User talk:Bic

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

File:Maarten 't Hart - Een vrouw mag alles dragen.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Maarten 't Hart - Een vrouw mag alles dragen.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Vera (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Dirk van Eck - Gevelsteen Volksgebouw Herengracht Leiden.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Dirk van Eck - Gevelsteen Volksgebouw Herengracht Leiden.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Woodcutterty (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Behouden, maar ik denk dat dit commentaar toch juist is: You would be absolutely right in making this decision, if it were true that the object can be freely photographed. The point however, is that it can't. Commons' policy is that the media uploaded has to be free in both the United States and the source country of the work. The source country is the Netherlands. According to Dutch copyright law, the making of photographs of a work permanently placed in the public space does not infringe the copyright on the work, provided it is depicted as it is located in the public space (article 18 Dutch copyright law). This means the work can only be depicted in the context of its surroundings, i.e. as it fits in the streetscape (see J.H Spoor, D.W.F. Verkade & D.J.G. Visser, Auteursrecht, Deventer: Kluwer 2005, p. 291; Auteursrecht is a standard on Dutch copyright law; see also Ch. Gielen (ed.), Kort Begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht, Deventer: Kluwer 2014, p. 526). It is contrary to doctrine to say the object can be freely photographed, let alone that you can make close-ups of it without showing the surroundings, as was done here. Please take a decision in according with the law as it is, not on the basis of some random guess or of what you think the law should be. Thank you. Woodcutterty (Overleg) 09:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandaag alsnog (terecht) verwijderd. Regards, Bic (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cees van Hoore 2014.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cees van Hoore 2014.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. --Moroder 07:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Beeldkrant TV Dordrecht.PNG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Beeldkrant TV Dordrecht.PNG 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.

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

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

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | British English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Vera (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kennelijk heeft de volgende opmerking op de overlegpagina onvoldoende zwaar gewogen: Toch een poging deze illustratie bij het artikel https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldkrant te behouden. Er staat in de beeldkrant inderdaad nergens expliciet dat de beeldkrant vrij beschikbaar is, noch het tegengestelde. Maar aangezien TV Dordrecht al haar reguliere uitzendingen gewoon plaatst op YouTube met de Standaard YouTube-licentie (zie https://www.youtube.com/user/rtvdordrecht/videos), waaronder een filmpje over hetzelfde nieuwsfeit, kan daarom aangenomen worden dat dit het algemene beleid is en ook voor de beeldkrant wordt gehanteerd. Regards, Bic (Overleg) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
TV Dordrecht is naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet de enige auteur van dit werk: ze hebben de afbeelding van het stoplicht waarschijnlijk uit een commerciële beeldbank gelicenceerd. De standaard YouTube licentie is ook niet vrij genoeg voor op 'Commons. --Vera (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Beste Vera. Met dat laatste ben ik het overigens niet eens. Op https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468 staat als toelichting op deze licentie: In YouTube kunnen gebruikers hun video's markeren met een CC BY-licentie van Creative Commons. YouTube-gebruikers kunnen deze video's vervolgens, zelfs voor commerciële doeleinden, gebruiken in hun eigen video's via het Videobewerkingsprogramma van YouTube. Regards, Bic (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
De CC-BY licentie is een optie, niet de standaard. Klik op "show more" bij dit filmpje om zo'n uitzondering te zien. --Vera (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sloop Overdekte Zweminrichting.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sloop Overdekte Zweminrichting.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

Vera (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Eens. Regards, Bic (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Heb 'm toch nog gevonden --Vera (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Dat is inderdaad een betere versie dan ik gebruikt had. Dankjewel. Regards, Bic (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

JPG > PNG[edit]

Hey, Ik zie dat je redelijk wat PNG versies van foto's upload. JPG geeft voor fotomateriaal betere compressie en thumbnails. Kan ik voorstellen dat je in plaats van JPG'tjes naar PNG'tjes te veranderen, je ze als JPG upload en het oude PNG bestand dan als duplicaat markeerd?

Het uploaden van een foto in een ander bestandsformaat doe ik het snelst door de volgende stappen te volgen:

  1. Klik op bewerken bij het PNG bestand en kopiëer alle wiki-text
  2. Vervang de .PNG in de URL voor het &action=edit gedeelte in .JPG zodat je gelijk naar de bewerkingspagina gaat
  3. Sla daar de wiki-tekst op
  4. Upload de jpeg bestand. De upload link staat bovenaan de pagina in de zin "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it. If a file used to exist, try to purge this page's cache"
  5. Ga terug naar het PNG bestand en markeer het als een duplicaat.

