rate of uploadbot I can do this far from complete. So if you in a certain place at a monument with more than 20 photos (up to 20 is still by hand to do it) do not hesitate to check out the information required to put down so I can do it with a bone.

I used a link to one image, the RM-id and the category to which the photos will be placed. If it is more than 20 photos is a category of its own actually always a good idea, if that still does not have it's a good idea that class as well as to create. Below is a little table where the required information can be used, then I will asap with a bone handle.

PS: Even if something just is not a monument (but has many pictures that are beautiful in their own cat can) or something like a national monument complex (multiple monuments representing a complex number) I would give them a bone to tackle.

As you can see the English in this is very bad, and isn't usable in something you publish. Basvb (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has translated it now, I've fixed some things, it's in an acceptable state now. Basvb (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The apology is there, even if you don't accept it. I saw your "to direct" edit fix there. I thought I was helping POTY and it looks like I didn't. My New Year's resolution is to not sweat things like this and that's exactly what I'm going to do, including not translating anymore as my end reads pretty well on everything I've done, even when re-checked. vaarwel, which is my Google for "goodbye." That's probably wrong too. - WylieCoyote (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I've been a bit to direct (Dutch nature :P), I'm sorry for that. It was never my intention to attack you, all I wanted was to

show that machine translators simply do not have enough power to write texts with them yet. My to direct edit was because I used a bit to harsh tone, which needed some fixing (I'ts not easy to express the tone you want in an language you're not that good in, such as English for me). Please do not step down from the comitee, my conserns were about the Dutch translation, not about you. Met vriendelijke groeten, Basvb (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please confirm correction

I think this addition was not correct: [5]. If you look at the exterior you'll notice that the correct building is this series: Category:Hippolytuskapel (Delft). I have already changed the ID-number and the category, see [6]. Could you please confirm this. Just to make sure :). --VanBuren (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Als je het goed vindt reageer ik in het Nederlands. Die lijkt inderdaad fout te zijn, maar die andere kerk heet toch niet ook Waalse Kerk? Voordeel van botmatig veel afbeeldingen verwerken is dat het veel tijd bespaard, maar waar, zoals in dit geval, de omschrijving ambigu is zal er af en toe een foutje ontstaan. Ik probeer om de afbeeldingen die de bot verwerkt allemaal even snel na te kijken, om te zien of er geen heel gekke dingen gebeuren, maar deze heb ik over het hoofd gezien. Mooi dat je die gespot hebt. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Die naam had ik over het hoofd gezien. Nu gecorrigeerd. Dank je. --VanBuren (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Oosterbeek

Hallo Bas, Dit plaatje: File:Kerk vanuit het oosten - Oosterbeek - 20173864 - RCE.jpg is niet van de Oude (Hervormde) kerk van Oosterbeek. Ik meld het hier omdat ik geen andere plek weet. Groet, --JanB46 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Weet je zeker dat het geen vooroorlogse foto van de kerk in Oosterbeek is, ik meen dat er ooit twee vleugels (koren?) aan de kerk zaten. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Je hebt gelijk Bas. Na een simpele vergelijking met het plaatje uit 1905 dat bij het artikel staat kan er geen twijfel zijn. Sorry voor de overlast! Vr. groet, --JanB46 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Castle Obbicht

Ik heb gisteren nog gezocht, ook Category:Castle Obbicht en dat lijken mij twee totaal verschillende kastelen (ik heb de meest significatieve prentjes bovenaan gezet). Er zijn nog kastelen in de buurt van Ougré, zoals fr:Château de Beaumont (Liège) maar ik vond er geen beelden van; bingo. --Foroa (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, nu wordt het wel heel gek. Ik dacht dat het klopte omdat deze en deze interieurfoto's van Ougré sterk overeenkomen met deze en deze foto. Kasteel Obbicht is in 1954 afgebrand en van 1975-1988 is het verbouwd. Wel gek is dat de oud en nieuw versies 8 maanden verschillen, maar op zich zou dat kunnen (die delen van het kasteel waren nog redelijk goed) en volgens mij gaat 1988 meer over de omliggende panden. Maar het gekke deel is het bordes/de trap bij de voorgevel, die zijn totaal anders inderdaad en juist in 1975 terwijl de verbouwing dan al bezig moet zijn (dus het verhaal van een heel nieuw gebouw kan niet. Lastige foto's. Basvb (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

AAh ik snap het al. Het is dat kasteel Beaumont inderdaad, dat is van Jacques-Barthélemy Renoz dezelfde architect als bij Obbicht. De foto's zijn gemaakt in 1975 in Luik van Kasteel Beaumont om kennis op te doen voor de herbouw van kasteel Obbicht in Nederland. Vandaar dat het erg op elkaar lijkt. Basvb (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bij het artikel van de architect op nl-wiki: " Enkele jaren later bouwde Renoz een lustslot in Obbicht, dat sterk op het Château de Beaumont lijkt."

Alles staat nu netjes in Category:Château de Beaumont, Liège. Basvb (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) In de franse text staat er ongeveer dat het een copie is van het het kasteel van Obbicht; zo ben ik het op het spoor gekomen. Het feit dat de linker zijgevel met leistenen bezet is en dezelfde architect Jacques-Barthélemy Renoz, bevestigd het verhaal (en de foute link: Sclessin - Cointe is niet echt Ougrée, ze zitten recht tegenover elkaar aan weerszijden van de Maas). --Foroa (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

vervolgvraag/probleempje

Hier nog een vervolg op je opmerking: User_talk:Multichill#Mislukte_uploads.3F. --VanBuren (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank je voor het oplossen ervan. Goed gevonden die K81. --VanBuren (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Probleem aangekaard en vraagj

Dag Basvb. N.a.v. een opmerking van jou op mijn talk page zal ik binnenkort een lijstje maken van lokaties waar ik "(Delft)" gebruikte i.p.v. ", Delft" (uit gewoonte). Zou dat dan met je bot kunnen worden verbeterd? Ik heb ook een "probleem" aangekaard op nl.wiki: [7], v.z.i.w. de discussiepagina voor problemen hier (zo niet dan aub even laten weten). Graag je mening. --VanBuren (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Je hoeft geen lijstje door te geven waar je (Delft) gebruikte. Dat kan ik tzt wel achterhalen, en op zich is (Delft) ook niet zo'n probleem, ik zag dat bijvoorbeeld in Groningen ook consequent (Groningen) gebruikt werd terwijl in Amsterdam consequent ", Amsterdam" gebruikt wordt. Dus dit gaat bij erg veel categorieën op commons mis. Wel is het handig om bij categorieën zoals Rotterdamseweg er een achtervoegsel achter te zetten (en dan dus graag ", Delft" omdat er ook een Rotterdamseweg in 5 andere plaatsen is. Ik zal even naar het zwart-wit categoriesatieprobleem kijken. Basvb (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoe nu met de kerk

Ik heb hier op Commons nog geen pagina gezien specifiek voor Erfgoed probleempjes, zoals je suggereerde op [8]. Of bedoelde je de "kroeg" hier? (Wel raar toch om een Commons/Erfgoed discussiepagina op Wikipedia te hebben.)
Wel een probleempje. In de Category:Rijksmonumenten in Delft staan 40+ plaatjes waarbij in de summary staat dat ze tot de pastorie van de Maria van Jessekerk behoren, met het adres van die pastorie, Burgwal 20, en het rijksmonumentnummer 11749. Dat is driemaal fout. Dit zijn plaatjes van de naastgelegen kerk, Burgwal 18A, rijksmonumentnummer 18279. Twee voorbeelden: kerkinterieurgeval en kerkexterieurgeval. Ik was van plan dat voor al die plaatjes (op drie plaatsen) te veranderen in:

|description={{nl|1=Rooms-katholieke Heilige Maria van Jessekerk}}

{{Rijksmonument|18279}}

House number = 18A

Is dat Ok, of zijn er procedures om dat te corrigeren, bv. verwittigen van de Rijksdienst of zo. --VanBuren (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

een specifieke plek voor erfgoedprobleempjes is er niet. Fouten kunnen we wel neerzetten op Commons:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed/Foutenlijst. Ik zal deze fouten dan doorgeven aan de RCE. De aanpassingsvoorstellen die je doet voor de artikelen lijken me prima zo. Nog in de goede categorie zetten en de afbeeldingen hebben een kloppende omschrijving (wat de bedoeling is), voor het kloppend maken van beschrijvingen hoeven we niet op de RCE te wachten, dat kunnen we gewoon zelf bij de foto's doen. Basvb (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ik heb de fout van de reeks File:Voorgevel - Ougré (Obbicht) - 20318426 - RCE.jpg doorgegeven op het commentaar veld van de RCE site, en na een snelle email reactie is het al aangepast. --Foroa (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Aah mooi, ik heb ook een keer een mail teruggekregen dat het aangepast was. Maar bij de laatste meldingen niet meer (wordt waarschijnlijk teveel mails sturen). Basvb (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Twee vragen