Ik gebruik voor het markeren van duplicaten een uitgebreide versie van Quick Delete en AjaxQuickDelete. Dit zijn "Gadgets" die je onder Preferences > Gadgets kan vinden. Voor het toevoegen van de "duplicates" knop aan je Tools in de linker zijbalk zou je het JavaScript van Mijn common.js naar Jouw common.js moeten kopiëren.

Als je toch al bij de Gadgets bent: cat-a-lot en CropTool zijn ook erg handig. Ik heb een YouTube video'tje gemaakt over hoe je Cat-a-Lot gebruikt. --Vera (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Beste Vera. Dank voor alle tips en adviezen. Het gebruik van PNG's is min of meer toevallig ontstaan en toen moest ik - dacht ik toen - de betere versies ook als zodanig uploaden. Voortaan dus JPG als standaard. Regards, Bic (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File:GSevenster.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:GSevenster.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Natuur12 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Willem Karel Scholten.jpg[edit]

Beste Bic, ik kijk er waarschijnlijk overheen, dus help me even: waar kan ik op de bronpagina van deze afbeelding vinden dat die is vrijgegeven Attribution-Share Alike? Groet, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Beste Jan. Zoals al uit mijn toelichting bij de beschrijving moge blijken is het minder recht toe recht aan dan jij lijkt te vragen, maar ik hoop dat het volgende stappenplan toch tot een voor jou bevredigend antwoord leidt:
Als u Content naar de Dienst uploadt of die Content daarbinnen plaatst, dan verleent u:
A YouTube een wereldwijde, niet-exclusieve, royaltyvrije, overdraagbare licentie (met het recht tot sublicentie) voor het gebruik, de verveelvoudiging, de verspreiding, het maken van afgeleide werken, het tonen en uitvoeren van die Content in verband met de verlening van de Dienst en anderszins in verband met het aanbieden van de Dienst en de ondernemingsactiviteiten van YouTube, waaronder ten behoeve van het geheel of gedeeltelijk promoten en verder verspreiden van de Dienst (en daarvan afgeleide werken), in welke media-formats [en via welke mediakanalen] dan ook; alsmede
B iedere gebruiker van de Dienst een wereldwijde, niet-exclusieve, royaltyvrije licentie voor het zich via de Dienst toegang verschaffen tot de door u Geplaatste Content, alsmede voor het gebruik, de verveelvoudiging, de verspreiding, het maken van afgeleide werken, het tonen en uitvoeren van die Content, voor zover op grond van de functionaliteit van de Dienst en ingevolge de Voorwaarden is toegestaan.
Ik concludeer uit dit traject dat de bron is vrijgegeven voor gebruik op Wikimedia Commons. Over de toepasselijke licentie ben ik minder zeker, maar CC BY-SA 4.0 leek me de beste keus. Ik hoor graag of je het hiermee eens bent. Regards, Bic (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Ik kan de link "MEER WEERGEVEN" al niet vinden, Bic. Waar staat die? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Net boven de ruimte voor reacties :-) Regards, Bic (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
En als je niet op een desktop kijkt, dan zit er een klein zwart driehoekje waar je eerst op moet klikken. Regards, Bic (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Nu heb ik het gevonden! Maar ik moest eerst wel afloggen van Google! Raar. Maar nu wordt alles duidelijk. Ik zou als ik jou was Commons:YouTube files doorlezen. Daar staat namelijk dat de Youtube files niet in aanmerking komen om te gebruiken, tenzij ze met een CC-BY licentie zijn geupload. Met andere woorden, die twee zijn niet hetzelfde. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Ik zou als ik jou was het Template:LicenseReview op de pagina zetten. Dan zie je vanzelf wat er gebeurt. Of als je een overleg wil uitlokken het bestand nomineren voor verwijdering. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Willem Karel Scholten.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Willem Karel Scholten.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Kleiwarenfabriek Nieuw-Werklust.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Kleiwarenfabriek Nieuw-Werklust.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Tekstman (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


File:FIFA - replica world cup trophy.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:FIFA - replica world cup trophy.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fma12 (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ina Isings.PNG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Ina Isings.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)