1. Sinds je een beetje over mijn schouder meekijkt (dank daarvoor), het volgende: ik ben een heel eind opgeschoten met Delft. In de laatste spurt heb ik in verhoogd tempo een hele serie voorlopig weggewerkt naar straatniveau om binnenkort verder af te ronden. Als ik van te voren had geweten wat ik nu weet had ik het anders gedaan. Gevolg is wat meer "nazorg". Een detail is dat er nu straatcategorieën zijn met de plaatstoevoeging tussen haakjes óf met komma. En sommige straatcategorieën hebben geen plaatsnaam toegevoegd gekregen wat bij nader inzien wel beter was geweest. Al met al in mijn ogen een zooitje. Wat ik graag zou doen is dat opschonen waarbij alle straten de versie met de komma krijgen en daar waar nu geen plaatstoevoeging staat die wel toe te voegen. In andere woorden, ik zou graag een verzorgd resultaat achterlaten. Vraag: kan dat met een bot (zo ja, hoe initieer ik dat? kun jij daarmee helpen?), of moet dat handmatig? De versies met komma zou ik dan graag verwijderd zien zodat ze later niet per ongeluk gebruikt worden. (Bijvoorbeeld zou Category:Wijnhaven (Delft) nu al weg kunnen, want is handmatig vervangen door Category:Wijnhaven,_Delft.)
2. In het streven naar een verzorgde weergave: er zijn een aantal plaatjes met een voor mij storende titel: [9]. Het gebruik van zo'n verzonnen naam ziet er er erg "kinderachtig" uit (de naam van de maker staat immers al in de summary). Is er ooit op wikicommons een discussie geweest om dat soort onzin te weren, dan wel zo'n irrelevante naam uit titels te verwijderen?
Ik ben benieuwd naar je reactie. --VanBuren (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@1: volgens mij kan je dit met het template "move" verzoeken, met een bot kan dit vrij eenvoudig gedaan worden, alleen mijn bot kan dat niet (zo goed). Categorieën die leeg zijn (en foutief) kun je met een speedy-template nomineren voor verwijdering.

@2: Ik denk niet dat ze volgens de hernoemcriteria hernoemd kunnen worden, maar ik ben niet heel goed met die criteria bekend. Je kunt eens kijken of iemand een rename wil doen, maar ik betwijfel het. Basvb (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Symbolen mbt rijksmonumenten

Dag. Zou je je ajb van User_talk:Multichill#Monumenten_en_duiding op de hoogte willen stellen. Zou je daarna templates als deze willen nalopen omdat het gebruik van dit symbool mbt rijksmonumenten onjuist en misleidend is voor de lezers. Dank en groet Sonty (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Tja lastige kwestie, het zomaar weghalen voordat het overleg heeft plaatsgevonden lijkt me onjuist, het staat er immers al jaren dus zulke haast lijkt me er ook niet. Ik ben op de hoogte van hoe het exact zit met het symbool (en Multichill is dat volgens mij ook). Een plaatje maakt een dergelijk sjabloon veel duidelijker en zichtbaarder. Zo'n wijziging zomaar toepassen (en de rereverten) lijkt me onhandig aangezien dit tienduizenden lemma's aangaat. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Op de een of andere manier is er geen centraal overleg dat ik kon vinden over deze kwestie. In 2010 is het onjuiste gebruik al aangekaart in Template_talk:Rijksmonument, maar drie jaar verder wordt ieder rijksmonument met dat template nog altijd getooid met het symbool op Commons. Het stickeren met symbolen is wmb aardig, maar het moet wel juist gebeuren en niet voor de lezer desinformatie geven. In bredere zin is er samenwerkingsverband met de RCE begrijp ik, maar zijzelf zijn "not amused" dat vrijlijk dit symbool te pas en te onpas wordt toegepast. Ik zou het dus op Wikipedia/Commons uitsluitend toepassen als het wel van toepassing is. Mvg Sonty (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oke, het lijkt me dus ook zeker valide die discussie te voeren, echter ik zou dan wel willen verzoeken om de conclusies van die discussie af te wachten alvorens daadwerkelijk dit op grote schaal aan te passen. Het verwijderen van dit plaatje kan bijvoorbeeld ook uploaders van de betreffende foto's tijdens WLM verwarren en in dat opzicht weer negatieve effecten hebben. Het lijkt me goed dat soort factoren ergens in een discussie af te wegen. Die discussie kan denk ik het beste inderdaad verdergaan op dat oude overleg wat blijkbaar doodgebloed is (ik kan het me niet herinneren). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dank voor je input. Ik zal een dezer dagen op die oude discussiepagina er dan nog eens erop terugkomen en een aantal andere mensen daar ook op attenderen (in ieder geval 1Veertje, Multichill, Arjandb). Groet voor nu, Sonty (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Als je overigens een tegenvoorstel voor een plaatje hebt denk ik dat een goede oplossing zou zijn. Een vervanging is immers minder vergaand dan een verwijdering. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Er schiet me niet 123 iets te binnen als vervangend plaatje. Een plaatje zou ook klein in 1 beeld duidelijk moeten zijn, bijna als een pictogram. Het enige alternatief dat ik kan verzinnen voor rijksmonumenten qua plaatje is het symbool van de overheid zoals ook de RCE die gebruikt (zie bovenaan hier), maar ik vraag me af of die vrij te gebruiken is. Ik heb overigens op Template talk:Rijksmonument#Gebruik van blauwwit schildje in templates om reacties gevraagd. Ik zie dan wel wat er de komende tijd van komt. Sonty (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear Basvb, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

---

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear Basvb, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:526452-Fort Pampus.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:526452-Fort Pampus.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Basvb,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

Hallo Basvb,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

Pallas of Bellona

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

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!

For your help in permission template

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

thanks you

Categorien verzetskranten

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:

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.

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

Your odd question

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

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

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!

---

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 and its 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 ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. 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)

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

....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!

		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... 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

[10]

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?

You have erased a file derived from [11]. 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

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 " 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)